Home PSA Set Registry Forum

All-Time Patriots additions?

For the few people that are participating in this set...I would like to request

1974 Topps #502 Sam Cunningham - Inducted into the presented by Raytheon Patriots Hall of Fame (needed to say that)
1978 Topps #158 Raymond Clayborn - On Patriots All-time 1970s, 1980s, and 35th Anniversary teams (media created) but also led the team in career interceptions, played for 13 years with the team. 3x Pro Bowl selection and a cornerback (Defensive backs are all to underrated)

Opinions?

«13

Comments

  • NickMNickM Posts: 4,896 ✭✭✭
    It's not a set I'm collecting, but both make sense to me.

    Nick
    image
    Reap the whirlwind.

    Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
  • cards651cards651 Posts: 665 ✭✭
    Here's the link (hopefully)

    All-Time Patriots Set Composition

    I'm not a fan of these types of sets, collecting an '89 Score Bruce Armstrong with a '62 Fleer Gino Cappelletti just seems wrong. However, in terms of composition, you have a very reasonable request. How can an All-Time Patriots set exclude Sam Cunningham or Raymond Clayborn? Even though he did not have success with the Pats, Jim Plunkett should be included as well. - Kevin
  • PowderedH2OPowderedH2O Posts: 2,443 ✭✭
    All logic goes out the window. There are those that argue that players like Sam Cunningham are not worthy because they are not up to the Walter Payton/Jim Brown level of other sets. I disagree with this logic, but if you read threads about other all-time teams, that logic seems to permeate them. I collect the all-time Saints. Our all-time receiving leader, leader in yardage from scrimmage, and our all-time sack leader got rejected. So, nothing is a shoo-in.
    Successful dealings with shootybabitt, LarryP, Doctor K, thedutymon, billsgridirongreats, fattymacs, shagrotn77, pclpads, JMDVM, gumbyfan, itzagoner, rexvos, al032184, gregm13, californiacards3, mccardguy1, BigDaddyBowman, bigreddog, bobbyw8469, burke23, detroitfan2, drewsef, jeff8877, markmac, Goldlabels, swartz1, blee1, EarlsWorld, gseaman25, kcballboy, jimrad, leadoff4, weinhold, Mphilking, milbroco, msassin, meteoriteguy, rbeaton and gameusedhoop.
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭


    << <i>All logic goes out the window. There are those that argue that players like Sam Cunningham are not worthy because they are not up to the Walter Payton/Jim Brown level of other sets. I disagree with this logic, but if you read threads about other all-time teams, that logic seems to permeate them. I collect the all-time Saints. Our all-time receiving leader, leader in yardage from scrimmage, and our all-time sack leader got rejected. So, nothing is a shoo-in. >>



    I can definitely see Clayborn. 3 Pro Bowls, 0 1st Team all-Pro's in 13 seasons. He was great for the Patriots, and also pretty good in comparison to the rest of the DB's who played in his era. He is easily the best Patriots DB NOT currently part of the set. I would say he is worthy.

    Sam Cunningham was certainly a paopular player with a cool nickname, but calling him an All-Time Great for any team, I personally don't get. Just doesn't have the resume. He played 9 years for the Pats. Had ONE 1,000 yard season, made ONE Pro Bowl. I mean not a bad player, but really if this is an All-Time Great Patriot Player, what is Logan Mankins? 4 Pro Bowls, 1 All-Pro, played in Super Bowl. What is Vince Wilfork? 4 Pro Bowls, multiple Super Bowls with the Pats.

    For me, this is the disconnect. You get collectors who are 70's or 80's card centric, and tend to want those specific type cards so they target players from that era. These sets were MEANT to spread all eras for each franchise. So to me, if you are going to add a Sam Cunningham, you should also add anyone from the Patriots franchise who has contributed equal or more. And I'd love to hear an argument that Cunningham was more important to the Patriots and a better player for the Pats than Mankins or Wilfork have been.

    Just my opinion of course,

    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.
  • epruyneepruyne Posts: 154 ✭✭
    This basically comes down to perspective of the All-Time team sets, as stated in someone's previous post. I think that these sets should be representative of the best players in organizational history whom played for the team for a significant amount of time and not either a great player whom played a team for only a few years or AFL/NFL all-time greats as there are already registry sets for those players. These sets should be team centric.

    That being said the Patriots have been in existence for 51 years and Sam Cunningham played for the team for nine years and remains there leading rusher of all-time, as a fullback and shared rushes with their halfbacks. Look at the team rushing rankings for the few years prior to Cunningham coming compared to when he was there, literally worst to first, with a pass heavy team for the time.
  • I 100% agree.
    Successful dealings with shootybabitt, LarryP, Doctor K, thedutymon, billsgridirongreats, fattymacs, shagrotn77, pclpads, JMDVM, gumbyfan, itzagoner, rexvos, al032184, gregm13, californiacards3, mccardguy1, BigDaddyBowman, bigreddog, bobbyw8469, burke23, detroitfan2, drewsef, jeff8877, markmac, Goldlabels, swartz1, blee1, EarlsWorld, gseaman25, kcballboy, jimrad, leadoff4, weinhold, Mphilking, milbroco, msassin, meteoriteguy, rbeaton and gameusedhoop.
  • rexvosrexvos Posts: 3,274 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>All logic goes out the window. There are those that argue that players like Sam Cunningham are not worthy because they are not up to the Walter Payton/Jim Brown level of other sets. I disagree with this logic, but if you read threads about other all-time teams, that logic seems to permeate them. I collect the all-time Saints. Our all-time receiving leader, leader in yardage from scrimmage, and our all-time sack leader got rejected. So, nothing is a shoo-in. >>




    Yep. because people who have never followed or have one clue about the team vote on the set.
    Looking for FB HOF Rookies
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭


    << <i>This basically comes down to perspective of the All-Time team sets, as stated in someone's previous post. I think that these sets should be representative of the best players in organizational history whom played for the team for a significant amount of time and not either a great player whom played a team for only a few years or AFL/NFL all-time greats as there are already registry sets for those players. These sets should be team centric.

    That being said the Patriots have been in existence for 51 years and Sam Cunningham played for the team for nine years and remains there leading rusher of all-time, as a fullback and shared rushes with their halfbacks. Look at the team rushing rankings for the few years prior to Cunningham coming compared to when he was there, literally worst to first, with a pass heavy team for the time. >>



    Have no issue with any of this above...

    What I'm not understanding is how has Cunningham done more and/or been more important to the Patriots franchise than Logan Mankins or Vince Wilfork. Whatever your theory of the set is , and I agree there are many different opinions, should it be consistent? Why would you add one particular great player, yet leave others of equal or greater value off?

    I read complaints that requests didn't get enough votes, or that it is ONLY because some voters are clueless and apparently know nothing about any teams unless they live in the town they play in...When in fact, the reason they get voted down is because the requestor is using nothing more than personal opinion on if the guy deserves to be added. Sam Cunningham is the Patriots all-time leading rusher with just over 5,000 yards...He was so great that he also shared carries, in many cases had FEWER carries than other running backs on his same team...Yet some how he is one of the top 31 players to ever don the uniform in its 51 year history...To me that doesn't say "Wow, GREAT player", its says "Wow, crappy franchise."

    If Curtis Martin had stayed in town and gotten 14,000 yards for the Pats, would Cunningham still be as deserving? What if he was 10th on the team rankings with 9 other RBs in Patriot history with more yards...Would he be worthy then? I think we are forgetting that these sets will continue to grow in time..And for every marginal player you add, there will be 10 more marginal players in the future ready to be added...If your goal is to have 100+ cards on the set and run off 95% of the people who would be interested in collecting it, why not just list the set on Collectors showcase and enjoy it for yourself? Why try and force feed current and future possible collectors marginal players/cards just because they happen to have played when you were the team's biggest fan?

    IMO, the team-centric fans who think they know better and who look at guys through rose colored glasses who have done the most damage to most of those sets.

