<< <i> I just wanted to address the statement that 10,000 yds isn't anything special. In the history of the league there have been less than twenty-five 10,000 yds rushers. That number should rise to 25 this year with the addition of Portis who is 800 yds away. After seeing the rapid decline of Alexander there is no guarantee Portis will even reach that mark. When considering how few have reached the 10,000 yds milestone I believe it does stand out as an acheivement. If the schedule is increased to 18 games my feelings might possibly change though and the 12,000 yds mark might be the new magic number. >>
The following RBs have surpassed 10,000 yards rushing over the last 5-15 years and none of them will likely ever sniff the HOF: Corey Dillon Ricky Watters Tiki Barber Eddie George Ottis Anderson
These are still playing and wouldn;t be elected if they retired today: Fred Taylor Warrick Dunn Jamal Lewis
In the 60's-70's, even the 80's, surpassing 10,000 yards for a career meant HOF induction was a near certainty. But in today's game, it's not the big of a deal. Jamal Lewis passed the mark just a few weeks ago..How many headline stories did you read about it?
From 1920-1989, 6 players in history had rushed for 10,000+ yards... From 1990-2008, 18 players have surpassed the 10,000 yard mark...
It is just not the meaningful event it used to be. At this point, I don't know that even 12,000 yards will get you into the HOF. Ricky Watters retired with 10,643, and has not even made the top 25 semifinalts. That is the high watermark so far according to the HOF voters. Does anyone here think Corey Dillon will be elected? He retired with 11,241. If Fred Taylor retired today with his 11,271, would he get in? Curtis Martin with 14,101 and Bettis with 13,662 I think will get in. Both are top 5 all-time...James at 12,121 I'm just not sold that is even enough...My personal "bar" is probably around the 13,000 mark. Simply because that gets you in the top 5-6-7 of all-time right now, and will likely be enough for the near future...
What is comes down to though, is that numbers alone will no longer equate to HOF induction. The numbers across the board, RBs, QBs, WRs have just exploded...Ed James has more yards than Tomlinson..Does anyone think if both come up on the ballot for the first time the same year that James would get in over Tomlinson because he has more yards? No chance...We will see proof of this in just a few years when Marshall Faulk, Curtis Martin and Jerome Bettis all come up for induction..Faulk has the fewest rushing yards of all 3, and I believe he was the only slam dunk, first ballot guy among them...It's more about how dominant you were on the field, rather than how many yards you accumulated.
Another example..Terrell Davis has made the final 25 the last 3 years in a row..He has 3,000 fewer rushing yards than Ricky Watters who has not made the final 25 the last 3 years. Roger Craig with just over 8,000 also made the semifinals for the first time OVER Ricky Watters and Ottis Anderson..Two 10,000 yard rushers..
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i> I just wanted to address the statement that 10,000 yds isn't anything special. In the history of the league there have been less than twenty-five 10,000 yds rushers. That number should rise to 25 this year with the addition of Portis who is 800 yds away. After seeing the rapid decline of Alexander there is no guarantee Portis will even reach that mark. When considering how few have reached the 10,000 yds milestone I believe it does stand out as an acheivement. If the schedule is increased to 18 games my feelings might possibly change though and the 12,000 yds mark might be the new magic number. >>
The following RBs have surpassed 10,000 yards rushing over the last 5-15 years and none of them will likely ever sniff the HOF: Corey Dillon Ricky Watters Tiki Barber Eddie George Ottis Anderson
These are still playing and wouldn;t be elected if they retired today: Fred Taylor Warrick Dunn Jamal Lewis
In the 60's-70's, even the 80's, surpassing 10,000 yards for a career meant HOF induction was a near certainty. But in today's game, it's not the big of a deal. Jamal Lewis passed the mark just a few weeks ago..How many headline stories did you read about it?
From 1920-1989, 6 players in history had rushed for 10,000+ yards... From 1990-2008, 18 players have surpassed the 10,000 yard mark...
It is just not the meaningful event it used to be. At this point, I don't know that even 12,000 yards will get you into the HOF. Ricky Watters retired with 10,643, and has not even made the top 25 semifinalts. That is the high watermark so far according to the HOF voters. Does anyone here think Corey Dillon will be elected? He retired with 11,241. If Fred Taylor retired today with his 11,271, would he get in? Curtis Martin with 14,101 and Bettis with 13,662 I think will get in. Both are top 5 all-time...James at 12,121 I'm just not sold that is even enough...My personal "bar" is probably around the 13,000 mark. Simply because that gets you in the top 5-6-7 of all-time right now, and will likely be enough for the near future...
What is comes down to though, is that numbers alone will no longer equate to HOF induction. The numbers across the board, RBs, QBs, WRs have just exploded...Ed James has more yards than Tomlinson..Does anyone think if both come up on the ballot for the first time the same year that James would get in over Tomlinson because he has more yards? No chance...We will see proof of this in just a few years when Marshall Faulk, Curtis Martin and Jerome Bettis all come up for induction..Faulk has the fewest rushing yards of all 3, and I believe he was the only slam dunk, first ballot guy among them...It's more about how dominant you were on the field, rather than how many yards you accumulated.
Another example..Terrell Davis has made the final 25 the last 3 years in a row..He has 3,000 fewer rushing yards than Ricky Watters who has not made the final 25 the last 3 years. Roger Craig with just over 8,000 also made the semifinals for the first time OVER Ricky Watters and Ottis Anderson..Two 10,000 yard rushers..
Jason >>
I agree with you that the voters will probably choose not to go with any of the above backs but there are a few that deserve consideration. Those would be Dillon and Watters. Dillon had a great career it was just a shame he played most of his career with the Bengals. When he was finally on a playoff caliber team he put up even better numbers and was a mjor reason why thw NE team won the Super Bowl. Many say Sanders was on some poor teams but Dillon's were worse and he still performed. Though the voters might disagree I think his career deserves some notice.
Watters was a talented back as well who was a threat both running and receiving. While he played he was a top level performer and did well where ever he played. Demonstrating that he was not just a product of the talent around him. Watters was also a player that did well in the playoffs having a number of good games including his 3 TD performance in the Super Bowl. He might have been the MVP if Young didn't have an amazing game. He was another player whose career was cut short due to injury.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
<< <i> I agree with you that the voters will probably choose not to go with any of the above backs but there are a few that deserve consideration. Those would be Dillon and Watters. Dillon had a great career it was just a shame he played most of his career with the Bengals. When he was finally on a playoff caliber team he put up even better numbers and was a mjor reason why thw NE team won the Super Bowl. Many say Sanders was on some poor teams but Dillon's were worse and he still performed. Though the voters might disagree I think his career deserves some notice.
Watters was a talented back as well who was a threat both running and receiving. While he played he was a top level performer and did well where ever he played. Demonstrating that he was not just a product of the talent around him. Watters was also a player that did well in the playoffs having a number of good games including his 3 TD performance in the Super Bowl. He might have been the MVP if Young didn't have an amazing game. He was another player whose career was cut short due to injury. >>
I don't think anyone would argue that they were fine players..But the HOF is a selective process..Watters has been considered..He's been on the list of nominees. As will Dillon and all of the other backs listed. It's not like they are completely forgotten about or not even on the ballot. Watters is and has been on the ballot for a few years now. I'd say his chances of every being elected are slim to none. I've never heard one HOF Committee member, even from the cities that he played in (SF, Phil, Sea) screaming that he deserves to be inducted...There are literally hundreds of good players out there that get considered and are on the list of nominees each year.
Rightly or wrongly, I think James (at this point) falls into the Watters/Dillon category of guys who were really good, but just never came across has HOF caliber. How many times was Ricky Watters or Corey Dillon voted 1st Team All-Pro in their career. Which would say to the voters they were one of the top 2 RBs in the league that season?
The answer for both is zero...IMO, that will keep both out...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i> I agree with you that the voters will probably choose not to go with any of the above backs but there are a few that deserve consideration. Those would be Dillon and Watters. Dillon had a great career it was just a shame he played most of his career with the Bengals. When he was finally on a playoff caliber team he put up even better numbers and was a mjor reason why thw NE team won the Super Bowl. Many say Sanders was on some poor teams but Dillon's were worse and he still performed. Though the voters might disagree I think his career deserves some notice.
Watters was a talented back as well who was a threat both running and receiving. While he played he was a top level performer and did well where ever he played. Demonstrating that he was not just a product of the talent around him. Watters was also a player that did well in the playoffs having a number of good games including his 3 TD performance in the Super Bowl. He might have been the MVP if Young didn't have an amazing game. He was another player whose career was cut short due to injury. >>
I don't think anyone would argue that they were fine players..But the HOF is a selective process..Watters has been considered..He's been on the list of nominees. As will Dillon and all of the other backs listed. It's not like they are completely forgotten about or not even on the ballot. Watters is and has been on the ballot for a few years now. I'd say his chances of every being elected are slim to none. I've never heard one HOF Committee member, even from the cities that he played in (SF, Phil, Sea) screaming that he deserves to be inducted...There are literally hundreds of good players out there that get considered and are on the list of nominees each year.
Rightly or wrongly, I think James (at this point) falls into the Watters/Dillon category of guys who were really good, but just never came across has HOF caliber. How many times was Ricky Watters or Corey Dillon voted 1st Team All-Pro in their career. Which would say to the voters they were one of the top 2 RBs in the league that season?
The answer for both is zero...IMO, that will keep both out...
