[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

You raise some good points, Peter. I can't say that you are wrong. The helmet-wearing could be part of the equation. That's funny because I (along with other baseball card collectors) get so turned off by baseball cards of hatless players. However, football cards almost necessitate that they don't wear their helmet when having their picture taken for their card. Of course some did wear their helmets but not that many. But I don't think that impacts vintage football that much because it seems like the helmet wearing is mainly with more modern issues.

I do believe you hit on a key aspect though----that being the relative anonymity of the player of say the 1960s and on back. You referred to the scrums and lack of individuality. With the exception of the really big names like Nagurski, Unitas, Jim Brown, Namath, etc., many of the rest aren't well known. It seems baseball has a middle class of players. For example, in postwar baseball collecting, everyone knows who Mantle was. He was a megastar. Though not megastars, Billy Martin and Phil Rizzuto were reasonably well known, too. Outside of the great Colt and Packer teams who had a lot of recognizable players thanks to their success, many teams had a guy or two per team that you might know, and that's about it.

In thinking carefully about my collecting of football, I think I am drawn more to leagues and teams, with a few individuals sprinkled in. For instance, the colorful, high-flying AFL appeals to me, particularly the Chargers and the other western teams. The casual fan can name you a player or two per team, but that's about it probably.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

It's also hard for most positions to get a sense of how good players were, and compare them, the way you can with all the baseball metrics. What can I look up, for example, that isn't anecdotal/testimonial that's going to give me a sense of Bob Lilly, or Jim Parker, or Jack Lambert?