Sherman Has Voice In Texan's GM Search

[Scott Campbell]

PFT:

POSTED 5:51 p.m. EDT, May 20, 2006

SHERMAN HAS VOICE IN TEXANS' G.M. SEARCH

A league source tells us that one of the people who will be included in the process of selecting a new General Manager for the Houston Texans is former Green Bay head coach/G.M. Mike Sherman, who joined the Houston coaching staff after being dumped by the Packers earlier this year.

On one hand, Sherman's role is curious, since he was hired to be an assistant coach. Sherman's involvement could create a strange dynamic if, in the end, owner Bob McNair chooses a guy that was higher on Sherman's list than on head coach Gary Kubiak's. The new G.M. could have greater loyalty to Sherman -- and thus the two of them could, in theory, work together to undermine Kubiak over the long haul.

On the other hand, Sherman arguably has the most qualifications of anyone in the organization to hire a G.M. because he actually has been a G.M. Sure, he was ultimately relived of his G.M. duties a year before losing his job as the head coach. But he at least has an idea as to what a G.M. actually does, and the qualities necessary to do it.

[Bretsky]

Hire Sherman as GM so he can screw up another teams roster with bad personnell decisions

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Hire Sherman as GM so he can screw up another teams roster with bad personnell decisions

Since when did Sherman ever "screwed up" a team he was GM as? Was he ever 4-12? Which GM in 2005 went 4-12 as the Green Bay Packers GM? Is he Ted Thompson? Or is she? Does Ted Thompson suck?

[BlueBrewer]

Sherman created the salary cap problem that Ted inherited. Thus poor drafting and overpaying Joe Johnson and Cletius Hunt are just a couple of examples of Shermans fuck up of a GM career.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Sherman created the salary cap problem that Ted inherited. Thus poor drafting and overpaying Joe Johnson and Cletius Hunt are just a couple of examples of Shermans fuck up of a GM career.

Show me, WITH NUMBERS, where Sherman "created the salary cap problem that Ted inherited."

Sure, Thompson had to cut Wahle and Sharper. And Sherman had to cut Levens and Freeman. All thompson needed to do was cut Wahle and Sharper to get under the cap and then resign them to new contracts, which he failed miserably, motherfuckingly, homosexually. Sherman worked with far less money then Thompson has, and still did more (i did the research on this; posted it on jsonline, it is hidden somewhere there).

$7.5 M is not cap problem. $28 M in not cap problem (to save time arguing, that is the amount minus the new CBA inflation). Dismantling the Pack is a problem.

So where exactly did Sherman "created the salary cap problem that Ted inherited."

[BlueBrewer]

Sherman created the salary cap problem that Ted inherited. Thus poor drafting and overpaying Joe Johnson and Cletius Hunt are just a couple of examples of Shermans fuck up of a GM career.

Show me, WITH NUMBERS, where Sherman "created the salary cap problem that Ted inherited."

Sure, Thompson had to cut Wahle and Sharper. And Sherman had to cut Levens and Freeman. All thompson needed to do was cut Wahle and Sharper to get under the cap and then resign them to new contracts, which he failed miserably, motherfuckingly, homosexually. Sherman worked with far less money then Thompson has, and still did more (i did the research on this; posted it on jsonline, it is hidden somewhere there).


$7.5 M is not cap problem. $28 M in not cap problem (to save time arguing, that is the amount minus the new CBA inflation). Dismantling the Pack is a problem.

So where exactly did Sherman "created the salary cap problem that Ted inherited."

Who else could have done it? Sherman was the GM prior to TT. And yeah I would have liked to see Wahle resigned, but you know what I didn't have a say in it. TT should have found a way to keep Wahle I agree, but Sherman was still a horseshit GM. He continuously made bad decisions regarding personnel and the draft. He hit on Walker, but he turned out to be a fucking headcase in the end. So lets agree to disagree on the subject.

[mraynrand]

Sherman had his ups and downs as a GM. But he was 36-12 as a GM, had four straight playoff appearances and 3 straight division titles. It has to be the best record ever for a GM that got canned.