Jason >>
The lack of All-Pro consideration does hurt them, it doesn't help that their careers paralleled some great backs like Smith, Sanders, Faulk, and Bettis.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
<< <i> The lack of All-Pro consideration does hurt them, it doesn't help that their careers paralleled some great backs like Smith, Sanders, Faulk, and Bettis. >>
Very true..And THOSE are the guys who others get compared to...THOSE are your HOF caliber players...Don't get me wrong, the HOF has put in some questionable candidates along the way, and probably will continue to do so. Thats just part of the process of HOF voting..But going back to the orginal reason for this discussion, which was why did Ed James not get the votes to add to this set. And that answer is, we are looking for the 75-100% chance of making the HOF type guys. The Senior set is full of 50/50 maybe/maybe not borderline HOF guys..The modern set was/is meant for those who are either no brainers or close to it.
Ed James, Ricky Watters, Corey Dillon..All COULD get in at some point..I mean crazier things have happened..But the majority here and I assume the majority of HOF committee voters are not putting them in over any of the 75-100% HOF guys that we are looking for on this set.
Good discussion though, you make some very good points.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i> The lack of All-Pro consideration does hurt them, it doesn't help that their careers paralleled some great backs like Smith, Sanders, Faulk, and Bettis. >>
Very true..And THOSE are the guys who others get compared to...THOSE are your HOF caliber players...Don't get me wrong, the HOF has put in some questionable candidates along the way, and probably will continue to do so. Thats just part of the process of HOF voting..But going back to the orginal reason for this discussion, which was why did Ed James not get the votes to add to this set. And that answer is, we are looking for the 75-100% chance of making the HOF type guys. The Senior set is full of 50/50 maybe/maybe not borderline HOF guys..The modern set was/is meant for those who are either no brainers or close to it.
Ed James, Ricky Watters, Corey Dillon..All COULD get in at some point..I mean crazier things have happened..But the majority here and I assume the majority of HOF committee voters are not putting them in over any of the 75-100% HOF guys that we are looking for on this set.
Good discussion though, you make some very good points.
Jason >>
Thanks, it was nice to have good discussion over some of those guys who might have been underappreciated when they played.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
Where do you get the stats that you post? There are a few sites that I reference, however the stats that you post continually amaze me!
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Good question. Where does everyone get their stats from. I personally like www.pro-football-reference.com
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
Where do you get the stats that you post? There are a few sites that I reference, however the stats that you post continually amaze me!
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
I have them all memorized..
Either from the net (www.pro-football-reference.com) is a good one as stated above, but for the more specific or in depth type items I rely on my sportsroom bookcase. Pro Football almanacs and Pro Football Encyclopedia will tell you almost anything if you know what you are looking for...I haven't found anywhere on the web that gets as in depth as showing the starting lineups for each team every season since the 20's...lol
I also have a bunch of spreadhseets and databases I've put together over the years so I don't have to look the same things up over and over. Just do a simple search or spreadsheet sort for whatever i am trying to decipher...
My current project focus on trying to see which teams lined up the most HOF players at the same tuime, same season. Broken down between offense and defense...Some examples?
1959 Browns Offense had a starting lineup consisting of: Lou Groza Gene Hickerson Mike McCormack Bobby Mitchell Jim Brown
Or the 1981 Bears Defense who had these 3 in the starting lineups: Alan Page Dan Hampton Mike Singeltary
The 70, 71 and 72 Cowboys had a CB duo of Herb Adderley and mel Renfro..Not to mention Bob Lilly up front...
Still working through all the starting lineups from 1950-2005...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Any question if Edge had played with the Colts the Super Bowl year and got a ring that he would be in? Probably not....maybe he gets his ring this year, but how will the voters look at his regular season benching when considering his contribution to the team? I think if the Cards do win the SB, Warner will retire and going out on top I think will help him with the voters. Just two more days to GAMEDAY....GO CARDS!!!!!
<< <i>I just wanted to address the statement that 10,000 yds isn't anything special. In the history of the league there have been less than twenty-five 10,000 yds rushers. That number should rise to 25 this year with the addition of Portis who is 800 yds away. After seeing the rapid decline of Alexander there is no guarantee Portis will even reach that mark. When considering how few have reached the 10,000 yds milestone I believe it does stand out as an acheivement. If the schedule is increased to 18 games my feelings might possibly change though and the 12,000 yds mark might be the new magic number. >>
My thought is quite simple. Most of the history of the NFL was NOT a 16 games schedule. Also, until the last decade or so, RB's did not return from knee injuries.
A larger schedule (a 5 year career could afford a RB an extra 20 games over pre-71 players) and far better medical and surgical care means more yards...
Imagine Gale Sayers on two good knees and a 16 game schedule. Imagine Jim Brown in a 16 game schedule. Imagine Sammy Baugh in a 16 game schedule with Fitzgerald and Bouldin (and not playing defense)...
Everyone is so infatuated with accumulated numbers and Pro Bowl appearances(which is a popularity contest amongst fans and players) but everyone fails to look at the player in the context of the era he played in and how he stacks up with the players of his era.Did he play in an offense happy era where the rules are changed to discriminate against the defense? Did he dominate amongst his peers? What were his yards per carry?How much did he contribute to overall team success, translating to play off appearances? The best running backs average at least 4.5 yards per carry. What is Bettis---3.6? I covered the Giants and Jets for the past decade as a sideline photographer and I can tell you that Curtis Martin and Tiki Barber should get serious consideration. Barber was a 3rd down specialist for the first 4 years of his career contributing to low career numbers. Once he became a starter his numbers exploded and he averaged 5.0 yards per carry. Roger Craig was the "Frank Gifford" of those great 49ers teams. Does anyone honestly think the 49ers would have achieved that level of success without him? This should be a no brainer. Watters,Dillon,Fred Taylor---fine players but not dominate compared to the others of their generation. Did James get the Colts over the top? And to blow off O.J. Anderson who was outstanding on losing Cardinals teams and then changed his running style to accommodate the Giants running game under Parcells is just plain wrong. I'm not saying he should get in but he gained 10000 yards before it became more common place and I bet his numbers are comparable to John Riggins,plus he was a SB MVP, and if I'm not mistaken,I think he won an Offensive MVP award. One final point----I've met a lot of sports writers in my time and many have big egos,big heads,big waistlines,hold grudges, and love nothing more than disparaging athletes just because they can. These are the experts who decide who gets in.
<< <i>Everyone is so infatuated with accumulated numbers and Pro Bowl appearances(which is a popularity contest amongst fans and players) but everyone fails to look at the player in the context of the era he played in and how he stacks up with the players of his era.Did he play in an offense happy era where the rules are changed to discriminate against the defense? Did he dominate amongst his peers? What were his yards per carry?How much did he contribute to overall team success, translating to play off appearances? The best running backs average at least 4.5 yards per carry. What is Bettis---3.6? I covered the Giants and Jets for the past decade as a sideline photographer and I can tell you that Curtis Martin and Tiki Barber should get serious consideration. Barber was a 3rd down specialist for the first 4 years of his career contributing to low career numbers. Once he became a starter his numbers exploded and he averaged 5.0 yards per carry. Roger Craig was the "Frank Gifford" of those great 49ers teams. Does anyone honestly think the 49ers would have achieved that level of success without him? This should be a no brainer. Watters,Dillon,Fred Taylor---fine players but not dominate compared to the others of their generation. Did James get the Colts over the top? And to blow off O.J. Anderson who was outstanding on losing Cardinals teams and then changed his running style to accommodate the Giants running game under Parcells is just plain wrong. I'm not saying he should get in but he gained 10000 yards before it became more common place and I bet his numbers are comparable to John Riggins,plus he was a SB MVP, and if I'm not mistaken,I think he won an Offensive MVP award. One final point----I've met a lot of sports writers in my time and many have big egos,big heads,big waistlines,hold grudges, and love nothing more than disparaging athletes just because they can. These are the experts who decide who gets in. >>
I agree on the additional players you pointed out. Craig was an impact player on a repeat championship team. Barber got a a late start as a feature back and still put up 10,000 yds. before retiring while he was still on top of his game. Anderson was another good back and it does seem like he has been forgotten about. He did have an up and down career but he still managed 10,000 yds along with his amazing performance the 1990 playoffs.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
A radio sports guy Steve Czaban said something this week that made me think.
"Is it the Hall of Fame or the Hall of numbers?"
It really made me think. He was talking about baseball but I thought back to some conversations about certain players in both sports. The two in particular that I remember were Robin Yount and Paul Hornung. While both players put up good numbers many do not believe they belong in the Hall of Fame (numbers). I am not going to battle here about these two but the Hall of Numbers comment really made me think of our discussions here.
What do you all think? Is the Football Hall of Fame too focused on numbers?
Where do you get the stats that you post? There are a few sites that I reference, however the stats that you post continually amaze me!
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
I have them all memorized..
Either from the net (www.pro-football-reference.com) is a good one as stated above, but for the more specific or in depth type items I rely on my sportsroom bookcase. Pro Football almanacs and Pro Football Encyclopedia will tell you almost anything if you know what you are looking for...I haven't found anywhere on the web that gets as in depth as showing the starting lineups for each team every season since the 20's...lol
I also have a bunch of spreadhseets and databases I've put together over the years so I don't have to look the same things up over and over. Just do a simple search or spreadsheet sort for whatever i am trying to decipher...
My current project focus on trying to see which teams lined up the most HOF players at the same tuime, same season. Broken down between offense and defense...Some examples?
1959 Browns Offense had a starting lineup consisting of: Lou Groza Gene Hickerson Mike McCormack Bobby Mitchell Jim Brown
Or the 1981 Bears Defense who had these 3 in the starting lineups: Alan Page Dan Hampton Mike Singeltary
The 70, 71 and 72 Cowboys had a CB duo of Herb Adderley and mel Renfro..Not to mention Bob Lilly up front...