    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.
  • PowderedH2OPowderedH2O Posts: 2,443 ✭✭
    Damage? I think if you were to go up to a Boston sports bar and take a poll of all guys over the age of 45 and asked them if Sam Cunningham is one of the Patriots all-time greats you would get a resounding YES. His numbers do not stack up to the players of today. But when Cunningham retired he was one of the top 25 rushers in NFL history. He is still the leading rusher in Patriots history. He is also on their all-time team, their All-Decade team of the 70's, and is a member of the Patriots Hall of Fame. How can a player with this sort of pedigree be a detriment to an all-time team?
    Successful dealings with shootybabitt, LarryP, Doctor K, thedutymon, billsgridirongreats, fattymacs, shagrotn77, pclpads, JMDVM, gumbyfan, itzagoner, rexvos, al032184, gregm13, californiacards3, mccardguy1, BigDaddyBowman, bigreddog, bobbyw8469, burke23, detroitfan2, drewsef, jeff8877, markmac, Goldlabels, swartz1, blee1, EarlsWorld, gseaman25, kcballboy, jimrad, leadoff4, weinhold, Mphilking, milbroco, msassin, meteoriteguy, rbeaton and gameusedhoop.
  • epruyneepruyne Posts: 154 ✭✭


    << <i> What I'm not understanding is how has Cunningham done more and/or been more important to the Patriots franchise than Logan Mankins or Vince Wilfork. Whatever your theory of the set is , and I agree there are many different opinions, should it be consistent? Why would you add one particular great player, yet leave others of equal or greater value off? >>


    Yes, I do think there should be some sort of consistent standards/guidelines for these sets, to a certain extent. I absolutely believe that Mankins and Wilfork should eventually be in the set but not quite yet. That is just my opinion based on time-frames; if they came up to vote I would vote for both however, I would not personally suggest they be added yet.


    << <i>7+ years with that franchise...4+ Pro Bowls/1st Team All-Pros with that franchise, etc....ALL PLAYERS regardless of team have equal opportunity at All Pro selection and Pro Bowls...ALL PLAYERS have the opportunity to play7+ years with a franchise...There are plenty of other options out there to apply EVENLY across the board to each franchise, rather than lowering the standards to simply make a set a certain size or number of cards... >>




    << <i>I read complaints that requests didn't get enough votes, or that it is ONLY because some voters are clueless and apparently know nothing about any teams unless they live in the town they play in...When in fact, the reason they get voted down is because the requestor is using nothing more than personal opinion on if the guy deserves to be added. >>


    I am a Patriots fan yes, but my first thread in regards to these All-Time sets was actually in regards to Mark Carrier, WR, for the Bucs; I am by far a homer, if I was I would be suggesting Mosi Tatupu, Kevin Faulk, etc. Like you mentioned in above quote from previous thread above I also think there should be guidelines but not based on Pro Bowls (entire concept is worthless and is based on name notoriety) or All-Pro #'s. These types of accomplishments are more appropriate for HOF, greatest players by position, etc. sets.


    << <i> To me that doesn't say "Wow, GREAT player", its says "Wow, crappy franchise." If Curtis Martin had stayed in town and gotten 14,000 yards for the Pats, would Cunningham still be as deserving? What if he was 10th on the team rankings with 9 other RBs in Patriot history with more yards...Would he be worthy then? I think we are forgetting that these sets will continue to grow in time..And for every marginal player you add, there will be 10 more marginal players in the future ready to be added... >>


    Yes, if Martin had remained on the team would I still include Cunningham, absolutely. They would have played completely different roles in different eras. Should Billy Sims be removed from the Lions All-Time set because Barry Sanders came after? Sims only played for 5 or 6 years in the NFL, but he was great during that time for the Lions but is not a HOFer by any means...10th on the team, yes because of the contributions to the team during the period when he played.
  • Interesting thread. I am over 45 so I fit some of the comments. The comment about 'crappy franchise' captures some of the issues. Under this theory however, there would be an All-Time Pittsburgh Steelers and All-Time Dallas Cowboys and every other team would have two or three players. If this is going to be all about stats, run them through a computer program and spit out the listing. Comparing eras based on yards, awards etc. is difficult. It's somewhat easier to compare players impact on the franchise during their career. Could a Gino C. even make the NFL today? He would have to hit the juice pretty good I think. I have to agree with epruyne 'contributions to the team during the period when he played' should be the deciding factor. As a collector, that would be more enjoyable. - Kevin
  • Agreed. The issue is that there are a number of people that want to collect all of the All-Time Sets. So, in order for them to do that, they want to put some sort of blanket policy on what it takes to be an all-time member of a particular team. I would prefer that the All-Time sets be for the greatest players for that team, regardless of their comparison to other teams. I'd prefer to see sets with 30-40 guys per team. More, if that team is the Cowboys or Raiders, where they might have 50-60 greats. The All-Time Patriots should be a set for Patriots fans. If others want to join in, fine. But, Patriots fans should have the majority of the say in it.

    As far as a set that has players to a certain standard that holds all players to that level... well, we have that set. It is the Pro Football Hall of Fame set. There are also sets for "Hall of Fame Raiders" or "Hall of Fame Vikings". This puts only the players that are to that level of all-time greatness across the NFL.
    Successful dealings with shootybabitt, LarryP, Doctor K, thedutymon, billsgridirongreats, fattymacs, shagrotn77, pclpads, JMDVM, gumbyfan, itzagoner, rexvos, al032184, gregm13, californiacards3, mccardguy1, BigDaddyBowman, bigreddog, bobbyw8469, burke23, detroitfan2, drewsef, jeff8877, markmac, Goldlabels, swartz1, blee1, EarlsWorld, gseaman25, kcballboy, jimrad, leadoff4, weinhold, Mphilking, milbroco, msassin, meteoriteguy, rbeaton and gameusedhoop.
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Agreed. The issue is that there are a number of people that want to collect all of the All-Time Sets. So, in order for them to do that, they want to put some sort of blanket policy on what it takes to be an all-time member of a particular team. I would prefer that the All-Time sets be for the greatest players for that team, regardless of their comparison to other teams. I'd prefer to see sets with 30-40 guys per team. More, if that team is the Cowboys or Raiders, where they might have 50-60 greats. The All-Time Patriots should be a set for Patriots fans. If others want to join in, fine. But, Patriots fans should have the majority of the say in it.

    As far as a set that has players to a certain standard that holds all players to that level... well, we have that set. It is the Pro Football Hall of Fame set. There are also sets for "Hall of Fame Raiders" or "Hall of Fame Vikings". This puts only the players that are to that level of all-time greatness across the NFL. >>



    This is a general misconception by many collectors. The PSA Set Registry was not created to be a checklist for fans of a specific team to list every card that exists of that team. It was created to be a card collecting competition, first and foremost. I am aware that many collectors do not use it that way. but to say that an All-Time Patriots set should primarily be for Patriots fans is simply misguided. This isn't a Patriots run website for fans who think Troy Brown is the greatest WR in NFL history because he was a longtime Patriots player. It is about the CARDS. The sets are RANKED. People receive AWARDS for highest graded sets and whatnot. If you are looking to have a checklist, that is what the Collectors Showcase is for, or an excel spreadsheet.

    No one said ONLY Hall of Famers should be on these sets. Did you see where I agreed that Raymond Clayborn probably belongs? he's NEVER sniffing the HOF. What I said is, at the very least, the sets should be fairly consistent and logical. If not as a group, then at the very least within a particular set. A poster above talks about Cunningham's impact during his era. That is what you use Pro Bowls and All-Pro selections to determine. That is what you use stats to determine. Those are things you can measure vs. peers playing during his time. Just because he was the best RB playing for the Patriots in the 70's, that makes him an All-Time Great? I don't agree, but fine, let's say he belongs. My argument is that if Cunningham belongs, how exactly do Logan Mankins and Vince Wilfork NOT belong? Am I the only one that sees the disconnect and lack of logic in this?

    Let's compare...

