I will agree with you on that. I think for teams like the Saints, Bengals, Falcons, etc... there really should be no reason to have a set of 40+ guys. There simply aren't 40 guys on those teams that deserve it. I don't know what a comfortable number is. Maybe it is much lower like 5. Seems like even with a team like the Bengals that the current 18 is about right. I recognize all of those guys as being very solid all-pro level players (except Ken Riley, who oddly enough never was all-pro). I'm not knowledgable enough on Willie Anderson to make that choice. The bulk of the team is from the 70's and 80's when they were competitive, and hardly anyone since. That seems about right. The Saints with 18 is probably about right too. I just don't think it is the right 18. Teams like the Packers, Bears, Giants, Cowboys, etc. should have considerably more (and they do). I do understand your comparison issues. I think there are guys that are not on the Packers team that are better than guys on some of these other teams. I too question how Chuck Muncie and Wes Chandler are on the Saints all-time team, while guys like Calvin Hill and Robert Newhouse are not on the Cowboys team. Clearly, both of those guys did more for the Cowboys than the prior two did for the Saints. Hopefully things will be naturally policed.
<< <i> I too question how Chuck Muncie and Wes Chandler are on the Saints all-time team, while guys like Calvin Hill and Robert Newhouse are not on the Cowboys team. Clearly, both of those guys did more for the Cowboys than the prior two did for the Saints. Hopefully things will be naturally policed. >>
I'm so glad to know you understand why it hurts my brain to try and comprehend some of the decisions to add/not add. I mean, if you are like me and value exclusivity, or if you are the opposite and instead prefer inclusive and adding additional, deeper into the pot, players...Well, that is a black and white opinion, in which neither is wrong. Just different.
But the selection or non-selection of certain players because of 1-the era they played you personally value over other eras, or 2-the POSITION they played you value over others (RB somehow being more important than a DT/NT for example), it just makes the entire set illogical. One in which, the average collector and/or the average fan looking to start the set looks at it and scratches their head. This isn;t going to bring in new collectors to the set. It isn't going to make the set more competitive (which I apologize if it offends you to hear that the Registry is a COMPETITION and not a checklist for those who haven't discovered Microsoft Excel)..It shrinks the set down to a handful of hardcore "fans" and ruins the fun for everyone else. Does it REALLY make the set invalid without a Sam Cunningham? He was really THAT great and THAT impactful on the Patriots franchise? And if your answer is yes, then isn't Vince Wilfork ALSO that great and impactful ALREADY? This is the conundrum that has been created. Like I said, I look forward to discussing this again in 4-5 years when your set is 75 strong and Mosi Tatupu is mentioned in the same breath as Tom Brady...If you doubt that can happen once you open the inclusive floodgate, look around at other team sets, and then be careful what you wish for.
All the best, 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.
What is strange to me is that Wilfork and Mankins keep being brought up for no apparent reason, no where in this thread does anyone say that these players should not be included. Actually, Vince added a couple points after his game tonight. I do not think that Tatupu, Faulk, etc. should be in this set, I would not vote for that player. I initially started this thread based on the fact that I believed that Cunningham and Clayborn have been excluded to this point and being 70s players would not be looked at any time soon.
<< <i>What is strange to me is that Wilfork and Mankins keep being brought up for no apparent reason, no where in this thread does anyone say that these players should not be included. Actually, Vince added a couple points after his game tonight. I do not think that Tatupu, Faulk, etc. should be in this set, I would not vote for that player. I initially started this thread based on the fact that I believed that Cunningham and Clayborn have been excluded to this point and being 70s players would not be looked at any time soon. >>
They are brought up because you are, I assume, planning on requesting those 2 players, while NOT requesting equal/greater than players. It is going to start you down the road of illegitimacy on the set. My apologies if this somehow offended you. My idea of helping is not to come here and agree with every word that everyone says. I had an opinion based on past experiences with other team sets, and I shared it. You can take my advice or you can flush it down the toilet. Maybe you don't agree or don't care. Hey, that's fine and dandy with me. Do whatever you want, see how the vote goes. Either way, IMO, if you go forward with requesting those 2 particular players and not others it is going to eventually be a lose/lose for you. If you get the votes, you've made the set illogical. If you don;t get the votes, It will be years, if ever, before PSA will send out another poll to add any who don't get the votes.
Believe it or not, I'm trying to help you out here. Not just trying to crush your hopes and dreams. Sometimes having a devil's advocate is good thing, so if I have at least made you think through it a few extra seconds (which I assume is the reason you posted your question here rather than simply just sending the requests to PSA) then my purpose has been served.
So for the 10th+ time, I say best of luck with whatever you decide to do. I look forward to hearing how it turns out, and also discussing again a few years down the road to see what the long term ramifications are, if any. Deal?
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 would be like having Joe Delaney added to the All-Time Chiefs set."
Joe Dalaney is part of the all-time Chiefs set. While the choice of Dalaney might seen, over reaching, I think the set as a whole is pretty good. Dalaney was a great player during his short career and a hero off the field, even before the giving of his life.
It does seem lacking Brian Waters.
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>"It would be like having Joe Delaney added to the All-Time Chiefs set."
Joe Dalaney is part of the all-time Chiefs set. While the choice of Dalaney might seen, over reaching, I think the set as a whole is pretty good. Dalaney was a great player during his short career and a hero off the field, even before the giving of his life.
It does seem lacking Brian Waters. >>
Yes, I am aware. It's why I made the analogy. Totally agree that he was a great player for his season and a half in the NFL, and definitely a hero off the field and seemingly an all around great guy. I guess I just don't understand the romanticism of feeling the need to add this type of player to an all-time franchise team collection. There are literally 100 guys you could say all of the above about. Does every NFL player who died in WWII also belong as one of the greatest PLAYERS in a franchises history? Every all around great guy and off the field humanitarian? There are 1000 guys over the past couple of decades who fit that bill. This is why I thought and continue to believe these sets should be about the PLAYERS and how well they played the game. I mean if you wan an all-hero set or all-humanitarian set, then start it and collect it. If you are qualifying players as the best ever for a franchise, they should have at least SOME measure of continued success in relation to the league.
Delaney played in 23 career games, rushed for 1,500 yards. Obviously his playing career did not merit induction to the set. So now we are adding guys PURELY for something they did OFF the playing field? Yikes......
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 guess I see the set as more a whole, which is pretty good. If you put the Chiefs set together in PSA 8, I am guessing it would run about $900, Dawson taking up the by far largest share of cost. Delaney would run you about $3 of that $900. I bought my 9 for $.99. Delaney is also a member of the Chiefs HOF, which to me, and I would not be surpized if I am in a 10% minority here, is reason enough for him to be part of the all-time set. (They have a pretty big HOF).
I think several of the sets have a "Delaney" in them. Does Tony Hill really belong the Cowboys set? Or Robbie Gould in Bears set? I don't see it making those sets less as a whole.
The all-time sets, and its brothers and cousin sets (like MVP, RCs of the year, et al) make up about 800 cards. I think they do a good job at covering the history of the NFL's best. I kinda enjoy looking up a player before or after I purchase their card. I wouldn't mind seeing many of the sets expanded...which would likely mean to include more modern players. Lower cost cards overall...from a time I have watched the game.
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 all-time sets, and its brothers and cousin sets (like MVP, RCs of the year, et al) make up about 800 cards. I think they do a good job at covering the history of the NFL's best. I kinda enjoy looking up a player before or after I purchase their card. I wouldn't mind seeing many of the sets expanded...which would likely mean to include more modern players. Lower cost cards overall...from a time I have watched the game. >>
I guess I'm not quite understand why it takes a guy being added to a PSA Registered set to discover him? Being an NFL historian is my #1 hobby. Above and beyond collecting, which is a distant 2nd, soon to be 3rd...There are SO MANY resources out there now vs. just a short 5-6 years ago. It's so easy to find some subjects to research and look over. Anything from actual game footage to in depth stats, box scores, articles from the 1950's or 60's or whenever. My advice, if you want to be well informed on the players you are seeing added or being able to give a proper vote when an addition is requested, get the more complete knowledge FIRST. You enjoy looking up players before or after you purchase their card or see them on a Registry set. It's even more fun trying to find those players who are NOT listed on these sets, and then comparing to those listed to see if the set makes sense.
Just so much out there man, don't let me or any other random guy requesting a player/card addition dictate your knowledge base. That's why, just like political voting, I WISH you had to take some sort of knowledge test on who you are voting for prior to being allowed to vote. Not speaking of you specifically here AT ALL, but the lack of knowledge (short of what is propogated on network TV) of the general public and/or the average football fan these days is nothing short of mind blowing. You have people voting on stuff that they couldn't fair better than 25-30% on a basic knowledge test of the subject they are voting on. How do you get a proper vote without having at least a passing knowledge FIRST.
It sounds like AT LEAST you care enough to do some research on player requests before you vote. Guarantee the majority don't even do that! lol...For most it's nothing more than name recognition, and/or a guy they heard someone talk about once...Or in some cases, a guy they romanticize and remember as being better thna he actually was because he played for their alma mater or came from their hometown...It's rose-colored glasses syndrome meets good old boy network...And it's lose/lose all the way around.
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>They are brought up because you are, I assume, planning on requesting those 2 players, while NOT requesting equal/greater than players. It is going to start you down the road of illegitimacy on the set. >>
Based on this statement, the football Hall of Fame senior enshrinement process has made the Hall illegitimate. They did not nominate those players during their initial candidacy and now that they are looking back at players they missed, illegitimate.
<< <i>My apologies if this somehow offended you. >>
This is why I typically avoid any interweb postings. I have been responding to your posts, you are the only person disagreeing to this point so they have been directed towards your responses. Yes, since someone disagreed with a post in which I was in fact looking for opinions, I have been crying myself to sleep each night, hoping, praying, slaughtering hundreds of goats, chickens, and even a couple of virgins, in the vain attempt to make you change your mind...or I was just having a conversation like the responsible adults that we are. Isn't that right, Mr. Poopy Pants?
No need to be condescending with your replies Jason. The fact that I like to research a player before or after a purchase does not mean I didn't know of them, remember them, lack resources to look up anything, or have a personal need to feel I know them.
I just bought an OJ RC PSA 8 this weekend. Believe it or not, I actually knew more about OJ then a court case and a Hertz commercial.
On the other hand I also picked up a 1970 Topps Jim Lynch RC PSA 8 and didn't really know anything about him other then he was in the Chiefs HOF. You may find that lack of information lacking...I don't, nor do I care.
If you see yourself being an NFL historian as your #1 hobby then good for you. I don't, and will likely never consider it in my top 10.