Still working through all the starting lineups from 1950-2005...
Jason >>
The 1961 Baltimore Colts had 5 offensive HOF starters - Raymond Berry, Lenny Moore, Jim Parker, Joe Perry and Johnny Unitas.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
What do you all think? Is the Football Hall of Fame too focused on numbers? >>
Actually I would say no. Are many FANS too focused on numbers? YES
You look at who is in the HOF and who is not at the numbers positions (QB/RB/WR/TE) and in most cases, their are players with bigger numbers NOT in the HOF.
At QB, Aikman is in, Dave Krieg is not. RB, Roger Craig and Terrell Davis made the final 25 this year..Ricky Watters and Ottis Anderson did not. WR, Lynn Swann is in, Irving Fryar is not.
One of the main arguments that some like to use is to say well so-and-so had more yards than this HOFer, so he must be derserving...Which, as I have stated many times in the past, its not about accumulation of numbers. It is about dominance when the player was on the field. Did he strike fear into the opposing team? Did he need to be accounted for on every play? And was that important to his team for a significant period of time?
There is certainly a fine line when it comes to the HOF. Numbers are importanat, because they tell part of the story...As do Pro Bowls, All-Pros, Super Bowls..But all of these are just pieces of the pie, and none of them alone should warrant instant induction, and typically do not. In most cases, the Football HOF gets it right.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Anyone not ready to vote Kurt Warner onto this set? He certainly has my vote..No QB in history has ever QB'd three Super Bowl teams and not made the HOF...
Any objections to this card: 1999 Pacific #343 or alternate choices?
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
As far as Warner goes I can't say I disagree after that performance. Who couldn't root for a guy like that, weird up and down career, no respect from your peers and a crazy wife to boot. I can almost relate to him I vote to put him in the Future HOF and go with the 1999 Pacific #343
It is always easier to fight for one’s principles than to live up to them-Adlai Stevenson
<< <i>Anyone not ready to vote Kurt Warner onto this set? He certainly has my vote..No QB in history has ever QB'd three Super Bowl teams and not made the HOF...
Any objections to this card: 1999 Pacific #343 or alternate choices?
Jason >>
I know the pacific card was in the quarterbacks set before, but is there nothing better? Personally, I dislike it because of the multi-player style. How about Fleer Focus or Donruss, not as valuable?
<< <i>Anyone not ready to vote Kurt Warner onto this set? He certainly has my vote..No QB in history has ever QB'd three Super Bowl teams and not made the HOF...
Any objections to this card: 1999 Pacific #343 or alternate choices?
Jason >>
I know the pacific card was in the quarterbacks set before, but is there nothing better? Personally, I dislike it because of the multi-player style. How about Fleer Focus or Donruss, not as valuable? >>
Not as valuable...I think it's best to try and keep personal preferences out of the equation. Simply because we all have different likes and dislikes. 50 collectors will have 50 different favotires..lol..Collecting the most valuable base set card has seemed to be our best course of action the last 5-6 years collecting the HOF RCs. Takes the personal opinions (mine included) off the table and lets the market set the cards.
I don't know of any others that sell as high as the Pacific, which runs $100-$120 in PSA 10...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Anyone not ready to vote Kurt Warner onto this set? He certainly has my vote..No QB in history has ever QB'd three Super Bowl teams and not made the HOF...
Any objections to this card: 1999 Pacific #343 or alternate choices?
Jason >>
I know the pacific card was in the quarterbacks set before, but is there nothing better? Personally, I dislike it because of the multi-player style. How about Fleer Focus or Donruss, not as valuable? >>
Not as valuable...I think it's best to try and keep personal preferences out of the equation. Simply because we all have different likes and dislikes. 50 collectors will have 50 different favotires..lol..Collecting the most valuable base set card has seemed to be our best course of action the last 5-6 years collecting the HOF RCs. Takes the personal opinions (mine included) off the table and lets the market set the cards.
I don't know of any others that sell as high as the Pacific, which runs $100-$120 in PSA 10...
Jason >>
My personal opinion was just thrown in for conversation. I agree with the most valuable approach and that was at the root of my question. From your response, it sounds like there are not any others that sell for as much, thanks for the information. Do you think this is because of condition issues or speculation based on the fact it was the card chosen for the quarterback set before?
<< <i>Anyone not ready to vote Kurt Warner onto this set? He certainly has my vote..No QB in history has ever QB'd three Super Bowl teams and not made the HOF...
Any objections to this card: 1999 Pacific #343 or alternate choices? >>
I voted for him the first time. How many more people do we need to say yes before it's official?
<< <i>Anyone not ready to vote Kurt Warner onto this set? He certainly has my vote..No QB in history has ever QB'd three Super Bowl teams and not made the HOF...
Any objections to this card: 1999 Pacific #343 or alternate choices? >>
I voted for him the first time. How many more people do we need to say yes before it's official? >>
Dave, I talked to Gayle from the Registry crew today and asked her to add Kurt Warner to the poll when she sends it out this week.
All of our votes here were unofficial anyway, now Warner and all the others who received 50% of the votes here, must also get 50%+ of the votes to add in response to the PSA poll.
So, Warner should be on the list now. I wanted to have him included rather than wait and do a second individual poll for him, so wanted to get the info to Gayle before she sent the poll out.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i> Do you think this is because of condition issues or speculation based on the fact it was the card chosen for the quarterback set before? >>
Not sure really. I think you could ask the same question of every other player who has multiple rookies. I think, and i may be remembering this wrong, that the Pacific Warner card was actually the only Warner rookie that was issued before he blew up back in 1999. I think the Pacific was released in July/August or whenever the typical first issues come out for the year..Most of his other cards were released later in the season, after he'd already made the big splash back in 1999. So the Pacific got a head start in being the popular rookie that everyone wanted at the time...
Here again, plays into what collectors believe is a "true rookie" card as being discussed in the HOF RC thread. Are all of his other rookies not true rookies because they weren't issued in the first series of releases, while the Pacific was? Do we need to try and find out the actual DATE that each set of cards was released each year and only call those that have the earliest release date "true rookies". I think it's debatable, that's for sure.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I think Warner also has a 1999 Pacific Crown Royale RC. I don't know about its value relative to the Pacific #343, but he's the only one on the card. I don't particularly like Crown Royale, but no person preferences, right? Anyone else here going to Tampa? I am hoping to score a media pass and go to the HOF press conference.
Well, if you've seen your e-mails today, the polls were sent out.
PSA is now "bound by law" to the Beckett Rookie Encyclopedia. They will not add any cards to rookie sets unless Beckett recognizes the card as a rookie. As we discussed earlier in the thread, the Beckett line of thought the last few years mirrors what a few others posted here in reference to "true rookies". Therefore the Score Supplemental is NOT an eligible card for Cortez Kennedy. Once I got this e-mail from PSA, my next question was in reference to the Junior Seau card already listed on the set. And if his Score Supp. rookie would be the one used for the HOF RC set 5 years after he retires. That answer was no, so doesn't make sense to have the Seau Score Supp in the future set if it isn't even going to be used on the actual HOF set down the road. That would defeat the purpose.
Anyway, PSA's sets. Standards have changed again, and nothing we can do about it other than find their next most valuable rookie cards.
Of the choices given, the Action Packed Rookie Update card of each player is the most valuable. This is the same reason the Leroy Butler RC is the Action Packed Rookie Update.
Here are the average sales prices from moderncardguide.com:
Junior Seau
1990 (# 38) Action Packed Rookie Update
BGS 9.5 avg price $19.46
Junior Seau
1990 (# U102) Fleer Update
BGS 9.5 avg price $14.95
Junior Seau
1990 (# 65T ) Score Supplemental
BGS 9.5 avg price $23.21
Emmitt Smith has the most PSA graded, so shows a larger sampling. HUGE difference..
Emmitt Smith RC
1990 (# 34) Action Packed Rookie Update
PSA 10 avg price $130.01
Emmitt Smith
1990 (# U40) Fleer Update
PSA 10 avg price $28.03
Anyway, be sure to vote for the new cards you want for Kennedy and Seau.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
It sort of defeats the whole purpose in voting if the votes don't matter. I guess I will refrain from (PSA) voting anymore.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>A radio sports guy Steve Czaban said something this week that made me think.
"Is it the Hall of Fame or the Hall of numbers?"
It really made me think. He was talking about baseball but I thought back to some conversations about certain players in both sports. The two in particular that I remember were Robin Yount and Paul Hornung. While both players put up good numbers many do not believe they belong in the Hall of Fame (numbers). I am not going to battle here about these two but the Hall of Numbers comment really made me think of our discussions here.
What do you all think? Is the Football Hall of Fame too focused on numbers? >>
I had a conversation with a friend related to this the other day....concerning Warren Moon. My friend didn't think Moon belonged in the HOF and I disagreed. He was only looking at Moon's NFL time, while I think you should look at the bigger picture. Meaning, I think we are too focused on the NFL as it is not the NFL Hall of Fame. Perhaps it should be renamed to such.
Relating this to a more modern discussion. Kurt Warner dominated in all other leagues he was part of.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i> Meaning, I think we are too focused on the NFL as it is not the NFL Hall of Fame. Perhaps it should be renamed to such.
Relating this to a more modern discussion. Kurt Warner dominated in all other leagues he was part of. >>
I disagree, and I never understood this argument...