Why not ask Sherman for advice? He worked with one of the best GMs in the history of the NFL, Ron Wolf. For that reason alone, he should be consulted. All you Sherman haters should really pull your heads out of your collective assholes and realize the guy had some great qualities, despite his flaws.

[BlueBrewer]

Sherman had his ups and downs as a GM. But he was 36-12 as a GM, had four straight playoff appearances and 3 straight division titles. It has to be the best record ever for a GM that got canned.

Why not ask Sherman for advice? He worked with one of the best GMs in the history of the NFL, Ron Wolf. For that reason alone, he should be consulted. All you Sherman haters should really pull your heads out of your collective assholes and realize the guy had some great qualities, despite his flaws.

He was a good coach not a good GM

[chain_gang]

Show me, WITH NUMBERS, where Sherman "created the salary cap problem that Ted inherited."

Sure, Thompson had to cut Wahle and Sharper. And Sherman had to cut Levens and Freeman. All thompson needed to do was cut Wahle and Sharper to get under the cap and then resign them to new contracts, which he failed miserably, motherfuckingly, homosexually. Sherman worked with far less money then Thompson has, and still did more (i did the research on this; posted it on jsonline, it is hidden somewhere there).

$7.5 M is not cap problem. $28 M in not cap problem (to save time arguing, that is the amount minus the new CBA inflation). Dismantling the Pack is a problem.

So where exactly did Sherman "created the salary cap problem that Ted inherited."


Show me exactly where Sherman created depth and new "stars" on an aging team. Show me the draft picks and the positions of which they play. Show me how many quality starters he pick up via free agency or the draft. Show me the depth he created to minimize the drop off when starters were hurt.

[Scott Campbell]

Sherman had some great qualities. But his time was up in Green Bay.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Show me, WITH NUMBERS, where Sherman "created the salary cap problem that Ted inherited."

Sure, Thompson had to cut Wahle and Sharper. And Sherman had to cut Levens and Freeman. All thompson needed to do was cut Wahle and Sharper to get under the cap and then resign them to new contracts, which he failed miserably, motherfuckingly, homosexually. Sherman worked with far less money then Thompson has, and still did more (i did the research on this; posted it on jsonline, it is hidden somewhere there).

$7.5 M is not cap problem. $28 M in not cap problem (to save time arguing, that is the amount minus the new CBA inflation). Dismantling the Pack is a problem.

So where exactly did Sherman "created the salary cap problem that Ted inherited."


Show me exactly where Sherman created depth and new "stars" on an aging team. Show me the draft picks and the positions of which they play. Show me how many quality starters he pick up via free agency or the draft. Show me the depth he created to minimize the drop off when starters were hurt.

Show me where Sherman screwed up the cap first. Don't change the subject, like every one else I've encountered. Admit Sherman never fucked up the cap, and Thompson is using the phase "rebuilding" to cover up his fuck ups.

[mraynrand]

APB,

It's possible to have both views at the same time. Sherman was trying to WIN NOW with Favre, by taking chances on middle and late round picks, and the team also needed rebuilding. TT has made some screw ups, but it's possible that his style will ultimately work in the long term. One thing is certain - Sherman never had anywhere near the draft opportunity TT had this year. By sucking last year and trading Walker, the Packers had two extremely high second round picks to go with the number 5 pick. The success of the Packers and TTs success for many years to come will be linked to the 2006 draft (unless the Packers continue to suck and get very high draft picks).

[Bretsky]

Hire Sherman as GM so he can screw up another teams roster with bad personnell decisions

Since when did Sherman ever "screwed up" a team he was GM as? Was he ever 4-12? Which GM in 2005 went 4-12 as the Green Bay Packers GM? Is he Ted Thompson? Or is she? Does Ted Thompson suck?


I've seen people point out the logistics of how Sherman broke down the talent level and depth of Green Bay time after time. Since you refuse the ackowledge the facts of his poor drafting and free agent decisions, bringing out good reasoning to you is futile.