Diversity is a good thing. In this case, how, why and what we collect.
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'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.
Sam Bam Cunningham DEFINITELY the single greatest RB to ever don a Patriots unifrm and 1000% deserving of addition. Cetain that the vote will be unanimous.
Raymond Claborn, no clue how this guy hasn't made the set in the past. Just a no brainer.
Absolutely no one else deserving. In fact, Brady should be removed until these 2 get added. What a farce. Did the guys collecting this set the past 5+ years even WATCH 70's Patriot football? It's a travesty!
Thanks fellas for schooling me up on what TRUE All-Time Greats look like. Now I'll finally understand who the good players are when I watch the games. When is the Super Bowl again?
Next time don't even bother coming to the message boards to ask opinions. You are obviously the ultimate Patriots expert, and anyone you even consider requesting to add is a sure bet to get the votes. Why bother with discussion?
All the best! I hope the Patriots can get to the Super Bowl again this year so I can bet the house. That loss in the undefeated season was a fluke and never possibly happen again. MORE NO BRAINERS! Love it...
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PATS! Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow! Pray for snow during the Super Bowl game! hahaha
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.
Sam Cunningham played nine season for the Patriots, appearing in 107 games from 1973-1979 and 1981-1982. He is the Patriots all-time leading rusher with 5,453 yards and his 43 rushing touchdowns rank second in team history. He played a significant role in helping the Patriots set the NFL record for most rushing yards in a season with 3,165 yards in 1978. Cunningham joined the Patriots as a 1973 first round draft pick after an All American career at USC. He was dubbed Sam "Bam" Cunningham while in college for his ability to dive over piles into the end zone. He is a member of the Patriots 50th Anniversary Team and 1970s All-Decade Team. He was enshrined to the Patriots Hall of Fame in 2010.
Cunningham was enshrined into the teams HOF, but you feel he's not deserving to be in the Patroits all-time set. I'm blown away!!! The New England franchise thinks he's an All-Time great, but you don't. Since you don't I guess he's not an all- time great. The Patroits should strip him of this honor.
"EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY IT SAYS IT RIGHT THERE ON THE WALL" - JACKIE MOON
You and I have had this discussion years ago via PM. Your online personality is abrupt and condescending. You tout that you served or are serving. We all understand that and are grateful to all who have served. Ask yourself a question, why do you have to keep reminding everyone you served?
There are two things I noticed about you via your online personality. You cannot deal with change and you are a man of your own select opinion. You hide behind "This is my opinion" but completely trash everyone's opinion that does not agree with yours. You and I agree about 70% of the time. I stopped posting publicly on most of our disagreements because I did not want to see what is happening here happen.
In this case I actually agree with you on Cunningham. He does not belong but for GOD'S SAKE LET IT GO! These guys are fans here, they believe in the change of the All Time sets. You do not. I would like to see it remain exclusive too but as you quoted me above "No scratch off my back." I let it go. Unlike you. When something does not go you way you trash someone's lack of research or their understanding of the HOF process. Ask yourself another question or two, why do berate someone who does not agree with me? Or, why do you try to show your expert knowledge to everyone time and time again?
I work with many ex-military in what I do. Many of them have the same unbending attitude like you. Even when they are proven wrong. They will never own up to a mistake, they will blame others and yes, the all HATE change. Maybe this is a trained trait or maybe they recruit those with it.
Jason, the reason people come after you on the boards is because you act like I have explained above. I know some people for a fact disagree with you to get your undies in a bundle. And with your expected response they just sit back and laugh. I know none of this should come as a surprise but I hope to take some of this to heart and see what I see and what others see.
You and I have had this discussion years ago via PM. Your online personality is abrupt and condescending. You tout that you served or are serving. We all understand that and are grateful to all who have served. Ask yourself a question, why do you have to keep reminding everyone you served?
There are two things I noticed about you via your online personality. You cannot deal with change and you are a man of your own select opinion. You hide behind "This is my opinion" but completely trash everyone's opinion that does not agree with yours. You and I agree about 70% of the time. I stopped posting publicly on most of our disagreements because I did not want to see what is happening here happen.
In this case I actually agree with you on Cunningham. He does not belong but for GOD'S SAKE LET IT GO! These guys are fans here, they believe in the change of the All Time sets. You do not. I would like to see it remain exclusive too but as you quoted me above "No scratch off my back." I let it go. Unlike you. When something does not go you way you trash someone's lack of research or their understanding of the HOF process. Ask yourself another question or two, why do berate someone who does not agree with me? Or, why do you try to show your expert knowledge to everyone time and time again?
I work with many ex-military in what I do. Many of them have the same unbending attitude like you. Even when they are proven wrong. They will never own up to a mistake, they will blame others and yes, the all HATE change. Maybe this is a trained trait or maybe they recruit those with it.
Jason, the reason people come after you on the boards is because you act like I have explained above. I know some people for a fact disagree with you to get your undies in a bundle. And with your expected response they just sit back and laugh. I know none of this should come as a surprise but I hope to take some of this to heart and see what I see and what others see. >>
As a kid in the 70's and early 80's here in Massachusetts Sam Cunningham was everyones favorite Patriot Running Back, I dont collect the set nor do I have any knowledge of what you people have for criteria in regards to additions for these sets but anytime Old Patriot talk is brought up Sam "Bam" Cunningham is always mentioned. As a guy who has zero input on any card set I personally would be very suprised that Cunningham wouldnt be in an all time Pats set, honestly the list cant be that long outside of guys from the 2000's can it?
As for Jason he is a very knowledable and passionate Football guy and his input should be respected just look past his arrogant holier than thou message board attitude, I too work with many Combat Veterans from Iraq and Afhganistan and none of them act the way Jason does when disagreed with but thats real life and not a message board, Im sure Jason would be different in person if having a football conversation went the way this discussion has and had a few sides disagreeing.
One other thing is the Combat Veterans I know NEVER advertise their service unless asked about it so that suprises me that it was mentioned that Jason reminds everyone all the time lol.
<< <i> One other thing is the Combat Veterans I know NEVER advertise their service unless asked about it so that suprises me that it was mentioned that Jason reminds everyone all the time lol. >>
When exactly did I "advertise" my combat service again? lol...Gotta love the propaganda machine on this board and how things get spun..Somehow any opinion I have is thrown as a left hook to all who don't agree, yet others get a free pass even though they attack with just as much vigor if not more.
An opinion was asked, I gave it. Some of the responses were il-informed, I made some suggestions on correcting that. I honestly could care less about coming here to stoke someones ego or make them feel warm and fuzzy about their opinions. If I disagree with someone, I'm not pat them on the back and tell them they are right. What's funny is, I actually backed off on this thread and AGREED with adding Cunningham...But wanted to know how exactly he is deserving but a few others (and some of which are also in the Patriot HOF BPorter26) aren't being requested...I was simply trying to find the logic, which to date has still not been provided. Everyone agrees these other players deserve to be added, yet no one is requesting them?
But no one wants to read that. It's all about my wording and how I come across in the posts. I blame TMZ and the National Enquirer for this brand of debate. When facts are lacking, and a descent debate response can not be formed, this is typically what happens. I'm used to it.
Why we are still discussing this I have no idea. You are telling me to let it go, yet all I am doing at this point is defending myself against the propaganda and spin cycle that is taking place. Look at the bright side, now maybe Cunningham will get the votes JUST to spite me...As if I even collect the set anymore...lol
Thanks for teaching me a lesson fellas. The mis-informed have absolutely ZERO desire to become informed. I finally get 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.
Sam Bam Cunningham DEFINITELY the single greatest RB to ever don a Patriots unifrm and 1000% deserving of addition. Cetain that the vote will be unanimous.
Raymond Claborn, no clue how this guy hasn't made the set in the past. Just a no brainer.
Absolutely no one else deserving. In fact, Brady should be removed until these 2 get added. What a farce. Did the guys collecting this set the past 5+ years even WATCH 70's Patriot football? It's a travesty!
Thanks fellas for schooling me up on what TRUE All-Time Greats look like. Now I'll finally understand who the good players are when I watch the games. When is the Super Bowl again?
Next time don't even bother coming to the message boards to ask opinions. You are obviously the ultimate Patriots expert, and anyone you even consider requesting to add is a sure bet to get the votes. Why bother with discussion?
All the best! I hope the Patriots can get to the Super Bowl again this year so I can bet the house. That loss in the undefeated season was a fluke and never possibly happen again. MORE NO BRAINERS! Love it...
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PATS! Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow! Pray for snow during the Super Bowl game! hahaha
Sam Bam Cunningham DEFINITELY the single greatest RB to ever don a Patriots unifrm and 1000% deserving of addition. Cetain that the vote will be unanimous.
Raymond Claborn, no clue how this guy hasn't made the set in the past. Just a no brainer.
Absolutely no one else deserving. In fact, Brady should be removed until these 2 get added. What a farce. Did the guys collecting this set the past 5+ years even WATCH 70's Patriot football? It's a travesty!
Thanks fellas for schooling me up on what TRUE All-Time Greats look like. Now I'll finally understand who the good players are when I watch the games. When is the Super Bowl again?
Next time don't even bother coming to the message boards to ask opinions. You are obviously the ultimate Patriots expert, and anyone you even consider requesting to add is a sure bet to get the votes. Why bother with discussion?
All the best! I hope the Patriots can get to the Super Bowl again this year so I can bet the house. That loss in the undefeated season was a fluke and never possibly happen again. MORE NO BRAINERS! Love it...
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PATS! Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow! Pray for snow during the Super Bowl game! hahaha
Jason >>
Wow, you are a child. >>
Awww shucks...
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>When exactly did I "advertise" my combat service again? lol...Gotta love the propaganda machine on this board and how things get spun.. >>
Go to page one of this thread, about halfway down - oh heck, I will just copy and paste it LOL.
"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.
<< <i>When exactly did I "advertise" my combat service again? lol...Gotta love the propaganda machine on this board and how things get spun.. >>
Go to page one of this thread, about halfway down - oh heck, I will just copy and paste it LOL.
"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 :" >>
This mentions combat service? lol...Ummm no
Also, could you also paste what I was responding to? Because what's funny is, I've had previous conversations with the poster I was responding to, who had ASKED me what I did in the military (because of my icon) and because he himself served...So when he posted what he did that I responded to, I took that as a personal jab...Turns out it was just something from Animal House, and the subject was squashed.
You see, you can't really form correct opinions without the full story.