So if the CFL championship team played the NFL Championship team, would the point spread be less than 35? I don't think it is necessarily the NFL HOF, but the CFL, USFL, Arena League, NFLE, XFL, etc...These are the equivalent of minor leagues in baseball..And we don't count those stats towards the baseball HOF..
Yes it is professional and they are being paid..BUT, the talent level is night and day. Warren Moon passed for almost 50,000 yards and went to 9 Pro Bowls IN THE NFL ALONE...Not sure how that doesn't equate to being a HOFer..Whatever he did in the minor league CFL was meaningless..Much like anything Warner did in Arena league or NFLE/World League...That was Double AA and Triple AAA ball..lol
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
If a CFL running back led their league for 6-7 seasons, or like, then he should be considered. Otherwise it should be renamed the NFL Hall of Fame. Have you ever been to the baseball hall of fame? It is not a less then museum because they recognize there is baseball outside the MLB.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>If a CFL running back led their league for 6-7 seasons, or like, then he should be considered. Otherwise it should be renamed the NFL Hall of Fame. Have you ever been to the baseball hall of fame? It is not a less then museum because they recognize there is baseball outside the MLB. >>
As does the NFL, which recognizes the AFL and AAFC, not to mention some of the players from the 20s-30s before there ever even was an "NFL"...
Are you saying that the baseball HOF recognizes Minor League achievements as reasoning for voting guys in? That just doesn't make sense...
If a CFL player leads the league in rushing for 6-7 years, he'd probably get a shot at the MAJOR leagues..The NFL..Much like Warren Moon did..But to give any credence to the CFL or USFL or Arena League as being equal to the NFL is hogwash...The players in those leagues are full of guys who couldn't make it in the NFL..Every once in awhile, a guy plays well in the minors, and gets to move up to the majors..But as soon as the Pro Football HOF starts honoring guys for minor league accomplishments, it will become more watered down than even the baseball HOF already is...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
The Football HOF only recognizes other leagues that became the NFL.....that is hardly outside the box or outside the NFL. Show me one other sport HOF that only sees one league. I bet you can't do it.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>The Football HOF only recognizes other leagues that became the NFL.....that is hardly outside the box or outside the NFL. Show me one other sport HOF that only sees one league. I bet you can't do it. >>
Well, that's why the Football HOF is THE BEST HOF of any of the sports. Personally, I am glad they do not fallow other sports in that manner. The others that allow everyone under the sun are watered down and have been rendered unimportant.
The only other sports HOF that gets any pub at all is baseball...And when is the last time the baseball HOF elected a non-MLB player? And don't say the Negro Leagues, because the NFL didn't have anything equivolent to that.
I'm not saying you are not welcome to have your own opinion on this. If you think Doug Flutie deserves to be in the HOF because he tore up the CFL, then so be it. I don't personally think players who excelled vs. minor league competition warrant any place among the greatest of the sport. The NFL is where all the great players play. This isn't an international game (yet), and there is no WNFL. If a player excels against lower competition, his goal is to typically make it to the highest level (NFL) just like baseball and the minor leagues there.
Show me another football league that is equal to, or even 50% the talent level of the NFL. I bet you can't do it...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>If a CFL running back led their league for 6-7 seasons, or like, then he should be considered. Otherwise it should be renamed the NFL Hall of Fame. Have you ever been to the baseball hall of fame? It is not a less then museum because they recognize there is baseball outside the MLB. >>
As does the NFL, which recognizes the AFL and AAFC, not to mention some of the players from the 20s-30s before there ever even was an "NFL"...
Are you saying that the baseball HOF recognizes Minor League achievements as reasoning for voting guys in? That just doesn't make sense...
If a CFL player leads the league in rushing for 6-7 years, he'd probably get a shot at the MAJOR leagues..The NFL..Much like Warren Moon did..But to give any credence to the CFL or USFL or Arena League as being equal to the NFL is hogwash...The players in those leagues are full of guys who couldn't make it in the NFL..Every once in awhile, a guy plays well in the minors, and gets to move up to the majors..But as soon as the Pro Football HOF starts honoring guys for minor league accomplishments, it will become more watered down than even the baseball HOF already is...
Jason >>
I was too young to really appreciate the USFL, but how was the talent of the league? It seems like a number of good players got their start there.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
I was too young to really appreciate the USFL, but how was the talent of the league? It seems like a number of good players got their start there. >>
Better than the CFL, since they were giving some big contracts. But still not even close to NFL standards. The best USFL team would not have beaten the worst NFL team. They had some nice high end stars, but the depth was akin to a major college football program.
Most were NFL rejects and/or guys who's NFL career was already over. With the exception of the rookies like Hershel, Flutie, Steve Young..Guys they signed to monster contracts in order to lure them away.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>The Football HOF only recognizes other leagues that became the NFL.....that is hardly outside the box or outside the NFL. Show me one other sport HOF that only sees one league. I bet you can't do it. >>
Well, that's why the Football HOF is THE BEST HOF of any of the sports. Personally, I am glad they do not fallow other sports in that manner. The others that allow everyone under the sun are watered down and have been rendered unimportant.
The only other sports HOF that gets any pub at all is baseball...And when is the last time the baseball HOF elected a non-MLB player? And don't say the Negro Leagues, because the NFL didn't have anything equivolent to that.
I'm not saying you are not welcome to have your own opinion on this. If you think Doug Flutie deserves to be in the HOF because he tore up the CFL, then so be it. I don't personally think players who excelled vs. minor league competition warrant any place among the greatest of the sport. The NFL is where all the great players play. This isn't an international game (yet), and there is no WNFL. If a player excels against lower competition, his goal is to typically make it to the highest level (NFL) just like baseball and the minor leagues there.
Show me another football league that is equal to, or even 50% the talent level of the NFL. I bet you can't do it...
Jason >>
How many times have you made the point Jason that you should compare players with their colleagues? A true football HOF would do that in all leagues.
It is true that the baseball HOF is considered watered down by some. I have never heard such from any other sport HOF. However, it is not because they honor the Negro League or the old Women's League (whatever the name it is). It is thought to be watered down because of questionable MLB choices.
Doug Flutie is a great example....of someone who should be in a true Pro Football Hall of Fame.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>A radio sports guy Steve Czaban said something this week that made me think.
"Is it the Hall of Fame or the Hall of numbers?"
It really made me think. He was talking about baseball but I thought back to some conversations about certain players in both sports. The two in particular that I remember were Robin Yount and Paul Hornung. While both players put up good numbers many do not believe they belong in the Hall of Fame (numbers). I am not going to battle here about these two but the Hall of Numbers comment really made me think of our discussions here.
What do you all think? Is the Football Hall of Fame too focused on numbers? >>
I am pretty sure Yount was a first ballot HOFer, so if you dont think the baseball writers know who they should vote in then I guess he is a question. As for Hornung, never saw him play in person. But until two years ago still held the record for most points scored in a season, even after 15+ years of 16 game seasons. He probably would have been sooner if not for his gambling suspension. A key member of one of the most dominat teams in the NFL.
Packers Fan for Life Collecting: Brett Favre Master Set Favre Ticket Stubs Favre TD Reciever Autos Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>How many times have you made the point Jason that you should compare players with their colleagues? A true football HOF would do that in all leagues.
Doug Flutie is a great example....of someone who should be in a true Pro Football Hall of Fame. >>
I still beleive that. How would a true football HOF compare what Doug Flutie did against CFL competition to what Brett Favre did vs. NFL compeition? I don;t know how you can compare the 2 when one player faced exceedingly inferior talent every game.
If Doug Flutie did in the NFL what he did in the CFL, he would be going to the Hall of Fame. Do you think he "chose" to take far less pay in the CFL all those years? Do you honestly think he could have put up the same numbers and Championships in the NFL? He played in the NFL, was a nice player, but was 1000 miles from being a HOF talent.
Liek I said when I first responded. I simply don't understand how or why anyone could or would compare what a player did vs. inferior talent against what a player did at the highest level. I don't think any player should be recofnized for greatness while playing in the minor leagues. Anything done there is simply a build-up to what really counts, and that is the major leagues. If a guy is good enough in the minors, he will eventually find his way to the majors (ala Kurt Warner) and have his chance then to prove he is the best of the best...You can not know that when judging a player vs. a bunch of other minor league teams/players.
I'm thankful that the HOF voters share this opinion and I'm hopeful that it never changes. I'd hate to see the Football HOF watered down with CFL and Arena League stars who couldn't cut in the NFL. Because make no mistake, there is no other reason they aren't playing in the NFL for the big money..If they were the best of the best, thy'd be in the NFL making millions rather than thousands in those minor leagues.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I had an 2002 Topps Chrome Ed Reed Rc graded and when I got it back, it was designated as a refractor and therefore I can't add it to the Future set. I looked at some cards I had graded in the past (Patrick Ramsey and Clinton Portis) and they are as refrectors, but not labeled refractors. None of the cards I looked at had refrector or "R" on the back of the card.
Was this card mislabeled by PSA? 2002 was too long ago, but are all the rookies card refrators like in 2001?
<< <i>I had an 2002 Topps Chrome Ed Reed Rc graded and when I got it back, it was designated as a refractor and therefore I can't add it to the Future set. I looked at some cards I had graded in the past (Patrick Ramsey and Clinton Portis) and they are as refrectors, but not labeled refractors. None of the cards I looked at had refrector or "R" on the back of the card.