[No Mo Moss]

Hire Sherman as GM so he can screw up another teams roster with bad personnell decisions

He probably wouldn't be that bad of a GM if he wasn't the coach as well. I think that more than anything was the reason for his failings here in GB.

[Tarlam!]

Show me the draft picks and the positions of which they play. Show me how many quality starters he pick up via free agency or the draft. Show me the depth he created to minimize the drop off when starters were hurt.

While we are dumping on a guy who bled Green and Gold while he was here, let's not forget his drafts were always started late in the first round. TT has had 2 drafts, last years where he also started late and this years where he started at #5.

Sherman's biggest drafting flaw, IMHO, is his seeming lack of interest for the second round. TT picked Collins (starter) and Muphy (unfortunate casualty), Colledge (prolly a starter) and Jennings (solid hopeful).

Like SC said, Sherm needed to move on, his growth was being stunted and so was the team's. I wish him well. He did all he could for Green Bay and he should be remembered in a respectful manner.

[packrulz]

By Pete Dougherty
PackersNews.com

The Houston Texans have the OK to interview the Packers’ Reggie McKenzie about their vacant general manager post.

Ted Thompson, the Packers’ GM, said the Texans sent him a fax Saturday requesting permission to speak to McKenzie about the job, and Thompson granted it. McKenzie is the Packers’ director of pro personnel.

The interview is expected to take place sometime this week. Texans owner Bob McNair will be attending owners’ meetings Monday through Wednesday, so McKenzie’s interview probably will be shortly after McNair returns to Houston.

Houston is looking to replace Charley Casserly, who has resigned as GM and will leave the post June 1. However, the job probably won’t be the all-powerful position it was under Casserly, who headed all football operations and built the expansion Texans’ front office and team from scratch.

New coach Gary Kubiak, hired this offseason, wields strong influence in the organization, and it appears unlikely the new GM will have more power than Kubiak, though whether he would be on an equal level or subordinate to the coach is unclear.

After Casserly resigned earlier this month, reports from Houston said McKenzie and Denver Broncos assistant GM Rick Smith were the leading candidates for the position. Smith has an edge, because he and Kubiak worked for the Broncos for the past 10 years, and McNair reportedly is placing a premium on the new GM’s ability to work with Kubiak.

Smith interviewed with the Broncos late last week and received a strong endorsement from Kubiak.

“Heââ� �€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s a brilliant young man,” Kubiak was quoted in the Houston Chronicle. “Heââ� �€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s coached. He went to the front office. He evaluates players and is great with players. I’ve watched him do that. And on top of that, he’s a dynamic person. He’s great with people. He just brings a lot of electricity to a room. He’ll sell himself.”

McKenzie, 43, has worked in the Packers’ front office since 1994, after he ended a seven-year career as an NFL linebacker. Former GM Ron Wolf hired McKenzie as a pro personnel assistant and promoted him to pro personnel director in 1997. The two were acquainted from their time with the Oakland Raiders, where McKenzie played as a linebacker from 1985 to 1988 while Wolf worked in the team’s front office.

McKenzie’s connection to the Texans is via former Packers coach Mike Sherman, who was hired as Houston’s assistant head coach/offense this offseason.

[chain_gang]

Show me the draft picks and the positions of which they play. Show me how many quality starters he pick up via free agency or the draft. Show me the depth he created to minimize the drop off when starters were hurt.

While we are dumping on a guy who bled Green and Gold while he was here, let's not forget his drafts were always started late in the first round. TT has had 2 drafts, last years where he also started late and this years where he started at #5.
.


Yes I know Sherman bled Green and Gold while he was he, and so has any other GM. For the record I didn't have as much of a problem with Sherman the Coach, but as GM whether he bled Green and Gold or not he was flat out bad. I know picking towards the end of the first round is a great situation, but he gave up so many draft picks to move up and grab need players. He never had the late round gems or even the second and third round steals, or even average players for that matter. I know he tried to be a good GM, but that's not the point. Trying and being are completely different things. Now maybe he can learn from his experience. I agree that it was time for him to move on, and wish him the best, but no matter if your picking at the end of the first round or not, you still need to be able to add some quality depth during the draft, and by trading so many picks away he was never able to do so.