    Cunningham-played in 107 regular season games as a Patriot. Played in 2 Post season games, lost both, and had terrible games in each (20-68-0 and 10-42-0)
    Mankins-played in 104 regular season games as a Patriot. 11 Post season games, including a Super Bowl.
    Wilfork-played in 123 regular season games as a Patriot. 14 post season games, including 2 Super Bowls, earning one Super Bowl ring.

    So really not sure how Cunningham is "ready" to be added, but the others are not. To me it looks VERY picky-choosy.

    Now, if we are using the fact that he was selected to the Patriots Hall of Fame, then why aren't you requesting Jim Lee Hunt to be added instead of Clayborn? hunt is in the Patriots HOF, Clayborn is not. If it is Patriots Team of the 70's, well RB Andy Johnson is also a member of that team, why is he not being added? Or DE Julius Adams who played in 206 games as a Patriot, and has the same number of post-season honors as Cunningham (1 Pro Bowl, 0 All-Pro).

    Do you see where I am going with this? I'm not trying to tell you how many or how deep to go in your selections. I'm just asking why not be consistent? make the set 100 cards if you want, so long as you have all like guys added. That way, it will end up as ONLY Patriots fans collecting, as the average collector will have no interest in the lesser known, less valuable group of cards you add. Use the All-Time Bears set as your guide. That is used essentially as a checklist by Bears fans, which seems to be the goal here. That set is 72 cards, has been listed on the Registry for almost 3 years, and has exactly 4 collectors above 50% and 1 collector at 100%. The current Patriots set has 18 collectors with 8 collectors over 50% and 1 complete. Try to double the size with all these marginal guys and let's see how it turns out.

    Best of luck with your vote and the set. I'm very thankful I retired my Patriots set and moved away so I won;t have to deal with seeing it be turned into a rose colored glasses set with every Patriots player who ever started more than 50 games for them on the set.

    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.
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭
    Also, IMO, if you do NOT own the 2000 SP Tom Brady RC in at LEAST PSA 8, you shouldn't even be ALLOWED to request card additions or vote on the addition polls.

    How can you call yourself a true rookie card collector OR a Patriots fan who is serious about this set if you do not own a Tom Brady rookie...

    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.
  • cards651cards651 Posts: 665 ✭✭
    Jason - I understand some of your points but I also think you're missing some of the points. First, no one is suggesting a vast number of players. People are suggesting a few additional players that should be included even if their stats may not be up there with other NFL players on other teams. I guess I disagree a bit with your comment about a competition. Sure, awards are given for best set but the composition is certainly open to discussion. As noted in my original comment, an '89 Score Bruce Armstrong and a '62 Fleer Gino C. in the same 'set' is contrived by it's nature. To argue that this is some form of pure competition does not really jibe with the cards in the set. I'm not trying to be mean here. I think there are some interesting comments and differing viewpoints on the topic. I'm not an expert on football but there is a lot of debate as to how good Scottie Pippen really was. Superstars seem to make everyone around them better and Sam Cunningham simply did not have a Michael Jordan as a teammate. Also, was Jim Nance really that much better than Sam Cunningham? In Boston, all I can recall is derision for Jim Nance and accolades for Sam Cunningham. Perhaps my memory is foggy. - Kevin
  • cards651cards651 Posts: 665 ✭✭
    Russ Francis? Nick Buoniconti? This set needs some work.
  • PowderedH2OPowderedH2O Posts: 2,443 ✭✭
    My argument is that if Cunningham belongs, how exactly do Logan Mankins and Vince Wilfork NOT belong?

    Somebody said that players that are currently active should not be added to these types of sets. I just can't remember who it was. Now, in my humble opinion, they both DO belong. Being that the past eleven seasons would certainly be considered the Golden Age of Patriots football, it would be logical that a substantial number of players from that era made it into such a set. That makes sense. Just as the Packers set contains a great number of players from the Lombardi era.

    But, the argument here was on Sam "The Bam" Cunningham. I think that I can state with some degree of confidence that Cunningham is the greatest running back in the history of the Boston/New England Patriots. His numbers are better than Jim Nance's numbers, who IS in the set. I think it is a fairly safe statement that if a player is the all-time leading rusher on a team that has a 52 year history then that player should be on the All-Time team for the psa registry. We aren't talking about the leading rusher of a ten year span. We are talking about the #1 guy for his franchise over half a century.

    The current Patriots set has 18 collectors with 8 collectors over 50% and 1 complete. Try to double the size with all these marginal guys and let's see how it turns out.

    Um... who cares? So, Jason, you suggest that all of these sets should only include the biggest names so that the guys that aren't really Patriots fans won't have to buy cards of players they don't care about. A TRUE Patriots fan might not consider Sam Cunningham to be marginal. But, its better to only have a set with a few guys so that a few collectors that are trying to do all of the all-time sets (all the teams, and positions, and future hofers, and hofers, and retired cousins of grandmothers of hofers, etc...) can do so without too many expenditures. As you know, I am a Saints fan and I have awards for having the top all-time Saints team. And truthfully, the set is a farce. Three of the top ten players in the team's history are not in that set because a bunch of non-Saints fans didn't want to buy their cards because they hadn't heard of them.

    If you take a look at the makeup of the 18 collectors on that set, 16 can be checked. 9 of those 16 collect no other all-time football team other than the Patriots. The Patriots are strictly their team. That's over 56%. THIS is who drives the set. Not the casual Pats fan, but the collector who loves the team. Let them collect the guys that they feel should be on the team. And quite frankly, if they are smart, they should contact each other and outvote the others and put the players on the team that they want and if that upsets the others then so be it.

    Also, IMO, if you do NOT own the 2000 SP Tom Brady RC in at LEAST PSA 8, you shouldn't even be ALLOWED to request card additions or vote on the addition polls.

    whatever...
    Successful dealings with shootybabitt, LarryP, Doctor K, thedutymon, billsgridirongreats, fattymacs, shagrotn77, pclpads, JMDVM, gumbyfan, itzagoner, rexvos, al032184, gregm13, californiacards3, mccardguy1, BigDaddyBowman, bigreddog, bobbyw8469, burke23, detroitfan2, drewsef, jeff8877, markmac, Goldlabels, swartz1, blee1, EarlsWorld, gseaman25, kcballboy, jimrad, leadoff4, weinhold, Mphilking, milbroco, msassin, meteoriteguy, rbeaton and gameusedhoop.
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Jason - I understand some of your points but I also think you're missing some of the points. First, no one is suggesting a vast number of players. People are suggesting a few additional players that should be included even if their stats may not be up there with other NFL players on other teams. I guess I disagree a bit with your comment about a competition. Sure, awards are given for best set but the composition is certainly open to discussion. As noted in my original comment, an '89 Score Bruce Armstrong and a '62 Fleer Gino C. in the same 'set' is contrived by it's nature. To argue that this is some form of pure competition does not really jibe with the cards in the set. I'm not trying to be mean here. I think there are some interesting comments and differing viewpoints on the topic. I'm not an expert on football but there is a lot of debate as to how good Scottie Pippen really was. Superstars seem to make everyone around them better and Sam Cunningham simply did not have a Michael Jordan as a teammate. Also, was Jim Nance really that much better than Sam Cunningham? In Boston, all I can recall is derision for Jim Nance and accolades for Sam Cunningham. Perhaps my memory is foggy. - Kevin >>



    I agree, good debate on both sides. The problem is, as you lower what it means to be included in these sets, you open Pandora's box so to speak. I started collecting all these sets from day one, and I have seen what has happened to MANY of these sets. This is why I am expressing caution to those who care about the set here. This is how it starts, as we have seen, there are MANY different opinions on who belongs and who doesn't. What happens is, you get new collectors join the set who have their own opinions on who belongs. Maybe you get someone who DOES think adding a vast number of players is the way to go.