Was this card mislabeled by PSA? 2002 was too long ago, but are all the rookies card refrators like in 2001? >>
My understanding is that 2002/2003/2004 Topps Chrome has regular issue and also parallel refractor inserts, unlike 2001, where they were all refractors. But I am far from the expert on modern issue cards so I could be wrong.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I might tend to agree with the Flutie campaign for the HOF had Flutie come to the NFL and continued his dominance as Warren Moon did. Moon's NFL success VALIDATED his success in the CFL. Flutie's eventual NFL career was little more than a promotional campaign and did nothing to provide any validity to his CFL career. He was a great college player and a great CFLer, but he was little more than a journeyman in the NFL...
<< <i>I had an 2002 Topps Chrome Ed Reed Rc graded and when I got it back, it was designated as a refractor and therefore I can't add it to the Future set. I looked at some cards I had graded in the past (Patrick Ramsey and Clinton Portis) and they are as refrectors, but not labeled refractors. None of the cards I looked at had refrector or "R" on the back of the card.
Was this card mislabeled by PSA? 2002 was too long ago, but are all the rookies card refrators like in 2001? >>
according beckett, refractors are #ed to 100
Looking to have some custom cuts or plain custom cards built? PM me.
Comments
<< <i>
I just wanted to address the statement that 10,000 yds isn't anything special. In the history of the league there have been less than twenty-five 10,000 yds rushers. That number should rise to 25 this year with the addition of Portis who is 800 yds away. After seeing the rapid decline of Alexander there is no guarantee Portis will even reach that mark. When considering how few have reached the 10,000 yds milestone I believe it does stand out as an acheivement. If the schedule is increased to 18 games my feelings might possibly change though and the 12,000 yds mark might be the new magic number. >>
The following RBs have surpassed 10,000 yards rushing over the last 5-15 years and none of them will likely ever sniff the HOF:
Corey Dillon
Ricky Watters
Tiki Barber
Eddie George
Ottis Anderson
These are still playing and wouldn;t be elected if they retired today:
Fred Taylor
Warrick Dunn
Jamal Lewis
In the 60's-70's, even the 80's, surpassing 10,000 yards for a career meant HOF induction was a near certainty. But in today's game, it's not the big of a deal. Jamal Lewis passed the mark just a few weeks ago..How many headline stories did you read about it?
From 1920-1989, 6 players in history had rushed for 10,000+ yards...
From 1990-2008, 18 players have surpassed the 10,000 yard mark...
It is just not the meaningful event it used to be. At this point, I don't know that even 12,000 yards will get you into the HOF. Ricky Watters retired with 10,643, and has not even made the top 25 semifinalts. That is the high watermark so far according to the HOF voters. Does anyone here think Corey Dillon will be elected? He retired with 11,241. If Fred Taylor retired today with his 11,271, would he get in? Curtis Martin with 14,101 and Bettis with 13,662 I think will get in. Both are top 5 all-time...James at 12,121 I'm just not sold that is even enough...My personal "bar" is probably around the 13,000 mark. Simply because that gets you in the top 5-6-7 of all-time right now, and will likely be enough for the near future...
What is comes down to though, is that numbers alone will no longer equate to HOF induction. The numbers across the board, RBs, QBs, WRs have just exploded...Ed James has more yards than Tomlinson..Does anyone think if both come up on the ballot for the first time the same year that James would get in over Tomlinson because he has more yards? No chance...We will see proof of this in just a few years when Marshall Faulk, Curtis Martin and Jerome Bettis all come up for induction..Faulk has the fewest rushing yards of all 3, and I believe he was the only slam dunk, first ballot guy among them...It's more about how dominant you were on the field, rather than how many yards you accumulated.
Another example..Terrell Davis has made the final 25 the last 3 years in a row..He has 3,000 fewer rushing yards than Ricky Watters who has not made the final 25 the last 3 years. Roger Craig with just over 8,000 also made the semifinals for the first time OVER Ricky Watters and Ottis Anderson..Two 10,000 yard rushers..
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I just wanted to address the statement that 10,000 yds isn't anything special. In the history of the league there have been less than twenty-five 10,000 yds rushers. That number should rise to 25 this year with the addition of Portis who is 800 yds away. After seeing the rapid decline of Alexander there is no guarantee Portis will even reach that mark. When considering how few have reached the 10,000 yds milestone I believe it does stand out as an acheivement. If the schedule is increased to 18 games my feelings might possibly change though and the 12,000 yds mark might be the new magic number. >>
The following RBs have surpassed 10,000 yards rushing over the last 5-15 years and none of them will likely ever sniff the HOF:
Corey Dillon
Ricky Watters
Tiki Barber
Eddie George
Ottis Anderson
These are still playing and wouldn;t be elected if they retired today:
Fred Taylor
Warrick Dunn
Jamal Lewis
In the 60's-70's, even the 80's, surpassing 10,000 yards for a career meant HOF induction was a near certainty. But in today's game, it's not the big of a deal. Jamal Lewis passed the mark just a few weeks ago..How many headline stories did you read about it?
From 1920-1989, 6 players in history had rushed for 10,000+ yards...
From 1990-2008, 18 players have surpassed the 10,000 yard mark...
It is just not the meaningful event it used to be. At this point, I don't know that even 12,000 yards will get you into the HOF. Ricky Watters retired with 10,643, and has not even made the top 25 semifinalts. That is the high watermark so far according to the HOF voters. Does anyone here think Corey Dillon will be elected? He retired with 11,241. If Fred Taylor retired today with his 11,271, would he get in? Curtis Martin with 14,101 and Bettis with 13,662 I think will get in. Both are top 5 all-time...James at 12,121 I'm just not sold that is even enough...My personal "bar" is probably around the 13,000 mark. Simply because that gets you in the top 5-6-7 of all-time right now, and will likely be enough for the near future...
What is comes down to though, is that numbers alone will no longer equate to HOF induction. The numbers across the board, RBs, QBs, WRs have just exploded...Ed James has more yards than Tomlinson..Does anyone think if both come up on the ballot for the first time the same year that James would get in over Tomlinson because he has more yards? No chance...We will see proof of this in just a few years when Marshall Faulk, Curtis Martin and Jerome Bettis all come up for induction..Faulk has the fewest rushing yards of all 3, and I believe he was the only slam dunk, first ballot guy among them...It's more about how dominant you were on the field, rather than how many yards you accumulated.
Another example..Terrell Davis has made the final 25 the last 3 years in a row..He has 3,000 fewer rushing yards than Ricky Watters who has not made the final 25 the last 3 years. Roger Craig with just over 8,000 also made the semifinals for the first time OVER Ricky Watters and Ottis Anderson..Two 10,000 yard rushers..
Jason >>
I agree with you that the voters will probably choose not to go with any of the above backs but there are a few that deserve consideration. Those would be Dillon and Watters. Dillon had a great career it was just a shame he played most of his career with the Bengals. When he was finally on a playoff caliber team he put up even better numbers and was a mjor reason why thw NE team won the Super Bowl. Many say Sanders was on some poor teams but Dillon's were worse and he still performed. Though the voters might disagree I think his career deserves some notice.
Watters was a talented back as well who was a threat both running and receiving. While he played he was a top level performer and did well where ever he played. Demonstrating that he was not just a product of the talent around him. Watters was also a player that did well in the playoffs having a number of good games including his 3 TD performance in the Super Bowl. He might have been the MVP if Young didn't have an amazing game. He was another player whose career was cut short due to injury.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
I agree with you that the voters will probably choose not to go with any of the above backs but there are a few that deserve consideration. Those would be Dillon and Watters. Dillon had a great career it was just a shame he played most of his career with the Bengals. When he was finally on a playoff caliber team he put up even better numbers and was a mjor reason why thw NE team won the Super Bowl. Many say Sanders was on some poor teams but Dillon's were worse and he still performed. Though the voters might disagree I think his career deserves some notice.
Watters was a talented back as well who was a threat both running and receiving. While he played he was a top level performer and did well where ever he played. Demonstrating that he was not just a product of the talent around him. Watters was also a player that did well in the playoffs having a number of good games including his 3 TD performance in the Super Bowl. He might have been the MVP if Young didn't have an amazing game. He was another player whose career was cut short due to injury. >>
I don't think anyone would argue that they were fine players..But the HOF is a selective process..Watters has been considered..He's been on the list of nominees. As will Dillon and all of the other backs listed. It's not like they are completely forgotten about or not even on the ballot. Watters is and has been on the ballot for a few years now. I'd say his chances of every being elected are slim to none. I've never heard one HOF Committee member, even from the cities that he played in (SF, Phil, Sea) screaming that he deserves to be inducted...There are literally hundreds of good players out there that get considered and are on the list of nominees each year.
Rightly or wrongly, I think James (at this point) falls into the Watters/Dillon category of guys who were really good, but just never came across has HOF caliber. How many times was Ricky Watters or Corey Dillon voted 1st Team All-Pro in their career. Which would say to the voters they were one of the top 2 RBs in the league that season?
The answer for both is zero...IMO, that will keep both out...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I agree with you that the voters will probably choose not to go with any of the above backs but there are a few that deserve consideration. Those would be Dillon and Watters. Dillon had a great career it was just a shame he played most of his career with the Bengals. When he was finally on a playoff caliber team he put up even better numbers and was a mjor reason why thw NE team won the Super Bowl. Many say Sanders was on some poor teams but Dillon's were worse and he still performed. Though the voters might disagree I think his career deserves some notice.