[mraynrand]

I've seen people point out the logistics of how Sherman broke down the talent level and depth of Green Bay time after time. Since you refuse the ackowledge the facts of his poor drafting and free agent decisions, bringing out good reasoning to you is futile.

But did you see these same people try to compare the Packers in the Sherman era to other teams that had just enjoyed an 8 year run of success? Are there any other good examples? Perhaps the 49ers under Siefert, but they had to buy Sanders and 8 other free agents to return to the SB - and they paid for it with considerable cap hell. Perhaps the Steelers, but they dropped low enough to get a higher draft pick and get Roethlesburger. The Titans had a long run like the Packers, and they've gon into the crapper.

Sure, Sherman gambled away late round picks and moved up to get guys he had targeted, but given where he was drafting every year (20th or lower), what sort of impact palyers did you expect? He had to blow a #2 to move up to get Walker and another to get Harris. Has Harris been worth the #2 he spent.

I see Sherman as the opposite of TT in draft strategy, but that may have only been temporary until Favre retired. I think he wanted to WIN NOW, but didn't have the draft position to get players. And yes, he squandered picks like a drunken sailor and didn't get value. But to be fair, how many teams in a similar draft position have done well? The inverse draft order is why Superbowl teams typically start to suck in a few years.

[Patler]

Anyone who in 3 years would:

Trade two 4th round picks for 1 year of services from Terry Glenn;
Trade Terry Glenn after one year in a deal that returned nothing;
Trade two draft picks to move up and draft Kenny Peterson;
Trade two draft picks to move up and draft James Lee;
Trade two draft picks to move up and draft Hunter Hillenmeyer, then give him away;
Trade two draft picks to move up and draft Donnell Washington;
Trade two draft picks to move up and draft BJ Sander;
Trade two draft picks to move up and draft Corey Williams in the 6th round;
Trade a 6th round pick in 2004 for a 7th round pick in 2003 when he had 3 6th round picks already;

...is flawed as a GM

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Anyone who in 3 years would:

Trade two 4th round picks for 1 year of services from Terry Glenn;
Trade Terry Glenn after one year in a deal that returned nothing;
Trade two draft picks to move up and draft Kenny Peterson;
Trade two draft picks to move up and draft James Lee;
Trade two draft picks to move up and draft Hunter Hillenmeyer, then give him away;
Trade two draft picks to move up and draft Donnell Washington;
Trade two draft picks to move up and draft BJ Sander;
Trade two draft picks to move up and draft Corey Williams in the 6th round;
Trade a 6th round pick in 2004 for a 7th round pick in 2003 when he had 3 6th round picks already;

...is flawed as a GM

What are you, an amature statistician?

EVERY FUCKING GM IS FLAWED. WOLF WAS FLAWED. SHERMAN WAS FLAWED. LOMBARDI WAS FLAWED. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD GMS AND BAD GMS IS THAT GOOD GMS NEVER FINISH 4-12. GOOD GMS MAKE THE PLAYOFFS AND WITH TIME, THEY WIN THE SB. WOLF DID NOT WIN THE SUPER BOWL UNTIL HIS 5TH YEAR. WOLF AND SHERMAN NEVER WENT 4-12. SHEMAN NEVER MISESED THE PLAYOFFS. SHERMAN NEVER WENT 4-12. NEVER WENT 4-12. NEVER WENT 4-12.

JESUS, MARY AND JOSEPH.

[Bretsky]

Anyone who in 3 years would:

Trade two 4th round picks for 1 year of services from Terry Glenn;
Trade Terry Glenn after one year in a deal that returned nothing;
Trade two draft picks to move up and draft Kenny Peterson;
Trade two draft picks to move up and draft James Lee;
Trade two draft picks to move up and draft Hunter Hillenmeyer, then give him away;
Trade two draft picks to move up and draft Donnell Washington;
Trade two draft picks to move up and draft BJ Sander;
Trade two draft picks to move up and draft Corey Williams in the 6th round;
Trade a 6th round pick in 2004 for a 7th round pick in 2003 when he had 3 6th round picks already;

...is flawed as a GM

What are you, an amature statistician?