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>Next time don't even bother coming to the message boards to ask opinions. You are obviously the ultimate Patriots expert, and anyone you even consider requesting to add is a sure bet to get the votes. Why bother with discussion? >>
What kind of response is that? Is this the same way you debate/converse with your friends, that must be a great time. How did I imply anything along these lines? I agreed with you that Mankins and Wilfork should be in the set, I said I would vote for them. If you had read my messages as you expect people to read yours, you would have noticed that. My request for two players that I believed to be overlooked to this point is equal to the HOF committee reviewing previously passed over players as senior nominees. Would you be responding to me this way if I were a Lions fan making a suggestion for another team set I may be collecting or even just another team set that I may not even be involved in? Even more curious is if you would have responded this way if I was one of the :high end collectors: or a NFL historian...
Do people need to spend the most amount of money they possibly can to be "collectors?" I'm pretty sure that this is a hobby, which allows people to escape reality for a few minutes a week and gives people the opportunity to spend some of their money on something they enjoy for whatever reason that may be. What difference does it make if they can't buy a PSA 8 Whoever, that doesn't make them any better of a person, that's ridiculous. You mock TMZ and the media, your attitude towards the PSA Registry Sets and this hobby is the same as the people who watch those shows, there really is no difference except for personal preference.
That's great that you are so devoted to whatever it is you are devoted too. This entire thread, not just your responses, shows exactly why I will continue to not spend time posting on threads, you can't have a true conversation, it's TMZ in writing.
<< <i>When exactly did I "advertise" my combat service again? lol...Gotta love the propaganda machine on this board and how things get spun.. >>
Go to page one of this thread, about halfway down - oh heck, I will just copy and paste it LOL.
"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 :" >>
This mentions combat service? lol...Ummm no
Also, could you also paste what I was responding to? Because what's funny is, I've had previous conversations with the poster I was responding to, who had ASKED me what I did in the military (because of my icon) and because he himself served...So when he posted what he did that I responded to, I took that as a personal jab...Turns out it was just something from Animal House, and the subject was squashed.
You see, you can't really form correct opinions without the full story.
Jason >>
My apoligies for saying "Combat Service" I was out of line with that, I should have made refference to "service" alone.
Not that I care one way or another what happens with the rest of this thread nor do I care if Jason has a rough way about him I do respect everyone who served or is serving so again my apoligies if I added a spin to anything.
My apoligies for saying "Combat Service" I was out of line with that, I should have made refference to "service" alone.
Not that I care one way or another what happens with the rest of this thread nor do I care if Jason has a rough way about him I do respect everyone who served or is serving so again my apoligies if I added a spin to anything. >>
Perk, it's no biggie. No apology necessary. Just goes to show how easy things can be taken out of context and end up with an entirely different meaning or purpose than what it is supposed to be. One word here or there taken the wrong way and the piling on begins...lol
I'll defend my position in the face of 1,000 detractors if necessary. If someone tells me Terry Bradshaw is the all-time leader in passing yards, and then wants to debate it when I try and show them it is incorrect, I'm going to defend that. Debate and disagreement should be a GOOD thing. Getting alternate perspectives should be a GOOD thing. It should make you want to look for the truth and facts amongst the opinions. Not a reason to start a flame war...And not everyone here has done that by any means...But certainly there are a few looking to throw some stones from their glass houses.
Such is life...lol
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 was recently brought to my attention, by a football historian, that you have a member of your team Hall of Fame, who clearly is not worthy.
Yes, of course I am referring to Sam Cunningham, who it appears you also mistakenly honored him as a member of your All-Decade team of the 70s.
It would be appreciated if you fixed these mistakes.
Since he is also your all-time leading rusher perhaps you might consider seeing if Curtis Martin would sign and play a few years to move Cunningham down a notch. Perhaps look even take at Jim Nance and see if his legs are worth a 163 yards. Whatever you may decide, please pass on considering Kevin Faulk. He did good those few years, but he's not Marshall and I am afraid his best days are over.
Yours Truly, Enlightened Fan
P.S. Good luck in the Super Bowl.
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.
It was recently brought to my attention, by a football historian, that you have a member of your team Hall of Fame, who clearly is not worthy.
Yes, of course I am referring to Sam Cunningham, who it appears you also mistakenly honored him as a member of your All-Decade team of the 70s.
It would be appreciated if you fixed these mistakes.
Since he is also your all-time leading rusher perhaps you might consider seeing if Curtis Martin would sign and play a few years to move Cunningham down a notch. Perhaps look even take at Jim Nance and see if his legs are worth a 163 yards. Whatever you may decide, please pass on considering Kevin Faulk. He did good those few years, but he's not his brother and I am afraid his best days are over.
Yours Truly, Enlightened Fan
P.S. Good luck in the Super Bowl. >>
Once again the propaganda and spin rears its ugly head. Did I ever say he didn't belong in the Patriots HOF? Or on the Patriots Team of the 70s? Never and not once. Is this set the Patriots Hall of Fame set? If so, you are missing another player who is in the Patriots HoF and not a member of the set. Why no argument and debate for him? You are also missing a large selection of 1970s All Decade Patriots. What about them? Why is Cunningham so much better? Because he's the teas all time leading rusher with 5,000 yards?
Instead of listening to what I actually say, it's toss it, turn it and spin it into something you can disagree with me about because you don't like my "tone". It's hilarious.
Not sure if it was the lack of Cunninghams TDs at his high number of fumbles but he obviously captured many fans imaginations 30-40 years ago in a way that other similar credentialed Patriot players could not. For that I say "Viva la Bam!"
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>Let it go Jason. Move on. An opinion is an opinion. >>
I'm trying! Lol
But I'm not going to sit back and have my words and meaning twisted and misrepresented. Just not going to happen.
There really is nothing more to add to this subject. I would hope you would post the same request to the others who seem to want to keep it going.
Pretty sure I've wished the OP luck with his vote multiple times and to let us know how it turns out. Yet people keep coming out of the woodwork. You should try posting your own opinion so these guys understand I am not the only one who doesn't think a player of Cunningham's caliber does not quite belong. Maybe that would help with the brevity here.
Just a thought, 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.
For me, the fact that a player is in his team's Hall of Fame (or Ring of Honor) is sufficient to put him into a team's All-Time Greats set. It's a very important third-party validation - it's not as if the voters for that honor were interested in increasing the value of their graded Cunningham rookie cards or boosting their completion percentage.
<< <i>For me, the fact that a player is in his team's Hall of Fame (or Ring of Honor) is sufficient to put him into a team's All-Time Greats set. It's a very important third-party validation - it's not as if the voters for that honor were interested in increasing the value of their graded Cunningham rookie cards or boosting their completion percentage.
Nick >>
It's a valid point. So why whouldn't Jim Lee Hunt also belong on the set. He is a member of the Patriots HOF as well. Yet no one's debating his candidacy or requesting his addition? if adding all of the franchise HOFers to thses sets is the standard, then I am in total agreement that Cunningham should then be added. But if that is the standard, there are MANY players missing from almost all of these sets who need to be added. And in the case of the Patriots, that additional player is Jim Lee Hunt.
To be honest, if PSA would allow some type of standard baseline to who is eligible for these sets, then a vote wouldn't even be required. member of the Team HOF= member of All-Time Great sets. I would be fine with that. Would think it much more logical than the pick-choosy, every collectors different opinion on who belongs thing we currently have. With every set bearing a different standard.
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>For me, the fact that a player is in his team's Hall of Fame (or Ring of Honor) is sufficient to put him into a team's All-Time Greats set. It's a very important third-party validation - it's not as if the voters for that honor were interested in increasing the value of their graded Cunningham rookie cards or boosting their completion percentage.
Nick >>
It's a valid point. So why whouldn't Jim Lee Hunt also belong on the set. He is a member of the Patriots HOF as well. Yet no one's debating his candidacy or requesting his addition? if adding all of the franchise HOFers to thses sets is the standard, then I am in total agreement that Cunningham should then be added. But if that is the standard, there are MANY players missing from almost all of these sets who need to be added. And in the case of the Patriots, that additional player is Jim Lee Hunt.
To be honest, if PSA would allow some type of standard baseline to who is eligible for these sets, then a vote wouldn't even be required. member of the Team HOF= member of All-Time Great sets. I would be fine with that. Would think it much more logical than the pick-choosy, every collectors different opinion on who belongs thing we currently have. With every set bearing a different standard.
Jason >>
that would be great. We actually started a Saints HOF set to deal with this issue. For some reason La'Roi Glover, Wes Chandler and Chuck Muncie were included in the original Saints All Time Sets. Chandler had 1 really good year with the Saints and the bulk of his career was with the Chargers, Muncie had 1 good and a few solid years in New Orleans and better years in San Diego, and the same with Glover in Dallas. Oh well.
that would be great. We actually started a Saints HOF set to deal with this issue. For some reason La'Roi Glover, Wes Chandler and Chuck Muncie were included in the original Saints All Time Sets. Chandler had 1 really good year with the Saints and the bulk of his career was with the Chargers, Muncie had 1 good and a few solid years in New Orleans and better years in San Diego, and the same with Glover in Dallas. Oh well. >>
Yep, as did Packer fans. It made logical sense for you to do so, when the regular set had been FUBAR with the players you mentioned. Kodus for thinking outside the box and finding a solution. Hopefully other fans of these sets show their dis-likes by looking for fixes to their individual situations rather than further muddying the waters.
For the record, I did not creat the Saints set, nor did i ever attempt to collect it. For the reasons you mentioned. 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>s a valid point. So why whouldn't Jim Lee Hunt also belong on the set. He is a member of the Patriots HOF as well. Yet no one's debating his candidacy or requesting his addition? if adding all of the franchise HOFers to thses sets is the standard, then I am in total agreement that Cunningham should then be added. But if that is the standard, there are MANY players missing from almost all of these sets who need to be added. And in the case of the Patriots, that additional player is Jim Lee Hunt. >>
I totally agree with you if you vote in Cunningham then you must vote Jim Lee Hunt into the registry set. Those two players are they only two that are in the Patriots HOF, but not in the All-Time Patriot set.
"EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY IT SAYS IT RIGHT THERE ON THE WALL" - JACKIE MOON
<< <i>For me, the fact that a player is in his team's Hall of Fame (or Ring of Honor) is sufficient to put him into a team's All-Time Greats set. It's a very important third-party validation - it's not as if the voters for that honor were interested in increasing the value of their graded Cunningham rookie cards or boosting their completion percentage.