Watters was a talented back as well who was a threat both running and receiving. While he played he was a top level performer and did well where ever he played. Demonstrating that he was not just a product of the talent around him. Watters was also a player that did well in the playoffs having a number of good games including his 3 TD performance in the Super Bowl. He might have been the MVP if Young didn't have an amazing game. He was another player whose career was cut short due to injury. >>
I don't think anyone would argue that they were fine players..But the HOF is a selective process..Watters has been considered..He's been on the list of nominees. As will Dillon and all of the other backs listed. It's not like they are completely forgotten about or not even on the ballot. Watters is and has been on the ballot for a few years now. I'd say his chances of every being elected are slim to none. I've never heard one HOF Committee member, even from the cities that he played in (SF, Phil, Sea) screaming that he deserves to be inducted...There are literally hundreds of good players out there that get considered and are on the list of nominees each year.
Rightly or wrongly, I think James (at this point) falls into the Watters/Dillon category of guys who were really good, but just never came across has HOF caliber. How many times was Ricky Watters or Corey Dillon voted 1st Team All-Pro in their career. Which would say to the voters they were one of the top 2 RBs in the league that season?
The answer for both is zero...IMO, that will keep both out...
Jason >>
The lack of All-Pro consideration does hurt them, it doesn't help that their careers paralleled some great backs like Smith, Sanders, Faulk, and Bettis.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
The lack of All-Pro consideration does hurt them, it doesn't help that their careers paralleled some great backs like Smith, Sanders, Faulk, and Bettis. >>
Very true..And THOSE are the guys who others get compared to...THOSE are your HOF caliber players...Don't get me wrong, the HOF has put in some questionable candidates along the way, and probably will continue to do so. Thats just part of the process of HOF voting..But going back to the orginal reason for this discussion, which was why did Ed James not get the votes to add to this set. And that answer is, we are looking for the 75-100% chance of making the HOF type guys. The Senior set is full of 50/50 maybe/maybe not borderline HOF guys..The modern set was/is meant for those who are either no brainers or close to it.
Ed James, Ricky Watters, Corey Dillon..All COULD get in at some point..I mean crazier things have happened..But the majority here and I assume the majority of HOF committee voters are not putting them in over any of the 75-100% HOF guys that we are looking for on this set.
Good discussion though, you make some very good points.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
The lack of All-Pro consideration does hurt them, it doesn't help that their careers paralleled some great backs like Smith, Sanders, Faulk, and Bettis. >>
Very true..And THOSE are the guys who others get compared to...THOSE are your HOF caliber players...Don't get me wrong, the HOF has put in some questionable candidates along the way, and probably will continue to do so. Thats just part of the process of HOF voting..But going back to the orginal reason for this discussion, which was why did Ed James not get the votes to add to this set. And that answer is, we are looking for the 75-100% chance of making the HOF type guys. The Senior set is full of 50/50 maybe/maybe not borderline HOF guys..The modern set was/is meant for those who are either no brainers or close to it.
Ed James, Ricky Watters, Corey Dillon..All COULD get in at some point..I mean crazier things have happened..But the majority here and I assume the majority of HOF committee voters are not putting them in over any of the 75-100% HOF guys that we are looking for on this set.
Good discussion though, you make some very good points.
Jason >>
Thanks, it was nice to have good discussion over some of those guys who might have been underappreciated when they played.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
Where do you get the stats that you post? There are a few sites that I reference, however the stats that you post continually amaze me!
Rgs,
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
<< <i>Jason,
Where do you get the stats that you post? There are a few sites that I reference, however the stats that you post continually amaze me!
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Good question. Where does everyone get their stats from. I personally like www.pro-football-reference.com
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>Jason,
Where do you get the stats that you post? There are a few sites that I reference, however the stats that you post continually amaze me!
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
I have them all memorized..
Either from the net (www.pro-football-reference.com) is a good one as stated above, but for the more specific or in depth type items I rely on my sportsroom bookcase. Pro Football almanacs and Pro Football Encyclopedia will tell you almost anything if you know what you are looking for...I haven't found anywhere on the web that gets as in depth as showing the starting lineups for each team every season since the 20's...lol
I also have a bunch of spreadhseets and databases I've put together over the years so I don't have to look the same things up over and over. Just do a simple search or spreadsheet sort for whatever i am trying to decipher...
My current project focus on trying to see which teams lined up the most HOF players at the same tuime, same season. Broken down between offense and defense...Some examples?
1959 Browns Offense had a starting lineup consisting of:
Lou Groza
Gene Hickerson
Mike McCormack
Bobby Mitchell
Jim Brown
Or the 1981 Bears Defense who had these 3 in the starting lineups:
Alan Page
Dan Hampton
Mike Singeltary
The 70, 71 and 72 Cowboys had a CB duo of Herb Adderley and mel Renfro..Not to mention Bob Lilly up front...
Still working through all the starting lineups from 1950-2005...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Jasen
<< <i>
1959 Browns Offense had a starting lineup consisting of:
Lou Groza
Gene Hickerson
Mike McCormack
Bobby Mitchell
Jim Brown
Or the 1981 Bears Defense who had these 3 in the starting lineups:
Alan Page
Dan Hampton
Mike Singeltary
Still working through all the starting lineups from 1950-2005...
Jason >>
thats very cool, Ive wondered that myself sometimes. I would be very curious to know what team and when fielded the most HOF'ers at one time.
cool project
<< <i>I just wanted to address the statement that 10,000 yds isn't anything special. In the history of the league there have been less than twenty-five 10,000 yds rushers. That number should rise to 25 this year with the addition of Portis who is 800 yds away. After seeing the rapid decline of Alexander there is no guarantee Portis will even reach that mark. When considering how few have reached the 10,000 yds milestone I believe it does stand out as an acheivement. If the schedule is increased to 18 games my feelings might possibly change though and the 12,000 yds mark might be the new magic number. >>
My thought is quite simple. Most of the history of the NFL was NOT a 16 games schedule. Also, until the last decade or so, RB's did not return from knee injuries.
A larger schedule (a 5 year career could afford a RB an extra 20 games over pre-71 players) and far better medical and surgical care means more yards...
Imagine Gale Sayers on two good knees and a 16 game schedule. Imagine Jim Brown in a 16 game schedule. Imagine Sammy Baugh in a 16 game schedule with Fitzgerald and Bouldin (and not playing defense)...
<< <i>
<< <i>
1959 Browns Offense had a starting lineup consisting of:
Lou Groza
Gene Hickerson
Mike McCormack
Bobby Mitchell
Jim Brown
Or the 1981 Bears Defense who had these 3 in the starting lineups:
Alan Page
Dan Hampton
Mike Singeltary
Still working through all the starting lineups from 1950-2005...
Jason >>
thats very cool, Ive wondered that myself sometimes. I would be very curious to know what team and when fielded the most HOF'ers at one time.
cool project >>
Just off the top of my head I'd have to go with the '70s Steelers:
Offense
Webster
Bradshaw
Harris
Swann
Stallworth
Defense
Greene
Lambert
Ham
Blount
With LC Greenwood possibly coming in the future as a senior, that would put 10 HOFers on the field out of 22 starters...pretty impressive.
Jasen
P.S. LOVE the sig line, Joe.
<< <i>Everyone is so infatuated with accumulated numbers and Pro Bowl appearances(which is a popularity contest amongst fans and players) but everyone fails to look at the player in the context of the era he played in and how he stacks up with the players of his era.Did he play in an offense happy era where the rules are changed to discriminate against the defense? Did he dominate amongst his peers? What were his yards per carry?How much did he contribute to overall team success, translating to play off appearances? The best running backs average at least 4.5 yards per carry. What is Bettis---3.6? I covered the Giants and Jets for the past decade as a sideline photographer and I can tell you that Curtis Martin and Tiki Barber should get serious consideration. Barber was a 3rd down specialist for the first 4 years of his career contributing to low career numbers. Once he became a starter his numbers exploded and he averaged 5.0 yards per carry. Roger Craig was the "Frank Gifford" of those great 49ers teams. Does anyone honestly think the 49ers would have achieved that level of success without him? This should be a no brainer. Watters,Dillon,Fred Taylor---fine players but not dominate compared to the others of their generation. Did James get the Colts over the top? And to blow off O.J. Anderson who was outstanding on losing Cardinals teams and then changed his running style to accommodate the Giants running game under Parcells is just plain wrong. I'm not saying he should get in but he gained 10000 yards before it became more common place and I bet his numbers are comparable to John Riggins,plus he was a SB MVP, and if I'm not mistaken,I think he won an Offensive MVP award. One final point----I've met a lot of sports writers in my time and many have big egos,big heads,big waistlines,hold grudges, and love nothing more than disparaging athletes just because they can. These are the experts who decide who gets in. >>
I agree on the additional players you pointed out. Craig was an impact player on a repeat championship team. Barber got a a late start as a feature back and still put up 10,000 yds. before retiring while he was still on top of his game. Anderson was another good back and it does seem like he has been forgotten about. He did have an up and down career but he still managed 10,000 yds along with his amazing performance the 1990 playoffs.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
"Is it the Hall of Fame or the Hall of numbers?"
It really made me think. He was talking about baseball but I thought back to some conversations about certain players in both sports.
The two in particular that I remember were Robin Yount and Paul Hornung. While both players put up good numbers many do not believe they belong in the Hall of Fame (numbers). I am not going to battle here about these two but the Hall of Numbers comment really made me think of our discussions here.
What do you all think? Is the Football Hall of Fame too focused on numbers?
<< <i>
<< <i>Jason,
Where do you get the stats that you post? There are a few sites that I reference, however the stats that you post continually amaze me!
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
I have them all memorized..