EVERY FUCKING GM IS FLAWED. WOLF WAS FLAWED. SHERMAN WAS FLAWED. LOMBARDI WAS FLAWED. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD GMS AND BAD GMS IS THAT GOOD GMS NEVER FINISH 4-12. GOOD GMS MAKE THE PLAYOFFS AND WITH TIME, THEY WIN THE SB. WOLF DID NOT WIN THE SUPER BOWL UNTIL HIS 5TH YEAR. WOLF AND SHERMAN NEVER WENT 4-12. SHEMAN NEVER MISESED THE PLAYOFFS. SHERMAN NEVER WENT 4-12. NEVER WENT 4-12. NEVER WENT 4-12.

JESUS, MARY AND JOSEPH.


Another example of you ingoring over and over the moves that made Sherman a terrible GM. But at least you admit you are too lazy to look up the multiple good or bad moves needed to validate any argument....so yours isn't worth a grain of salt either.

[mraynrand]

I don't disagree with your comments for the most part PetRock, but my point about Sherman as GM is (and has been) that it seems absurd to constantly run the guy down in relative isolation. I virtually never see people attempt to compare his performance as GM with other guys in similar positions of drafting very low because they have a successful team. And while Sherman may have squandered some picks, from your list above, most of those were lower round picks, and have much less probability of yeilding a starter, let alone a pro bowler.

On specific moves I would say that the Terry Glenn deal didn't work out, but had the Packers (and Glenn) remained healthy in 2002, they would have likely won the Superbowl. Certainly they would have hosted the NFC Championship game versus Tampa Bay. I's say two #4s are worth the risk. Hillenmeyer was a fifth round pick, right, and he's a marginal starter for a talented defensive team. Washington, Williams, and Peterson are still on the squad and given that they are 3rd round or lower, getting contribution from these guys in a D-lin rotation is not bad. It would be nice to have one as a solid starter, but it's not yet decided, is it. The collection of trades that landed Sander was atrocious, but Sander might still be the Packer punter. A low value pick to be sure, but is it any worse than Conway, Marshall, Warren, Brown, etc. etc.?

Bottom line: When you line up the moves Sherman made and compare them with other teams, especially with other teams in similar draft postion, it doesn't look as bad as it does in isolation. That's why I give Sherman a GM grade of "average." And I give him a little more respect because he was 32-16 in his three years as GM and I think as a fan that doesn't know the ins and outs of the business I place team performance as my top criteria for evaluating a GM.

[chain_gang]

Alright I'm not going to go to in depth because it's a waste but here goes. At the end of the 2005 season Green Bay was around 11 million dollars over the cap, by releasing wahle, as has been stated over and over again, they saved 11 million, they also cut Grey Ruegamer saving 1.4 million. Right there that put them at around 1.5 mill. below the cap. Then by cutting Sharper they saved around another 3-3.5 million. They also made some other cap moves. But the Packers were over the cap and had to releasing Sharper and Wahle, because they wouldn't agree to any renegotiations, why were they so far over the cap in 2005 because Sherman decided to release both Joe Johnson and Jamal Reynolds after June 1st the year before. Those two moves alone cost Green Bay around 5 million dollars in dead money, that rolled over until 2005. So if sherman would have cut ties sooner with either Joe Johnson or Jamal Reynolds, the packers could have managed to keep either Sharper or Wahle. I answered your question APB, and I also realize that it won't do any good.

I realize you are probably a Madden cap master, Well Madden is not real, just a game. If the NFL their is no reset button. I'm not a salary cap expert and in fact I know less than most, but look at the numbers, they don't lie.

[Patler]

APB, what you continually fail to grasp is that in three short years, as seen from my list, Sherman invested 16 draft picks in a couple part time players and a very poor punter.