Nick >>
It's a valid point. So why whouldn't Jim Lee Hunt also belong on the set. He is a member of the Patriots HOF as well. Yet no one's debating his candidacy or requesting his addition? if adding all of the franchise HOFers to thses sets is the standard, then I am in total agreement that Cunningham should then be added. But if that is the standard, there are MANY players missing from almost all of these sets who need to be added. And in the case of the Patriots, that additional player is Jim Lee Hunt.
To be honest, if PSA would allow some type of standard baseline to who is eligible for these sets, then a vote wouldn't even be required. member of the Team HOF= member of All-Time Great sets. I would be fine with that. Would think it much more logical than the pick-choosy, every collectors different opinion on who belongs thing we currently have. With every set bearing a different standard.
Jason >>
I think Jim Lee Hunt does belong. I'm not a Patriots fan (shocking, considering my avatar ) and have never looked at the list of the Pats HOF or at the set composition of the A-T Pats set.
While I believe team HOF is a sufficient condition for inclusion in the A-T set, I wouldn't make it a necessary condition. The Patriots provide a prime example of why - Tom Brady would have to wait until after his retirement to be added if it were a necessary condition.
I also wouldn't make the team's Hall of Fame a great validation either. Again, I use the Saints. There are some guys in the Saints Hall of Fame that are in there because they played for the team for 10-15 years and did a lot for the community. Tom Dempsey is in there, and he really only had one good kick. The Packers Hall of Fame has 89 members (I think). Obviously, the All-Time team does not. While Don Majkowski was a fine quarterback for a short time, putting him in the Packers All-Time team would be the equivalent to putting Alex Smith on the 49ers All-Time Team. Yet, Majkowski is in the Packers Hall of Fame.
<< <i>Easiest solution here. Create the New England Patriot's Hall of Fame set. Leave the All Time Set Alone until you figure out the Hall of Fame set. >>
If anyone needs evidence on what can happen to an All-Time set, take a peak at the All-Time Rame set. I retired my set there a couple years back, and since then 19..That's right 19 cards have been added. How could this be possible? Easy...Only 14 current collectors of the set. If all of them voted, it would take 8 votes. Typically only about 50-60% of the Set Registrants even respond to the polls. Which means they needed probably 5 YES votes to add these players. They didn't all come at once either. First step was to lower the standards for addition, by requesting a couple of the best weak candidates. Then a few months later, lower it a little more, using those recent adds as a precedent.
Before you know it, the set is 41 cards large, and includes such all-time franchise greats as Pat Haden and Tom Newberry...
I honestly hope this doesn't happen with the Patriots set. Already been 5-6 added to it in the last couple of years, most of which were not current players (Welker the ONLY newly added currnt player). With 18 current sets, it will probably take only 6-7 votes to get someone added.
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>Easiest solution here. Create the New England Patriot's Hall of Fame set. Leave the All Time Set Alone until you figure out the Hall of Fame set. >>
An easier solution is not to put more wait in the opinion of a couple that don't collect the set, over the majority that do collect the 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.
Jason - Great article in today's NY Times about the Patriots of the sixties. To argue that Sam Cunningham does not belong on the All-Time list but players from these teams do is questionable. While their record somehow appears good on paper, this was a minor league operation at best. For those that fly into Logan, the high school field mentioned in the article is still there. Great picture of the Fenway field and the fire at BC. - Kevin
<< <i>Jason - Great article in today's NY Times about the Patriots of the sixties. To argue that Sam Cunningham does not belong on the All-Time list but players from these teams do is questionable. While their record somehow appears good on paper, this was a minor league operation at best. For those that fly into Logan, the high school field mentioned in the article is still there. Great picture of the Fenway field and the fire at BC. - Kevin
For a minor league operation, the AFL sure has a TON of HOFers! And if what you are saying is true, then I guess it renders the argument for using the Patriots Hall of Fame as some sort of litmus test moot...It includes a nice selection of AFL (minor league) players.
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.
Always very, very difficult to compare eras. Perhaps that's part of the fun. But reading this article, one can see that the early Patriots bear no resemblance to the NFL of today. It was definitely minor league. Even the players quoted in the article seem to imply that. My point, if any, is that stats and won/loss records need to be taken in context. It's nice to honor the early AFL players as All Time Members but if that's the case, guys like Sam Cunningham certainly belong as well. Interesting that the article notes that Nick B. was a law school student by night. Perhaps he could not foresee the NFL in his future.
<< <i>Always very, very difficult to compare eras. Perhaps that's part of the fun. But reading this article, one can see that the early Patriots bear no resemblance to the NFL of today. It was definitely minor league. Even the players quoted in the article seem to imply that. My point, if any, is that stats and won/loss records need to be taken in context. It's nice to honor the early AFL players as All Time Members but if that's the case, guys like Sam Cunningham certainly belong as well. Interesting that the article notes that Nick B. was a law school student by night. Perhaps he could not foresee the NFL in his future. >>
Using your example...The NFL of the 70's, with the much smaller players, and much more vanilla offense and defense, would be considered "minor league" in comparison to today. As you stated, and i agree, it is difficult to compare eras. Which is why the BEST way to determine if a player was truly "Great" is to compare him to his contemporaries that played during the same years. If you do that, and compare Sam Cunningham to other RB's who played in the NFL during his time, he doesn't quite measure up as a great. It's the reason that I personally think it is important, and necessary to compare players to others outside of just the team they played for. Let's take the Patriots of 2000-2010 as an example...Who is the leading rusher from that decade? Does that player also belong on the set? I mean he was the BEST/GREATEST RB of this era..Certainly he must also belong on the set right? What about the 80's? Tony Collins? Doesn't he belong then?
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.
We're comparing apples, so lets introduce oranges. Tony Collins? If indeed he was the top rusher for the team for a decade means nothing. None of the All-Time teams have every guy that led the team in rushing for a decade on their team. Cunningham led the team in rushing over the period 1960-2011. That's over half a century. He's the All-Time leading rusher for a franchise that has been around for 52 years. Is he Jim Brown or Walter Payton? No. Nobody is putting him in that echelon. But, as the #1 ground gainer for this franchise ever (and a guy who caught passes and was an excellent blocker), he has a legitimate claim. But, this is something the voters of the set will decide. And, quite frankly, of they decide that Tony Collins belongs in their set, or even Kevin Faulk, then it was their decision and they have those cards to collect.
<< <i>We're comparing apples, so lets introduce oranges. Tony Collins? If indeed he was the top rusher for the team for a decade means nothing. None of the All-Time teams have every guy that led the team in rushing for a decade on their team. Cunningham led the team in rushing over the period 1960-2011. That's over half a century. He's the All-Time leading rusher for a franchise that has been around for 52 years. Is he Jim Brown or Walter Payton? No. Nobody is putting him in that echelon. But, as the #1 ground gainer for this franchise ever (and a guy who caught passes and was an excellent blocker), he has a legitimate claim. But, this is something the voters of the set will decide. And, quite frankly, of they decide that Tony Collins belongs in their set, or even Kevin Faulk, then it was their decision and they have those cards to collect. >>
Agree with all of the above.
It's a shame that in 51 years the top rusher of a franchise has HALF the yardage of the leading rusher of the Jacksonville Jaguars who have been around for 16 years. When you look at it that way, maybe Cunningham does belong. Maybe the Patriots set should equal the franchises futility when it comes to producing great RB's.
It also makes me wonder why LB Vincent Brown isn't part of the set? He is the ALL-TIME leaders in Tackles, in the teams 61 year history..I guess tackles aren't as important? Or maybe he's lacking the cool nickname?
Should be an interesting vote, I look forward to hearing how it turns out. If Cunningham doesn't get the necessary votes I'm sure there will be no complaints here. Since it was up to those who collect the set to decide.
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 - I would agree that the much smaller NFL players of the 70's (if they had the same size and speed of the 70's) would not even make the NFL of today. As I noted many posts ago, Gino C. would have to hit the juice pretty hard to make today's squads. Perhaps, with today's training and 'nutrition' he would be as fast and as talented as today's players. We will never know. To simply go back to stats and say this guy had X yards, so he was great or the Pats had a won/lost of x/y so those were 'glory years' may not be the best approach. As others have noted, a players impact is more than yards and W's and as the NY Times notes, the old Pats did not have anything close to 'glory years'. - Kevin
<< <i>Jason - I would agree that the much smaller NFL players of the 70's (if they had the same size and speed of the 70's) would not even make the NFL of today. As I noted many posts ago, Gino C. would have to hit the juice pretty hard to make today's squads. Perhaps, with today's training and 'nutrition' he would be as fast and as talented as today's players. We will never know. To simply go back to stats and say this guy had X yards, so he was great or the Pats had a won/lost of x/y so those were 'glory years' may not be the best approach. As others have noted, a players impact is more than yards and W's and as the NY Times notes, the old Pats did not have anything close to 'glory years'. - Kevin >>
Well, I can tell you, if you look over my many posts on the HOF RC thread, you will see that I am not a stat first guy at ALL. I judge players first and foremost based on what I see on the field. You do that by watching the games. 2nd, I judge them in regards to how they compared to their peers when they played and what the perception of their skill set was at the time. You do that by reading old articles and looking at their accolades and awards and who their competition was at the time. Stats then come last in my book. They obviously play a part, but certainly don't even tell a quarter of the true story.
If you look back through this thread, you will see the majority think Cunningham should be added because he is the team's all-tie leading rusher. It is a stat and a ranking that really is somewhat meaningless due to the team simply never having a great RB play for them long enough to put up a respectable career number. Do you think that his status as the franchise leader with just over 5,000 yards rushing is enough to warrant inclusion on an all-time greats set?
Also, I'm not sure why you think I have backed or pined for AFL Patriots to be added. Someone earlier said the were terrible in the AFL, while they clearly had some success. Call it a minor league if you want, but the AFL revolutionized the game you see today. I only used a a player from that era as belonging on this set because Cunningham's legitimacy was being expressed due to him being in the Patriots Hall of Fame, and there is an AFL player who is also in the Patriots Hall of Fame yet is not on the set. Not sure what your point of posting this was trying to prove in the debate for Cunningham...
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.
When Cunningham retired, he ranked in the Top 25 of All-Time rushers in NFL history. 5000 yards does not seem so impressive now. Much like passing for 3000 yards in a season seems meaningless now. But, when I was a young teenager and first started looking at the All-Time Rushers list on a regular basis in the late 70's, guys like Cunningham, Chuck Foreman, and Rick Casares were there. Now, we have guys that put up HUGE numbers (as I said earlier, roughly 90% of all 1300 yard seasons have happened since 1980, which basically corresponds to the end of Cunningham's career). So, you say that you should compare Cunningham to his contemporaries, and then say just the opposite by throwing out that he is only a 5000 yard rusher. But, IN HIS TIME, a guy that retired with 5453 yards rushing was a guy that was highly ranked on the all time list. And he did all of this while playing fullback, leading the blocking for other guys (including Steve Grogan). Guys put up bigger numbers now and play longer (better technology, better medicine, better coaching, more money). Is that Sam Cunningham's fault?