Either from the net (www.pro-football-reference.com) is a good one as stated above, but for the more specific or in depth type items I rely on my sportsroom bookcase. Pro Football almanacs and Pro Football Encyclopedia will tell you almost anything if you know what you are looking for...I haven't found anywhere on the web that gets as in depth as showing the starting lineups for each team every season since the 20's...lol
I also have a bunch of spreadhseets and databases I've put together over the years so I don't have to look the same things up over and over. Just do a simple search or spreadsheet sort for whatever i am trying to decipher...
My current project focus on trying to see which teams lined up the most HOF players at the same tuime, same season. Broken down between offense and defense...Some examples?
1959 Browns Offense had a starting lineup consisting of:
Lou Groza
Gene Hickerson
Mike McCormack
Bobby Mitchell
Jim Brown
Or the 1981 Bears Defense who had these 3 in the starting lineups:
Alan Page
Dan Hampton
Mike Singeltary
The 70, 71 and 72 Cowboys had a CB duo of Herb Adderley and mel Renfro..Not to mention Bob Lilly up front...
Still working through all the starting lineups from 1950-2005...
Jason >>
The 1961 Baltimore Colts had 5 offensive HOF starters - Raymond Berry, Lenny Moore, Jim Parker, Joe Perry and Johnny Unitas.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>
What do you all think? Is the Football Hall of Fame too focused on numbers? >>
Actually I would say no. Are many FANS too focused on numbers? YES
You look at who is in the HOF and who is not at the numbers positions (QB/RB/WR/TE) and in most cases, their are players with bigger numbers NOT in the HOF.
At QB, Aikman is in, Dave Krieg is not.
RB, Roger Craig and Terrell Davis made the final 25 this year..Ricky Watters and Ottis Anderson did not.
WR, Lynn Swann is in, Irving Fryar is not.
One of the main arguments that some like to use is to say well so-and-so had more yards than this HOFer, so he must be derserving...Which, as I have stated many times in the past, its not about accumulation of numbers. It is about dominance when the player was on the field. Did he strike fear into the opposing team? Did he need to be accounted for on every play? And was that important to his team for a significant period of time?
There is certainly a fine line when it comes to the HOF. Numbers are importanat, because they tell part of the story...As do Pro Bowls, All-Pros, Super Bowls..But all of these are just pieces of the pie, and none of them alone should warrant instant induction, and typically do not. In most cases, the Football HOF gets it right.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Henry Jordan
Willie Wood
Willie Davis
Herb Adderly
Ray Nitschke
Paul Hornung
Jim Ringo
Bart Starr
Forrest Greg
Jim Taylor
Vince Lombardi (he is a starter on the sideline)
Any objections to this card: 1999 Pacific #343 or alternate choices?
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I vote to put him in the Future HOF and go with the 1999 Pacific #343
<< <i>Anyone not ready to vote Kurt Warner onto this set? He certainly has my vote..No QB in history has ever QB'd three Super Bowl teams and not made the HOF...
Any objections to this card: 1999 Pacific #343 or alternate choices?
Jason >>
I know the pacific card was in the quarterbacks set before, but is there nothing better? Personally, I dislike it because of the multi-player style. How about Fleer Focus or Donruss, not as valuable?
<< <i>
<< <i>Anyone not ready to vote Kurt Warner onto this set? He certainly has my vote..No QB in history has ever QB'd three Super Bowl teams and not made the HOF...
Any objections to this card: 1999 Pacific #343 or alternate choices?
Jason >>
I know the pacific card was in the quarterbacks set before, but is there nothing better? Personally, I dislike it because of the multi-player style. How about Fleer Focus or Donruss, not as valuable? >>
Not as valuable...I think it's best to try and keep personal preferences out of the equation. Simply because we all have different likes and dislikes. 50 collectors will have 50 different favotires..lol..Collecting the most valuable base set card has seemed to be our best course of action the last 5-6 years collecting the HOF RCs. Takes the personal opinions (mine included) off the table and lets the market set the cards.
I don't know of any others that sell as high as the Pacific, which runs $100-$120 in PSA 10...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Anyone not ready to vote Kurt Warner onto this set? He certainly has my vote..No QB in history has ever QB'd three Super Bowl teams and not made the HOF...
Any objections to this card: 1999 Pacific #343 or alternate choices?
Jason >>
I know the pacific card was in the quarterbacks set before, but is there nothing better? Personally, I dislike it because of the multi-player style. How about Fleer Focus or Donruss, not as valuable? >>
Not as valuable...I think it's best to try and keep personal preferences out of the equation. Simply because we all have different likes and dislikes. 50 collectors will have 50 different favotires..lol..Collecting the most valuable base set card has seemed to be our best course of action the last 5-6 years collecting the HOF RCs. Takes the personal opinions (mine included) off the table and lets the market set the cards.
I don't know of any others that sell as high as the Pacific, which runs $100-$120 in PSA 10...
Jason >>
My personal opinion was just thrown in for conversation. I agree with the most valuable approach and that was at the root of my question. From your response, it sounds like there are not any others that sell for as much, thanks for the information. Do you think this is because of condition issues or speculation based on the fact it was the card chosen for the quarterback set before?
<< <i>Anyone not ready to vote Kurt Warner onto this set? He certainly has my vote..No QB in history has ever QB'd three Super Bowl teams and not made the HOF...
Any objections to this card: 1999 Pacific #343 or alternate choices?
>>
I voted for him the first time. How many more people do we need to say yes before it's official?
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>
<< <i>Anyone not ready to vote Kurt Warner onto this set? He certainly has my vote..No QB in history has ever QB'd three Super Bowl teams and not made the HOF...
Any objections to this card: 1999 Pacific #343 or alternate choices?
>>
I voted for him the first time. How many more people do we need to say yes before it's official? >>
Dave, I talked to Gayle from the Registry crew today and asked her to add Kurt Warner to the poll when she sends it out this week.
All of our votes here were unofficial anyway, now Warner and all the others who received 50% of the votes here, must also get 50%+ of the votes to add in response to the PSA poll.
So, Warner should be on the list now. I wanted to have him included rather than wait and do a second individual poll for him, so wanted to get the info to Gayle before she sent the poll out.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i> Do you think this is because of condition issues or speculation based on the fact it was the card chosen for the quarterback set before? >>
Not sure really. I think you could ask the same question of every other player who has multiple rookies. I think, and i may be remembering this wrong, that the Pacific Warner card was actually the only Warner rookie that was issued before he blew up back in 1999. I think the Pacific was released in July/August or whenever the typical first issues come out for the year..Most of his other cards were released later in the season, after he'd already made the big splash back in 1999. So the Pacific got a head start in being the popular rookie that everyone wanted at the time...
Here again, plays into what collectors believe is a "true rookie" card as being discussed in the HOF RC thread. Are all of his other rookies not true rookies because they weren't issued in the first series of releases, while the Pacific was? Do we need to try and find out the actual DATE that each set of cards was released each year and only call those that have the earliest release date "true rookies". I think it's debatable, that's for sure.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Jasen
PSA is now "bound by law" to the Beckett Rookie Encyclopedia. They will not add any cards to rookie sets unless Beckett recognizes the card as a rookie. As we discussed earlier in the thread, the Beckett line of thought the last few years mirrors what a few others posted here in reference to "true rookies". Therefore the Score Supplemental is NOT an eligible card for Cortez Kennedy. Once I got this e-mail from PSA, my next question was in reference to the Junior Seau card already listed on the set. And if his Score Supp. rookie would be the one used for the HOF RC set 5 years after he retires. That answer was no, so doesn't make sense to have the Seau Score Supp in the future set if it isn't even going to be used on the actual HOF set down the road. That would defeat the purpose.
Anyway, PSA's sets. Standards have changed again, and nothing we can do about it other than find their next most valuable rookie cards.
Of the choices given, the Action Packed Rookie Update card of each player is the most valuable. This is the same reason the Leroy Butler RC is the Action Packed Rookie Update.
Here are the average sales prices from moderncardguide.com:
Junior Seau
1990 (# 38) Action Packed Rookie Update
BGS 9.5 avg price $19.46
Junior Seau
1990 (# U102) Fleer Update
BGS 9.5 avg price $14.95
Junior Seau
1990 (# 65T ) Score Supplemental
BGS 9.5 avg price $23.21
Emmitt Smith has the most PSA graded, so shows a larger sampling. HUGE difference..
Emmitt Smith RC
1990 (# 34) Action Packed Rookie Update
PSA 10 avg price $130.01
Emmitt Smith
1990 (# U40) Fleer Update
PSA 10 avg price $28.03
Anyway, be sure to vote for the new cards you want for Kennedy and Seau.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Then I get the Seau email and realized that I goofed.....
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>A radio sports guy Steve Czaban said something this week that made me think.
"Is it the Hall of Fame or the Hall of numbers?"
It really made me think. He was talking about baseball but I thought back to some conversations about certain players in both sports.
The two in particular that I remember were Robin Yount and Paul Hornung. While both players put up good numbers many do not believe they belong in the Hall of Fame (numbers). I am not going to battle here about these two but the Hall of Numbers comment really made me think of our discussions here.
What do you all think? Is the Football Hall of Fame too focused on numbers? >>
I had a conversation with a friend related to this the other day....concerning Warren Moon. My friend didn't think Moon belonged in the HOF and I disagreed. He was only looking at Moon's NFL time, while I think you should look at the bigger picture. Meaning, I think we are too focused on the NFL as it is not the NFL Hall of Fame. Perhaps it should be renamed to such.
Relating this to a more modern discussion. Kurt Warner dominated in all other leagues he was part of.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i> Meaning, I think we are too focused on the NFL as it is not the NFL Hall of Fame. Perhaps it should be renamed to such.
Relating this to a more modern discussion. Kurt Warner dominated in all other leagues he was part of. >>
I disagree, and I never understood this argument...