    Luckily, PSA runs a poll rather than adding every card that is requested. Many of the requests to add to these sets over the years have been denied. And the good thing is, once they are denied, in my experience, PSA won't run another poll for the same card. I think much of the debate in this thread has to do with the "fan based" vs. "Collector based" sets. And when card get added by "fans" that "collectors" agree with, then you have complaints posted here on the boards. And vice versa, when cards are denied, the requestors will come here and complain. But honestly, poll vote is the best way of deciding what the MAJORITY wants. If the majority thinks Cunningham belongs, he will get the votes. If not, then he won't. Personally, I would prefer that PSA require 50%+ of the COLLECTORS of the set provide YES votes before making a change..But unfortunately, if you have 20 collectors, and only 12 vote, with 7 of those voting YES, the card gets added. I've had this discussion with BJ, Gayle, Cosetta in the past, but never got anywhere. One of the reasons i got out of all the All-Time sets. Too many were just getting out of hand and the voting was not being handled in (my opinion) correctly.

    I look forward to seeing how it turns out. Still doesn't make any sense to me that you add a player such as Cunningham, but not the other players I mentioned, who have been just as important to the franchise as Cunningham. It makes me look at the set as illogical and not worthy of collecting. I would say that is just my opinion, but I know for a fact many collectors feel the same, and many of which no longer collect these sets.

    Thanks for the good debate. Hearing different opinions is never a bad thing.

    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.
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭


    << <i>And quite frankly, if they are smart, they should contact each other and outvote the others and put the players on the team that they want and if that upsets the others then so be it. >>



    And here lies the death of the PSA Registry as the original set registrants know it.

    I wish you the best of luck with your political aspirations of the set. If what you say is true, then I am sure you can stuff the ballot and get Cunningham added. I hope we are both still around 3-4 years from now, maybe we can see how the set as changed in the future.

    Such a shame to see a collector care more about their own personal agenda than that of the Registry as a whole. I think the term is "Jumped the Shark"...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.
  • PowderedH2OPowderedH2O Posts: 2,443 ✭✭
    lol... I'm not even on the set, but isn't that the American way? Get everyone out to vote. Get the true opinion. Let every voter have their say. And you criticize this? How can you? For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole voting system? And if the whole voting system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our institutions in general? I put it to you, Jason - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.
    Successful dealings with shootybabitt, LarryP, Doctor K, thedutymon, billsgridirongreats, fattymacs, shagrotn77, pclpads, JMDVM, gumbyfan, itzagoner, rexvos, al032184, gregm13, californiacards3, mccardguy1, BigDaddyBowman, bigreddog, bobbyw8469, burke23, detroitfan2, drewsef, jeff8877, markmac, Goldlabels, swartz1, blee1, EarlsWorld, gseaman25, kcballboy, jimrad, leadoff4, weinhold, Mphilking, milbroco, msassin, meteoriteguy, rbeaton and gameusedhoop.
  • cards651cards651 Posts: 665 ✭✭
    I am an 'outsider' on this set. I collect full sets from the mid-70's and did not fully understand all of the background on these sets. I occasionally have an interest in these but when I review the composition, I pass. I think you would get more than 18 collectors if this set was somehow representative of the actual Patriot franchise. How can Nick B. be included? All I remember is the Dolphins kicking our butts with Nick B. doing some of the kicking. Why would a Patriot fan want to collect his card as part of an All-Time set? Is Reggie Leach on the All-Time Bruins set? Do we put Phil Esposito on the All-Time Blackhawks? These sets need to somehow represent what actually occurred within that franchise or no one will ever collect them. You may win some PSA awards but it will be in a very small pond. - Kevin
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭


    << <i>lol... I'm not even on the set, but isn't that the American way? Get everyone out to vote. Get the true opinion. Let every voter have their say. And you criticize this? How can you? For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole voting system? And if the whole voting system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our institutions in general? I put it to you, Jason - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. >>



    LOL...Right

    I am an active duty Army Soldier and have been for the past 19 years..So you are barking up the wrong tree here bud.

    That being said, a TRUE opinion is one gained by an individual...Not by a group of lobbyists with an agenda to push force-feeding incomplete information to "ill informed" voters..Which is essentially what the political parties of this country tend to do when running for office. If the player is truly deserving of addition, why exactly would you need to lobby the other collectors and beg for their votes?

    Spin it however you want, but if you need to do that to get a card added, chances are it probably doesn;t belong on the set.

    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.
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭


    << <i>I am an 'outsider' on this set. I collect full sets from the mid-70's and did not fully understand all of the background on these sets. I occasionally have an interest in these but when I review the composition, I pass. I think you would get more than 18 collectors if this set was somehow representative of the actual Patriot franchise. How can Nick B. be included? All I remember is the Dolphins kicking our butts with Nick B. doing some of the kicking. Why would a Patriot fan want to collect his card as part of an All-Time set? Is Reggie Leach on the All-Time Bruins set? Do we put Phil Esposito on the All-Time Blackhawks? These sets need to somehow represent what actually occurred within that franchise or no one will ever collect them. You may win some PSA awards but it will be in a very small pond. - Kevin >>



    Totall agree with this. If you LIMIT who may be interested in these sets, you run the risk of making it a "small pond"..Is that the goal? Make the sets very inclusive therefore making the market for guys joining the chase exclusive?

    I would think however that making the sets MORE mainstream, and less franchise focused you opwn the set to more COLLECTORS rather than fans. I mean, the Registry is a place primarily of card collecting and not team cheerleading is it not? Maybe I'm wrong, but if I look at all the Key Card sets, the ones in which are more inclusive of "borderline" players of a franchise or set theme, the fewer collectors. Take a look for yourself, don't take my word for it. It is the mainstream sets with higher end players that even the average fan has heard of and not just fans of a particular team that brinng in more competition. Maybe the goal is to only have 5-6 collectors on a set? Not sure how that makes sense, and I can't think that is what PSA envisioned when the Registry was created. It would have never gotten as popular as it did!

    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.
  • PowderedH2OPowderedH2O Posts: 2,443 ✭✭
    I am an active duty Army Soldier and have been for the past 19 years..So you are barking up the wrong tree here bud.

    Oh good grief Jason.... it was a quote from Animal House. Have a laugh once in awhile. It'll do you some good.
    Successful dealings with shootybabitt, LarryP, Doctor K, thedutymon, billsgridirongreats, fattymacs, shagrotn77, pclpads, JMDVM, gumbyfan, itzagoner, rexvos, al032184, gregm13, californiacards3, mccardguy1, BigDaddyBowman, bigreddog, bobbyw8469, burke23, detroitfan2, drewsef, jeff8877, markmac, Goldlabels, swartz1, blee1, EarlsWorld, gseaman25, kcballboy, jimrad, leadoff4, weinhold, Mphilking, milbroco, msassin, meteoriteguy, rbeaton and gameusedhoop.
  • I would think any team's all-time rusher, who is a member of that team's HOF, should be a part of that team's all-time set.
    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.
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭


    << <i>I am an active duty Army Soldier and have been for the past 19 years..So you are barking up the wrong tree here bud.

    Oh good grief Jason.... it was a quote from Animal House. Have a laugh once in awhile. It'll do you some good. >>



    Sorry, before my time...lol

    I've seen the movie but certainly don't know quotes from it..I think you forgot the quotations or else I would have gotten it...lol

    I wasn't offended to begin with, but thought the quote certainly did not apply to me...

    I stand behind my response however. If you feel you need to lobby other collectors and sell them on adding Cunningham, then he doesn't belong.

    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.
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭


    << <i>I would think any team's all-time rusher, who is a member of that team's HOF, should be a part of that team's all-time set. >>



    In most cases I would agree. But keep in mind, of the 32 NFL Franchises, only 2 others have an all-time leading rusher with FEWER yards.

    -Houston Texans
    -Carolina Panthers

    Both new expansion teams...So again, I really don't view his standing as the All-Time leading rusher as a 'Wow, great player", but rather "Wow, crappy 50+ years of franchise RBs".