<< <i>When Cunningham retired, he ranked in the Top 25 of All-Time rushers in NFL history. 5000 yards does not seem so impressive now. Much like passing for 3000 yards in a season seems meaningless now. But, when I was a young teenager and first started looking at the All-Time Rushers list on a regular basis in the late 70's, guys like Cunningham, Chuck Foreman, and Rick Casares were there. Now, we have guys that put up HUGE numbers (as I said earlier, roughly 90% of all 1300 yard seasons have happened since 1980, which basically corresponds to the end of Cunningham's career). So, you say that you should compare Cunningham to his contemporaries, and then say just the opposite by throwing out that he is only a 5000 yard rusher. But, IN HIS TIME, a guy that retired with 5453 yards rushing was a guy that was highly ranked on the all time list. And he did all of this while playing fullback, leading the blocking for other guys (including Steve Grogan). Guys put up bigger numbers now and play longer (better technology, better medicine, better coaching, more money). Is that Sam Cunningham's fault? >>
You make a valid point, I need to look at exactly what his numbers were and how he stacked up at the time of his retirement. I will do that shortly before I head out to the Pro Bowl today. You also have to remember, he played in a run heavy era. Teams ran the ball more than they passed. I will look at the specific decade in which he played and see where he stacks up. If what you say is true, and he was a top 5-10 NFL RB during his era, then that is the best argument I have heard that he belongs in the set. Certainly better than being a Patriots HOFer or the franchise all-time leading rusher with only 5,000+ yards.
Also, not entirely true on the FB situation. FB's were still the workhorse RB's in those days, the halfbacks were used more like 3rd down backs. FB's were not typically used as lead blockers as they are today. I'll go back next week and look through the Cunningham footage I have and see if there are any occasions of him lead blocking. If he did it was not often.
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.
Cunningham was NOT a top 10 rusher of his era. Here are the top 10 of the 1970's:
O.J. Simpson 10539...1970-1979 Franco Harris 8563...1972-1979 (starting FB 74-79) Larry Csonka 6975...1970-1974, 1976-1979 (starting FB all years) Walter Payton 6926...1975-1979 John Riggins 6822...1971-1979 (starting FB all years) Lydell Mitchell 6518...1972-1979 Lawrence McCutcheon 6186...1972-1979 Chuck Foreman 5887...1973-1979 (starting FB 73-74, 78) Greg Pruitt 5737...1973-1979 John Brockington 5185...1971-1977 (starting FB all years)
Sorry, but Cunningham not only was not a top 10 rusher, he wasn't even a top 5 FB...This confirms my belief. When compared to his contemporaries in the NFL at the time, he simply doesn't stack up as a "GREAT"...Certainly a VERY GOOD player, but for me he simply doesn't make the cut. What's even worse? His career TD totals (49) are equal to his career FUMBLE totals (49). I surely hope the people voting for his inclusion to the set are aware of all these facts prior to voting.
Jason
EDITED TO ADD:::
Just looked at the all-time rushing list as of the end of 1982 season. Sam Cunningham was NOT in the top 25 All-Time rushers when he retired. Please look again. I can provide you the list if need be.
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.
Comments
<< <i> I too question how Chuck Muncie and Wes Chandler are on the Saints all-time team, while guys like Calvin Hill and Robert Newhouse are not on the Cowboys team. Clearly, both of those guys did more for the Cowboys than the prior two did for the Saints. Hopefully things will be naturally policed. >>
I'm so glad to know you understand why it hurts my brain to try and comprehend some of the decisions to add/not add. I mean, if you are like me and value exclusivity, or if you are the opposite and instead prefer inclusive and adding additional, deeper into the pot, players...Well, that is a black and white opinion, in which neither is wrong. Just different.
But the selection or non-selection of certain players because of 1-the era they played you personally value over other eras, or 2-the POSITION they played you value over others (RB somehow being more important than a DT/NT for example), it just makes the entire set illogical. One in which, the average collector and/or the average fan looking to start the set looks at it and scratches their head. This isn;t going to bring in new collectors to the set. It isn't going to make the set more competitive (which I apologize if it offends you to hear that the Registry is a COMPETITION and not a checklist for those who haven't discovered Microsoft Excel)..It shrinks the set down to a handful of hardcore "fans" and ruins the fun for everyone else. Does it REALLY make the set invalid without a Sam Cunningham? He was really THAT great and THAT impactful on the Patriots franchise? And if your answer is yes, then isn't Vince Wilfork ALSO that great and impactful ALREADY? This is the conundrum that has been created. Like I said, I look forward to discussing this again in 4-5 years when your set is 75 strong and Mosi Tatupu is mentioned in the same breath as Tom Brady...If you doubt that can happen once you open the inclusive floodgate, look around at other team sets, and then be careful what you wish for.
All the best,
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I do not think that Tatupu, Faulk, etc. should be in this set, I would not vote for that player. I initially started this thread based on the fact that I believed that Cunningham and Clayborn have been excluded to this point and being 70s players would not be looked at any time soon.
<< <i>What is strange to me is that Wilfork and Mankins keep being brought up for no apparent reason, no where in this thread does anyone say that these players should not be included. Actually, Vince added a couple points after his game tonight.
I do not think that Tatupu, Faulk, etc. should be in this set, I would not vote for that player. I initially started this thread based on the fact that I believed that Cunningham and Clayborn have been excluded to this point and being 70s players would not be looked at any time soon. >>
They are brought up because you are, I assume, planning on requesting those 2 players, while NOT requesting equal/greater than players. It is going to start you down the road of illegitimacy on the set. My apologies if this somehow offended you. My idea of helping is not to come here and agree with every word that everyone says. I had an opinion based on past experiences with other team sets, and I shared it. You can take my advice or you can flush it down the toilet. Maybe you don't agree or don't care. Hey, that's fine and dandy with me. Do whatever you want, see how the vote goes. Either way, IMO, if you go forward with requesting those 2 particular players and not others it is going to eventually be a lose/lose for you. If you get the votes, you've made the set illogical. If you don;t get the votes, It will be years, if ever, before PSA will send out another poll to add any who don't get the votes.
Believe it or not, I'm trying to help you out here. Not just trying to crush your hopes and dreams. Sometimes having a devil's advocate is good thing, so if I have at least made you think through it a few extra seconds (which I assume is the reason you posted your question here rather than simply just sending the requests to PSA) then my purpose has been served.
So for the 10th+ time, I say best of luck with whatever you decide to do. I look forward to hearing how it turns out, and also discussing again a few years down the road to see what the long term ramifications are, if any. Deal?
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Joe Dalaney is part of the all-time Chiefs set. While the choice of Dalaney might seen, over reaching, I think the set as a whole is pretty good. Dalaney was a great player during his short career and a hero off the field, even before the giving of his life.
It does seem lacking Brian Waters.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>"It would be like having Joe Delaney added to the All-Time Chiefs set."
Joe Dalaney is part of the all-time Chiefs set. While the choice of Dalaney might seen, over reaching, I think the set as a whole is pretty good. Dalaney was a great player during his short career and a hero off the field, even before the giving of his life.
It does seem lacking Brian Waters. >>
Yes, I am aware. It's why I made the analogy. Totally agree that he was a great player for his season and a half in the NFL, and definitely a hero off the field and seemingly an all around great guy. I guess I just don't understand the romanticism of feeling the need to add this type of player to an all-time franchise team collection. There are literally 100 guys you could say all of the above about. Does every NFL player who died in WWII also belong as one of the greatest PLAYERS in a franchises history? Every all around great guy and off the field humanitarian? There are 1000 guys over the past couple of decades who fit that bill. This is why I thought and continue to believe these sets should be about the PLAYERS and how well they played the game. I mean if you wan an all-hero set or all-humanitarian set, then start it and collect it. If you are qualifying players as the best ever for a franchise, they should have at least SOME measure of continued success in relation to the league.
Delaney played in 23 career games, rushed for 1,500 yards. Obviously his playing career did not merit induction to the set. So now we are adding guys PURELY for something they did OFF the playing field? Yikes......
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I think several of the sets have a "Delaney" in them. Does Tony Hill really belong the Cowboys set? Or Robbie Gould in Bears set? I don't see it making those sets less as a whole.
The all-time sets, and its brothers and cousin sets (like MVP, RCs of the year, et al) make up about 800 cards. I think they do a good job at covering the history of the NFL's best. I kinda enjoy looking up a player before or after I purchase their card. I wouldn't mind seeing many of the sets expanded...which would likely mean to include more modern players. Lower cost cards overall...from a time I have watched the game.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>
The all-time sets, and its brothers and cousin sets (like MVP, RCs of the year, et al) make up about 800 cards. I think they do a good job at covering the history of the NFL's best. I kinda enjoy looking up a player before or after I purchase their card. I wouldn't mind seeing many of the sets expanded...which would likely mean to include more modern players. Lower cost cards overall...from a time I have watched the game.
I guess I'm not quite understand why it takes a guy being added to a PSA Registered set to discover him? Being an NFL historian is my #1 hobby. Above and beyond collecting, which is a distant 2nd, soon to be 3rd...There are SO MANY resources out there now vs. just a short 5-6 years ago. It's so easy to find some subjects to research and look over. Anything from actual game footage to in depth stats, box scores, articles from the 1950's or 60's or whenever. My advice, if you want to be well informed on the players you are seeing added or being able to give a proper vote when an addition is requested, get the more complete knowledge FIRST. You enjoy looking up players before or after you purchase their card or see them on a Registry set. It's even more fun trying to find those players who are NOT listed on these sets, and then comparing to those listed to see if the set makes sense.
Just so much out there man, don't let me or any other random guy requesting a player/card addition dictate your knowledge base. That's why, just like political voting, I WISH you had to take some sort of knowledge test on who you are voting for prior to being allowed to vote. Not speaking of you specifically here AT ALL, but the lack of knowledge (short of what is propogated on network TV) of the general public and/or the average football fan these days is nothing short of mind blowing. You have people voting on stuff that they couldn't fair better than 25-30% on a basic knowledge test of the subject they are voting on. How do you get a proper vote without having at least a passing knowledge FIRST.
