Johnny Hammersticks Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Well, he was his coach so he might have been a wee mite biased. Perhaps a little, but he is Mike freakin Singletary. I think the guy knows a great linebacker when he sees one. For 4-5 years Willis was arguably the most dominant defensive player in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM57 Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Playing a couple more years would have solidified his spot IMO. IMO being elite for 7 years is far more HOF worthy than being pretty good for 15. It's the Hall of Fame, not the hall of longevity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalScotts Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Shape was great but a seven year career with 2 years being pedestrian leaves 5 great season, he's not getting in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Agreed. 4 years, you'd have a strong argument. I'm not sure why, I know it's an arbitrary number. But in this case Willis was a seven time Pro Bowler -- seven times in a row, every year he started -- and a six time All Pro... that's more Pro Bowls than Ronnie Lott. I've said it a few times so I'll stop after this last time, but if he doesn't make the HOF he'll be the only player on a very short list to have accomplished those feats and not been elected. I know the Pro Bowl voting has rightly been devalued because of the fan voting, but Willis wasn't getting elected on reputation alone. any idea the longest streak of probowls to start a career? Does his company become particularly rare in small part due to skipping the down side of his career? Id guess few if any had 7 straight out of the gate still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Willis was not a dominating force. Nothing to do with how long he played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Willis was not a dominating force. Nothing to do with how long he played. What does a guy have to do for you to give that label? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 any idea the longest streak of probowls to start a career? Does his company become particularly rare in small part due to skipping the down side of his career? Id guess few if any had 7 straight out of the gate still. It's a good point and I'm not really sure but I'd imagine it'd play a role. I just think the list of players who did accomplish that feat (pro bowl every year they started in the league) are some of the best ever to play: Cortez Kennedy, Jonathan Ogden, Barry Sanders, Jim Brown, Doak Walker, Billy Shaw and Les Richter. Only two modern day HOFers played fewer games than Willis though (Sayers and Winslow), so there's no question it'll cost him votes each time he's up for the ballot. Another stat I ran across while posting this blew me away. According to PFF, the second highest rated MLB since 2007 is Derrick Johnson at +93.4. The number one rated MLB since 2007 is Willis with a rating of +164.6.That puts into perspective just how dominate he was, albeit over a shorter than average career for a "great". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 My point is that if someone dominates the sport for 4-5 years and that doesn't get them in then that kind of exclusivity makes me think less, not more, of the hall itself. You could be the greatest player who ever lived but not make it because your career didn't pick up until after a few years or because it got cut short early. That's lame. It's the HOF, not the Hall of Guys who a had a few years as the "greatest who ever lived". There was never such a player anyway. Certainly not Willis. Agreed. 4 years, you'd have a strong argument. I'm not sure why, I know it's an arbitrary number. But in this case Willis was a seven time Pro Bowler -- seven times in a row, every year he started -- and a six time All Pro... that's more Pro Bowls than Ronnie Lott. I've said it a few times so I'll stop after this last time, but if he doesn't make the HOF he'll be the only player on a very short list to have accomplished those feats and not been elected. I know the Pro Bowl voting has rightly been devalued because of the fan voting, but Willis wasn't getting elected on reputation alone. Rob's House made the argument for 4-5 years of unusual greatness alone being sufficient to get in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 (edited) I hear the discussion about wether Patrick Willis deserves HOF consideration and honestly I don't want to hear about that until Sterling Sharpe gets serious consideration...he might have been the best WR in the league when he was forced to retire due to injury, and if not was a 1B to Jerry Rice's 1A... The man averaged 90 catches, 1223 yards and 10.6 TDs in the 6 years following his rookie season and was literally uncoverable. Double coverage, triple coverage...didn't matter, dude always got open. Before people talk about Patrick Willis and if he played long enough to be in the HOF, they need to talk about Sterling Sharpe because I guarantee most people who watched him and played against him would say he should be in it... I guess I can't support Patrick Willis then until Cookie Gilchrist is inducted. Cookie's greatness was compromised by knee problems. Who knows what his stats would have been like if the NFL had let him play straight out of high school and he didn't waste his best/healthiest years of his career in the CFL. Still the man managed to produce a 5.0 yards per carry as a professional and helped the Bills win their first AFL championship. Some fellow players thought Cookie - in his prime - was as good as Jim Brown. Hall of Famer, Billy Shaw, called him, "The greatest football player I've ever seen or been associated with." The man was virtually unstoppable. Edited March 15, 2015 by hondo in seattle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 I would have to say NO. Good, not great.... + the year the Niners made the Super Bowl, he wasn't even the best LB on the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Perhaps a little, but he is Mike freakin Singletary. I think the guy knows a great linebacker when he