    Also, do you think Jim Lee Hunt is deserving? He is a member of the Patriots Hall of Fame. Or does it only apply to RB's with 1 Pro Bowl and 5,400 career yards during the run heavy 1970's? At least he had a cool nickname..BAM! I wonder if Bam Morris has been added to the Steelers HOF set? 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.
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭


    << <i>I am an 'outsider' on this set. I collect full sets from the mid-70's and did not fully understand all of the background on these sets. I occasionally have an interest in these but when I review the composition, I pass. I think you would get more than 18 collectors if this set was somehow representative of the actual Patriot franchise. How can Nick B. be included? All I remember is the Dolphins kicking our butts with Nick B. doing some of the kicking. Why would a Patriot fan want to collect his card as part of an All-Time set? Is Reggie Leach on the All-Time Bruins set? Do we put Phil Esposito on the All-Time Blackhawks? These sets need to somehow represent what actually occurred within that franchise or no one will ever collect them. You may win some PSA awards but it will be in a very small pond. - Kevin >>



    Are you aware that Buoniconti played his first 7 years for the Patriots? During their AFL glory days, he went to 5 Pro Bowls and was named 1st Team All-AFL 4 years in a row as a Patriot. He was widely recognized as one of the best LB's in the AFL during those years. He is also a member of the Patriots HOF.

    I think it is important when reviewing players and their worthiness as being mentioned as All-Time Greats for the franchise...That you not only go by the one memory you may have of a player or his one big moment (good or bad moment), but you take into account the entire picture. It is one area I think the Pro Football HOF election process gets right. Before their final vote, they bring all the voters into one room, and have presentations given on each player and discuss the pros and cons of their career. Thus allowing each voter to decide based on complete information which players IN THEIR OPINION are truly deserving of election.

    It's what we have always done right here on the message boards when it came to deciding new additions to the Future HOF Modern and Senior sets. We posted a list of nominees and then debated the worthiness and took a vote here on the boards prior to submitting any requests to PSA. We have been in fact 100% on the players the majority picked here on the boards also getting added to the sets. Never once had a card addition denied.

    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.
  • cards651cards651 Posts: 665 ✭✭
    I was aware of Nick B. starting his career with the Pats and of his induction into the Pats HOF. However, I am also aware that the Pats did not have any 'AFL glory days'. They were really, really bad. They played at a different college stadium every year from what I can recall. Were the 5 Pro Bowl appearances as a Dolphin or Patriot? Obviously, the guy had a great career but it was more as a Dolphin. Not sure of the circumstances of his induction into the Pats HOF but my guess is they were trying to pad their history prior to the true great years. But what about Russ Francis? A fine tight end but he cannot possibly be an All-Time great. Talk about a self promoter.
  • recbballrecbball Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭
    Why is the '52 Bowman listed for PARILLI's card when it is not his RC?
    I'm not going to complain, I know people have spent money on that card already.
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭


    << <i>I was aware of Nick B. starting his career with the Pats and of his induction into the Pats HOF. However, I am also aware that the Pats did not have any 'AFL glory days'. They were really, really bad. They played at a different college stadium every year from what I can recall. Were the 5 Pro Bowl appearances as a Dolphin or Patriot? Obviously, the guy had a great career but it was more as a Dolphin. Not sure of the circumstances of his induction into the Pats HOF but my guess is they were trying to pad their history prior to the true great years. But what about Russ Francis? A fine tight end but he cannot possibly be an All-Time great. Talk about a self promoter. >>



    Yeah, not a huge Russ Francis guy either.

    As far as Nick B. goes, the Patriots were actually very good during their AFL years. Their records from 1960-1966:

    5-9
    9-4-1
    9-4-1
    7-6-1
    10-3-1
    4-8-2
    8-4-2

    Made the AFL Championship game in 1963. Buoniconti has 8 total Pro Bowls. 5 with the Patriots, 3 with the Dolphins...He has 5 First Team All-Pro selections, 4 with the Patriots, 1 with the Dolphins. He was actually more recognized among his peers as a Patriot than as a Dolphin.

    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.
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Why is the '52 Bowman listed for PARILLI's card when it is not his RC?
    I'm not going to complain, I know people have spent money on that card already. >>



    What's his rookie card? And make sure you are using the Beckett Rookie Card Encylopedia for your answer, as that is what PSA uses for all rookie sets such as these All-Time Greats sets.

    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.
  • recbballrecbball Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Parilli RC >>



    Is this what is listed as his rookie in the Beckett Rookie Card Encyclopedia? If so, then it should be changed. If not, then it shouldn't.

    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.
  • PowderedH2OPowderedH2O Posts: 2,443 ✭✭
    You bring up the Steelers. Rocky Bleier is on the All-Time Steelers. He has almost 2300 yards from scrimmage less than Cunningham in a career of about the same length as his. He shared the backfield with Franco Harris and Sam Cunningham shared the backfield with guys like Don Calhoun, Horace Ivory and Andy Johnson. Cunningham wasn't running behind a HOF center and the rest of the Steelers. You mentioned that only two teams have all-time rushing leaders with less yards. OK. But how many of those guys were active in the last 30 years when guys have been putting up huge numbers? There are 197 seasons in NFL/AFL/AAFC history in which a back has rushed for 1300 or more yards. 19 of those occurred before 1980. So, when Cunningham retired he was one of the league's all-time leading rushers. Now he's at #94 or so. From 1920-1979, a sixty year span, there were 19 seasons in which a back got more than 1300 yards. From 1980 to now, a span roughly half that amount, there have been 176 backs that have hit the 1300 yard mark. But we are going to hold Sam Cunningham's career stats against those of the current era? Heck, let's get Steve Van Buren out of the Eagles set. After all, his career rushing total is only about half that of Corey Dillon, and Corey Dillon isn't getting in anytime soon.

    In 1974, Sam Cunningham was the NFL's #10 rusher with 811 yards. Last season, Ray Rice was #10 with 1220 yards. 811 would put you #23. It would put you #24 this season.
    In 1975, Cunningham was #20 with 666 yards. This season, #20 had 934 yards. 666 yards would be #28.
    In 1976, Cunningham was #15 with 824 yards. This season, #15 had 1,047 yards. 824 yards would be #24.
    In 1977, Cunningham was #8 with 1015 yards. This season, #8 had 1199 yards. Over the past decade, the average for the #8 rusher is over 1200 yards. 1015 would put you #16.
    In 1978, Cunningham was #19 with 768 yards. This season, #19 had 942 yards. 768 yards would put you at #25.

    If we adjust Cunningham's numbers with the backs of today, he probably has another 1200-1500 yards rushing and another 500-700 yards receiving. That would adjust his total to about 9500-10000 yards from scrimmage. I see that as plenty good enough for a team's All-Time team.
    Successful dealings with shootybabitt, LarryP, Doctor K, thedutymon, billsgridirongreats, fattymacs, shagrotn77, pclpads, JMDVM, gumbyfan, itzagoner, rexvos, al032184, gregm13, californiacards3, mccardguy1, BigDaddyBowman, bigreddog, bobbyw8469, burke23, detroitfan2, drewsef, jeff8877, markmac, Goldlabels, swartz1, blee1, EarlsWorld, gseaman25, kcballboy, jimrad, leadoff4, weinhold, Mphilking, milbroco, msassin, meteoriteguy, rbeaton and gameusedhoop.
  • epruyneepruyne Posts: 154 ✭✭
    Jasp- Seems as though All-Pro / Pro-Bowl and stats are quite important for this debate. You also mentioned a previous post in which the All-Time sets are meant to be representative of eras, so I put these stats together in regards to Sam Cunningham - Fullback during his era 1970s.

