Has anyone cost themselves the HoF by just quitting like Barber did?

[ET80]

28 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Not HOF by any means, but Robert Smith retired at 28 after a fantastic 2000 final season, a career 4.8 YPC, and almost 7,000 career yards. He was underrated IMO.

Robert Smith was a stud back in the day - had a smooth, upright running style that reminds me a lot of Arian Foster, just effortless speed. Randy Moss and Cris Carter were the focal points - as they should be, not every day you have two HOF WRs on opposite sides - but Smith was such a perfect compliment to them.

[Forge]

7 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said:

Terrell Davis also had 2 SB rings, a SB MVP and a league MVP.    Even with those numbers, without his playoff success, I doubt he would have gotten in.

Not saying those two wont get in, but I doubt they are first ballot....especially Willis.

On yeah, definitely won't be first ballot, but I think the precedent has been set that if you are elite you can still get in with a shorter career (and not that 8 and 9 years is a super short career for either Megatron or Willis, just shorter than most hall of famers I would assume)

[CP3MVP]

Tiki is better than several running backs in the hof 

[Forge]

4 hours ago, MWil23 said:

Not HOF by any means, but Robert Smith retired at 28 after a fantastic 2000 final season, a career 4.8 YPC, and almost 7,000 career yards. He was underrated IMO.

Robert Smith was a HOF talent in my opinion. I don't even have much question about that. He is ridiculously underrated for how good he was. Had he not had some healthy / injury issues early on, and didn't retire early, I certainly think that he was a guy that would have made it.

[Heinz D.]

4 hours ago, MWil23 said:

Not HOF by any means, but Robert Smith retired at 28 after a fantastic 2000 final season, a career 4.8 YPC, and almost 7,000 career yards. He was underrated IMO.

He was the first one that came to my mind, as well. Even at 28, he didn't seem to be slowing down. Much, at least. 

[JAF-N72EX]

42 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

He was the first one that came to my mind, as well. Even at 28, he didn't seem to be slowing down. Much, at least. 

That's because he spent the first half of his career as a 3rd string situational spell back and wasn't taking the hits that other traditional backs do.

[43M]

1 hour ago, Forge said:

On yeah, definitely won't be first ballot, but I think the precedent has been set that if you are elite you can still get in with a shorter career (and not that 8 and 9 years is a super short career for either Megatron or Willis, just shorter than most hall of famers I would assume)

While I dont really disagree, I think the players with shorter careers are at a major disadvantage if they dont have much beyond stats.    I know getting to the playoffs and winning is a team accomplishment, but right or wrong, its looked at when it comes to career individual accomplishments when putting players into the Hall of Fame.

I definitely think Calvin Johnson will make it in.

The issue with Willis is the position he played and even thought he was an elite player during his time, he doesnt really have much that separates him as an all time great.  I mean, there are players in the Hall of Fame that you could argue arent necessarily all time great players, but they have certain career accomplishments that got them in....but I dont know if Willis' accomplishments will be enough to keep him relevant in HOF voting.

Again, not saying he wont make it.....but I think he could have a long wait.    Even if he had just played another 2 or 3 years, I think he'd be a lock....but as it stands, I think he could have a hard time getting in. 

And for the record, I think Willis was better than numerous players who are in....just playing devil's advocate. 

[footbull3196]

9 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

Too bad this doesn't seem to apply to Sterling Sharpe.

Seriously lol.  Dude is the most underrated player in NFL history

[lancerman]

23 hours ago, DirtyDez said:

With another 2,000 yard season and a ring he gets in.  Of course him returning doesn’t mean they still win it in 08’. #butterflyeffect

Damn you to hell Tiki Barber!

[lancerman]

16 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said:

Terrell Davis also had 2 SB rings, a SB MVP and a league MVP.    Even with those numbers, without his playoff success, I doubt he would have gotten in.

Not saying those two wont get in, but I doubt they are first ballot....especially Willis.

 Yeah people kind of skip the part where Davis in those two years played at the highest level any RB's ever played and and had the rare feat of winning an MVP as a non QB

[Forge]

19 minutes ago, lancerman said:

 Yeah people kind of skip the part where Davis in those two years played at the highest level any RB's ever played and and had the rare feat of winning an MVP as a non QB

But that's beside the point. The point is that the HOF has established that it will put someone in with a short career if they were truly great. 