So if the CFL championship team played the NFL Championship team, would the point spread be less than 35? I don't think it is necessarily the NFL HOF, but the CFL, USFL, Arena League, NFLE, XFL, etc...These are the equivalent of minor leagues in baseball..And we don't count those stats towards the baseball HOF..
Yes it is professional and they are being paid..BUT, the talent level is night and day. Warren Moon passed for almost 50,000 yards and went to 9 Pro Bowls IN THE NFL ALONE...Not sure how that doesn't equate to being a HOFer..Whatever he did in the minor league CFL was meaningless..Much like anything Warner did in Arena league or NFLE/World League...That was Double AA and Triple AAA ball..lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
I voted for action packed cards for both players.
I know alot of people don't like action packed, but the '90 set was one of my favorites.
<< <i>If a CFL running back led their league for 6-7 seasons, or like, then he should be considered. Otherwise it should be renamed the NFL Hall of Fame. Have you ever been to the baseball hall of fame? It is not a less then museum because they recognize there is baseball outside the MLB. >>
As does the NFL, which recognizes the AFL and AAFC, not to mention some of the players from the 20s-30s before there ever even was an "NFL"...
Are you saying that the baseball HOF recognizes Minor League achievements as reasoning for voting guys in? That just doesn't make sense...
If a CFL player leads the league in rushing for 6-7 years, he'd probably get a shot at the MAJOR leagues..The NFL..Much like Warren Moon did..But to give any credence to the CFL or USFL or Arena League as being equal to the NFL is hogwash...The players in those leagues are full of guys who couldn't make it in the NFL..Every once in awhile, a guy plays well in the minors, and gets to move up to the majors..But as soon as the Pro Football HOF starts honoring guys for minor league accomplishments, it will become more watered down than even the baseball HOF already is...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>The Football HOF only recognizes other leagues that became the NFL.....that is hardly outside the box or outside the NFL. Show me one other sport HOF that only sees one league. I bet you can't do it. >>
Well, that's why the Football HOF is THE BEST HOF of any of the sports. Personally, I am glad they do not fallow other sports in that manner. The others that allow everyone under the sun are watered down and have been rendered unimportant.
The only other sports HOF that gets any pub at all is baseball...And when is the last time the baseball HOF elected a non-MLB player? And don't say the Negro Leagues, because the NFL didn't have anything equivolent to that.
I'm not saying you are not welcome to have your own opinion on this. If you think Doug Flutie deserves to be in the HOF because he tore up the CFL, then so be it. I don't personally think players who excelled vs. minor league competition warrant any place among the greatest of the sport. The NFL is where all the great players play. This isn't an international game (yet), and there is no WNFL. If a player excels against lower competition, his goal is to typically make it to the highest level (NFL) just like baseball and the minor leagues there.
Show me another football league that is equal to, or even 50% the talent level of the NFL. I bet you can't do it...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>If a CFL running back led their league for 6-7 seasons, or like, then he should be considered. Otherwise it should be renamed the NFL Hall of Fame. Have you ever been to the baseball hall of fame? It is not a less then museum because they recognize there is baseball outside the MLB. >>
As does the NFL, which recognizes the AFL and AAFC, not to mention some of the players from the 20s-30s before there ever even was an "NFL"...
Are you saying that the baseball HOF recognizes Minor League achievements as reasoning for voting guys in? That just doesn't make sense...
If a CFL player leads the league in rushing for 6-7 years, he'd probably get a shot at the MAJOR leagues..The NFL..Much like Warren Moon did..But to give any credence to the CFL or USFL or Arena League as being equal to the NFL is hogwash...The players in those leagues are full of guys who couldn't make it in the NFL..Every once in awhile, a guy plays well in the minors, and gets to move up to the majors..But as soon as the Pro Football HOF starts honoring guys for minor league accomplishments, it will become more watered down than even the baseball HOF already is...
Jason >>
I was too young to really appreciate the USFL, but how was the talent of the league? It seems like a number of good players got their start there.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
I was too young to really appreciate the USFL, but how was the talent of the league? It seems like a number of good players got their start there. >>
Better than the CFL, since they were giving some big contracts. But still not even close to NFL standards. The best USFL team would not have beaten the worst NFL team. They had some nice high end stars, but the depth was akin to a major college football program.
Most were NFL rejects and/or guys who's NFL career was already over. With the exception of the rookies like Hershel, Flutie, Steve Young..Guys they signed to monster contracts in order to lure them away.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>The Football HOF only recognizes other leagues that became the NFL.....that is hardly outside the box or outside the NFL. Show me one other sport HOF that only sees one league. I bet you can't do it. >>
Well, that's why the Football HOF is THE BEST HOF of any of the sports. Personally, I am glad they do not fallow other sports in that manner. The others that allow everyone under the sun are watered down and have been rendered unimportant.
The only other sports HOF that gets any pub at all is baseball...And when is the last time the baseball HOF elected a non-MLB player? And don't say the Negro Leagues, because the NFL didn't have anything equivolent to that.
I'm not saying you are not welcome to have your own opinion on this. If you think Doug Flutie deserves to be in the HOF because he tore up the CFL, then so be it. I don't personally think players who excelled vs. minor league competition warrant any place among the greatest of the sport. The NFL is where all the great players play. This isn't an international game (yet), and there is no WNFL. If a player excels against lower competition, his goal is to typically make it to the highest level (NFL) just like baseball and the minor leagues there.
Show me another football league that is equal to, or even 50% the talent level of the NFL. I bet you can't do it...
Jason >>
How many times have you made the point Jason that you should compare players with their colleagues? A true football HOF would do that in all leagues.
It is true that the baseball HOF is considered watered down by some. I have never heard such from any other sport HOF. However, it is not because they honor the Negro League or the old Women's League (whatever the name it is). It is thought to be watered down because of questionable MLB choices.
Doug Flutie is a great example....of someone who should be in a true Pro Football Hall of Fame.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>A radio sports guy Steve Czaban said something this week that made me think.
"Is it the Hall of Fame or the Hall of numbers?"
It really made me think. He was talking about baseball but I thought back to some conversations about certain players in both sports.
The two in particular that I remember were Robin Yount and Paul Hornung. While both players put up good numbers many do not believe they belong in the Hall of Fame (numbers). I am not going to battle here about these two but the Hall of Numbers comment really made me think of our discussions here.
What do you all think? Is the Football Hall of Fame too focused on numbers? >>
I am pretty sure Yount was a first ballot HOFer, so if you dont think the baseball writers know who they should vote in then I guess he is a question. As for Hornung, never saw him play in person. But until two years ago still held the record for most points scored in a season, even after 15+ years of 16 game seasons. He probably would have been sooner if not for his gambling suspension. A key member of one of the most dominat teams in the NFL.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>How many times have you made the point Jason that you should compare players with their colleagues? A true football HOF would do that in all leagues.
Doug Flutie is a great example....of someone who should be in a true Pro Football Hall of Fame. >>
I still beleive that. How would a true football HOF compare what Doug Flutie did against CFL competition to what Brett Favre did vs. NFL compeition? I don;t know how you can compare the 2 when one player faced exceedingly inferior talent every game.
If Doug Flutie did in the NFL what he did in the CFL, he would be going to the Hall of Fame. Do you think he "chose" to take far less pay in the CFL all those years? Do you honestly think he could have put up the same numbers and Championships in the NFL? He played in the NFL, was a nice player, but was 1000 miles from being a HOF talent.
Liek I said when I first responded. I simply don't understand how or why anyone could or would compare what a player did vs. inferior talent against what a player did at the highest level. I don't think any player should be recofnized for greatness while playing in the minor leagues. Anything done there is simply a build-up to what really counts, and that is the major leagues. If a guy is good enough in the minors, he will eventually find his way to the majors (ala Kurt Warner) and have his chance then to prove he is the best of the best...You can not know that when judging a player vs. a bunch of other minor league teams/players.
I'm thankful that the HOF voters share this opinion and I'm hopeful that it never changes. I'd hate to see the Football HOF watered down with CFL and Arena League stars who couldn't cut in the NFL. Because make no mistake, there is no other reason they aren't playing in the NFL for the big money..If they were the best of the best, thy'd be in the NFL making millions rather than thousands in those minor leagues.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Was this card mislabeled by PSA? 2002 was too long ago, but are all the rookies card refrators like in 2001?
<< <i>I had an 2002 Topps Chrome Ed Reed Rc graded and when I got it back, it was designated as a refractor and therefore I can't add it to the Future set. I looked at some cards I had graded in the past (Patrick Ramsey and Clinton Portis) and they are as refrectors, but not labeled refractors. None of the cards I looked at had refrector or "R" on the back of the card.
Was this card mislabeled by PSA? 2002 was too long ago, but are all the rookies card refrators like in 2001? >>
My understanding is that 2002/2003/2004 Topps Chrome has regular issue and also parallel refractor inserts, unlike 2001, where they were all refractors. But I am far from the expert on modern issue cards so I could be wrong.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
He did have a helluva drop-kick, though...
<< <i>I had an 2002 Topps Chrome Ed Reed Rc graded and when I got it back, it was designated as a refractor and therefore I can't add it to the Future set. I looked at some cards I had graded in the past (Patrick Ramsey and Clinton Portis) and they are as refrectors, but not labeled refractors. None of the cards I looked at had refrector or "R" on the back of the card.
Was this card mislabeled by PSA? 2002 was too long ago, but are all the rookies card refrators like in 2001? >>
according beckett, refractors are #ed to 100
Commissions
Check out my Facebook page