Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

What's his place in history. Tk me he's a Hall of Famer, he was the best player in the league at his position for much of his career. His career will be short, but there is very little non-peak to it, would three more years of declining play make him more Hall worthy, not in my mind. To me he's one of the quieter superstars of the recent past.

I saw about him planning to retire when I woke up this morning ...

I wonder if other people will say he's "HOF" since he's recent, but if he had that career in the 80's they would say he didn't play long enough?

It's not really even three more years of declining play that the "seasons played are THE HOF stat" crowd needs, you can completely take out the declining play and just put 3-4 more years on his career, have him stand on the bench all game and that would suffice, as long as the seasons played number is bumped up. Doesn't need the compiled stats that a RB/WR needs for people to some reason rate 2nd tier players over true greatness.

Either way, I agree, HOF'er to me. Interesting that he played in the same amount of regular season games as Sterling Sharpe (who himself was better than some recent 'HOF' WR's) ...

My initial thought is that he'll get in after a few years wait, but I'm saying that on the day his retirement was announced. How much will memories of him fade outside of 49ers circles by the time he becomes HoF eligible?

We know how much traction players like Easley and Sharpe have gotten. To get in with that short of a career, it seems like you have to be widely considered to be a transcendent/generational type talent. Closest comparison to Willis I can think of is Dick Butkus. Butkus played nine seasons in total, but was a shell of himself for the last couple. Good as Willis was, will be be viewed as being as transcendent (and iconic) as Butkus?

I would add that I see some similarities between Willis's surprise retirement and Jack Lambert's, though Lambert's career was longer.

I would concur with the consensus so-far. He's in the short-career, but was top of his profession for long enough time. Others in that category: Sayers, Stephenson, Easley. Two are in, Easley should be in my opinion, and I'd put Willis right there in that group. I am sure there are others.

Yep, to me, no question Willis is a HOF player. I do kind of wonder, though, if his decision is really permanent, or whether he might return in 2016 after a year off or something like that. I can see that happening.

JohnTurney wrote:I would concur with the consensus so-far. He's in the short-career, but was top of his profession for long enough time. Others in that category: Sayers, Stephenson, Easley. Two are in, Easley should be in my opinion, and I'd put Willis right there in that group. I am sure there are others.

Agree, interesting aspect for Willis is that he was a legitimate top tier LB from day 1. That seems to be common among great LBs though, Lewis and Urlacher, of late, Lambert and Butkus before them, they all stepped on the field NFL ready. To me he passes the "was he ever the best at his position" there's a three gear span where I'd say that was the case.

JohnTurney wrote:I would concur with the consensus so-far. He's in the short-career, but was top of his profession for long enough time. Others in that category: Sayers, Stephenson, Easley. Two are in, Easley should be in my opinion, and I'd put Willis right there in that group. I am sure there are others.

Other player I think fits in that category is Earl Campbell. In his first three seasons he was probably the best player in the league regardless of position, he only had two more good years and three mediocr/bad obes.

Teo wrote:

JohnTurney wrote:I would concur with the consensus so-far. He's in the short-career, but was top of his profession for long enough time. Others in that category: Sayers, Stephenson, Easley. Two are in, Easley should be in my opinion, and I'd put Willis right there in that group. I am sure there are others.

Other player I think fits in that category is Earl Campbell. In his first three seasons he was probably the best player in the league regardless of position, he only had two more good years and three mediocr/bad obes.

When it comes down to short but brilliant career players making the Hall of Fame, the standard has been set at Sayers, Butkus and Campbell, and I guess you could also include Namath, since his peak was so short and he was injured or ineffective for two thirds of his career. (Had Namath retired after the 1974 season he probably would have made the HOF.) All were one of a kind types, unique players whom watching them you knew you would never see another player quite like them again, and all produced a great highlight film. Was Willis a player who fell into this class? No, he probably falls more into the Easley and Terrell Davis class, guys who were truly great but not yet recognized. Players of this kind can and do make the HOF, like Dwight Stephenson and Kellen Winslow. It will make for an interesting debate in five years when his name comes up for induction.

Namath definitely would have been elected to Canton if he would have retired after the '74 season. It was his last effective season. He only harmed his legacy in his last three seasons.

I think Willis belongs based on his body of work but the obsession with the HoF continues to irk me. It's the first thing the talking head mentioned when the NFL N announced he was retiring.

Nice piece by Nick


http://nflfootballjournal.blogspot.com/