    Rushing attempts/yards/TD and Receiving attempts/yards/TD

    1973 (R) 115-516-4 15-144-1
    Patriots O-Rank - 16th
    Team Rushing yards - 1612
    AFC Fullback Pro Bowlers- Larry Csonka / Marv Hubbard
    All-Pro Fullback- Csonka

    1974 166-811-9 22-214-2
    2nd
    2134
    Larry Csonka / Franco Harris
    No FB

    1975 169-666-6 32-253-2
    14
    1845
    Franco Harris / John Riggins
    No FB

    1976 172-824-3 27-299-0
    2
    2948
    Franco Harris
    Franco Harris

    1977 270-1015-4 42-370-1
    9
    2303
    Franco Harris
    Franco Harris

    1978 199-768-8 31-297-0
    4
    3165
    Sam Cunningham / Franco Harris
    No FB

    1979 159-563-5 29-236-0
    3
    2252
    Franco Harris / Mike Pruitt
    No FB

    ...so stats themselves not that great but he was a fullback not a halfback and in regards to Pro bowl and All pro #'s there was not many All-Pro fullbacks selected during this era and pro bowls he was against three HOF'ers.
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭


    << <i>You bring up the Steelers. Rocky Bleier is on the All-Time Steelers. He has almost 2300 yards from scrimmage less than Cunningham in a career of about the same length as his. He shared the backfield with Franco Harris and Sam Cunningham shared the backfield with guys like Don Calhoun, Horace Ivory and Andy Johnson. Cunningham wasn't running behind a HOF center and the rest of the Steelers. You mentioned that only two teams have all-time rushing leaders with less yards. OK. But how many of those guys were active in the last 30 years when guys have been putting up huge numbers? There are 197 seasons in NFL/AFL/AAFC history in which a back has rushed for 1300 or more yards. 19 of those occurred before 1980. So, when Cunningham retired he was one of the league's all-time leading rushers. Now he's at #94 or so. From 1920-1979, a sixty year span, there were 19 seasons in which a back got more than 1300 yards. From 1980 to now, a span roughly half that amount, there have been 176 backs that have hit the 1300 yard mark. But we are going to hold Sam Cunningham's career stats against those of the current era? Heck, let's get Steve Van Buren out of the Eagles set. After all, his career rushing total is only about half that of Corey Dillon, and Corey Dillon isn't getting in anytime soon.

    In 1974, Sam Cunningham was the NFL's #10 rusher with 811 yards. Last season, Ray Rice was #10 with 1220 yards. 811 would put you #23. It would put you #24 this season.
    In 1975, Cunningham was #20 with 666 yards. This season, #20 had 934 yards. 666 yards would be #28.
    In 1976, Cunningham was #15 with 824 yards. This season, #15 had 1,047 yards. 824 yards would be #24.
    In 1977, Cunningham was #8 with 1015 yards. This season, #8 had 1199 yards. Over the past decade, the average for the #8 rusher is over 1200 yards. 1015 would put you #16.
    In 1978, Cunningham was #19 with 768 yards. This season, #19 had 942 yards. 768 yards would put you at #25.

    If we adjust Cunningham's numbers with the backs of today, he probably has another 1200-1500 yards rushing and another 500-700 yards receiving. That would adjust his total to about 9500-10000 yards from scrimmage. I see that as plenty good enough for a team's All-Time team. >>



    Good point on Bleier and I somewhat agree. As far as yardage totals I AM comparing him to backs of his era. At least was trying to. I'm not the one who keeps using his status as the all-time franchise leader as a waypoint for his addition. Looking at your numbers, he was only a top 10 back twice in his career? Have you also looked at his fumble totals vs. carries? It's actually pretty weak as well. Look, an argument can be and has been made for Cunningham's addition. He is a debatable candidate. But to call him an "automatic" or to assume every collector would vote for his addition as if he were Tom Brady being requested to the set, that is a bit of an exaggeration. I say request the add, but no one should get their feelings hurt if he doesn't get the votes. He was an average back by NFL standards, maybe slightly above average in accordance with a weak history of Patriot running backs. He is a borderline candidate, nothing more nothing less. Leave it up to the collectors of the set, but that shouldn't mean you need to "rally the troops" and bully guys into agreeing with your opinion of him. It is obvious many DO agree with you, to include the OP. So make the request and see what happens.

    Just don't understand why similar Patriots with similar resumes are not also being requested. This is all I have been saying all along. Still haven't heard a good argument against not also requesting the addition of Jim Lee Hunt, Vince Wilfork and Logan Mankins. What is your opinion of these 3? Are they not deserving?

    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.
  • PowderedH2OPowderedH2O Posts: 2,443 ✭✭
    They are in fact deserving.
    Successful dealings with shootybabitt, LarryP, Doctor K, thedutymon, billsgridirongreats, fattymacs, shagrotn77, pclpads, JMDVM, gumbyfan, itzagoner, rexvos, al032184, gregm13, californiacards3, mccardguy1, BigDaddyBowman, bigreddog, bobbyw8469, burke23, detroitfan2, drewsef, jeff8877, markmac, Goldlabels, swartz1, blee1, EarlsWorld, gseaman25, kcballboy, jimrad, leadoff4, weinhold, Mphilking, milbroco, msassin, meteoriteguy, rbeaton and gameusedhoop.
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭


    << <i>They are in fact deserving. >>



    Thanks, and I have absolutely no issue with at all your stance. For me it's either you tell me you think Cunningham, Wilfork, Mankins and Hunt are all deserving, or you think none are deserving. I just don't see an argument that I can buy that tells me these players were not of equal or more value to the Patriots franchise than Cunningham.

    At least be consistent as H2O has done here. That's all I am saying. If you are doing that, I have no gripe, complaints or comments. Other than good luck with voting and may the majority get their way. But don't pick and choose, because regardless if their are ulterior motives and reasonings for picking and choosing, it surely can be perceived that way.

    So who is going to request the addition of Hunt, Wilfork and Mankins? I can join the set if need be just to make the requests. Then let the voters make the call. But knowing you are all fine upstanding gentleman I know that won't be necessary.

    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.
  • FavreFan1971FavreFan1971 Posts: 3,105 ✭✭✭
    Clearly there are differences of not just opinions here on the players. There are differences of how the sets should be run. Jason, left these sets some time ago because he did not like the way they were changing from his first inception of them. If I am not mistaken Jason set up some of these sets from day one. The hard part is dealing with change and dealing with other opinions when change is happening. Even harder is when you are the visionary and seeing you mission change. This is what and where Jason has been the past few years. I feel for him, and it sucks when something you have so much passion for is moving beyond your control.

    What IS happening here in the Patriots discussion, is Jason is pushing his opinion how these sets WERE run in the past. The All Time sets USED to be Pro Football HOF potential sets. They have morf'ed into more of a fan set now. It is what is. The majority of the collecting public has changed the All Time sets to a fan based sets lol. No longer are the All Time sets a sub set of the Pro Football HOF Rookie set. There are a few of these sets that there have enough collectors that hold the status that Jason did. One of those sets was the All Time Packers. Recently the set took its first turn toward adding B players instead of A players lol.

    I dealt with it but then I created the Packer HOF set. No, not just the guys in the Pro Football HOF but the Green Bay Packer HOF. This IS the fan set. It has the best players that have played for the Packers. Now, Jason and I bantered back and forth on that set for some time because he said anyone who played 50 games was in the set. Jason knows the best of the best. But when it comes to discussing Lynn Dickey compared to Bart Starr or Chester Johnston compared to Jim Taylor he does not have the fan based knowledge that some of us have. I know I can run circles around Jason with Packer knowledge. And others can run around with other teams.

    But in Jason's defense, he knows the HOF process and is passionate about those players included or to be included. But when it comes to the layer below that he struggles with the passion of the FAN base of those teams. He struggles with the average NFL player that may have played more of a role off the field than he did on the field. I am guessing Jason has no clue about the charity work that many Packer HOF'ers do. I mean, who thinks a player with 4000 rushing yards and 1500 receiving yards in 8 years is in the Packer HOF. Well, he raised over 3.1 million dollars in the 13 years he was retired. He IS part the community. That is a HUGE factor of why he is in the HOF. May Cunningham has done similar in the Northeast. There are a lot of factors BESIDES what these guys did ON the field.