What that amount is I have no idea. Does the superior longevity of Willis' elite play trump TDs peak but shorter career? I have no idea. Is it equal? Is it less? If it's less, is it still good enough to get in the HOF? Again, no idea. They will evaluate that on a player basis. The point is that the precedent is there for enshrinement. How they weigh it in the end, I don't know. 

[RaidersAreOne]

Chaz Schilens.

[43M]

2 hours ago, Forge said:

But that's beside the point. The point is that the HOF has established that it will put someone in with a short career if they were truly great. 

What that amount is I have no idea. Does the superior longevity of Willis' elite play trump TDs peak but shorter career? I have no idea. Is it equal? Is it less? If it's less, is it still good enough to get in the HOF? Again, no idea. They will evaluate that on a player basis. The point is that the precedent is there for enshrinement. How they weigh it in the end, I don't know. 

Again though, he had 2 SB rings, several dominant POSTSEASON performances, a SB MVP and a league MVP in his short career.

He also played a position that gets a lot more love in HOF voting.

In general, yes, your assessment is right that a player with a shorter career CAN get in, but Terrell Davis had noteworthy individual successes that guys like Calvin Johnson and Patrick Willis did not.    Patrick Willis may have played at an elite level most of his career, but that doesnt necessarily mean he'll stand out during HOF voting, because in many cases, longevity DOES matter, and in the cases it gets overlooked, the player stood out among the all time greats in regards to individual achievements, which Im not sure Willis does.    There are numerous MLB's that had several elite seasons (London Fletcher, Donnie Edwards, James Farrior, Zach Thomas, etc...) that will never get in.   Not saying those guys were as good as Willis was at his peak, but from a career standpoint, does Willis stand out in a notable way?    If he had the postseason success, awards or played a more notable position like Davis....then yes, he would get in....but he doesnt.

I think he gets in, but I dont see it as inevitable.  

[Forge]

34 minutes ago, FourThreeMafia said:

In general, yes, your assessment is right that a player with a shorter career CAN get in,

Yup, all I was saying. Just my opinion that TD cemented the likes if Willis and Megatron, but obviously that can absolutely be wrong (Thomas is the one that really gives me pause over the guys you named) since that is just my feeling (because I've never understood the argument of being more worthy of enshrinement just because you decided to hang on five more years as an average player). And totally okay if others don't feel the same way about TDs enshrinement as I do. I have no problem if others don't believe it had that kind of meaning. Maybe it doesn't. Absolutely possible that voters don't consider precedent since each case player is so unique. 

Honestly, Boselli is going to be the better comparable when he gets in, but he hasn't quite gotten there yet (like Willis and Megatron, I do think it will happen though). Now that I think about it though, maybe Easley was the better comp. Only played 7 years. Had the dpoy which Willis lacks (though he has droy), no super bowls or super long lasting impact with regards to his dominance, while Willis has the additional year, two more all pro teams, etc. So I probably should have went with that comparable to prove my point. Think that is a much better case

 

[theJ]

On 8/26/2018 at 8:27 AM, Superman(DH23) said:

Joe Thomas was the best LT in the NFL for a decade.  The Browns ineptitude has nothing to do with that.10000+ consecutive snaps and gave up 30 sacks in that time.  He was the very definition of elite.  I've said it before and I'll say it again, his HOF presenter should just stand up and say "Joe Thomas" and sit back down and if a committee member doesn't vote for him he should be taken off the committee.

There may be smoke to that fire, honestly.  Can you honestly say that you think about Andrew Whitworth as a LT on the same level with Joe Thomas?  Because they played at the same level for a long time, during the same exact time period (stats below if you care).  The big difference was the public perception of the teams and the notoriety that Thomas received.  Why did he get that notoriety and Whitworth did not? 

I know this isn't a Whitworth vs. Thomas thread, but when it comes to linemen there are definitely some that are hidden from the public for many reasons.  Joe was very much in the limelight when a lot of his colleagues weren't.

http://hosted.stats.com/fb/playerstats.asp?id=7804

http://hosted.stats.com/fb/playerstats.asp?id=8257