THAT is why 4-12 happened, the roster had no depth, injuries arose and the cupboard was bare. Favre was forced to play with NFLE talent around him because Sherman had depleted the roster of any quality backups. 4-12 can be blamed more on Sherman than on Thompson.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

APB, what you continually fail to grasp is that in three short years, as seen from my list, Sherman invested 16 draft picks in a couple part time players and a very poor punter.

THAT is why 4-12 happened, the roster had no depth, injuries arose and the cupboard was bare. Favre was forced to play with NFLE talent around him because Sherman had depleted the roster of any quality backups. 4-12 can be blamed more on Sherman than on Thompson.

Last yeat, injures hit the offense the most. No depth? You are an idiot.

Davenport was a solid backup. Only terrible GM like Ted THompson would worry about finding depth on the third team. ANthoy Thomas was available with Davenport went down. WHo did not sign him? Murphy was literally Sherman pick because the pick thompson used to draft him SHerman got for the McKenzie trade. Who fucked up with that Pick? That pick couldve been used to draft a OL, LB, DE, S or trade for Donovan Darius. Who fuckec up with the Koran Robinson situation? Robinson wouldve added depth when walker went down.

Even a healthy packer team last year wouldnt make the playoffs, week one in detroit showed that. The OL sucks. The D wasnt upgreaded. Thompson drafted a fottball wife in the 1st rd.

[mraynrand]

APB, what you continually fail to grasp is that in three short years, as seen from my list, Sherman invested 16 draft picks in a couple part time players and a very poor punter.

THAT is why 4-12 happened, the roster had no depth, injuries arose and the cupboard was bare. Favre was forced to play with NFLE talent around him because Sherman had depleted the roster of any quality backups. 4-12 can be blamed more on Sherman than on Thompson.


It's also possible that few or none of these late round picks would have worked out, even if Sherman had kept all his picks. Look around the league at other teams drafting late in the first round. A number of these teams don't accumulate good depth. Sherman used a #1 and #2 on Walker, then Drafted Barnett with a low#2 and used traded his low #2 on Harris. Then he drafted Carroll with another low #1. He got a pro bowler, two decent or fair starters and a project. That's not too bad. He drafted depth with Davenport and Fisher as a Rookie FA, but when you have three guys get injured at one position, all the depth in the world won't save you. Same at WR.

Lose Walker Murhpy and Ferguson (for a stretch), and perhaps you have depth, but what realistically are you going to expect from your #4 guy when he's thrown in as a starter? Recall how mightily the Packers struggled in 1996 when they lost Brooks and then Freeman for a stretch and had to rely on Beebe and Mickens. It was a joke, and the only reason they won is because they had the best defense and QB in the NFL , and got to play sucky teams like Detroit, TB, and ST. Louis (lost to Dallas and KC), before getting Freeman and Chmura back. So in summary, this idea that the Packers went 4-12 because of lack of depth at the #4 RB and #4 WR position is absurd. No team can withstand the kind of injuries tha Packers suffered last year. It wasn't Sherman's fault or TTs.

[Patler]

What would giveyou a better chance to find a solid player, turning 16 picks into 8 like Sherman did, or drafting 16 players, or turning 16 picks into 24?

To sustain success, every year you have to find a few players that can make reasonable contributions for a few years. By trading away draft picks Sherman allowed no leaway to make a mistake on a player or to get past an injury to a draft pick. I'm not talking about finding all-pros, but finding players to be solid contributors on special teams, starting a few years, or being solid backups. Not guys like Washington, Lee, Peterson etc who take ups space more than they contribute.

I agree that every GM will make mistakes, the trick is to make the situation such that you can afford to make a mistake now and then.

[mraynrand]

If you look at my collectionof posts, I've said over and over that I like TTs strategy of accumulating picks more, simply because you have more chances, given that the probability of missing on a guy is pretty high, even in the first round.

That being said, this thread was initiated ostensibly to make the claim that to consult Sherman on issues regarding a GM hire is wrongheaded. I disagree with this notion, and I also want to illustrate the point that Sherman made some good moves as GM. I thought he made too many bad moves, but to evaluate him in isolation from the success of other teams, PARTICULARLY those that had to draft at the bottom of every round, is unfair.