It sounds like AT LEAST you care enough to do some research on player requests before you vote. Guarantee the majority don't even do that! lol...For most it's nothing more than name recognition, and/or a guy they heard someone talk about once...Or in some cases, a guy they romanticize and remember as being better thna he actually was because he played for their alma mater or came from their hometown...It's rose-colored glasses syndrome meets good old boy network...And it's lose/lose all the way around.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>They are brought up because you are, I assume, planning on requesting those 2 players, while NOT requesting equal/greater than players. It is going to start you down the road of illegitimacy on the set. >>
Based on this statement, the football Hall of Fame senior enshrinement process has made the Hall illegitimate. They did not nominate those players during their initial candidacy and now that they are looking back at players they missed, illegitimate.
<< <i>My apologies if this somehow offended you. >>
This is why I typically avoid any interweb postings. I have been responding to your posts, you are the only person disagreeing to this point so they have been directed towards your responses. Yes, since someone disagreed with a post in which I was in fact looking for opinions, I have been crying myself to sleep each night, hoping, praying, slaughtering hundreds of goats, chickens, and even a couple of virgins, in the vain attempt to make you change your mind...or I was just having a conversation like the responsible adults that we are. Isn't that right, Mr. Poopy Pants?
I appreciate your feedback.
I just bought an OJ RC PSA 8 this weekend. Believe it or not, I actually knew more about OJ then a court case and a Hertz commercial.
On the other hand I also picked up a 1970 Topps Jim Lynch RC PSA 8 and didn't really know anything about him other then he was in the Chiefs HOF. You may find that lack of information lacking...I don't, nor do I care.
If you see yourself being an NFL historian as your #1 hobby then good for you. I don't, and will likely never consider it in my top 10.
Diversity is a good thing. In this case, how, why and what we collect.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Sam Bam Cunningham DEFINITELY the single greatest RB to ever don a Patriots unifrm and 1000% deserving of addition. Cetain that the vote will be unanimous.
Raymond Claborn, no clue how this guy hasn't made the set in the past. Just a no brainer.
Absolutely no one else deserving. In fact, Brady should be removed until these 2 get added. What a farce. Did the guys collecting this set the past 5+ years even WATCH 70's Patriot football? It's a travesty!
Thanks fellas for schooling me up on what TRUE All-Time Greats look like. Now I'll finally understand who the good players are when I watch the games. When is the Super Bowl again?
Next time don't even bother coming to the message boards to ask opinions. You are obviously the ultimate Patriots expert, and anyone you even consider requesting to add is a sure bet to get the votes. Why bother with discussion?
All the best! I hope the Patriots can get to the Super Bowl again this year so I can bet the house. That loss in the undefeated season was a fluke and never possibly happen again. MORE NO BRAINERS! Love it...
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PATS! Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow! Pray for snow during the Super Bowl game! hahaha
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Cunningham was enshrined into the teams HOF, but you feel he's not deserving to be in the Patroits all-time set. I'm blown away!!! The New England franchise thinks he's an All-Time great, but you don't. Since you don't I guess he's not an all- time great. The Patroits should strip him of this honor.
You and I have had this discussion years ago via PM. Your online personality is abrupt and condescending. You tout that you served or are serving. We all understand that and are grateful to all who have served. Ask yourself a question, why do you have to keep reminding everyone you served?
There are two things I noticed about you via your online personality. You cannot deal with change and you are a man of your own select opinion. You hide behind "This is my opinion" but completely trash everyone's opinion that does not agree with yours. You and I agree about 70% of the time. I stopped posting publicly on most of our disagreements because I did not want to see what is happening here happen.
In this case I actually agree with you on Cunningham. He does not belong but for GOD'S SAKE LET IT GO! These guys are fans here, they believe in the change of the All Time sets. You do not. I would like to see it remain exclusive too but as you quoted me above "No scratch off my back." I let it go. Unlike you. When something does not go you way you trash someone's lack of research or their understanding of the HOF process. Ask yourself another question or two, why do berate someone who does not agree with me? Or, why do you try to show your expert knowledge to everyone time and time again?
I work with many ex-military in what I do. Many of them have the same unbending attitude like you. Even when they are proven wrong. They will never own up to a mistake, they will blame others and yes, the all HATE change. Maybe this is a trained trait or maybe they recruit those with it.
Jason, the reason people come after you on the boards is because you act like I have explained above. I know some people for a fact disagree with you to get your undies in a bundle. And with your expected response they just sit back and laugh. I know none of this should come as a surprise but I hope to take some of this to heart and see what I see and what others see.
<< <i>Jason,
You and I have had this discussion years ago via PM. Your online personality is abrupt and condescending. You tout that you served or are serving. We all understand that and are grateful to all who have served. Ask yourself a question, why do you have to keep reminding everyone you served?
There are two things I noticed about you via your online personality. You cannot deal with change and you are a man of your own select opinion. You hide behind "This is my opinion" but completely trash everyone's opinion that does not agree with yours. You and I agree about 70% of the time. I stopped posting publicly on most of our disagreements because I did not want to see what is happening here happen.
In this case I actually agree with you on Cunningham. He does not belong but for GOD'S SAKE LET IT GO! These guys are fans here, they believe in the change of the All Time sets. You do not. I would like to see it remain exclusive too but as you quoted me above "No scratch off my back." I let it go. Unlike you. When something does not go you way you trash someone's lack of research or their understanding of the HOF process. Ask yourself another question or two, why do berate someone who does not agree with me? Or, why do you try to show your expert knowledge to everyone time and time again?
I work with many ex-military in what I do. Many of them have the same unbending attitude like you. Even when they are proven wrong. They will never own up to a mistake, they will blame others and yes, the all HATE change. Maybe this is a trained trait or maybe they recruit those with it.
Jason, the reason people come after you on the boards is because you act like I have explained above. I know some people for a fact disagree with you to get your undies in a bundle. And with your expected response they just sit back and laugh. I know none of this should come as a surprise but I hope to take some of this to heart and see what I see and what others see. >>
As a kid in the 70's and early 80's here in Massachusetts Sam Cunningham was everyones favorite Patriot Running Back, I dont collect the set nor do I have any knowledge of what you people have for criteria in regards to additions for these sets but anytime Old Patriot talk is brought up Sam "Bam" Cunningham is always mentioned. As a guy who has zero input on any card set I personally would be very suprised that Cunningham wouldnt be in an all time Pats set, honestly the list cant be that long outside of guys from the 2000's can it?
As for Jason he is a very knowledable and passionate Football guy and his input should be respected just look past his arrogant holier than thou message board attitude, I too work with many Combat Veterans from Iraq and Afhganistan and none of them act the way Jason does when disagreed with but thats real life and not a message board, Im sure Jason would be different in person if having a football conversation went the way this discussion has and had a few sides disagreeing.
One other thing is the Combat Veterans I know NEVER advertise their service unless asked about it so that suprises me that it was mentioned that Jason reminds everyone all the time lol.
<< <i>
<< <i>
One other thing is the Combat Veterans I know NEVER advertise their service unless asked about it so that suprises me that it was mentioned that Jason reminds everyone all the time lol. >>
Bullseye!
In fact, you can't PRY information out of them.
An opinion was asked, I gave it. Some of the responses were il-informed, I made some suggestions on correcting that. I honestly could care less about coming here to stoke someones ego or make them feel warm and fuzzy about their opinions. If I disagree with someone, I'm not pat them on the back and tell them they are right. What's funny is, I actually backed off on this thread and AGREED with adding Cunningham...But wanted to know how exactly he is deserving but a few others (and some of which are also in the Patriot HOF BPorter26) aren't being requested...I was simply trying to find the logic, which to date has still not been provided. Everyone agrees these other players deserve to be added, yet no one is requesting them?
But no one wants to read that. It's all about my wording and how I come across in the posts. I blame TMZ and the National Enquirer for this brand of debate. When facts are lacking, and a descent debate response can not be formed, this is typically what happens. I'm used to it.
Why we are still discussing this I have no idea. You are telling me to let it go, yet all I am doing at this point is defending myself against the propaganda and spin cycle that is taking place. Look at the bright side, now maybe Cunningham will get the votes JUST to spite me...As if I even collect the set anymore...lol
Thanks for teaching me a lesson fellas. The mis-informed have absolutely ZERO desire to become informed. I finally get it!
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Ok, I give...
Sam Bam Cunningham DEFINITELY the single greatest RB to ever don a Patriots unifrm and 1000% deserving of addition. Cetain that the vote will be unanimous.
Raymond Claborn, no clue how this guy hasn't made the set in the past. Just a no brainer.
Absolutely no one else deserving. In fact, Brady should be removed until these 2 get added. What a farce. Did the guys collecting this set the past 5+ years even WATCH 70's Patriot football? It's a travesty!
Thanks fellas for schooling me up on what TRUE All-Time Greats look like. Now I'll finally understand who the good players are when I watch the games. When is the Super Bowl again?
Next time don't even bother coming to the message boards to ask opinions. You are obviously the ultimate Patriots expert, and anyone you even consider requesting to add is a sure bet to get the votes. Why bother with discussion?
All the best! I hope the Patriots can get to the Super Bowl again this year so I can bet the house. That loss in the undefeated season was a fluke and never possibly happen again. MORE NO BRAINERS! Love it...
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PATS! Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow! Pray for snow during the Super Bowl game! hahaha
Jason >>
Wow, you are a child.
<< <i>
<< <i>Ok, I give...
Sam Bam Cunningham DEFINITELY the single greatest RB to ever don a Patriots unifrm and 1000% deserving of addition. Cetain that the vote will be unanimous.
Raymond Claborn, no clue how this guy hasn't made the set in the past. Just a no brainer.
Absolutely no one else deserving. In fact, Brady should be removed until these 2 get added. What a farce. Did the guys collecting this set the past 5+ years even WATCH 70's Patriot football? It's a travesty!
Thanks fellas for schooling me up on what TRUE All-Time Greats look like. Now I'll finally understand who the good players are when I watch the games. When is the Super Bowl again?
Next time don't even bother coming to the message boards to ask opinions. You are obviously the ultimate Patriots expert, and anyone you even consider requesting to add is a sure bet to get the votes. Why bother with discussion?
All the best! I hope the Patriots can get to the Super Bowl again this year so I can bet the house. That loss in the undefeated season was a fluke and never possibly happen again. MORE NO BRAINERS! Love it...
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PATS! Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow! Pray for snow during the Super Bowl game! hahaha
Jason >>
Wow, you are a child. >>
Awww shucks...
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>When exactly did I "advertise" my combat service again? lol...Gotta love the propaganda machine on this board and how things get spun.. >>
Go to page one of this thread, about halfway down - oh heck, I will just copy and paste it LOL.