    This is by no means a trashing of Jason. He has some of the best football knowledge on the board. He is one of the few who have direct contact to the HOF induction process. His opinion is his own. And so are ours. I think we all need to understand that and let it be.

    Just my opinion of a guy not involved in the Patriot All Time Set.

  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Clearly there are differences of not just opinions here on the players. There are differences of how the sets should be run. Jason, left these sets some time ago because he did not like the way they were changing from his first inception of them. If I am not mistaken Jason set up some of these sets from day one. The hard part is dealing with change and dealing with other opinions when change is happening. Even harder is when you are the visionary and seeing you mission change. This is what and where Jason has been the past few years. I feel for him, and it sucks when something you have so much passion for is moving beyond your control.

    What IS happening here in the Patriots discussion, is Jason is pushing his opinion how these sets WERE run in the past. The All Time sets USED to be Pro Football HOF potential sets. They have morf'ed into more of a fan set now. It is what is. The majority of the collecting public has changed the All Time sets to a fan based sets lol. No longer are the All Time sets a sub set of the Pro Football HOF Rookie set. There are a few of these sets that there have enough collectors that hold the status that Jason did. One of those sets was the All Time Packers. Recently the set took its first turn toward adding B players instead of A players lol.

    I dealt with it but then I created the Packer HOF set. No, not just the guys in the Pro Football HOF but the Green Bay Packer HOF. This IS the fan set. It has the best players that have played for the Packers. Now, Jason and I bantered back and forth on that set for some time because he said anyone who played 50 games was in the set. Jason knows the best of the best. But when it comes to discussing Lynn Dickey compared to Bart Starr or Chester Johnston compared to Jim Taylor he does not have the fan based knowledge that some of us have. I know I can run circles around Jason with Packer knowledge. And others can run around with other teams.

    But in Jason's defense, he knows the HOF process and is passionate about those players included or to be included. But when it comes to the layer below that he struggles with the passion of the FAN base of those teams. He struggles with the average NFL player that may have played more of a role off the field than he did on the field. I am guessing Jason has no clue about the charity work that many Packer HOF'ers do. I mean, who thinks a player with 4000 rushing yards and 1500 receiving yards in 8 years is in the Packer HOF. Well, he raised over 3.1 million dollars in the 13 years he was retired. He IS part the community. That is a HUGE factor of why he is in the HOF. May Cunningham has done similar in the Northeast. There are a lot of factors BESIDES what these guys did ON the field.

    This is by no means a trashing of Jason. He has some of the best football knowledge on the board. He is one of the few who have direct contact to the HOF induction process. His opinion is his own. And so are ours. I think we all need to understand that and let it be.

    Just my opinion of a guy not involved in the Patriot All Time Set. >>



    Well stated, and thanks. Can't do anything but agree wholeheartedly with this...Although I don't know about running circles...image

    What the "new school" fan collectors must remember, is that the old timers like me are still here. And just because you have an opinion based on your fan point of view, doesn;t mean we do and that we will have players pushed down our throats that we don't agree with. Every collector gets a vote, and being a FAN of the team doesnt mean your opinion or vote carries more weight. Not saying that anyone in this thread os doing it, but I have seen quite a few complaints and gripes when cards/players get voted down. So make all the requests you want...But if you want to be equally respected for your opinion/approach, you need to give that same respect rather than blowing it off as uninformed or ignorant voters. While I certainly don't know or much care about what guys do off the field, I feel confident that I can speak clearly and concisely on about 95% of any other player who played more than 50 or so games in NFL history. Would be willing to debate the merits of ANY PLAYER, ANY TEAM falling into that value range based on what they did on the playing field.

    In the interest of fairness, I would like to point to this post from you as a way of showing that we in fact share much of the same feelings in regards to how these sets are being run,

    "Had a few emails from Gayle and here is what transpired. There were 33 registrants at the time of voting. 19 of those 33 voted ( or 58% ) Of those 19 PSA needs just 10 votes to add the card. In other words if one third of the registrants want a card added to a set they pull their weight when many do not vote.

    I am disappointed that this happened. I have three of the four cards so it is not money out of my pocket but I feel we are watering the set down like some of the other All Time sets out there."

    Jason

    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.
  • Jason - Good luck with the set. I never realized how much history was involved when I jumped in with my comments but there are some interesting issues here. I just can't collect everything but perhaps one day I will start on this set as well. - Kevin
  • I certainly have no problem with that at all Jason. Here is my biggest gripe about the All-Time team sets. They are based upon awards and such, and frequently the participants in the sets really don't know much about the intricacies of the team. But sometimes, you can't make a selection on those things. I will give you an example. I collect the Saints set. If you ask anyone that has been a Saints fan from year one until now who was the best defensive back in the history of the team, at least 75% will say Tommy Myers. Better than Dave Waymer. I would venture to say, that until Rickey Jackson came along, Myers was the best defensive player ever for the Saints. Myers played for ten years on some godawful Saints teams. He made one Pro Bowl. That year wasn't any better than any of his other years. He just happened to get a little more publicity because the Saints were at least respectable that season (8-8) and Myers had 7 interceptions. So, for a non-Saints fan, you've never heard of Tommy Myers. And I don't blame anyone for that. Why should you? The Saints were on the "national game" or Monday Night Football maybe 10 times in Myers' ten years. And it isn't like he was the quarterback. He was a safety. So, when Tommy Myers got nominated, he didn't make the cut for the All-Time Team. For those of us that are diehard Saints fans, an All-Time team without Tommy Myers is silly. But, I do understand the point of view of the non-diehards. They view a card like the 1974 Topps Tommy Myers as a purchase of a card that has no real purpose. He isn't going to the Hall of Fame. He isn't going to rise in value. And quite frankly, they don't see the point in having a "nobody" in the set. Jason, I don't know your specific age, but I am just guessing late thirties. A guy like you, even with all of the football knowledge that you have, probably would never guess that Tommy Myers was pretty close to as good as Larry Wilson. You'd have no way to know that, because Myers got no publicity, no ESPN, and no awards. So, you have to take my word on it.
    I believe in the democratic process. I was very disappointed when Tommy Myers didn't get the votes. But, after examination of the voters, I realized that there were only two or three Saints fans in that group, so we are the minority. In the case of the Patriots All-Time Team, the Patriots fans are in the majority. So they can decide who belongs and who doesn't. Hopefully, they will make responsible decisions. I personally think that all of the people we discussed are worthy of that team. I saw the Patriots play quite a bit during Sam Cunningham's time, and he was a worthy player. Obviously, anyone who watches football has seen Mankins and Wilfork play dozens of times. I would hope, and I trust their ability to judge, that they would not take their majority and start putting in the guys who were personal favorites, but are not worthy candidates.
    When I would judge as to whether someone would be on an All-Time Team, I would have some questions.
    1) Was this player of a Pro Bowl calibre?
    2) Would this player be considered amongst the best of all-time for the organization?
    3) Would this player be considered the best ever at that position for that team? (Obviously, in the case of some teams, there is a glut at a position, the Packers at QB for example)
    4) Does this player hold significant records for the franchise?