Once more, TT had a collection of terriffic picks in the 2006 draft, by virtue of the 4-12 record and trading Walker. 3 picks in the top 37. Sherman never had anything close to this. If TT doesn't get three starters and a pro bowler, he's doing worse than Sherman did with his equivalent early picks. Realistically, if Hawk doesn't compete for all-pro at his position, that's a wasted pick.

[Patler]

That being said, this thread was initiated ostensibly to make the claim that to consult Sherman on issues regarding a GM hire is wrongheaded. I disagree with this notion, and I also want to illustrate the point that Sherman made some good moves as GM. I thought he made too many bad moves, but to evaluate him in isolation from the success of other teams, PARTICULARLY those that had to draft at the bottom of every round, is unfair.


Two points before i get back on the topic of this thread:

1. I've not suggested that Sherman made no moves that were good. Walker was good. I also agree that the trade FOR Glenn was not unreasonsable, but the combined move to then "trade" him away and get nothing in return made the whole Glenn situation a bad one. Fourth round draft picks are not irrelevent.

2. I've not suggested that his picks are worse than others, but to trade mulitple picks for them was bad. For example, getting Wells looks like a decent pick. If he had not traded away so many draft picks but had kept them or accumulated more he might have two or three more Wells-calibre players. Those players could have had an impact in 2005, and might have been ready to step up this year as we hope Wells can do. That's what building strength in a roster is all about.

To get back on the topic of this thread, I don't know if it is good or bad to have Sherman involved in selecting the GM, but it certainly is a bit confusing. Having the involvement of an Assistant Coach who answers to the Head Coach, who may or may not answer to the "GM" or whatever they chose to hire is just a bit odd, especially if he and the HC don't agree on the selection. Of course, we don't even know for sure what their heirarchy will be. I wonder if they do???

[cpk1994]

"While we are dumping on a guy who bled Green and Gold while he was here, let's not forget his drafts were always started late in the first round. TT has had 2 drafts, last years where he also started late and this years where he started at #5."

So what? having late picks doesn't excuse giving up two picks for R-Cal Truluck, two picks for B.J. Sander, overpaying Hunt, carrying two punters on the roster while only carrying 4 receivers because he wouldn't
admit his mistake in drafting Sander and on and on and on. Sherman was horseshit and TT has to clean it up.

[Scott Campbell]

To get back on the topic of this thread, I don't know if it is good or bad to have Sherman involved in selecting the GM, but it certainly is a bit confusing. Having the involvement of an Assistant Coach who answers to the Head Coach, who may or may not answer to the "GM" or whatever they chose to hire is just a bit odd, especially if he and the HC don't agree on the selection. Of course, we don't even know for sure what their heirarchy will be. I wonder if they do???


I think it's a good idea. Just because Sherman interviews the guys doesn't mean that he'll have anything close to final say on the hire. Many companies do the same thing, using employees throughout the organization to weigh in on a potential hire, even when they don't have the traditional hiring spots on the company org chart.

Sherman learned a bit while he was here, and he might be able to spot some things that the other interviewers might miss.

[Patler]

Many companies do the same thing, using employees throughout the organization to weigh in on a potential hire, even when they don't have the traditional hiring spots on the company org chart.


Yup, I've had experience with those from both sides, employer and prospective enployee. I've never seen it as anything but a waste of time. Its a carrot thrown by management to lower job classifications to make them feel "empowered", but in reality it is nothing, at least in my experiences.

[The Leaper]

I agree completely with the assessment that Sherman threw away a lot of mid round picks that could've produced depth. That was his greatest flaw. I don't have a problem trading up for Walker...I don't have a problem trading a pick for Harris. Trading up or for proven talent isn't a problem in the top 50 picks. Trading up or for unproven talent in rounds 3-7 is what KILLS you. Sherman repeatedly did this...for Truluck, Sander, Peterson, Washington...and when none of those moves even produced a consistent spot starter, it crippled the team when a rash of injuries hit.

You simply have to stand pat or trade down after round 2. Some would even argue that should hold true after round 1.