"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>
<< <i>When exactly did I "advertise" my combat service again? lol...Gotta love the propaganda machine on this board and how things get spun.. >>
Go to page one of this thread, about halfway down - oh heck, I will just copy and paste it LOL.
"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
:" >>
This mentions combat service? lol...Ummm no
Also, could you also paste what I was responding to? Because what's funny is, I've had previous conversations with the poster I was responding to, who had ASKED me what I did in the military (because of my icon) and because he himself served...So when he posted what he did that I responded to, I took that as a personal jab...Turns out it was just something from Animal House, and the subject was squashed.
You see, you can't really form correct opinions without the full story.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Next time don't even bother coming to the message boards to ask opinions. You are obviously the ultimate Patriots expert, and anyone you even consider requesting to add is a sure bet to get the votes. Why bother with discussion? >>
What kind of response is that? Is this the same way you debate/converse with your friends, that must be a great time. How did I imply anything along these lines? I agreed with you that Mankins and Wilfork should be in the set, I said I would vote for them. If you had read my messages as you expect people to read yours, you would have noticed that. My request for two players that I believed to be overlooked to this point is equal to the HOF committee reviewing previously passed over players as senior nominees. Would you be responding to me this way if I were a Lions fan making a suggestion for another team set I may be collecting or even just another team set that I may not even be involved in? Even more curious is if you would have responded this way if I was one of the :high end collectors: or a NFL historian...
Do people need to spend the most amount of money they possibly can to be "collectors?" I'm pretty sure that this is a hobby, which allows people to escape reality for a few minutes a week and gives people the opportunity to spend some of their money on something they enjoy for whatever reason that may be. What difference does it make if they can't buy a PSA 8 Whoever, that doesn't make them any better of a person, that's ridiculous. You mock TMZ and the media, your attitude towards the PSA Registry Sets and this hobby is the same as the people who watch those shows, there really is no difference except for personal preference.
That's great that you are so devoted to whatever it is you are devoted too. This entire thread, not just your responses, shows exactly why I will continue to not spend time posting on threads, you can't have a true conversation, it's TMZ in writing.
Acta non verba.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>When exactly did I "advertise" my combat service again? lol...Gotta love the propaganda machine on this board and how things get spun.. >>
Go to page one of this thread, about halfway down - oh heck, I will just copy and paste it LOL.
"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
:" >>
This mentions combat service? lol...Ummm no
Also, could you also paste what I was responding to? Because what's funny is, I've had previous conversations with the poster I was responding to, who had ASKED me what I did in the military (because of my icon) and because he himself served...So when he posted what he did that I responded to, I took that as a personal jab...Turns out it was just something from Animal House, and the subject was squashed.
You see, you can't really form correct opinions without the full story.
Jason >>
My apoligies for saying "Combat Service" I was out of line with that, I should have made refference to "service" alone.
Not that I care one way or another what happens with the rest of this thread nor do I care if Jason has a rough way about him I do respect everyone who served or is serving so again my apoligies if I added a spin to anything.
<< <i>
My apoligies for saying "Combat Service" I was out of line with that, I should have made refference to "service" alone.
Not that I care one way or another what happens with the rest of this thread nor do I care if Jason has a rough way about him I do respect everyone who served or is serving so again my apoligies if I added a spin to anything. >>
Perk, it's no biggie. No apology necessary. Just goes to show how easy things can be taken out of context and end up with an entirely different meaning or purpose than what it is supposed to be. One word here or there taken the wrong way and the piling on begins...lol
I'll defend my position in the face of 1,000 detractors if necessary. If someone tells me Terry Bradshaw is the all-time leader in passing yards, and then wants to debate it when I try and show them it is incorrect, I'm going to defend that. Debate and disagreement should be a GOOD thing. Getting alternate perspectives should be a GOOD thing. It should make you want to look for the truth and facts amongst the opinions. Not a reason to start a flame war...And not everyone here has done that by any means...But certainly there are a few looking to throw some stones from their glass houses.
Such is life...lol
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
It was recently brought to my attention, by a football historian, that you have a member of your team Hall of Fame, who clearly is not worthy.
Yes, of course I am referring to Sam Cunningham, who it appears you also mistakenly honored him as a member of your All-Decade team of the 70s.
It would be appreciated if you fixed these mistakes.
Since he is also your all-time leading rusher perhaps you might consider seeing if Curtis Martin would sign and play a few years to move Cunningham down a notch. Perhaps look even take at Jim Nance and see if his legs are worth a 163 yards. Whatever you may decide, please pass on considering Kevin Faulk. He did good those few years, but he's not Marshall and I am afraid his best days are over.
Yours Truly,
Enlightened Fan
P.S. Good luck in the Super Bowl.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Dear New England Patriots,
It was recently brought to my attention, by a football historian, that you have a member of your team Hall of Fame, who clearly is not worthy.
Yes, of course I am referring to Sam Cunningham, who it appears you also mistakenly honored him as a member of your All-Decade team of the 70s.
It would be appreciated if you fixed these mistakes.
Since he is also your all-time leading rusher perhaps you might consider seeing if Curtis Martin would sign and play a few years to move Cunningham down a notch. Perhaps look even take at Jim Nance and see if his legs are worth a 163 yards. Whatever you may decide, please pass on considering Kevin Faulk. He did good those few years, but he's not his brother and I am afraid his best days are over.
Yours Truly,
Enlightened Fan
P.S. Good luck in the Super Bowl. >>
Once again the propaganda and spin rears its ugly head. Did I ever say he didn't belong in the Patriots HOF? Or on the Patriots Team of the 70s? Never and not once. Is this set the Patriots Hall of Fame set? If so, you are missing another player who is in the Patriots HoF and not a member of the set. Why no argument and debate for him? You are also missing a large selection of 1970s All Decade Patriots. What about them? Why is Cunningham so much better? Because he's the teas all time leading rusher with 5,000 yards?
Instead of listening to what I actually say, it's toss it, turn it and spin it into something you can disagree with me about because you don't like my "tone". It's hilarious.
Not sure if it was the lack of Cunninghams TDs at his high number of fumbles but he obviously captured many fans imaginations 30-40 years ago in a way that other similar credentialed Patriot players could not. For that I say "Viva la Bam!"
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Let it go Jason. Move on. An opinion is an opinion. >>
I'm trying! Lol
But I'm not going to sit back and have my words and meaning twisted and misrepresented. Just not going to happen.
There really is nothing more to add to this subject. I would hope you would post the same request to the others who seem to want to keep it going.
Pretty sure I've wished the OP luck with his vote multiple times and to let us know how it turns out. Yet people keep coming out of the woodwork. You should try posting your own opinion so these guys understand I am not the only one who doesn't think a player of Cunningham's caliber does not quite belong. Maybe that would help with the brevity here.
Just a thought,
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
<< <i>For me, the fact that a player is in his team's Hall of Fame (or Ring of Honor) is sufficient to put him into a team's All-Time Greats set. It's a very important third-party validation - it's not as if the voters for that honor were interested in increasing the value of their graded Cunningham rookie cards or boosting their completion percentage.
Nick >>
It's a valid point. So why whouldn't Jim Lee Hunt also belong on the set. He is a member of the Patriots HOF as well. Yet no one's debating his candidacy or requesting his addition? if adding all of the franchise HOFers to thses sets is the standard, then I am in total agreement that Cunningham should then be added. But if that is the standard, there are MANY players missing from almost all of these sets who need to be added. And in the case of the Patriots, that additional player is Jim Lee Hunt.
To be honest, if PSA would allow some type of standard baseline to who is eligible for these sets, then a vote wouldn't even be required. member of the Team HOF= member of All-Time Great sets. I would be fine with that. Would think it much more logical than the pick-choosy, every collectors different opinion on who belongs thing we currently have. With every set bearing a different standard.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>For me, the fact that a player is in his team's Hall of Fame (or Ring of Honor) is sufficient to put him into a team's All-Time Greats set. It's a very important third-party validation - it's not as if the voters for that honor were interested in increasing the value of their graded Cunningham rookie cards or boosting their completion percentage.
Nick >>
It's a valid point. So why whouldn't Jim Lee Hunt also belong on the set. He is a member of the Patriots HOF as well. Yet no one's debating his candidacy or requesting his addition? if adding all of the franchise HOFers to thses sets is the standard, then I am in total agreement that Cunningham should then be added. But if that is the standard, there are MANY players missing from almost all of these sets who need to be added. And in the case of the Patriots, that additional player is Jim Lee Hunt.
To be honest, if PSA would allow some type of standard baseline to who is eligible for these sets, then a vote wouldn't even be required. member of the Team HOF= member of All-Time Great sets. I would be fine with that. Would think it much more logical than the pick-choosy, every collectors different opinion on who belongs thing we currently have. With every set bearing a different standard.
Jason >>
that would be great. We actually started a Saints HOF set to deal with this issue. For some reason La'Roi Glover, Wes Chandler and Chuck Muncie were included in the original Saints All Time Sets. Chandler had 1 really good year with the Saints and the bulk of his career was with the Chargers, Muncie had 1 good and a few solid years in New Orleans and better years in San Diego, and the same with Glover in Dallas. Oh well.
<< <i>
that would be great. We actually started a Saints HOF set to deal with this issue. For some reason La'Roi Glover, Wes Chandler and Chuck Muncie were included in the original Saints All Time Sets. Chandler had 1 really good year with the Saints and the bulk of his career was with the Chargers, Muncie had 1 good and a few solid years in New Orleans and better years in San Diego, and the same with Glover in Dallas. Oh well. >>
Yep, as did Packer fans. It made logical sense for you to do so, when the regular set had been FUBAR with the players you mentioned. Kodus for thinking outside the box and finding a solution. Hopefully other fans of these sets show their dis-likes by looking for fixes to their individual situations rather than further muddying the waters.
For the record, I did not creat the Saints set, nor did i ever attempt to collect it. For the reasons you mentioned.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>s a valid point. So why whouldn't Jim Lee Hunt also belong on the set. He is a member of the Patriots HOF as well. Yet no one's debating his candidacy or requesting his addition? if adding all of the franchise HOFers to thses sets is the standard, then I am in total agreement that Cunningham should then be added. But if that is the standard, there are MANY players missing from almost all of these sets who need to be added. And in the case of the Patriots, that additional player is Jim Lee Hunt. >>
I totally agree with you if you vote in Cunningham then you must vote Jim Lee Hunt into the registry set. Those two players are they only two that are in the Patriots HOF, but not in the All-Time Patriot set.
