New FB Acquisitions

[G1911]

Originally Posted by mogwai316

- MVP winner (1961), possibly the most undeserving MVP winner of all time? 597 rushing yards, 145 receiving yards - Jim Brown had 1408/459 that year and didn't win! Hornung did also kick 15 field goals with a long of 51 yards so maybe that gave him some weird Ohtani-like boost in voting? Packers also won the championship in a 37-0 blowout. Most likely just racism against Brown, though.

I suspect it has more to do with not wanting to give one guy the award every single year, as has often been a problem for generational talents in sports. Brown won the first 2 years, 1957 and 1958. And he’d win again later, hard to see a bias against him at work here. Hornung was enormously popular and a fan and media favorite, on the championship team, and led the league in scoring (for the third time in a row). Jim Taylor probably had a better case than Hornung though.

[jefferyepayne]

Originally Posted by G1911

I suspect it has more to do with not wanting to give one guy the award every single year, as has often been a problem for generational talents in sports. Brown won the first 2 years, 1957 and 1958. And he’d win again later, hard to see a bias against him at work here. Hornung was enormously popular and a fan and media favorite, on the championship team, and led the league in scoring (for the third time in a row). Jim Taylor probably had a better case than Hornung though.

+1000 No sign of racism here IMHO since Brown had already won it two times. Agree that Hornung wasn't the best pick for MVP but if you read Lombardi's book he says Hornung was one of the best if not the best that ever played for him. Looking at stats from previous eras always makes players look bad as the game was a much different game then than it is now. Hornung was considered the key cog in that offense for quite some time by Lombardi.


jeff
jeff

[mogwai316]

Yep, I agree with you guys. I didn't realize Brown had won it the previous two years, thanks for pointing that out!

[Peter_Spaeth]

For my NFL 100 (list published by the league) set. Well, NFL 97 because three players on it from the 30s don't have any contemporaneous cards. I am down to one, a National Chicle Dutch Clark.

[G1911]

Happy to have this as a type, from the BST. One of my older football items, not that many cards pre-dating.

[G1911]

Gale Sayers with the Slit B notation. I am not 100% sure who the other Slit marked cards are in 1969 but there will be 1 more from series 1 and 2 from series 2.

Not usually a pink fan but I think this is one of Sayers' better looking cards so I am happy to have an excuse to add a second 69 Sayers to my collection.

[effe]

Original print plate from the 1961 Packers Lake to Lake set

...and a short print to boot

[th38larg]

Originally Posted by G1911

Happy to have this as a type, from the BST. One of my older football items, not that many cards pre-dating.

What is this? Never seen before.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by th38larg

What is this? Never seen before.

It is a T49, a tough issue. There are 20 cards, picturing a generic student of a university, often in a sport pose. There's only a handful or so of each subject known. 17 were catalogued by the time of Bob Forbes' book in 1999. The Yale football card here was one of the 3 only discovered to exist a few years ago. The 20 we now know matches the back text, so the set is presumably completely catalogued finally. Not that valuable or anything, but a tough T type.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

For my NFL 100 (list published by the league) set. Well, NFL 97 because three players on it from the 30s don't have any contemporaneous cards. I am down to one, a National Chicle Dutch Clark.

Very cool White Shoes!

Being a petty Lions fan, I won't buy the Chicle and want a good copy of the 1935 Diamond Match for a Dutch RC in my collection.

I just get far too annoyed at the UER on that card that he plays for the Eagles. It's blasphemous, lol.