    I don't know if those are the best questions, but those are ones that cross my mind. For Cunningham, I would say 1. YES 2. MAYBE 3. YES 4. YES To me, that's good enough.
    Obviously, an offensive lineman like Mankins can't really have #4, but the other three would certainly apply. If there was any issue with Mankins, it would be that he has only played 7 years, which is relatively short for a lineman. But to me, seven years of great service is worthy. I can't speak for others.
    Wilfork has only played eight years, but again, with his record, he should be a slam dunk.
    I never saw Jim Lee Hunt play (at least that I can remember). According to what I read he was excellent. But that would be one in which the real Pats fans would have to chime in. Four AFL All-Star Games is certainly a good sign, but since the league was very small, that might not be that big of a compliment.
    Successful dealings with shootybabitt, LarryP, Doctor K, thedutymon, billsgridirongreats, fattymacs, shagrotn77, pclpads, JMDVM, gumbyfan, itzagoner, rexvos, al032184, gregm13, californiacards3, mccardguy1, BigDaddyBowman, bigreddog, bobbyw8469, burke23, detroitfan2, drewsef, jeff8877, markmac, Goldlabels, swartz1, blee1, EarlsWorld, gseaman25, kcballboy, jimrad, leadoff4, weinhold, Mphilking, milbroco, msassin, meteoriteguy, rbeaton and gameusedhoop.
  • epruyneepruyne Posts: 154 ✭✭
    Is the definition of these sets not in the title “All-time,” they are not HOF or team HOF sets. All-time is defined as “unsurpassed in some respect up to the present,” so since there are already the HOF sets as well as team HOF sets, why would the purpose not be for the greatest players of a specific team. Like I mentioned earlier, I started a thread about Mark Carrier and agree with another thread that Louis Lipps should be in the Steelers set. Having the BEST performing players for a specific team does not mean letting in everyone’s favorite player ie, Mosi Tatupu, Kevin Faulk, Jim Colclough, that’s a straw man argument.
    Based on what I see as your perspective, that players need to have league leader worthy statistics and accomplishments, why then have the HOF voters selected 2 players in both the 1970s/80s all-decades teams and 7 players in the 1990s all-decade teams that are not in the HOF yet? These are only eligible First-team selected minus any of the special teams players.
    From a previous post, I understand that seeing your development/mission change can be difficult but would you be willing to re-express that briefly? Why do the HOF team sets not meet those goals?

    Again, in regards to Mankins and Wilfork, my purpose for the two I suggested was that they are seniors that were not already in the set.


  • << <i>
    When I would judge as to whether someone would be on an All-Time Team, I would have some questions.
    1) Was this player of a Pro Bowl calibre?
    2) Would this player be considered amongst the best of all-time for the organization?
    3) Would this player be considered the best ever at that position for that team? (Obviously, in the case of some teams, there is a glut at a position, the Packers at QB for example)
    4) Does this player hold significant records for the franchise?

    >>



    I like these criteria for considering who belongs in this set. One of my biggest beefs with the All-Time Bears set is the omission of the team's all-time leading scorer - Kevin Butler. Certainly not a HOFer, but that's a pretty significant team record that he holds, and to me, on that basis alone he belongs in the set.

    I like the subjective standard of comparing a player to his team, as opposed to the objective standard of comparing the player to players from all teams from his era. To me, these sets are more about defining those players that have meaning and significance to a particular team based on their accomplishments with that team.
  • cards651cards651 Posts: 665 ✭✭
    Just looking through the All-Time Celtics set composition which somehow includes Reggie Lewis and Jim Loscutoff. Loscutoff is even given a weighting of 2 vs. a 1 for Bird and Havlicek. I guess it would make sense for PSA to provide some sort of criteria for what constitutes an All-Time team member.
  • FavreFan1971FavreFan1971 Posts: 3,105 ✭✭✭
    I nominate Billy Cundiff for the Patriots All Time Set
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Just looking through the All-Time Celtics set composition which somehow includes Reggie Lewis and Jim Loscutoff. Loscutoff is even given a weighting of 2 vs. a 1 for Bird and Havlicek. I guess it would make sense for PSA to provide some sort of criteria for what constitutes an All-Time team member. >>



    Good point.

    For the others who responded. I created many of these sets myself. The reason behind was to have a place to collect great rookie cards of players who are NOT QUITE HOFers..I have never said or even inferred that these sets should be reserved for HOFers' Who belongs on these sets is entirely subjective. Much like card grading..One graders 8 is another graders 10, we all see players differently. So when I say these sets are getting watered down and/or guys are being added in an illogical fashion, it is due to MY OPINION that guys who are NOT the greatest of the great are being added. It would be like having Joe Delaney added to the All-Time Chiefs set. Many franchises DO add players who died or were killed or gave sometype of off-the-field greatness, but simply aren;t in any rational non-fans discussion of greatest ever players for any given franchise.

    When I use Pro Bowls, Super Bowls, Stats and All-Pro selections as somewhat of a criteria, it is becuase those are the things that help you measure a player vs. his peers. As others in the thread have stated, it is tough and in most cases not right to compare a player from the 50/60s to players of today. It's just a different game. it is those Pro Bowls, All-Pro, stats, and Super Bowl/playoff performances vs. their peers, during the era that helps you measure exactly where that player falls. Maybe we should have tried naming these sets " All-Time NFL Greats, who played for --insert team name---". Then it would make it easier to compare and contrast across the NFL vs. just within a team. Because IMO, to say Cunningham is the greatest RB in franchise history says nothing to me other then the franchise has had a very weak history of RBs...He was average to slightly above average player, who I have seen plenty of game film on. He was not one of the top RB's of his era in the NFL, nor even a top FB at his position. Maybe he was great for the Patriots, but again, just because an average player happens to be the best you've had at a position, doesn;t make him an All-time Great.

    Lastly, as we have all stated, the voters who collect the set get to decide. But it is up to the knowledgable folks to make sure the right guys are requested. Any collector could request any card of any Patriots player to be added. And unfortunately it usually only takes a few votes to get a guy added, especially when there aren;t many collectors and everyone deosn;t respond.

    In the end is your set, those of you who collect it. If you end up with a crap, watered down set, it will show. You will loose credibility and lose collectors who care about the set. Then when you start seeing guys added who YOU don't like or agree with, you'll be standing beside me wondering how your set got ruined. I'm just trying to help prevent that from happening again, as it has to many of us.

    Best of luck with whatever you do. Let us know how it turns out. I'll jump in and re-join the set so I can vote too.

    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.
  • cards651cards651 Posts: 665 ✭✭
    Jason - Did not realize the level of your involvement in creating these sets. That is truly an incredible amount of work for one person. There's always debate on this type of set and when I have a criticism, I assume I'm directing it towards big old PSA as opposed to a collector doing yeomans (sp?) work. Keep up the good work. It is appreciated. I know it's early but can we add the guy that knocked the ball out, preventing the game winning touchdown, a few minutes ago? - Kevin
  • JasP24JasP24 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Jason - Did not realize the level of your involvement in creating these sets. That is truly an incredible amount of work for one person. There's always debate on this type of set and when I have a criticism, I assume I'm directing it towards big old PSA as opposed to a collector doing yeomans (sp?) work. Keep up the good work. It is appreciated. I know it's early but can we add the guy that knocked the ball out, preventing the game winning touchdown, a few minutes ago? - Kevin >>



    It was fun for a bit. I always erred on the side of exclusivity, it's just my basic concept anytime we start saying the words "HOFer" or "All-Time Great"...Unfortunately, the ESPN generation tends to view every player with a halfway descent career as a future HOFer and/or All-Time Great...It's a shame to see what has happened to many of these team sets. I mean you look at the Bengals and Bucs sets and I just shake my head in dis-belief that the players listed are apparently highly regarded all-time greats for their franchise...I would have rather seen 4-5 players/cards on these sets rather than plusing them up to size by adding every marginal semi-star you can vaguely remember. Some of the sets are big enough now to self-police. With enough "fans" of the team to be able to accurately describe what an all-time great really is, and to keep it exclusive enough that it actually MEANS something to be added to these sets. Others are simply at the mercy of a small group of, apparently politically organized fans of the team who want to turn the set into a 100+ card monstrosity of every player with over 100 games played in that teams uniform or something.

    Anyway, I will still try and do my part, and through out my side of this debate, no matter how unpopular it may be for the opposing forces. But I'm very happy to be out of these sets and out of the true headache/heartache of watching them turn to specialty sets that only the very few hardcore fan/collectors will actually care to ever chase to try and complete. But it is what it is. I don't have a vote nor do I request additions to these sets any longer. Only 9 years of Registry experience with the HOF and Key Card sets.

    I've said my peace, these guys can listen or not, really no skin off my back. I hope we get a chance to re-look this 4-5 years from now to see what becomes of the set down the road.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.