<< <i>
<< <i>For me, the fact that a player is in his team's Hall of Fame (or Ring of Honor) is sufficient to put him into a team's All-Time Greats set. It's a very important third-party validation - it's not as if the voters for that honor were interested in increasing the value of their graded Cunningham rookie cards or boosting their completion percentage.
Nick >>
It's a valid point. So why whouldn't Jim Lee Hunt also belong on the set. He is a member of the Patriots HOF as well. Yet no one's debating his candidacy or requesting his addition? if adding all of the franchise HOFers to thses sets is the standard, then I am in total agreement that Cunningham should then be added. But if that is the standard, there are MANY players missing from almost all of these sets who need to be added. And in the case of the Patriots, that additional player is Jim Lee Hunt.
To be honest, if PSA would allow some type of standard baseline to who is eligible for these sets, then a vote wouldn't even be required. member of the Team HOF= member of All-Time Great sets. I would be fine with that. Would think it much more logical than the pick-choosy, every collectors different opinion on who belongs thing we currently have. With every set bearing a different standard.
Jason >>
I think Jim Lee Hunt does belong. I'm not a Patriots fan (shocking, considering my avatar
While I believe team HOF is a sufficient condition for inclusion in the A-T set, I wouldn't make it a necessary condition. The Patriots provide a prime example of why - Tom Brady would have to wait until after his retirement to be added if it were a necessary condition.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
<< <i>Easiest solution here. Create the New England Patriot's Hall of Fame set. Leave the All Time Set Alone until you figure out the Hall of Fame set. >>
If anyone needs evidence on what can happen to an All-Time set, take a peak at the All-Time Rame set. I retired my set there a couple years back, and since then 19..That's right 19 cards have been added. How could this be possible? Easy...Only 14 current collectors of the set. If all of them voted, it would take 8 votes. Typically only about 50-60% of the Set Registrants even respond to the polls. Which means they needed probably 5 YES votes to add these players. They didn't all come at once either. First step was to lower the standards for addition, by requesting a couple of the best weak candidates. Then a few months later, lower it a little more, using those recent adds as a precedent.
Before you know it, the set is 41 cards large, and includes such all-time franchise greats as Pat Haden and Tom Newberry...
I honestly hope this doesn't happen with the Patriots set. Already been 5-6 added to it in the last couple of years, most of which were not current players (Welker the ONLY newly added currnt player). With 18 current sets, it will probably take only 6-7 votes to get someone added.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Easiest solution here. Create the New England Patriot's Hall of Fame set. Leave the All Time Set Alone until you figure out the Hall of Fame set. >>
An easier solution is not to put more wait in the opinion of a couple that don't collect the set, over the majority that do collect the set.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
NY Times Article
<< <i>Jason - Great article in today's NY Times about the Patriots of the sixties. To argue that Sam Cunningham does not belong on the All-Time list but players from these teams do is questionable. While their record somehow appears good on paper, this was a minor league operation at best. For those that fly into Logan, the high school field mentioned in the article is still there. Great picture of the Fenway field and the fire at BC. - Kevin
NY Times Article >>
For a minor league operation, the AFL sure has a TON of HOFers! And if what you are saying is true, then I guess it renders the argument for using the Patriots Hall of Fame as some sort of litmus test moot...It includes a nice selection of AFL (minor league) players.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Always very, very difficult to compare eras. Perhaps that's part of the fun. But reading this article, one can see that the early Patriots bear no resemblance to the NFL of today. It was definitely minor league. Even the players quoted in the article seem to imply that. My point, if any, is that stats and won/loss records need to be taken in context. It's nice to honor the early AFL players as All Time Members but if that's the case, guys like Sam Cunningham certainly belong as well. Interesting that the article notes that Nick B. was a law school student by night. Perhaps he could not foresee the NFL in his future. >>
Using your example...The NFL of the 70's, with the much smaller players, and much more vanilla offense and defense, would be considered "minor league" in comparison to today. As you stated, and i agree, it is difficult to compare eras. Which is why the BEST way to determine if a player was truly "Great" is to compare him to his contemporaries that played during the same years. If you do that, and compare Sam Cunningham to other RB's who played in the NFL during his time, he doesn't quite measure up as a great. It's the reason that I personally think it is important, and necessary to compare players to others outside of just the team they played for. Let's take the Patriots of 2000-2010 as an example...Who is the leading rusher from that decade? Does that player also belong on the set? I mean he was the BEST/GREATEST RB of this era..Certainly he must also belong on the set right? What about the 80's? Tony Collins? Doesn't he belong then?
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>We're comparing apples, so lets introduce oranges. Tony Collins? If indeed he was the top rusher for the team for a decade means nothing. None of the All-Time teams have every guy that led the team in rushing for a decade on their team. Cunningham led the team in rushing over the period 1960-2011. That's over half a century. He's the All-Time leading rusher for a franchise that has been around for 52 years. Is he Jim Brown or Walter Payton? No. Nobody is putting him in that echelon. But, as the #1 ground gainer for this franchise ever (and a guy who caught passes and was an excellent blocker), he has a legitimate claim. But, this is something the voters of the set will decide. And, quite frankly, of they decide that Tony Collins belongs in their set, or even Kevin Faulk, then it was their decision and they have those cards to collect. >>
Agree with all of the above.
It's a shame that in 51 years the top rusher of a franchise has HALF the yardage of the leading rusher of the Jacksonville Jaguars who have been around for 16 years. When you look at it that way, maybe Cunningham does belong. Maybe the Patriots set should equal the franchises futility when it comes to producing great RB's.
It also makes me wonder why LB Vincent Brown isn't part of the set? He is the ALL-TIME leaders in Tackles, in the teams 61 year history..I guess tackles aren't as important? Or maybe he's lacking the cool nickname?
Should be an interesting vote, I look forward to hearing how it turns out. If Cunningham doesn't get the necessary votes I'm sure there will be no complaints here. Since it was up to those who collect the set to decide.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Jason - I would agree that the much smaller NFL players of the 70's (if they had the same size and speed of the 70's) would not even make the NFL of today. As I noted many posts ago, Gino C. would have to hit the juice pretty hard to make today's squads. Perhaps, with today's training and 'nutrition' he would be as fast and as talented as today's players. We will never know. To simply go back to stats and say this guy had X yards, so he was great or the Pats had a won/lost of x/y so those were 'glory years' may not be the best approach. As others have noted, a players impact is more than yards and W's and as the NY Times notes, the old Pats did not have anything close to 'glory years'. - Kevin >>
Well, I can tell you, if you look over my many posts on the HOF RC thread, you will see that I am not a stat first guy at ALL. I judge players first and foremost based on what I see on the field. You do that by watching the games. 2nd, I judge them in regards to how they compared to their peers when they played and what the perception of their skill set was at the time. You do that by reading old articles and looking at their accolades and awards and who their competition was at the time. Stats then come last in my book. They obviously play a part, but certainly don't even tell a quarter of the true story.
If you look back through this thread, you will see the majority think Cunningham should be added because he is the team's all-tie leading rusher. It is a stat and a ranking that really is somewhat meaningless due to the team simply never having a great RB play for them long enough to put up a respectable career number. Do you think that his status as the franchise leader with just over 5,000 yards rushing is enough to warrant inclusion on an all-time greats set?
Also, I'm not sure why you think I have backed or pined for AFL Patriots to be added. Someone earlier said the were terrible in the AFL, while they clearly had some success. Call it a minor league if you want, but the AFL revolutionized the game you see today. I only used a a player from that era as belonging on this set because Cunningham's legitimacy was being expressed due to him being in the Patriots Hall of Fame, and there is an AFL player who is also in the Patriots Hall of Fame yet is not on the set. Not sure what your point of posting this was trying to prove in the debate for Cunningham...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>When Cunningham retired, he ranked in the Top 25 of All-Time rushers in NFL history. 5000 yards does not seem so impressive now. Much like passing for 3000 yards in a season seems meaningless now. But, when I was a young teenager and first started looking at the All-Time Rushers list on a regular basis in the late 70's, guys like Cunningham, Chuck Foreman, and Rick Casares were there. Now, we have guys that put up HUGE numbers (as I said earlier, roughly 90% of all 1300 yard seasons have happened since 1980, which basically corresponds to the end of Cunningham's career). So, you say that you should compare Cunningham to his contemporaries, and then say just the opposite by throwing out that he is only a 5000 yard rusher. But, IN HIS TIME, a guy that retired with 5453 yards rushing was a guy that was highly ranked on the all time list. And he did all of this while playing fullback, leading the blocking for other guys (including Steve Grogan). Guys put up bigger numbers now and play longer (better technology, better medicine, better coaching, more money). Is that Sam Cunningham's fault? >>
You make a valid point, I need to look at exactly what his numbers were and how he stacked up at the time of his retirement. I will do that shortly before I head out to the Pro Bowl today. You also have to remember, he played in a run heavy era. Teams ran the ball more than they passed. I will look at the specific decade in which he played and see where he stacks up. If what you say is true, and he was a top 5-10 NFL RB during his era, then that is the best argument I have heard that he belongs in the set. Certainly better than being a Patriots HOFer or the franchise all-time leading rusher with only 5,000+ yards.
Also, not entirely true on the FB situation. FB's were still the workhorse RB's in those days, the halfbacks were used more like 3rd down backs. FB's were not typically used as lead blockers as they are today. I'll go back next week and look through the Cunningham footage I have and see if there are any occasions of him lead blocking. If he did it was not often.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
O.J. Simpson 10539...1970-1979
Franco Harris 8563...1972-1979 (starting FB 74-79)
Larry Csonka 6975...1970-1974, 1976-1979 (starting FB all years)
Walter Payton 6926...1975-1979
John Riggins 6822...1971-1979 (starting FB all years)
Lydell Mitchell 6518...1972-1979
Lawrence McCutcheon 6186...1972-1979
Chuck Foreman 5887...1973-1979 (starting FB 73-74, 78)
Greg Pruitt 5737...1973-1979
John Brockington 5185...1971-1977 (starting FB all years)
Sorry, but Cunningham not only was not a top 10 rusher, he wasn't even a top 5 FB...This confirms my belief. When compared to his contemporaries in the NFL at the time, he simply doesn't stack up as a "GREAT"...Certainly a VERY GOOD player, but for me he simply doesn't make the cut. What's even worse? His career TD totals (49) are equal to his career FUMBLE totals (49). I surely hope the people voting for his inclusion to the set are aware of all these facts prior to voting.
Jason
EDITED TO ADD:::
Just looked at the all-time rushing list as of the end of 1982 season. Sam Cunningham was NOT in the top 25 All-Time rushers when he retired. Please look again. I can provide you the list if need be.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.