sees one. For 4-5 years Willis was arguably the most dominant defensive player in the NFL. Meh, many would argue he wasn't. James Harrison was as dominant in the same time period. Maybe more so... I would have to say NO. Good, not great.... + the year the Niners made the Super Bowl, he wasn't even the best LB on the team. Ka BOOM! /thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Meh, many would argue he wasn't. James Harrison was as dominant in the same time period. Maybe more so... Ka BOOM! /thread. I disagree with that notion as Bowman was good that year, but benefited from Willis beside him much like Hughes benefits from Williams, Williams, and Dareus. That said, in my lifetime, the biggest snubs from the HOF that should be in are Sharpe and Terrell Davis. That said, Patrick Willis was a great linebacker year in and year out. You don't get voted First Team NFL for being just good, let alone 5 times. He should be a HOF'er for his great play, as a QB would be if he were a 5-time First Team NFL winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 It's the HOF, not the Hall of Guys who a had a few years as the "greatest who ever lived". There was never such a player anyway. Certainly not Willis. IMO being elite for 7 years is far more HOF worthy than being pretty good for 15. It's the Hall of Fame, not the hall of longevity. If we're analogizing HOF to Hall of Greatness I see no reason why having a 10 year career is a prerequisite and you've not made any argument as to why it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 If we're analogizing HOF to Hall of Greatness I see no reason why having a 10 year career is a prerequisite and you've not made any argument as to why it should be. What's your minimum length? 5 years? 1 year if the specimen is truly special? I think longevity has to be part of the discussion, but not the only part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster Guy Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 I totally agree that Sharpe deserves to be in the HOF. However, your concern about Sharpe doesn't really impact the questions being asked as to whether Willis deserves consideration for the HOF. It is a valid issue as to when Willis deserves consideration but not as to whether he deserves consideration at all. The only relevant question about the HOF as between Willis and Sharpe is which one deserves to get in the HOF first? As for the specific question regarding Willis and his "short" career, I think that he deserves to make it at some point. I may be a bit biased though as he was my hope for our first round pick in 2007. I still remember pacing around my living room as our pick came closer and closer and he was still on the board. The 'Niners had the last pick before the Bills and sure enough, they took him. We took Lynch and then traded up in the second round to take Poz. I have always believed that we would have taken Willis instead of Lynch if he had been available given that we traded up for much less talented LB in the very next round. It was one of those near misses with long term consequences that you look back on and just shake your head. Both Lynch and Poz were soon playing for someone else while Willis has been a beast for 8 years. believe it or not, Marv Levy said later they werent going to take Willis even if SF passed on him. Crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 What's your minimum length? 5 years? 1 year if the specimen is truly special? I think longevity has to be part of the discussion, but not the only part. I wouldn't put a hard number on it, but I think the greater the individual seasons the fewer that are necessary. 1 or 2 years probably isn't enough because it could be a fluke or just the right guy at the right time, but if a guy is one of the top 2 or 3 guys at his position for a 4-6 year span that seals it for me. Is 3 years enough? I don't know. If a RB had 3 2000 yd seasons and not much before or after does he belong? I'd say yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 It actually reminds me of Sam Cowart kind of. If Cowart would have stayed healthy he was a HOF player. That 1 or 2 years with the Bills were as good as any Bills defensive player ever not name Bruce Smith. Cowart was unbelievable.no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 I wouldn't put a hard number on it, but I think the greater the individual seasons the fewer that are necessary. 1 or 2 years probably isn't enough because it could be a fluke or just the right guy at the right time, but if a guy is one of the top 2 or 3 guys at his position for a 4-6 year span that seals it for me. Is 3 years enough? I don't know. If a RB had 3 2000 yd seasons and not much before or after does he belong? I'd say yes. A skill position will always be looked at differently. If a RB came in and after a year or 2 put up 3 2000 yard seasons and retired, he wouldn't necessarily be a first ballot guy, but he would likely get in. A LB who was on a great defense and had a stretch of 4-5 years as very good player and then trailed off a bit before retiring---that's a lot different and I think you understand why. As I said, an argument could be made that HArrison was more valuable, had more impact in than Willis (their careers overlapped some). Adding up Pro Bowls and All Pros on serial incumbents isn't all they are going to do when voting a guy in.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 both absolutely yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM57 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 If we're analogizing HOF to Hall of Greatness I see no reason why having a 10 year career is a prerequisite and you've not made any argument as to why it should be. 7 years is over twice as long add the average NFL career. To be in the top 2-3 at your position for that entire stretch is HOF worthy, IMO. What if Brady would have had to retire in 2008 after his knee injury. Would he have been HOF worthy in 2013 considering the three championships in four years and him being just removed from the 50 TD/16-0 season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts