Thank you mike Sherman

[red]

we can't thank this guy enough for the excellent team he built for us and left us with

lets review

2001

1 Jamal Reynolds DE- LOL, gone
2 Robert Ferguson WR- on very thin ice, has shown very little over his career
3a Bhawoh Jue CB- gone
3b Torrance Marshall LB- gone
4 Bill Ferrario OG- gone
6 David Martin TE- close to being gone

2002

1 Javon Walker - traded our 1st and second to pick him, got one good year out of him, he's GONE

3 S Marques Anderson - GONE

4 Najeh Davenport - hey someone still on the team, career backup, when healthy

5 Aaron Kampman, - DING DING DING, a WINNER!!!!!

5 Craig Nall- GONE

6 Mike Houghton- who? GONE

2003

1 29(29) Nick Barnett - hey another starter
3 15(79) Kenny Peterson - uggg, but still here
5 12(147) James Lee -gone
5 31(166) Hunter Hillenmeyer- gone
6 39(212) Brennan Curtin* - gone
7 31(245) Chris Johnson - gone
7 39(253) DeAndrew Rubin- gone
7 42(256) Carl Ford - gone
7 43(257) Steve Josue OLB - gone

2004

Round 1 (#25): Ahmad Carroll- finally demoted to backup
Round 3 (#70): Joey Thomas- gone
Round 3 (#72): Donnell Washington- gone
Round 3 (#87): B.J. Sander- soon to be gone
Round 6 (#179): Corey Williams, DT-- backup
Round 7 (#251): Scott Wells- maybe a starter

we traded our 2nd (#55) and 3rd(#86) for two second rounders(70,72) which we used on joey, and donnell, but not on the team any more. we also traded our 4th and 5th rounders(102, 153) for the rightto draft soon to be gone BJ

so in 4 drafts sherman selected 27 guys 3 of those guys will be starters for us this year, maybe 4 if ferguson can do something and at the most 5 backups. thats 9 players out of 27 that are still on this team, if they all make the team this year. thats pathetic IMO

[RashanGary]

Geeze....Thank god we got rid of that pear shaped looser.

[ND72]

1 Jamal Reynolds DE- LOL, gone
2 Robert Ferguson WR- on very thin ice, has shown very little over his career
3a Bhawoh Jue CB- gone
3b Torrance Marshall LB- gone
4 Bill Ferrario OG- gone
6 David Martin TE- close to being gone


That was actually Ron Wolff's last Draft....just so you know.

[red]

1 Jamal Reynolds DE- LOL, gone
2 Robert Ferguson WR- on very thin ice, has shown very little over his career
3a Bhawoh Jue CB- gone
3b Torrance Marshall LB- gone
4 Bill Ferrario OG- gone
6 David Martin TE- close to being gone


That was actually Ron Wolff's last Draft....just so you know.

sherman had to have had a say in it, he was named the gm before the draft

if you don't want to count it, because he didn't have total control. then he drafted 21 players, with 7 still on the team and only 3 starters. thats still horrible

honestly, you could probably have a giant tarp with all the prospects on it laying on the ground, and walk a dog over it and pick the guy who's square the dog shits it, and and do a better job of finding players then sherman.

2 players a year, thats what he averaged

[GoPackGo]

Geeze....Thank god we got rid of that pear shaped looser.

What he said :idea:

[Chubbyhubby]

Geeze....Thank god we got rid of that pear shaped looser.

What he said :idea:

I 100% agree! :razz:

[woodbuck27]

No, absolutely none, ziltch, zippo, diddly squat, Sweet Fueck All support for Mike Sherman in this thread.

How many times can a man be hung in effigy? Look's like Mikey may set a new ALL TIME record?

[red]

No, absolutely none, ziltch, zippo, diddly squat, Sweet Fueck All support for Mike Sherman in this thread.

How many times can a man be hung in effigy? Look's like Mikey may set a new ALL TIME record?

the team should try to sue him for what he did to this franshise

[woodbuck27]

No, absolutely none, ziltch, zippo, diddly squat, Sweet Fueck All support for Mike Sherman in this thread.

How many times can a man be hung in effigy? Look's like Mikey may set a new ALL TIME record?

the team should try to sue him for what he did to this franshise

LOL. Granted red, his record as a GM was very poor.

[GoPackGo]

No, absolutely none, ziltch, zippo, diddly squat, Sweet Fueck All support for Mike Sherman in this thread.

How many times can a man be hung in effigy? Look's like Mikey may set a new ALL TIME record?

the team should try to sue him for what he did to this franshise
:lol:

[Anti-Polar Bear]

lets review

2001

1 Jamal Reynolds DE- LOL, gone
2 Robert Ferguson WR- on very thin ice, has shown very little over his career
3a Bhawoh Jue CB- gone
3b Torrance Marshall LB- gone
4 Bill Ferrario OG- gone
6 David Martin TE- close to being gone



Ron Wolf was never GM of the Packers. Ron Wolf is just a name.

I admit, Sherman screwed up with that draft class. But.....

You forgot to mention Sherman also drafted these starters:

Chad Clifton
Mark Tausher
Donald Driver
Antionio Freeman
Dorsey Levens
Darren Sharper
Mike Wahle
Mike Flanagan
Robert Brooks
Doug Evens
Craig Newsome
Tyrone Williams
Mark Chruma
Bubba Franks
William Henderson
Edger Bennett
Wayne Simmion, among others.

Lets not forget, Sherman traded for Al Harris and Brett Favre. However, the most influential transaction of the Sherman reign was the signing of free agent Reggie White.

Give credit where credit is due.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Yes, in conclusion, lets all thank Mike Sherman for the Super Bowl win. After all, if Sherman was GM when the Packers drafte Reynolds, he was also GM when the Packers won the SB. :wink:

[packer4life]

I'd be interested in seeing the success rates of some of the elite NFL teams from the last 4 years compared to the sorry draft skills of the late Sherman era. Of course, I am far too lazy to do the research.

Anyone else wanna take a peek into the drafting prowess of teams like the Steelers, Colts, and Pats?

By the way, I love this forum...keep up the good posts everyone (except APB)

[Anti-Polar Bear]

2 players a year, thats what he (sherman) averaged

You must be one of those people who thinks 2nd is best. According to you, Sherman averaged 2 players a year. Let's look at THompson's 1st draft class.

1. Aaron Rodgers (throws like a girl; career backup written all over him)
2. Nick Collins (starter but nothing special; not a playmaker)
2. Terrence Murphy (And thompson lovers thinks he's a genus for wasting a 2nd rounder)
4. Marviel Underwood (on the bubble)
4. Brady Poppinga (on his way to the IR...again)
5. Junius Coston (who the fuck is him?)
5. Micheal Hawkins (why havent thompson recommand that he switch to WR)
6. Mike Montgomery (who the fuck is him?)
6. Craig Bragg (who the fuck is him?)
7. Kurt Campbell (who the fuck is him?)
7. Will Whitticker (started out of desperation because THompson fucked up with the Wahle situation and failed to draft Logan Mankins in the 1st rd; benched this year)

So if Sherman averaged 2 starters per year and Thompson, 1, yet thompson is still a better GM than sherman? According to you, getting 2 quality starters is not as good as getting 1.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

oh 1 more thing, no matter how bad you think Sherman drafted, he never went 4-12 as GM. Hell, Sherman never missed the Playoffs. You and your love for thompson seem to be saying that missing the playoffs is better than making the playoffs.

[Tony Oday]

Tank face it SHERMAN SUCKED AS A GM!!!!!! He was a good coach that took over a veteran team and was a good caretaker but he never took risks in games at all and played like a whooped woman. He had some great seasons but which is the only GB coach EVER to lose a home playoff game? Yup Sherman. Only GM in GB history to trade up for a punter that cant KICK!!! WTF cmon man lay down the man crush.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Tank face it SHERMAN SUCKED AS A GM!!!!!! He was a good coach that took over a veteran team and was a good caretaker but he never took risks in games at all and played like a whooped woman. He had some great seasons but which is the only GB coach EVER to lose a home playoff game? Yup Sherman. Only GM in GB history to trade up for a punter that cant KICK!!! WTF cmon man lay down the man crush.

Why dont you admitt Sherman is better than Thompson? I'm gonna check sherman's record as GM again...hold..........

Ok, lets see here, 12-4, 10-6, 10-6.

I'm now looking to see if Sherman ever finished 4-12, as GM.

looking.....looking...still looking.

Found it....wait, according to this source (jsonline) some polar bear named Ted Thompson was GM durng the 4-12 campiegn. Hey, Sherman couldve gotten lots of cap room by opting not to resign Clifton and Tausher. If sherman could find a way to resign both of those players with less money than the 7.5 M thompson had last year, then Thompson should be able to resign Wahle and Sharper.

Sherman was better than Thompson. Bob Harlan fucked up as much as Ted THompson.

[red]

TT had to play with the shit that sherman had drafted


I'd be interested in seeing the success rates of some of the elite NFL teams from the last 4 years compared to the sorry draft skills of the late Sherman era. Of course, I am far too lazy to do the research.

Anyone else wanna take a peek into the drafting prowess of teams like the Steelers, Colts, and Pats?

By the way, I love this forum...keep up the good posts everyone (except APB)

steelers

2001

1 19* Casey Hampton - starter
2 8** Kendrell Bell-gone, but was a good starter while in PIt
4 16* Mathias Nkwenti- gone
5 15 Chukky Okobi- starter
6 18* Rodney Bailey - backup
6 19 Roger Knight - gone
7 18 Chris Taylor- gone

2 starters, 1 backup

2002

1 30 Kendall Simmons - starter
2 30 Antwaan Randle El - gone but started until this year
3 29 Chris Hope - gone
4 30 Larry Foote - starter
5 31 Verron Haynes - backup
6 30 Lee Mays - gone
7 1* Lavar Glover -gone
7 31 Bret Keisel - backup

2 starters, 2 backups

2003

1 16 Troy Polamalu - starter, pro bowler
2 27 Alonzo Jackson - gone, plays for the giants
4 28 Ike Taylor - starter
5 28 Brian St. Pierre - gone
7 28 J.T. Wall - gone

2 starters

2004

1 11 Ben Roethlisberger -starter, pro bowler
2 6 Ricardo Colclough -backup, played well last year
3 12 Max Starks Florida -starter
5 13 Nathaniel Adibi - gone
6 12 Bo Lacy -gone
6 29 Matt Kranchick -gone
6 32 Drew Caylor -gone
7 11 Eric Taylor -gone

2 starters, 1 backup

so the steelers added 8 starters, and 4 backups. and a couple of decent players that went elsewhere and they had 28 picks

we had 3 or 4 starters and 5 backups

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

lets review

2001

1 Jamal Reynolds DE- LOL, gone
2 Robert Ferguson WR- on very thin ice, has shown very little over his career
3a Bhawoh Jue CB- gone
3b Torrance Marshall LB- gone
4 Bill Ferrario OG- gone
6 David Martin TE- close to being gone



Ron Wolf was never GM of the Packers. Ron Wolf is just a name.

I admit, Sherman screwed up with that draft class. But.....

You forgot to mention Sherman also drafted these starters:

Chad Clifton
Mark Tausher
Donald Driver
Antionio Freeman
Dorsey Levens
Darren Sharper
Mike Wahle
Mike Flanagan
Robert Brooks
Doug Evens
Craig Newsome
Tyrone Williams
Mark Chruma
Bubba Franks
William Henderson
Edger Bennett
Wayne Simmion, among others.

Lets not forget, Sherman traded for Al Harris and Brett Favre. However, the most influential transaction of the Sherman reign was the signing of free agent Reggie White.

Give credit where credit is due.


are u giving sherman cerdit for ur superbowl win? and are you saying sherman was gm? during the 90's sherman was niether gm nor head Coach, thats like giving jags cerdit for this pasr draft. and thats just dumb.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

[quote="Anti-Polar Bear"][quote=red]


are u giving sherman cerdit for ur superbowl win? and are you saying sherman was gm? during the 90's sherman was niether gm nor head Coach, thats like giving jags cerdit for this pasr draft. and thats just dumb.

No, that's like saying Sherman drafted Reynalds and Ferguson and Marshall, etc.

Ron Wolf is just a name. You are stupid if you think Ron Wolf drafted Reynalds and Ferguson and Marshall.

[retailguy]

2 8** Kendrell Bell-gone, but was a good starter while in PIt

2 30 Antwaan Randle El - gone but started until this year


1 Javon Walker - traded our 1st and second to pick him, got one good year out of him, he's GONE

so the steelers added 8 starters, and 4 backups. and a couple of decent players that went elsewhere and they had 28 picks

we had 3 or 4 starters and 5 backups

Red,

Here is a perfect example of the problems I have with your "analysis". I have no problems with your "opinions" but you present them as facts and it drives me CRAZY.

You, when you did your intial analysis gave "loose credit" to Mike Sherman for his drafting of Javon Walker, but the implication was clear - He was a one hit wonder and we traded up for him and therefore it was a POOR decision.

Then, when "analyzing" the Steelers you made the above statement - "played well while in Pitt".

Couldn't all of us agree that Walker also "played well" while he was here? Isn't it EXACTLY the same situation?

If you want to clobber Sherman for his trading up to pick players, have at it, it is pretty indefensible. However, if you want to "bash" him for his selections, you are on thinner ice than you realized....

The "few" players that Pittsburg drafted and started over the players Sherman drafted and started can easily be explained by the additional selections that Pittsburg had.

Clearly, your analysis shows that it is a crapshoot at best to draft players, whether you are in Pitt or GB. The odds are well below 50%.

So, your analysis shows in my opinion that draft picks have a much higher value than Mike Sherman placed on them. Now look at WHY Sherman didn't value draft picks.... That analysis, coming from you, should be VERY interesting and I'm curious. I'm happy to share my opinion with you after I hear yours.

[red]

2 8** Kendrell Bell-gone, but was a good starter while in PIt

2 30 Antwaan Randle El - gone but started until this year


1 Javon Walker - traded our 1st and second to pick him, got one good year out of him, he's GONE

so the steelers added 8 starters, and 4 backups. and a couple of decent players that went elsewhere and they had 28 picks

we had 3 or 4 starters and 5 backups

Red,

Here is a perfect example of the problems I have with your "analysis". I have no problems with your "opinions" but you present them as facts and it drives me CRAZY.

You, when you did your intial analysis gave "loose credit" to Mike Sherman for his drafting of Javon Walker, but the implication was clear - He was a one hit wonder and we traded up for him and therefore it was a POOR decision.

Then, when "analyzing" the Steelers you made the above statement - "played well while in Pitt".

Couldn't all of us agree that Walker also "played well" while he was here? Isn't it EXACTLY the same situation?

If you want to clobber Sherman for his trading up to pick players, have at it, it is pretty indefensible. However, if you want to "bash" him for his selections, you are on thinner ice than you realized....

The "few" players that Pittsburg drafted and started over the players Sherman drafted and started can easily be explained by the additional selections that Pittsburg had.

Clearly, your analysis shows that it is a crapshoot at best to draft players, whether you are in Pitt or GB. The odds are well below 50%.

So, your analysis shows in my opinion that draft picks have a much higher value than Mike Sherman placed on them. Now look at WHY Sherman didn't value draft picks.... That analysis, coming from you, should be VERY interesting and I'm curious. I'm happy to share my opinion with you after I hear yours.

well i did say javon had 1 good year, which he did, out of 4 seasons here. we still don't know for sure if he is an elite talent, or had one fluke year. kendell bell had 2 very good years for the steelers and one other decent year, in his 4 years with the team, thats more then walker did for us. walker, and the two steelers were not included in the final numbers.

i should also mention that i think i was using a depth chart for 2005 for the steelers, so its not exact by any means. but it can give you a ruff idea

the steelers did not have additional selections. i counted 2001 for shermans drafts because he was the gm, and i have to imagine he had some input into that draft. the packers had 27 picks during shermans period, and the steelers had 28 over that same time

in that time the steelers drafted twice as many starters as us with the same amount of picks. to me, that shows better drafting, and not just luck

[retailguy]

well i did say javon had 1 good year, which he did, out of 4 seasons here. we still don't know for sure if he is an elite talent, or had one fluke year. kendell bell had 2 very good years for the steelers and one other decent year, in his 4 years with the team, thats more then walker did for us. walker, and the two steelers were not included in the final numbers.

i should also mention that i think i was using a depth chart for 2005 for the steelers, so its not exact by any means. but it can give you a ruff idea

the steelers did not have additional selections. i counted 2001 for shermans drafts because he was the gm, and i have to imagine he had some input into that draft. the packers had 27 picks during shermans period, and the steelers had 28 over that same time

in that time the steelers drafted twice as many starters as us with the same amount of picks. to me, that shows better drafting, and not just luck


Red,

Let's be realistic. You can't give Mike Sherman blame or credit for 2001. Ron Wolf was GM. You can't do it for the same reason you can't give Sherman credit for the 2005 draft, as he was still here and had "input" reported by all parties including Thompson.

Give the 2001 a rest. It isn't reasonable.

If you look at 2002-2004, Pittsburg had to have more draft choices than Sherman did. He traded up far far too often. Even factoring in compensatory picks, Pittsburg had to have more selections.

I am on my way out the door and I don't have time to total them up, but give it a look and see what I mean. When you factor in the lower number of picks and the players that Sherman traded for by giving up picks, it brings things better into focus than just making a "blanket statement".

[red]

we can do a breakdown by round, and look at that. usually the higher picks should be the better players that make the team, and the late rounders have a smaller shot

1st rounders

packers - 2 of 4 are still with us with 1 starting and i backup who might be a starter again someday

steelers- 4 of 4 are still with the team, all starters

2nd round

we are 1 for 1 with furguson being the only second round pick we had.

steelers

1 for 4 they still have one backup, the other 3 play for other teams

3rd

packers- 1 for 7, kenny peterson is the only 3rd rounder we have left

steelers- they are 1 for 2 with that one guy being a starter

4th

we are 1 for 2 with najeh as a backup

steelers are 2 for 3 with 2 starters

5th

we are 1 for 4 with 1 starter

steelers are 2 for 4 with 1 starter and 1 backup

6th

we are 3 for 4, 4 backups. i think i forgot to include curtan in the original one

steelers are- 1 for 6, 1 backup

7th

we are 1 for 5 with wells being the one guy

they are 1 for 5 with that guy being a backup

looking at that i think they did better in the first 4 rounds. they hit on all their 1st rounders, 4 starters, thats what you should get with 1st rounders. we had 1 starter, 1 backup, 1 complete bust, and one guy that gave us one good year and demanded to leave

[red]

well i did say javon had 1 good year, which he did, out of 4 seasons here. we still don't know for sure if he is an elite talent, or had one fluke year. kendell bell had 2 very good years for the steelers and one other decent year, in his 4 years with the team, thats more then walker did for us. walker, and the two steelers were not included in the final numbers.

i should also mention that i think i was using a depth chart for 2005 for the steelers, so its not exact by any means. but it can give you a ruff idea

the steelers did not have additional selections. i counted 2001 for shermans drafts because he was the gm, and i have to imagine he had some input into that draft. the packers had 27 picks during shermans period, and the steelers had 28 over that same time

in that time the steelers drafted twice as many starters as us with the same amount of picks. to me, that shows better drafting, and not just luck


Red,

Let's be realistic. You can't give Mike Sherman blame or credit for 2001. Ron Wolf was GM. You can't do it for the same reason you can't give Sherman credit for the 2005 draft, as he was still here and had "input" reported by all parties including Thompson.

Give the 2001 a rest. It isn't reasonable.

If you look at 2002-2004, Pittsburg had to have more draft choices than Sherman did. He traded up far far too often. Even factoring in compensatory picks, Pittsburg had to have more selections.

I am on my way out the door and I don't have time to total them up, but give it a look and see what I mean. When you factor in the lower number of picks and the players that Sherman traded for by giving up picks, it brings things better into focus than just making a "blanket statement".

sherman was the GM for the 2001 draft, he was given the job months before. do you seriously think he would give total control of his team to a guy on his way out? IMO sherman had a lot of say in that draft

the last rounds of the draft were 13 to 15, they had 2 more picks then us

[packer4life]

Hey thanks for the reply Red.

I do think the fact that the Steelers hit 4 for 4 in the first round indicates superior drafting, seeing that the top rounds have the highest chance of players making the pro-bowl and being solid starters in this league.

The later rounds really are crap shoots. This fact makes me happy that TT traded down so much this year. Time will tell if it made an impact -- I pray to god that a player like chad jackson doesn't light up this league...that would bring on way too many "I told you so" in packer forums s:neutral:

[Scott Campbell]

Sherman's secret to a quality draft? Plenty of rest.

http://www.packerforum.com/modules/coppermine/albums/userpics/10289/normal_sherman_sleep.jpg

[woodbuck27]

Sherman's secret to a quality draft? Plenty of rest.

http://www.packerforum.com/modules/coppermine/albums/userpics/10289/normal_sherman_sleep.jpg

Hi Scott. :roll:

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

thats some good scouting............lmao

[prsnfoto]

2 8** Kendrell Bell-gone, but was a good starter while in PIt

2 30 Antwaan Randle El - gone but started until this year


1 Javon Walker - traded our 1st and second to pick him, got one good year out of him, he's GONE

so the steelers added 8 starters, and 4 backups. and a couple of decent players that went elsewhere and they had 28 picks

we had 3 or 4 starters and 5 backups

Red,

Here is a perfect example of the problems I have with your "analysis". I have no problems with your "opinions" but you present them as facts and it drives me CRAZY.

You, when you did your intial analysis gave "loose credit" to Mike Sherman for his drafting of Javon Walker, but the implication was clear - He was a one hit wonder and we traded up for him and therefore it was a POOR decision.

Then, when "analyzing" the Steelers you made the above statement - "played well while in Pitt".

Couldn't all of us agree that Walker also "played well" while he was here? Isn't it EXACTLY the same situation?

If you want to clobber Sherman for his trading up to pick players, have at it, it is pretty indefensible. However, if you want to "bash" him for his selections, you are on thinner ice than you realized....

The "few" players that Pittsburg drafted and started over the players Sherman drafted and started can easily be explained by the additional selections that Pittsburg had.

Clearly, your analysis shows that it is a crapshoot at best to draft players, whether you are in Pitt or GB. The odds are well below 50%.

So, your analysis shows in my opinion that draft picks have a much higher value than Mike Sherman placed on them. Now look at WHY Sherman didn't value draft picks.... That analysis, coming from you, should be VERY interesting and I'm curious. I'm happy to share my opinion with you after I hear yours.

It is true Pittsburg is not a stellar example but Seattle is Thompson drafted 37 players while there and when he left for Green Bay 30 where still on Seattle's team the draft is not only to find stars like Alexander it is to build depth that is what TT is doing here and he did in Seattle, it is also why we were 4-12 last year there were no back-ups. There is no defense for what Sherman did to the team and to a hall of fame QB both deserved better. It also does not take into account the cap blunders that put us in that position Johnson,Reynolds,Hunt,KGB,Sharper, extensions or original contracts that killed this teams cap, I will jump all over TT if he does the same with Pickett and Woodson fair is fair but there is no doubt Sherman was in way over his head. Who do we blame for that? I blame Ron Wolf I think he wanted to protect his legacy and didn't want the pack to be great quite so soon I mean come on Ray Rhodes and a guy with no head coaching or Gm experience to follow Holmgren. Just a Thought.

[Scott Campbell]

Hi Scott. :roll:

Sorry Wood, I just love that pic.

[retailguy]

sherman was the GM for the 2001 draft, he was given the job months before. do you seriously think he would give total control of his team to a guy on his way out? IMO sherman had a lot of say in that draft

the last rounds of the draft were 13 to 15, they had 2 more picks then us


Here is another example where you're just wrong, Red. You're just wrong. You can feel however you want to, but there is ZERO evidence to support your position. Your position is completely emotional and unsupported by the facts other than some rumor on footballoutsiders.com that said wolf blamed sherman for selecting reynolds. Here are the facts, supported with references.

New York Times - February 10,2001 (A good liberal like you trusts the NY times, Right?)

"Sherman is scheduled to assume his role as coach, executive vice president and general manager on June 1, when General Manager Ron Wolf retires and becomes a consultant."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402EFD91331F933A25751C0A9679C8B 63

JSonline.com February 1, 2001

"Wolf said he will remain in complete control of this year's draft, scheduled for April 21-22.

After that, Wolf will officially end a 39-year career in personnel as of June 1 and then move into a consultant's role that Sherman obviously is hoping will be more extensive than Wolf intends it to be."

http://www2.jsonline.com/packer/news/feb01/wolf020101.asp

Packers.com 4/16/2001 Press Release

"There isn't anything changed," Wolf said during his last annual pre-draft press conference, adding by way of emphasis, "The process has been the same...is the same...will remain the same."


Wolf, in commenting on the transitional process, said of Sherman, "He learns by watching. He feels that's the best way of doing that - and I don't disagree with that."

http://www.packers.com/news/releases/2001/04/04-16b.html

Jsonline.com April 22, 2001

"What everyone has failed to take into consideration is where we ranked (Jamal) Reynolds," Wolf said. "He was the No. 2 guy (on the board). And he didn't cost anything. What we needed was to add someone who could rush the passer. We just felt this guy can become an impact player as a pass rusher."

http://www2.jsonline.com/packer/rev/apr01/packers23042201.asp


jsonline 2/6/2006

"I've thought over the years it might have been better with 17, 26 and 56," Wolf said. "But if we had picked Dan Morgan it wouldn't have mattered."

http://www.westerncourier.com/media/storage/paper650/news/2006/02/06/Sports/Qbs-Reach.Elite.Level-1599867.shtml
?norewrite200606101432&sourcedomain=www.westerncourier.com


And the final one - packersnews.com June 6, 2004

“I don’t know what happened,” Wolf said this week from his home in Maryland. “You have to take the injury into account. It happened, and the guy’s never been the same player. Or, I could have missed on him. It could have just been what it’s going to turn out to be: a bad pick.”

http://www.packersnews.com/topics/mini04/mini_1_16398439.shtml


So, Red, can you just give up on Sherm the GM in 2001? Focus on 2002-2004, take a real clear look at those drafts. You'll discover that Sherman traded 20 draft picks during those three years. THAT alone was the root of his problems. Wolf taught him to trade up - after all, Wolf traded up for reynolds, but he also traded 5 picks to San Francisco that year for three higher ones as he thought the bottom rounds had poor talent.

Sherman went for broke and failed, THAT is his legacy. You can feel however you want, but PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

I don't hold Sherman high in reverence for his drafting abilities either, however, I understand what Sherman was trying to accomplish, he didn't make it, and that will be his ultimate legacy, not all this other BS you guys always seem to talk about.[/url]

[mraynrand]

I e-mailed Cliff Cristl about this very issue (the control of the 2001 draft). He said that to the best of his knowledge, Wolf was in total control, but that he accepted and listened to input from the coaching staff.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

sherman was the GM for the 2001 draft, he was given the job months before. do you seriously think he would give total control of his team to a guy on his way out? IMO sherman had a lot of say in that draft

the last rounds of the draft were 13 to 15, they had 2 more picks then us


Here is another example where you're just wrong, Red. You're just wrong. You can feel however you want to, but there is ZERO evidence to support your position. Your position is completely emotional and unsupported by the facts other than some rumor on footballoutsiders.com that said wolf blamed sherman for selecting reynolds. Here are the facts, supported with references.

New York Times - February 10,2001 (A good liberal like you trusts the NY times, Right?)

"Sherman is scheduled to assume his role as coach, executive vice president and general manager on June 1, when General Manager Ron Wolf retires and becomes a consultant."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402EFD91331F933A25751C0A9679C8B 63

JSonline.com February 1, 2001

"Wolf said he will remain in complete control of this year's draft, scheduled for April 21-22.

After that, Wolf will officially end a 39-year career in personnel as of June 1 and then move into a consultant's role that Sherman obviously is hoping will be more extensive than Wolf intends it to be."

http://www2.jsonline.com/packer/news/feb01/wolf020101.asp

Packers.com 4/16/2001 Press Release

"There isn't anything changed," Wolf said during his last annual pre-draft press conference, adding by way of emphasis, "The process has been the same...is the same...will remain the same."


Wolf, in commenting on the transitional process, said of Sherman, "He learns by watching. He feels that's the best way of doing that - and I don't disagree with that."

http://www.packers.com/news/releases/2001/04/04-16b.html

Jsonline.com April 22, 2001

"What everyone has failed to take into consideration is where we ranked (Jamal) Reynolds," Wolf said. "He was the No. 2 guy (on the board). And he didn't cost anything. What we needed was to add someone who could rush the passer. We just felt this guy can become an impact player as a pass rusher."

http://www2.jsonline.com/packer/rev/apr01/packers23042201.asp


jsonline 2/6/2006

"I've thought over the years it might have been better with 17, 26 and 56," Wolf said. "But if we had picked Dan Morgan it wouldn't have mattered."

http://www.westerncourier.com/media/storage/paper650/news/2006/02/06/Sports/Qbs-Reach.Elite.Level-1599867.shtml
?norewrite200606101432&sourcedomain=www.westerncourier.com


And the final one - packersnews.com June 6, 2004

“I don’t know what happened,” Wolf said this week from his home in Maryland. “You have to take the injury into account. It happened, and the guy’s never been the same player. Or, I could have missed on him. It could have just been what it’s going to turn out to be: a bad pick.”

http://www.packersnews.com/topics/mini04/mini_1_16398439.shtml


So, Red, can you just give up on Sherm the GM in 2001? Focus on 2002-2004, take a real clear look at those drafts. You'll discover that Sherman traded 20 draft picks during those three years. THAT alone was the root of his problems. Wolf taught him to trade up - after all, Wolf traded up for reynolds, but he also traded 5 picks to San Francisco that year for three higher ones as he thought the bottom rounds had poor talent.

Sherman went for broke and failed, THAT is his legacy. You can feel however you want, but PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

I don't hold Sherman high in reverence for his drafting abilities either, however, I understand what Sherman was trying to accomplish, he didn't make it, and that will be his ultimate legacy, not all this other BS you guys always seem to talk about.[/url]

Good post.

[woodbuck27]

"Good post." Anti-Polor Bear

Hello Tank . Just wanted to say hello :smile: !!

Ed. woodbuck27

[Anti-Polar Bear]

"Good post." Anti-Polor Bear

Hello tank . Just wanted to say hello :smile: !!

Ed. woodbuck27

Sup, woodbuck. Why, thank you. :mrgreen:

[Fritz]

From the Green Bay Press Gazette:

"Washington’s departure is another black mark on Mike Sherman’s drafting ability during his stint as general manager. While the Packers had a winning record under Sherman, his drafting was suspect. During the 2004 draft, the Packers had three third-round picks. Two of them, Washington and cornerback Joey Thomas, have been released. The third, punter B.J. Sander, isn’t a lock to make the team this season."

There you go, Tank. Another third round winner from Shermie.

[woodbuck27]

Hi Scott. :roll:

Sorry Wood, I just love that pic.


No problem Scott . . .and yes you do love that pic as Mike S. lapsed. . . beyond boredom. It is funny but just a little embarassing to Mikey.

Literally, I was simply saying hello Packer fan. Hope things are Super with you.

PEACE Scott.

[red]

retailguy, i went right off shermans bio that said he was given the job feb 1st in 2001. it did say that wolf would be on through the draft. i still can't see how the new gm would not have a lot of say in the picks that the old gm is going to make. i find it insane to think a guy who s about to completely take over a team, and is already a big part of the team, would let someone on his way out the door just do whatever he wants.

we'll cut it out and only include drafts that sherman had 100% absolute power over. even if you take away that 1st year from both team, shermans drafts were horrible. 7 players in 3 years with 3 starters. thats still absolutely pathetic. is it not?

the steelers had 6 starters and 3 backups picked in that time. its still a 2 to 1 starter ratio for them verus us

anyway you want to cut it up, sherman sucked at being a gm

now get off my fucking back. if i really wanted to slant numbers to make my point, i easily could

[mraynrand]

7 players in 3 years with 3 starters.

I guess it depends on what you mean by a starter. Does starting for one game count, or does it have to be multiple games? DO they have to be starters this year, or at the ned of last year.

A partial list of starters (for at least one game):

Walker (used an additional 2nd round pick to move up)
Glenn (traded for with two 4th round picks)
Harris (traded for with a second round pick)
Davenport
Kampman
Fisher (Rookie FA, started several games)
Barry (Rookie FA, started at least one game)
Barnett
Sander
Carroll
Jenkins (Rookie FA)
Peterson
Lee (started at least one game)

I agree that Sherman was no great shakes as a GM, but if you add in rookie free agents, and the guys he picked up using (wasting) draft picks, he was not terrible, in my opinion - just marginal (maybe a 4-5 on a scale of 1-10 for GMs). Millen is terrible. Butch Davis (was) terrible. Those guys blew multiple high first round draft picks. The highest pick Shermy ever had was #20 (Walker) and he had to trade up to get it.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

now get off my fucking back. if i really wanted to slant numbers to make my point, i easily could

Red, I think Retail Guy has defeated you.

[Bretsky]

7 players in 3 years with 3 starters.

I guess it depends on what you mean by a starter. Does starting for one game count, or does it have to be multiple games? DO they have to be starters this year, or at the ned of last year.

A partial list of starters (for at least one game):

Walker (used an additional 2nd round pick to move up)
Glenn (traded for with two 4th round picks)
Harris (traded for with a second round pick)
Davenport
Kampman
Fisher (Rookie FA, started several games)
Barry (Rookie FA, started at least one game)
Barnett
Sander
Carroll
Jenkins (Rookie FA)
Peterson
Lee (started at least one game)

I agree that Sherman was no great shakes as a GM, but if you add in rookie free agents, and the guys he picked up using (wasting) draft picks, he was not terrible, in my opinion - just marginal (maybe a 4-5 on a scale of 1-10 for GMs). Millen is terrible. Butch Davis (was) terrible. Those guys blew multiple high first round draft picks. The highest pick Shermy ever had was #20 (Walker) and he had to trade up to get it.

I'd agree with the terrible, and IMO you are stretching to make your point by including one game starters and giving Sherman credit for terrible moves such as Glenn and Sanders. I belive Red was analyzing Sherman's drafts and if you look at his draft picks they are no short of horrible.

Looking at your list, trading TWO fourth round picks to rent Terry Glenn for one season is poor....Najeh Davenport has started, but he is not a starter. If you count Davenport then you can give Sherman credit for a bunch of crappy lineman that once started last year as well and you could add numerous players to the list who spot started for injuries. Tony Fischer ? Was never drafted and we valued him so much we didn't try to resign him this year. Kevin Barry.....one game...again if that is the criteria then we can add a lot of chumps to the list.........and he was never drafted. BJ Sanders is nothing short of a nightmarish terrible draft day move and will be fortunate to be on a NFL roster this year. Cullen Jenkins was not drafted. To include Lee as a partial starter...well....insert your own words...and remember Sherman gave up two draft picks for Lee, a NFL Europe talent who didn't even start full time in college, and Peterson, who is just starting to show a few flashes.


The legitimate starters Sherman brought in via draft in three years were Barnett, Walker, and Kampman. Maybe....maybe Carroll. But that's it. Mike Sherman would have been much better off taking every second and third round pick he had and trading for guys like Al Harris.

On the 1-10 scale, I think I'm being generous with a 2.

[RashanGary]

Nice post Bretsky...

[falco]

man the kool aid dude totally burned red....lets give a thumbs up for fair and unbiased analysis.

[Bretsky]

man the kool aid dude totally burned red....lets give a thumbs up for fair and unbiased analysis.


RG is correct; all facts and stories written have sided with the idea that Ron Wolf completely ran that draft.

But I don't blame Red one bit if he believes Mike Sherman had more to say about that 2001 draft than most think. Sherman was hired well before that draft, and common sense would dictate that Wolf and Sherman would act together and Sherman would make the final call since he's the GM going forward. But that's not where any evidence we have points to, and since we weren't there at the draft to listen in it's a hard view to argue.

I have heard Ron Wolf made reference to Dan Morgan being the higher rated football player, but Green Bay chose Reynolds...who was more a need pick. IMO Sherman always had the weakness of choosing for need.

On the other hand, Wolf was quoted as saying he royally SCREWED UP BAD in round two by recommdinding FegyFraud over Chris Chambers so that was his doing.

B

[retailguy]

retailguy, i went right off shermans bio that said he was given the job feb 1st in 2001. it did say that wolf would be on through the draft. i still can't see how the new gm would not have a lot of say in the picks that the old gm is going to make. i find it insane to think a guy who s about to completely take over a team, and is already a big part of the team, would let someone on his way out the door just do whatever he wants.

we'll cut it out and only include drafts that sherman had 100% absolute power over. even if you take away that 1st year from both team, shermans drafts were horrible. 7 players in 3 years with 3 starters. thats still absolutely pathetic. is it not?

the steelers had 6 starters and 3 backups picked in that time. its still a 2 to 1 starter ratio for them verus us

anyway you want to cut it up, sherman sucked at being a gm

now get off my fucking back. if i really wanted to slant numbers to make my point, i easily could


Red,

I agree, sherman was given the job on Feb. 1, he just didn't start until Wolf retired.

I also agree that Pittsburg and most of the league drafted better than Sherman.

I think that any smart GM would make the Head Coach an integral part of the draft process. No head coach should ever "be stuck" with a player he doesn't want. It is unfathomable to me that if Wolf ever said to either Holmgren or Sherman or anyone else "I don't care, just coach him".

One of Sherman's biggest flaws, in my opinion, is that he believed strongly that guys like you were correct. He had a small window and had to get over the hump, and COULD NOT FAIL because Brett was going to retire some day soon.

He made "gotta win now" decisions OVER AND OVER AND OVER because he listened to guys like you. You are doing the same thing to McCarthy now, only you're saying "TT has set you up for success, where are all the players" "How dare they skip out of a voluntary camp" McCarthy has lost the team".

OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER..... I remember when Mike Sherman was hired. I thought, WTF? Then he got the GM position and I thought WTFX2....

Sherman won my respect for the total commitment he had. He lost my respect as GM because of the low value he placed on draft choices.

I'm "not on your back". Believe me. I could care less what your opinion is of Mike Sherman, but to come in here and post what a classless jerk he is, says more about you than it does about Sherman.

You'd better pray hard that McCarthy & Thompson get us to the Super Bowl, because if you "get all over" McCarthy and Thompson two years from now the same way you stick it to Sherman, THEN I'll be all over your ass and I'll NEVER quit.

Sherman achieved something in this life that you and I will never ever hold. He got to be coach of the Green Bay Packers during the Brett Favre years. I envy that more than you will ever understand. I respect Mike Sherman for putting in 25 years of hard ass work to get to the top, and respect him further for leaving town without BASHING ANYBODY.

Thats more than I can say for 2/3rds of this Packer forum or any Packer forum.

[retailguy]

man the kool aid dude totally burned red....lets give a thumbs up for fair and unbiased analysis.


If you even think for one minute that this is what my posts were about, you are COMPLETELY clueless.

[retailguy]

RG is correct; all facts and stories written have sided with the idea that Ron Wolf completely ran that draft.

But I don't blame Red one bit if he believes Mike Sherman had more to say about that 2001 draft than most think. Sherman was hired well before that draft, and common sense would dictate that Wolf and Sherman would act together and Sherman would make the final call since he's the GM going forward. But that's not where any evidence we have points to, and since we weren't there at the draft to listen in it's a hard view to argue.

I have heard Ron Wolf made reference to Dan Morgan being the higher rated football player, but Green Bay chose Reynolds...who was more a need pick. IMO Sherman always had the weakness of choosing for need.

On the other hand, Wolf was quoted as saying he royally SCREWED UP BAD in round two by recommdinding FegyFraud over Chris Chambers so that was his doing.

B


Bretsky,

Thanks for getting my points. I wasn't trying to claim that Sherman was and excellent GM, rather, I was trying to say that he was making decisions from a very small focused viewpoint that most have failed at and it got him too.

Having reflected on the decisions that Ron Wolf made as he "rode off into the sunset", I think we can see what he was doing. I don't think that he ever 'ceded control to anyone during the time he was there, quite simply I don't think his ego would allow it. I truly believe Ron Wolf was all about Ron Wolf. It just so happened that he had to be all about the Green Bay Packers to be all about Ron Wolf. That selfishness worked out great for us.

I heard the references about Dan Morgan too, but never from Wolf. The most pronounced statements were posted (and still are) on footballoutsiders.com. No verification of its sources were ever posted to my knowledge. Wolf has always maintained that Reynolds was #2 on his draft board only behind Gerald Warren (another disaster, but at least he's still playing).

My purpose has been and always will be to put Mike Sherman into context. He has a specific purpose and it was to get Brett another SB before he retired. It should have been to continue to field a Green Bay Packers team each and every year that was continually competitive.

Had he focused on that, he'd still be here. I truly believe that. But those that criticize the lack of depth have valid points. He didn't build depth. That wasn't the focus. It should have been. And he paid for that with his dream job. High price, don't ya think?

[falco]

man the kool aid dude totally burned red....lets give a thumbs up for fair and unbiased analysis.


If you even think for one minute that this is what my posts were about, you are COMPLETELY clueless.

Sorry Koolaid dude, I was being tongue in cheek. Don't mind me.

[mraynrand]

Bretsky,

You can discount the rookie FAs all you want, but they count as far as the draft goes. If the draft were still 12 rounds, they'd be Packer Draft Picks and not Rookie FAs (A rose by any other name...). Davenport played behind Green, so to say he's 'not a starter' is based on virtually nothing, since because of Green and injuries he hasn't had much chance. Barry was the true starter in one game but played an instumental part in the best running attack in the history of the Green Bay Packers. That has to count for something. Fisher started several games and played quite a lot. Doesn't he count as quality depth - as does Jenkins. Sherman might have picked up guys with the two 4ths he spent on Glenn, but he took a chance that Glenn would get him over the top in 2002. Injuries destroyed that team and Glenn was a mental case - still, he was better than Freeman or Schroeder, the starting WRs the year before. Who gives a flying fuck if Sherman blew a #6 to move up and waste a five on Lee. He hit on Kampman in the fifth and possibly Peterson in the third. And I forgot to mention Corey Williams (#6 round) in my post above. The point is that Red was creaming over all the great starters that Pittsburgh picked up. I admit they did a better job, but again, TO CALL SHERMAN TERRIBLE LEAVES NO ROOM AT THE BOTTOM FOR GMs THAT REALLY STINK UP THE PLACE, like the guys I mentioned and more. Just how many great starters do you expect in rounds 3-7 anyway. Go compare some other teams and just look at the guys who never pan out. When you draft at the bottom of the first round year after year after year, you don't get great players, and if you trade picks, you have less chances.

Finally, again, my point is not that Sherman was a good GM - he was probably just below average. But the point is you guys fester and fester about the guys that didn't work out like you're in this warped vacuum where you will ONLY compare Sherman with GMs that had more success and NEVER compare Sherman to guys that truly suck - guys that can be found all around the league - guys that draft very high in the first round year after year and stink it up year after year. I submit that you have narrow Packer blinders on and are unreasonable.

P.S. I also noticed how you ignored Harris. So far, they've had four solid years for the trade of a #2

[Bretsky]

Bretsky,

You can discount the rookie FAs all you want, but they count as far as the draft goes. If the draft were still 12 rounds, they'd be Packer Draft Picks and not Rookie FAs (A rose by any other name...). Davenport played behind Green, so to say he's 'not a starter' is based on virtually nothing, since because of Green and injuries he hasn't had much chance. Barry was the true starter in one game but played an instumental part in the best running attack in the history of the Green Bay Packers. That has to count for something. Fisher started several games and played quite a lot. Doesn't he count as quality depth - as does Jenkins. Sherman might have picked up guys with the two 4ths he spent on Glenn, but he took a chance that Glenn would get him over the top in 2002. Injuries destroyed that team and Glenn was a mental case - still, he was better than Freeman or Schroeder, the starting WRs the year before. Who gives a flying fuck if Sherman blew a #6 to move up and waste a five on Lee. He hit on Kampman in the fifth and possibly Peterson in the third. And I forgot to mention Corey Williams (#6 round) in my post above. The point is that Red was creaming over all the great starters that Pittsburgh picked up. I admit they did a better job, but again, TO CALL SHERMAN TERRIBLE LEAVES NO ROOM AT THE BOTTOM FOR GMs THAT REALLY STINK UP THE PLACE, like the guys I mentioned and more. Just how many great starters do you expect in rounds 3-7 anyway. Go compare some other teams and just look at the guys who never pan out. When you draft at the bottom of the first round year after year after year, you don't get great players, and if you trade picks, you have less chances.

Finally, again, my point is not that Sherman was a good GM - he was probably just below average. But the point is you guys fester and fester about the guys that didn't work out like you're in this warped vacuum where you will ONLY compare Sherman with GMs that had more success and NEVER compare Sherman to guys that truly suck - guys that can be found all around the league - guys that draft very high in the first round year after year and stink it up year after year. I submit that you have narrow Packer blinders on and are unreasonable.

P.S. I also noticed how you ignored Harris. So far, they've had four solid years for the trade of a #2

HOW can you give credit for free agents that were not drafted ? Truth be told, after the draft ends teams race to sign these undrafted free agents year after year after year after year. To say we were the only ones trying to sign guy like Cullen Jenkins, or we would have drafted him if there were 12 rounds, is just plain silly. Ditto for Fischer, Manning, and every other undrafted free agent we've signed. We aren't the only team knowing about these guys

Davenport and Fischer are backups. On this team and every other team. They are paid as backups as well. Once again Red's points were pointing out the number of starters from what I read compared to others.
And if you look at the facts the current starters Sherman drafted are Barnett, Kampman, and Sanders. Add Harris for the trade, and subtract Sanders if you want to say he's barely competent.

I won't argue on Glenn; it was an educated gamble that didn't work when Sherman was trying to win now, and it might not have been that bad had Sherman actually kept him. We may not be that far away in views, but I'm just more nitpicky and critical with Sherman. If you break down the number of picks he had and analyze each one I don't think anybody could give him more than a D grade.

I'd rate him near the bottom as a GM; maybe not as bad as Millen but not that much better either. But I don't blame him for his effort, class, and pouring his heart and sole out to win now; he was a good person and I wish he would have succeeded.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

I'd rate him near the bottom as a GM; maybe not as bad as Millen but not that much better either. But I don't blame him for his effort, class, and pouring his heart and sole out to win now; he was a good person and I wish he would have succeeded.

If you rates Sherman near the bottom, then you are rating Thompson at the bottom. Mike Sherman was a better GM than Ted Thompson is now. Obvisouly, Mike Sherman never missed the playoffs and that's why he's way way way better.

[mraynrand]

HOW can you give credit for free agents that were not drafted ? Truth be told, after the draft ends teams race to sign these undrafted free agents year after year after year after year. To say we were the only ones trying to sign guy like Cullen Jenkins, or we would have drafted him if there were 12 rounds, is just plain silly. Ditto for Fischer, Manning, and every other undrafted free agent we've signed. We aren't the only team knowing about these guys


Maybe the Packers weren't the only team to know about these guys, but they got them signed. That's the sign of an aggressive, successful GM. And much as you hate him (saying he's close to Millen boggles the mind), Sherman had a record of 32-16 as GM. Go check the winning percentages of other GMs, particularily those in their first three years and ask how many did better. I know what will follow if you respond - all kinds of "Sherman was set up for success, etc. etc." Doesn't matter. He could have ruined the team with bad GM moves, but they were outstanding winners when he was GM. Bottom line = his record was exemplary, even though drafting at the bottom of every round.

Go look up the Colts drafting record for the past 5 years and compare it to who remains on their roster. I bet you'll be surprised how many guys didn't last.

[red]

One of Sherman's biggest flaws, in my opinion, is that he believed strongly that guys like you were correct. He had a small window and had to get over the hump, and COULD NOT FAIL because Brett was going to retire some day soon.

He made "gotta win now" decisions OVER AND OVER AND OVER because he listened to guys like you. You are doing the same thing to McCarthy now, only you're saying "TT has set you up for success, where are all the players" "How dare they skip out of a voluntary camp" McCarthy has lost the team".

Sherman won my respect for the total commitment he had. He lost my respect as GM because of the low value he placed on draft choices.

You'd better pray hard that McCarthy & Thompson get us to the Super Bowl, because if you "get all over" McCarthy and Thompson two years from now the same way you stick it to Sherman, THEN I'll be all over your ass and I'll NEVER quit.

Sherman achieved something in this life that you and I will never ever hold. He got to be coach of the Green Bay Packers during the Brett Favre years. I envy that more than you will ever understand. I respect Mike Sherman for putting in 25 years of hard ass work to get to the top, and respect him further for leaving town without BASHING ANYBODY.

Thats more than I can say for 2/3rds of this Packer forum or any Packer forum.

i have no clue where you get your shit from, other then completely making it up out of thin air to get an argument. I'm not a die hard supporter of TT, in fact i hated him last year and this year at the start of FA until he started making some moves and had a draft that i liked a lot. Time will tell if he is a good GM. i have in fact done one of these draft things trying to show he shouldn't get all the credit for building the seattle team because he drafts weren't that great. the facts are his drafts were better then what sherman did

and as for MM, i don't think i've ever made a post about him yet, anywhere. the truth is we needed a change, but i'm not sure MM is the right guy. in fact he scares the hell out of me. he comes from a nice line of losers (8-8 us, saints, 49ers). i don't know if he can get it done, if he doesn't, i will be calling for his head

and i have no idea where you get the idea that i'm yelling WIN NOW. i stringly feel a team can have a group of vets and add young talent, to both win some games now and lay a good foundation for the future. shermans wheeling and dealing IMO, not only left us without the nice group of starters (that he was after by trading up), but it also left us with no backups or depth for the future *(because those picks were traded). i do like TT's approach this year of drafting a bunch of guys and giving himself a better shot at finding keepers, over shermans idea of throwing all your eggs into one basket



I'm "not on your back". Believe me. I could care less what your opinion is of Mike Sherman, but to come in here and post what a classless jerk he is, says more about you than it does about Sherman.

i have not once, EVER, called sherman a classless jerk. i like the guy as a person, i think he was a really good guy. and yes i do think he tried hard to win. but IMO being a good guy doesn't make a good coach. IMo he was a bad game day coach who could not make adjustments, and he was too, i can't think of the word, the exact opposite of ballsey. and as a gm he might have tried to do right, but he ran the team into the ground, and we saw it last year when we had second rate starters, and 5th rate backups in a lot of spots.

[Patler]

In this whole "how many starters" debate, you HAVE to make a quality assesment. After all, in every game 22 guys will start, no matter how bad they are.

Barry was NOT a starter. I believe his "at least one start" was at tight end when the Packers opened a game in the U-71. That does not make him a starter, especially at tackle.

Fisher started only because two backs ahead of him were injured. That does not make him a starting calibre acquisition.

Lee, Peterson, others of that ilk, it matters not whether they were on the field one or more times for the first play of the offense or defense. They are NOT starting calibre players, at least not yet.

That was Sherman's biggest downfall. He did not maintain quality depth. Players will always get injured and miss starts or have their careers ended prematurely. Players will always leave in free agency. The key is having someone move in and fill the void. The Packers in the Wolf era lost many, many former and future Pro Bowl players, and players that were very, very good if not Pro Bowl participants. Wolf always had quality replacements on hand. Under Sherman, the quality depth disappeared. When free agency and injuries took away the starters from 2004 as the 2005 season wore on, quality replacements were not there.

You can rant and rave about whther TT could have or should have been able to re-sign Wahle or Rivera, but one thing is absolutely clear. The 2004 roster did not have one decent backup at guard on it, and that is Sherman's doing. There should have been at least one quality guard waiting in the wings for injury, defection or retirement. There was none.

Who was Sherman's quality replacement at WR from the 2004 roster?
or at tight end?
or left tackle? (I'll give him Barry at RT)
or at DT?
or at DE?
or LB?
or at CB?
or at safety?

The fact is that running back is about the only position on Sherman's 2004 roster where if the starter was out, you could say, "Well, at least we have so-and-so." For almost every other position if the starter went down, the response would have been. "Oh, sh...., now we have to play so-and-so."

[MJZiggy]

Wow. You're good. Nice post, Sham.

[mraynrand]

In this whole "how many starters" debate, you HAVE to make a quality assesment. After all, in every game 22 guys will start, no matter how bad they are.

Barry was NOT a starter. I believe his "at least one start" was at tight end when the Packers opened a game in the U-71. That does not make him a starter, especially at tackle.

For almost every other position if the starter went down, the response would have been. "Oh, sh...., now we have to play so-and-so."

A couple of responses here Shamrock:
1) Since you want to debate 'quality' starters versus starters, whcih ultimately is opinion, shouldn't we just measure the GM based on record? I mean, who cares if you think Peterson is quality or not, if the Packers win 32 and lose 16, go to the playoffs every year, sin their division, and almost make the NFC championship. Isn't this what a Gm is supposed to do - help the team win NOW.
2) Barry - who cares if he started or whatever anyway. Do you deny that he was instrumental in the best running attack in Packer History or not? Weren't Taucher and Clifton (both re-signed by Sherman the GM, also critical for success. Sherman the GM gambled these guys would return from serious injury and he was RIGHT)
3) Did you look at other teams with the same critical eye and ask what the quaity of their backups were. Did they have better than Rugamer and Chatman to back up at G and WR, down to three and four deep? I've looked at some of the rosters of other teams and if pressed, their backups at guard, wr and RB SUCK ROCKS.

STOP 'gerrymandering' the Packers and look at other teams for god's sake. Many ther teams have shit for depth too - they just weren't decimated with injury (or were in some cases) like the Packers in 2002 and 2005. If you just narrow your little beam (not you Shamrock, but all Packer fans) on the flotsam on the Packer roster, you're going to find all the flaws and it will look terrible. But once you start looking at Cleveland, BUffalo, Miami, SF, N.O., etc. you notice that these other teams have little or no depth to survive injuries and that their GMs did really sucky jobs of drafting, at least in relation to the best and most successful teams (Philly, Pittsburgh and NE). There seems to be almost no sense of proportion in some of these posts and unwillingness to look at other teams, particularly bad teams, to see just how Sherman really rated.

32-16 as GM and Sherman was fired

[MJZiggy]

This is just one of those questiony kind of questions, just something to ponder, but with a record of 32-16, why didn't they leave Sherman at GM and find a new HC to work under him?

[red]

1) Since you want to debate 'quality' starters versus starters, whcih ultimately is opinion, shouldn't we just measure the GM based on record? I mean, who cares if you think Peterson is quality or not, if the Packers win 32 and lose 16, go to the playoffs every year, sin their division, and almost make the NFC championship. Isn't this what a Gm is supposed to do - help the team win NOW.


32-16 as GM and Sherman was fired

did he win with his players? i think if you look at his drafting you'll see thats a big NO. he won with players that were mostly in place before he got the job. you can't say they had a winning record because of his GMing skills over that time

so you gotta ask, did they win because he was a good GM, or did they win because he became gm when a pretty damn good team was in place?

IMO you can't give much credit to sherman the GM for those wins, you can give sherman the coach some of the credit, but not the GM

[Bretsky]

In this whole "how many starters" debate, you HAVE to make a quality assesment. After all, in every game 22 guys will start, no matter how bad they are.

Barry was NOT a starter. I believe his "at least one start" was at tight end when the Packers opened a game in the U-71. That does not make him a starter, especially at tackle.

For almost every other position if the starter went down, the response would have been. "Oh, sh...., now we have to play so-and-so."

A couple of responses here Shamrock:
1) Since you want to debate 'quality' starters versus starters, whcih ultimately is opinion, shouldn't we just measure the GM based on record? I mean, who cares if you think Peterson is quality or not, if the Packers win 32 and lose 16, go to the playoffs every year, sin their division, and almost make the NFC championship. Isn't this what a Gm is supposed to do - help the team win NOW.
2) Barry - who cares if he started or whatever anyway. Do you deny that he was instrumental in the best running attack in Packer History or not? Weren't Taucher and Clifton (both re-signed by Sherman the GM, also critical for success. Sherman the GM gambled these guys would return from serious injury and he was RIGHT)
3) Did you look at other teams with the same critical eye and ask what the quaity of their backups were. Did they have better than Rugamer and Chatman to back up at G and WR, down to three and four deep? I've looked at some of the rosters of other teams and if pressed, their backups at guard, wr and RB SUCK ROCKS.

STOP 'gerrymandering' the Packers and look at other teams for god's sake. Many ther teams have shit for depth too - they just weren't decimated with injury (or were in some cases) like the Packers in 2002 and 2005. If you just narrow your little beam (not you Shamrock, but all Packer fans) on the flotsam on the Packer roster, you're going to find all the flaws and it will look terrible. But once you start looking at Cleveland, BUffalo, Miami, SF, N.O., etc. you notice that these other teams have little or no depth to survive injuries and that their GMs did really sucky jobs of drafting, at least in relation to the best and most successful teams (Philly, Pittsburgh and NE). There seems to be almost no sense of proportion in some of these posts and unwillingness to look at other teams, particularly bad teams, to see just how Sherman really rated.

32-16 as GM and Sherman was fired


First off, I think this debate had focuses on the draft and we are measuring the him by his draft picks. IF you want to debate that Fischer, Barry, or some of the other yahoos are quality NFL starters then you can do that.

One could break down which players Ron Wolf brought in and it would be very easy to set up the argument that Sherman the GM road the coattails of having several several players from Ron Wolf drafts.....and having Brett Favre starting every game gave him a competitive advantage in a league full of parity....thus his record was good enough to get us to the playoffs most of the time. It would be hard to argue against that. I can't imagine how anybody could defend Mike Sherman on draft day manuevers and selections.

Now surely he gets credit for resigning some of Wolf's better players...such as Clifton, Tauscher etc who were main contributors..........but then he has to take some blame for salary cap woes last year of making mistakes with Ferguson, and misjudgement with KGB.

Bottom line was Sherman the GM was very sub par, and even Bob Harlan saw the need to replace him....even though he liked Mike Sherman the person and had great respect for him. And I know the yada yada reasons Harlan gave to pull the GM from Sherman. Harlan did it with class, but if he felt it was working then he'd have kept him there.

[pbmax]

1) Since you want to debate 'quality' starters versus starters, whcih ultimately is opinion, shouldn't we just measure the GM based on record? I mean, who cares if you think Peterson is quality or not, if the Packers win 32 and lose 16, go to the playoffs every year, sin their division, and almost make the NFC championship. Isn't this what a Gm is supposed to do - help the team win NOW.
The coach's job is to win now. Put the team in the best position to win each game and train backups to take the place of starters in case of injuries. Develop both in the offseason.

The GM has both responsibilites on his plate. Keep quality as cheaply as possible and build for a future.

GM is talent procurement, coach is talent development and execution.

The other example you site, 2002 versus 2005, despite losing quality starters we still stumbled into the playoffs in 2002. 2005 was a complete meltdown. We did not lose as many starters games as New England did. I think depth had everything to do with the difference between 2002 and 2005.

[pbmax]

And on the issue of who was really GM for the 2001 draft, I found the following on who made the trade for the #10 pick in 2001. Look for paragraphs 17 through 21.

Super QBs remain ticket to success
Posted: Feb. 4, 2006
On the Packers



Bob McGinn

Detroit - Trent Dilfer, Jeff Hostetler and Brad Johnson remind us that Super Bowls can be won by teams without a great quarterback.

The 28 Super Bowls that have been won either by teams with quarterbacks already in the Pro Football Hall of Fame or with quarterbacks destined for enshrinement demonstrate that having a great quarterback clearly is the easiest way to go.

When Mike Holmgren traded for Matt Hasselbeck in March 2001, he was three years into his reign in Seattle with Jon Kitna and headed nowhere but to the unemployment line.

When Bill Cowher drafted Ben Roethlisberger in April 2004, his teams in Pittsburgh had won just 53 of their last 100 games and his quarterback was Tommy Maddox. In other words, Cowher had no chance to overtake New England with Tom Brady or Indianapolis with Peyton Manning.

It might appear too simplistic to attribute the appearance of the Seattle Seahawks and Pittsburgh Steelers in Super Bowl XL to Hasselbeck and Roethlisberger. Fact is, it's only too true.

Fate, courage and superior coaching brought Hasselbeck to where he is today, one of the top three or four quarterbacks in the NFC.

Fate and superior scouting brought Roethlisberger to where he is today, one of the top four or five quarterbacks in the AFC.

The edge, at this point, probably should go to Hasselbeck based on his eight years of pro experience compared to Roethlisberger's two. But Ron Wolf, the retired general manager who drafted Mark Brunell, Aaron Brooks and Hasselbeck for the Packers besides trading for Brett Favre, doesn't see it that way.

"I don't think you can put that on Hasselbeck," Wolf said Friday night. "You can't say which one is better."

Wolf didn't hesitate when asked who was responsible for the selection of Hasselbeck in the sixth round in 1998. That was based on the strong presentation and recommendation from quarterbacks coach Andy Reid.

Hasselbeck had been a two-year starter at Boston College, finishing with 22 touchdown passes and 26 interceptions. He was smart (29 on the 50-question Wonderlic intelligence test) and possessed ideal stature (6 feet 4 inches, 222 pounds), but some scouts dinged him for being slow (4.93 seconds in the 40-yard dash) and having only an average arm.

In that draft, my rankings showed Hasselbeck No. 13 at the position, behind Ryan Leaf, Manning, Brian Griese, Charlie Batch, John Dutton, Dan Gonzalez, Ron Powlus, Thad Busby, Jonathan Quinn, Dameyune Craig, Moses Moreno and Cory Sauter.

Hasselbeck was waived by Green Bay on the last cut and signed two days later to the practice squad. In 1999, after Doug Pederson left to join Reid in Philadelphia, he managed to fight off Brooks for the No. 2 job. With Brooks traded to New Orleans in July 2000, "Mr. August" had another terrific exhibition season.

In his only regular-season appearance of consequence, Hasselbeck replaced an injured Favre in November 2000 at Tampa Bay and struggled in a 20-15 defeat.

By the end of the '00 season, did the Packers think enough of Hasselbeck that they would have anointed him as their starter if something serious had befallen Favre?

"Probably, yes," Wolf said. "But that would have been hard because he had a bummer of a game down at Tampa. He kind of fell apart, but I attributed that to the speed of the game. He was superb in those pre-season games against the 2's and 3's."

Wolf stepped down in February 2001 but agreed to assist Mike Sherman through the draft. Together, they decided to deal Hasselbeck because, in another year, he would have become an unrestricted free agent.

On March 2, just after the start of the trading period, Wolf was wrapping up trade talks with Rick Spielman, then personnel director for the Miami Dolphins. The Dolphins were offering their first-round draft choice (No. 26) for Hasselbeck if the Packers agreed to switch second-round selections, dropping the Packers from the 47th to the 56th pick.

"We had a deal," Wolf said. "But then he (Spielman) said he had to go check with somebody and would call me back."

Wolf left to inform Sherman. When Wolf entered Sherman's office, he was on the phone with Holmgren. The Seahawks had increased the ante, offering their first-round pick (No. 10) plus their third-round choice (No. 72) for Green Bay's first (No. 17) and Hasselbeck.

"So we did it," Wolf said. "When he (Spielman) called back I said, 'Hey, it's too late.' There wasn't anything he could do. I'm sure he was (crestfallen)."

Miami coach Dave Wannstedt ended up playing Jay Fiedler, A.J. Feeley and Sage Rosenfels over the next few years, treaded water and eventually had to resign under pressure.

Not only did the Seahawks get a starting quarterback but they also used the 17th pick on Steve Hutchinson, now the best guard in football. The trade blew up in the Packers' face when they took Jamal Reynolds at No. 10 and Torrance Marshall at No. 72.

"I've thought over the years it might have been better with 17, 26 and 56," Wolf said. "But if we had picked Dan Morgan it wouldn't have mattered."

Holmgren couldn't have been in more desperate straits. His only other options were to sign free agents Elvis Grbac, Trent Green or Johnson.

He gambled on Hasselbeck, who came to bristle under Holmgren's short leash and eventually was benched for Dilfer.

"I handled it very, very poorly," Hasselbeck said at midweek. "I got upset. I took it personal or made excuses."

Hasselbeck followed Favre around like a puppy dog for three years, which was both good and bad. He learned what it took to be a pro and how to ad-lib. He also learned to take chances, and with less arm than Favre it didn't always work.

"What Matt and Brett have in common is the competitive fire, the stubbornness, the intellect it takes, the ability to lead," Holmgren said. "They are quite different in a lot of ways, but those are the things that would be very attractive to anybody that coaches them."

Hasselbeck's passer rating of 98.2 this season ranked fourth in the league. The only season in which Favre had a better mark was 1995 (99.5).

Six people were asked last week if Hasselbeck's level of play had climbed to Favre's level at the same age (30). Three Seahawks - vice president Mike Reinfeldt, wide receivers coach Nolan Cromwell and defensive line coach Dwaine Board - either said it was very similar or equal. Three Steelers - defensive line coach John Mitchell, assistant secondary coach Ray Horton and safety Tyrone Carter - said it wasn't.

Said Reinfeldt: "I think his level of productivity is nearing Brett. He's a different guy than Brett, more of an efficient guy. He operates so well within the West Coast offense. . . the progressions, the right decisions, the right throws. It's interesting. It's Matt's fifth season here and it was Brett's fifth season in Green Bay when we won the Super Bowl."

Said Wolf: "I don't know because I haven't seen a lot of Hasselbeck. But I think you're talking about a different level here. Favre probably had three MVPs by that time."

In the weeks leading up to the '04 draft, Steelers quarterbacks coach Mark Whipple said the Steelers ranked Eli Manning first, Roethlisberger second and Philip Rivers third.

"Everybody knew that we didn't have a shot at Manning," Whipple said. "Roethlisberger was our target all the way."

There was much to like about Roethlisberger. He was big (6-5, 241), relatively fast (4.86) for his size, more than smart enough (25 on the Wonderlic) for the position and could make just about every throw.

The Steelers had one problem: They weren't picking until No. 11 and some mock drafts had Roethlisberger gone by No. 4.

San Diego and the New York Giants also wanted quarterbacks but preferred Manning and Rivers. Oakland and Arizona, which still don't have quarterbacks, took tackle Robert Gallery and wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald at No. 2 and No. 3, respectively.

Butch Davis signed his walking papers in Cleveland by signing Jeff Garcia to play quarterback and then trading up for tight end Kellen Winslow at No. 6. Still believing in Joey Harrington, Detroit President Matt Millen chose wide receiver Roy Williams at No. 7.

Atlanta, Jacksonville and Houston all had young quarterbacks and selected cornerback DeAngelo Hall, wide receiver Reggie Williams and cornerback Dunta Robinson, respectively. Pittsburgh, which feared Buffalo would trade up from No. 13 to take Roethlisberger, couldn't have been more exultant when the Bills stayed put.

After Maddox was injured in Week 3 of 2004, Roethlisberger had to play. His passer ratings have been 98.1 in 2004 (and 61.3 in the playoffs), 98.6 in 2005 (and 124.8 in the playoffs). He is the first quarterback since the merger in 1970 to make it to the conference championship game in his first two seasons. His record as a starter is 25-4.

"He's really good," said Wolf, who has seen much more of Roethlisberger than Hasselbeck. "He plays within himself. He has the ability to step around the rush and make a play. When they have to win, they put the ball in his hands and let him throw it."

Will Roethlisberger develop into one of the game's great quarterbacks?

"He sure looks like he will," Wolf said. "He looks like a more mobile Jim Kelly but not as pure a passer as Kelly. Not right now, anyway."

Either Hasselbeck or Roethlisberger will win a Super Bowl tonight. Don't be surprised if the victor goes on to become the 10th quarterback in Super Bowl history to capture more than one.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

did he win with his players? i think if you look at his drafting you'll see thats a big NO. he won with players that were mostly in place before he got the job. you can't say they had a winning record because of his GMing skills over that time

so you gotta ask, did they win because he was a good GM, or did they win because he became gm when a pretty damn good team was in place?

IMO you can't give much credit to sherman the GM for those wins, you can give sherman the coach some of the credit, but not the GM

Would the Packers have won as much as they did without Ahman Green, Mark Tausher, Chad Clifton, Donald Driver, William Henderson, Nail Diggs, and KGB? All those players were free agents under Sherman's watch. Sherman got the job done and retained them. People likes to breg about the cap. Sherman started each of his 3 fiscal years with less then the $7.5 M thompson had last year. Dont forget Sherman had to work with Wolf's mistakes on Levens and Freeman. Sherman couldve cleared up a bunch of cap room simply by letting the mentioned above players go. Of course, then, as the Wahle and Rivera case depicts last year, Pack wouldnt have made the playoffs under Sherman.

The bottom line is this: Wolf for built the foundation, Sherman sustained it and he upgraded the WR, LB and CB positions during his short tenure (Glenn and Walker over Freeman and Schroeder, Barnett over Barnado Harris, Harris over Tyrone Williams).

Thompson came along and dismantled the Pack. As I am fond of saying, the rest is 4-12.

[chain_gang]

Would the Packers have won as much as they did without Ahman Green, Mark Tausher, Chad Clifton, Donald Driver, William Henderson, Nail Diggs, and KGB? All those players were free agents under Sherman's watch. Sherman got the job done and retained them.


I completely agree with this APB, he do a heck of a job retaining/resigning key players. People overlook that quite a bit. Now his drafts are another story. But as far as resigning the right players, and looking out for the skill positions and Brett's safety in the pocket, Mike Sherman was right on top of that.

[red]

And on the issue of who was really GM for the 2001 draft, I found the following on who made the trade for the #10 pick in 2001. Look for paragraphs 17 through 21.



Wolf stepped down in February 2001 but agreed to assist Mike Sherman through the draft. Together, they decided to deal Hasselbeck because, in another year, he would have become an unrestricted free agent.




good find pb

thanks

[Anti-Polar Bear]

The GM has both responsibilites on his plate. Keep quality as cheaply as possible and build for a future.

GM is talent procurement, coach is talent development and execution.

The other example you site, 2002 versus 2005, despite losing quality starters we still stumbled into the playoffs in 2002. 2005 was a complete meltdown. We did not lose as many starters games as New England did. I think depth had everything to do with the difference between 2002 and 2005.

You must be hibernating last year. The biggest problem last year wasnt the injures to Walker, Franks and Green; it was the OL, and the OL was healthy last year. Driver stepped up for Walker. Gado, though not as good, was an OK fill in. The OL is what kept setting the Pack back.

Who was responsible for failing to resign Wahle and/or Rivera? Who failed to drafted an quility OL? Who failed to find quality replacements for Wahle and Rivera? As I am found of saying, show Wahle the money and he wouldve stayed (more than what Carolina offered him). Draft Mankins. OL problem solved.

[red]

did he win with his players? i think if you look at his drafting you'll see thats a big NO. he won with players that were mostly in place before he got the job. you can't say they had a winning record because of his GMing skills over that time

so you gotta ask, did they win because he was a good GM, or did they win because he became gm when a pretty damn good team was in place?

IMO you can't give much credit to sherman the GM for those wins, you can give sherman the coach some of the credit, but not the GM

Would the Packers have won as much as they did without Ahman Green, Mark Tausher, Chad Clifton, Donald Driver, William Henderson, Nail Diggs, and KGB? All those players were free agents under Sherman's watch. Sherman got the job done and retained them. People likes to breg about the cap. Sherman started each of his 3 fiscal years with less then the $7.5 M thompson had last year. Dont forget Sherman had to work with Wolf's mistakes on Levens and Freeman. Sherman couldve cleared up a bunch of cap room simply by letting the mentioned above players go. Of course, then, as the Wahle and Rivera case depicts last year, Pack wouldnt have made the playoffs under Sherman.

The bottom line is this: Wolf for built the foundation, Sherman sustained it and he upgraded the WR, LB and CB positions during his short tenure (Glenn and Walker over Freeman and Schroeder, Barnett over Barnado Harris, Harris over Tyrone Williams).

Thompson came along and dismantled the Pack. As I am fond of saying, the rest is 4-12.

yes he did do a good job of keeping some of his own players, who he already knew had talent. some were bad moves like kgb IMO, or at least the amount of money that was shelled out for some of the guys, or the deals he made (like making it almost impossible to keep wahle). but he was still pretty bad at drafting, and handling draft picks IMO

[pbmax]

It would seem that Sherman wasn't just watching this process. Now, McGinn isn't an uninterested bystader here. He put the screws to Sherman in 2004 several times including the story where someone in the personnel department took their revenge for BJ Sander. But I doubt anyone other than Wolf is telling the story of Sherman making a deal with Holmgren or T2.

But you can't say Sherman had minimal influence here.

And I recall Wolf saying he wasn't going to stick his coach with a player he didn't want when there was another alternative. I freely admit I can't find the quote, despite some searching.

But I don't think its beyond the likely that Wolf did construct the draft board and have Reynolds the #2 defender, and that the position was influenced by the desires of his coach and successor.

This article, obviously was written for the Super Bowl preview, so its not contemporary. I did find two other quotes from 2001 that were interesting.

In one, Wolf said if Robinson had been on the board, the Pack would have selected him. Sherman said they still would have gone Reynolds.

Maybe Wolf's last draft, but Sherman's finger prints are here as well.

[Bretsky]

The GM has both responsibilites on his plate. Keep quality as cheaply as possible and build for a future.

GM is talent procurement, coach is talent development and execution.

The other example you site, 2002 versus 2005, despite losing quality starters we still stumbled into the playoffs in 2002. 2005 was a complete meltdown. We did not lose as many starters games as New England did. I think depth had everything to do with the difference between 2002 and 2005.

You must be hibernating last year. The biggest problem last year wasnt the injures to Walker, Franks and Green; it was the OL, and the OL was healthy last year. Driver stepped up for Walker. Gado, though not as good, was an OK fill in. The OL is what kept setting the Pack back.

Who was responsible for failing to resign Wahle and/or Rivera? Who failed to drafted an quility OL? Who failed to find quality replacements for Wahle and Rivera? As I am found of saying, show Wahle the money and he wouldve stayed (more than what Carolina offered him). Draft Mankins. OL problem solved.


AND WHO FAILED TO HAVE SOME ADEQUATE BACKUPS IN PLACE VIA DRAFT IF MIKE WAHLE AND RIVERA LEFT ?

CAN YOU THINK OF ANY TIMES WHEN OL LEFT ON WOLF AND HE HAD THE STARTERS ON THE BNECH READY TO GO AND DO OK ? IF NOT I CAN PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF WHAT A GOOD GM WILL DO TO PLAN FOR THINGS.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

AND WHO FAILED TO HAVE SOME ADEQUATE BACKUPS IN PLACE VIA DRAFT IF MIKE WAHLE AND RIVERA LEFT ?

CAN YOU THINK OF ANY TIMES WHEN OL LEFT ON WOLF AND HE HAD THE STARTERS ON THE BNECH READY TO GO AND DO OK ? IF NOT I CAN PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF WHAT A GOOD GM WILL DO TO PLAN FOR THINGS.

Based on Sherman's track record of retaining his (or Wolfs) players, Sherman didnt anticipate losing Wahle. Sherman said it himself somewhere for JSO regarding Wahle. Wahle said it himself too, that if Sherman was still GM, he would still be a Pack. And based on his track record, Sherman wouldve gotten Wahle back. And based on his record of drafting for need, its likely Sherman wouldve drafted an OL, likely Mankins, with the 1st rd pick last year, or trade one of his 2nd for a proven guard or draft one in rd 2 or 3. Thompson waited until the 5th rd to draft a OL.

[Bretsky]

AND WHO FAILED TO HAVE SOME ADEQUATE BACKUPS IN PLACE VIA DRAFT IF MIKE WAHLE AND RIVERA LEFT ?

CAN YOU THINK OF ANY TIMES WHEN OL LEFT ON WOLF AND HE HAD THE STARTERS ON THE BNECH READY TO GO AND DO OK ? IF NOT I CAN PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF WHAT A GOOD GM WILL DO TO PLAN FOR THINGS.

Based on Sherman's track record of retaining his (or Wolfs) players, Sherman didnt anticipate losing Wahle. Sherman said it himself somewhere for JSO regarding Wahle. Wahle said it himself too, that if Sherman was still GM, he would still be a Pack. And based on his track record, Sherman wouldve gotten Wahle back. And based on his record of drafting for need, its likely Sherman wouldve drafted an OL, likely Mankins, with the 1st rd pick last year, or trade one of his 2nd for a proven guard or draft one in rd 2 or 3. Thompson waited until the 5th rd to draft a OL.

Plz find me where it stated, by Sherman or Wahle, that if Sherman was still the GM then Wahle would have stayed. I don't believe either of them said this.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Plz find me where it stated, by Sherman or Wahle, that if Sherman was still the GM then Wahle would have stayed. I don't believe either of them said this.

Christl blog:

Mike Wahle said he sensed that when Mike Sherman was still general manager the Packers were prepared to pay him the $6 million roster bonus that was part of his contract. But Wahle said that all changed when Ted Thompson replaced Sherman. "When Ted came in, it was kind of known that he thought guards were an expendable commodity," said Wahle.

[RashanGary]

God, You're gay Brokeback Polarbear. :wink:

I think Thompson F'd up on Wahle. I think Wahle is worth his paycheck. We'll see how it plays out. According to some things I've read about players; Gaurds and Saftys are the easiest to get in the draft or anywhere.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

According to some things I've read about players; Gaurds and Saftys are the easiest to get in the draft or anywhere.

Yeah, so easy Thompson merely needed to look no farther than Klemm and Earl Little. All the while Wahle and Sharper became All Pros. Good GMs dont fuck up like that. Thompson is not a good gm.

[GoPackGo]

God, You're gay Brokeback Polarbear. :wink:

I think Thompson F'd up on Wahle. I think Wahle is worth his paycheck. We'll see how it plays out. According to some things I've read about players; Gaurds and Saftys are the easiest to get in the draft or anywhere.

The proof that Guards and safeties are easiest to replace in the draft...:Sharper and Wahle were salary cap victems. Thompson has spent 2 2nd round picks on replacing them-Collins and Colledge. I like the 2 young guys at those positions.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Plz find me where it stated, by Sherman or Wahle, that if Sherman was still the GM then Wahle would have stayed. I don't believe either of them said this.

Christl blog:

Mike Wahle said he sensed that when Mike Sherman was still general manager the Packers were prepared to pay him the $6 million roster bonus that was part of his contract. But Wahle said that all changed when Ted Thompson replaced Sherman. "When Ted came in, it was kind of known that he thought guards were an expendable commodity," said Wahle.

And so the great Bretsky turns speechless, a symbol of a defeated man.

[Scott Campbell]

Plz find me where it stated, by Sherman or Wahle, that if Sherman was still the GM then Wahle would have stayed. I don't believe either of them said this.

Christl blog:

Mike Wahle said he sensed that when Mike Sherman was still general manager the Packers were prepared to pay him the $6 million roster bonus that was part of his contract. But Wahle said that all changed when Ted Thompson replaced Sherman. "When Ted came in, it was kind of known that he thought guards were an expendable commodity," said Wahle.

And so the great Bretsky turns speechless, a symbol of a defeated man.

Do you really consider phrases like "he sensed" and "it was kind of known" to be some kind of iron clad fact? I don't.

[retailguy]

And on the issue of who was really GM for the 2001 draft, I found the following on who made the trade for the #10 pick in 2001. Look for paragraphs 17 through 21.




PBMAX,

This was posted in one of the articles that I listed earlier. I didn't cite it, because it doesn't state directly that Sherman handled the trade, only that he was on the phone with them. Put with the other "evidence" we have on the surface it seems to indicate that Sherman had some clout, but not final clout.

If you think that Sherman had final clout, then you have to consider why Wolf was on the phone with Miami. If Sherman was really "orchestrating" the trade of Hasselbeck, then why wasn't he on the phone to Miami also?

Understanding corporate structure the way we all do, isn't it reasonable to assume that the "senior management team" had a meeting in which they determined that it was best for the franchise to trade Hasselbeck. Then, Wolf, as the leader, divided up the responsibilities of "calling" other teams to see what they'd offer. It would, under this scenario, make sense for Sherman to call Seattle - all of his limited pro contacts were there. Undoubtedly, Ken Herock was on the phone, as were others, trying to drum up the best possible price for Hasselbeck. It just so happens that Sherman's contacts offered the best price.

What we don't get to know definitively, is who gave the final approval, however, matched with the other statements, this would seem to indicate that Wolf was still in charge, gave final approval, and that he was training Sherman to take over, which was stated at every press opportunity.

You could draw other conclusions, however, there isn't enough evidence, in my opinion, to indicate the "sherman was in charge scenario". Everybody went out of their way to minimize that, except for possibly Sherman. That kind of makes sense, that the promoted guy would beat his chest about his "expanded" responsibilities. We all know a co-worker like that, don't we?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Plz find me where it stated, by Sherman or Wahle, that if Sherman was still the GM then Wahle would have stayed. I don't believe either of them said this.

Christl blog:

Mike Wahle said he sensed that when Mike Sherman was still general manager the Packers were prepared to pay him the $6 million roster bonus that was part of his contract. But Wahle said that all changed when Ted Thompson replaced Sherman. "When Ted came in, it was kind of known that he thought guards were an expendable commodity," said Wahle.

And so the great Bretsky turns speechless, a symbol of a defeated man.

Do you really consider phrases like "he sensed" and "it was kind of known" to be some kind of iron clad fact? I don't.

And then the great Campbell comes to the rescue, like always. :)

[Bretsky]

Plz find me where it stated, by Sherman or Wahle, that if Sherman was still the GM then Wahle would have stayed. I don't believe either of them said this.

Christl blog:

Mike Wahle said he sensed that when Mike Sherman was still general manager the Packers were prepared to pay him the $6 million roster bonus that was part of his contract. But Wahle said that all changed when Ted Thompson replaced Sherman. "When Ted came in, it was kind of known that he thought guards were an expendable commodity," said Wahle.

And so the great Bretsky turns speechless, a symbol of a defeated man.

THIS IS WHAT I ASKED FOR

Plz find me where it stated, by Sherman or Wahle, that if Sherman was still the GM then Wahle would have stayed. I don't believe either of them said this.



PLEASE DON"T INSULT YOUR OWN INTELLIGENCE BY USING THE SPEWED CRAP YOU CAME UP WITH AS SOMEBODY STATING WAHLE WOULD HAVE STAYED..."SENSED"...."IT WAS KIND OF KNOWN" COME ON.

YOU SAID SHERMAN AND WAHLE STATED THAT HE WOULD HAVE STAYED.

NOW SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE, RATHER THAN THE HORSECRAP YOU PROVIDED WITH SOMEBODY SENSING SOMETHING MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED

[retailguy]

but he was still pretty bad at drafting, and handling draft picks IMO

Red,

This really gets to the heart of what this debate is all about. To reach this conclusion, you have to assume/consider that sherman was trying to draft well to build a competitive team into the future.

I do not share this view. While he tried to do this, it was not his primary focus. When you compare Sherman to Thompson you have to consider what each primary focus is. I believe them to be different, NOT THE SAME.

For example, it is clear through Thompsons statements and actions that he is building for the future, and while trying to field a competitive team this season, that is CLEARLY NOT his number one priority. His number one priority seems to be, restocking depth for a Super Bowl run at some point in the future.

Plenty of things indicate this, such as limited activity in Free Agency, lack of interest in players available via trade, limited use of waiver wire, and lack of contracts for undrafted free agent talent. He obviously places a great deal of emphasis and value on draft choices, preferring to accumulate more over focusing on one specific player and doing anything to get them. Nothing about this indicated urgency to "build a winner". It is clearly the "turtle" approach of "we'll get there, sooner or later, and we'll be solid when we finally arrive".

Now, contrast that with the manner that Mike Sherman drafted. (In my opinion, completely opposite). I don't think anyone would argue that Sherman was anything but a "needs" drafter. Why? Brett Favre. He continually assessed the team, and attacked its weakest link first. 2002 - receivers, 2003 - linebackers, 2004 - cornerbacks. It was clear, and looked at objectively, pretty transparent, I think.

Joe Johnson illustrates this perfectly. Shermans biggest need initially was a pass rush end, and he preferred to bring in an established veteran. Why? No need to develop. He needed it NOW. Also, he had no receivers. Insert Terry Glenn. Why? Proven Experience when he had NONE. Third - Draft Javon Walker. The biggest position of need were additional receivers. He had Ferguson, now he needed a big deep threat. We've got Glenn for experience, then AFTER THAT, get a guy to step in later. Fast forward to 2003, after the Nickerson bust, now we "need" a linebacker and a cornerback. Trade the #2 for Al Harris who is proven, and get the "best guy" you can find for linebacker in the draft. Then in 2004, we need a cornerback due to the McKenzie disaster. He preferred Carroll over Gamble, mainly because he valued the speed to keep up with Moss.

Sherman did this, I think, because, he had a veteran team, and the leagues best QB, coupled with an impatient fan base. If he got the team over the hump, he could "ride the wave" and begin the "rebuilding" process. Favre would "ride off into the sunset" leaving lower expectations and "time" to rebuild. I can find no indication in any of Shermans moves that he ever focused on "building for the future". The guys he drafted were always at a position of weakness and had the "potential" of filling a hole.

None of this indicates that Sherman is a crappy evaluator, nor that he was unqualified. Rather, it indicates. in my opinion, that he faced a "sense of desparation" whether that was internal or external doesn't really matter. That "desparation" got worse, clouded his judgement, and caused him to make stranger and stranger decisions as those previous decisions blew up in his face. There was no one in the organization who could say "Stop it, just Stop it" after Hatley died.

The four biggest factors, in my opinion that caused Sherman to fail, were, lack of a pass rush from the DT failures, injuries (2002), poor play calling in critical situations, and the death of Hatley who was never replaced.

If only one of these four hadn't happened, I think, he'd have got them at least to a championship game, and probably into the Super Bowl. It didn't happen, so now he's everybody's favorite punching bag. It is just unfortunate that most "fans" aren't interested in putting the puzzle pieces together and just prefer to call him names and pick on both his ability and his weight.

It defies logic that he could have ascended to the top position in the NFL hierarchy and not be qualified, and if you look at his physical appearance from 2001 - 2006, it defies logic that he wasn't totally committed to his task. Bashing him from these perspectives is not only short sighted, it's cruel and WRONG. It shows the shallowness of the "fan" doing the "critique", not the "true perspective" of Mike Sherman, the coach, or the GM.

[retailguy]

double post

[retailguy]

PLEASE DON"T INSULT YOUR OWN INTELLIGENCE BY USING THE SPEWED CRAP YOU CAME UP WITH AS SOMEBODY STATING WAHLE WOULD HAVE STAYED..."SENSED"...."IT WAS KIND OF KNOWN" COME ON.

YOU SAID SHERMAN AND WAHLE STATED THAT HE WOULD HAVE STAYED.

NOW SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE, RATHER THAN THE HORSECRAP YOU PROVIDED WITH SOMEBODY SENSING SOMETHING MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED

Passion, give me PASSION brotha.... LMAO.

Bretsky, I saw the interview with Wahle. It wasn't in writing, it was a TV spot. I think I saw it on espn, a locker room, interview. Wahle was choosing his words very carefully, but it really was clear. He believed that Sherman was going to work it out with him, and that Thompson had no intention of doing it once he arrived.

Sherman never said ANYTHING publicly about this, to my knowledge, shows what a classy guy he is, in my opinion, but all of his actions suggest he'd have worked it out. In hindsight, that may not have been the best thing as it is now clear the "window" closed for this team at the end of 2004.

Tank - a little advice if I may? - You lose whatever remaining credibility you have by failing to acknowledge that Thompson doesn't have a plan, or that the plan is to win now. If you'd focus on your belief that this team could win now, you might get more objective responses.

TT's plan isn't bad, its just not an "overnight band-aid". You seem to want a "quick fix". Bad news dude, you ain't getting one....

[RashanGary]

I disagree with almost everything you just said. You basically just made a big list of excuses for why Sherman was a bad GM.

One of the things I did agree with was the desperation. Sherman showed huge, dissappointing signs of desperation. As a coach, GREAT. As a GM WTF. I am very relieved to have Thompson as GM mostly because he speaks of how his experience shows that desperation almost alays hurts in the long run. He learned that by being in the front office of a couple successfull organizations and taking note of what went wrong and what went right. Sherman appeared to be way over his head in this department.

Thompson's main focus is value in a value driven league. You get 7 picks. You better get the best 7 or you're losing value from your draft. You have 100 mil to spend each year. YOu better get the most production from that 100 mil as possible. VALUE VALUE VALUE and then there is a matter of putting in the hard work and experience involved in knowing what is value. Thompson shows confidence in those two areas and if I had to pick 2 areas for a GM to be strong in, it would be those two. Sherman was awfull in those two areas. Sander, Carroll ect...all desperation. Johnson, Glenn, Nickerson = desperation. Horrible moves. Made the team better for a year or two, but stripped the team of long term depth. HORRIBLE.

Back to shamrocks original points. The depth of the greenbay Packers after Sherman left office was so discustingly thin that he had to be fired for both jobs out of spite. He was a joke as a GM and deserves to be and assistant in Houston. He did his best but he was awfull.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Geez, now this has become a war of words. Since we are fighting a war of words, let me repeat what i wrote:

Based on Sherman's track record of retaining his (or Wolfs) players, Sherman didnt anticipate losing Wahle. Sherman said it himself somewhere for JSO regarding Wahle. Wahle said it himself too, that if Sherman was still GM, he would still be a Pack. And based on his track record, Sherman wouldve gotten Wahle back. And based on his record of drafting for need, its likely Sherman wouldve drafted an OL, likely Mankins, with the 1st rd pick last year, or trade one of his 2nd for a proven guard or draft one in rd 2 or 3. Thompson waited until the 5th rd to draft a OL.

Sherman did not anticipate losing Wahle. Sherman said he wouldve gotten something done with Wahle and Rivera. If you read the reports on JSO daily you'll notice it. It is their archieves. Im not gonna waste time researching it. Call it proable fact, whatever, but if you didnt notice then you are uninformed. It is there. I got the first qoute from other thread in here.

Pay Wahle the $6 M bonus and he wouldnt be a FA. He would still be a Pack right? If Sherman opted to pay Wahle that money, he'd have no choice but to remain a Pack, unless he decides to hold out and demand a trade. The option to pay Wahle the bonus was on the Packers, not Wahle. Much like a team has the choice to designate a player as franchiase player. The Pack had the choice to extend Wahles contract by paying him the bonus or release him. Thompson chose to release him. Once released Wahle becomes a FA, and he, not the Packers, gets the final say on where he wants to go. In other words, Wahles fate lies first in the hands of the Packers becasue Wahle would continue to remain under contract with the team had they opted to pay him the bonus. Thompson opted to release him and made him a FA. But if thompson had paid Wahle the bonus, he'd still be a Packer today. Who was GM last year and who fucked up?

[Bossman641]

Retailguy,

I agree with your take on Sherman 100%. He knew what he needed and he went out and attempted to get it, unfortunately things didn't go his way. At the time, I believe that was the type of GM that the team needed.

Sherman became so focused on what exactly the team needed at that point in time that he began to make even worse decisions. Sherman was basically racing against the clock, and it was only a time before this couldn't be done any longer.

[retailguy]

Retailguy,

I agree with your take on Sherman 100%. He knew what he needed and he went out and attempted to get it, unfortunately things didn't go his way. At the time, I believe that was the type of GM that the team needed.

Sherman became so focused on what exactly the team needed at that point in time that he began to make even worse decisions. Sherman was basically racing against the clock, and it was only a time before this couldn't be done any longer.

Thanks bossman - hopefully you won't get labeled as some "non-thinking" kool-aid homer. If you do, I've got some "spare" backup avatars you can borrow. :wink:

I have really spent some time reflecting on this, and I think I know who Sherman was.... Some would call that boring, I kind of enjoyed it.... :mrgreen:

[red]

first off, you don't pick the 5 foot 10 ahmad carroll to cover rany moss at all. i don't care how fast the guy is

fine, so what, he picked to win then instead of picking to build for the future, THE GUYS HE PICKED, STILL FUCKING SUCKED, didn't help him win then (with the exception of javon for 1 year, and barnett), and they sure as hell aren't helping now

sherman should have traded all his picks away to get proven vets, he was a lot better at that then trying to judge the college guys

and the free agents he signed, his own guys he resigned, and the vets he traded for, HAVE NO FUCKING PLACE IN THIS THREAD, the thread is about the shit drfats sherman had, and the shitty players he drafted

[retailguy]

I disagree with almost everything you just said. You basically just made a big list of excuses for why Sherman was a bad GM.

One of the things I did agree with was the desperation. Sherman showed huge, dissappointing signs of desperation. As a coach, GREAT. As a GM WTF. I am very relieved to have Thompson as GM mostly because he speaks of how his experience shows that desperation almost alays hurts in the long run. He learned that by being in the front office of a couple successfull organizations and taking note of what went wrong and what went right. Sherman appeared to be way over his head in this department.

Thompson's main focus is value in a value driven league. You get 7 picks. You better get the best 7 or you're losing value from your draft. You have 100 mil to spend each year. YOu better get the most production from that 100 mil as possible. VALUE VALUE VALUE and then there is a matter of putting in the hard work and experience involved in knowing what is value. Thompson shows confidence in those two areas and if I had to pick 2 areas for a GM to be strong in, it would be those two. Sherman was awfull in those two areas. Sander, Carroll ect...all desperation. Johnson, Glenn, Nickerson = desperation. Horrible moves. Made the team better for a year or two, but stripped the team of long term depth. HORRIBLE.

Back to shamrocks original points. The depth of the greenbay Packers after Sherman left office was so discustingly thin that he had to be fired for both jobs out of spite. He was a joke as a GM and deserves to be and assistant in Houston. He did his best but he was awfull.


Nick, your whole perspective is based on what you, or what the "masses" believe that a GM sould do. A GM has choices. Some are good and some are bad, but neither makes one "unqualified" per se. Society determines "good" and "bad" after the fact, based upon the results.

You believe that there is only ONE way to build a winner, however plenty of teams have "tooled up" for one shot. The Ravens made it, and the early Panthers almost made it. The Raiders have built a franchise on this model, and it has had mixed results for them. Undoubtedly there are others.

Point for you to consider is, you've got Brett Favre, what do you do? You'll get criticized no matter what, but if you're a loyal guy, you'll do everything you can to get him the prize....won't you? Tell me, objectively, that IS NOT what Sherman did...

[retailguy]

first off, you don't pick the 5 foot 10 ahmad carroll to cover rany moss at all. i don't care how fast the guy is

fine, so what, he picked to win then instead of picking to build for the future, THE GUYS HE PICKED, STILL FUCKING SUCKED, didn't help him win then (with the exception of javon for 1 year, and barnett), and they sure as hell aren't helping now

sherman should have traded all his picks away to get proven vets, he was a lot better at that then trying to judge the college guys

and the free agents he signed, his own guys he resigned, and the vets he traded for, HAVE NO FUCKING PLACE IN THIS THREAD, the thread is about the shit drfats sherman had, and the shitty players he drafted

Red,

I didn't say carroll was the "right" decision, I said what I thought the decision was based upon. It seems that statements were made to this effect at some point.

I don't know whether or not Sherman would have had success or not picking free agents but a case could be made that he was better at picking established players than draft choices. But if you factor in the "primary focus" then maybe not. This is truly a judgement call because we can't see the "other choices" because they never happened.

Finally, who the hell are you to tell us what belongs or doesn't belong? How can you "objectively evaluate" a GM without factoring in the WHOLE JOB? If this statement doesn't show your "anti Sherman" bias, I don't know what will. thanks for exposing yourself.... LMAO.

[red]

first off, you don't pick the 5 foot 10 ahmad carroll to cover rany moss at all. i don't care how fast the guy is

fine, so what, he picked to win then instead of picking to build for the future, THE GUYS HE PICKED, STILL FUCKING SUCKED, didn't help him win then (with the exception of javon for 1 year, and barnett), and they sure as hell aren't helping now

sherman should have traded all his picks away to get proven vets, he was a lot better at that then trying to judge the college guys

and the free agents he signed, his own guys he resigned, and the vets he traded for, HAVE NO FUCKING PLACE IN THIS THREAD, the thread is about the shit drfats sherman had, and the shitty players he drafted

Red,

I didn't say carroll was the "right" decision, I said what I thought the decision was based upon. It seems that statements were made to this effect at some point.

I don't know whether or not Sherman would have had success or not picking free agents but a case could be made that he was better at picking established players than draft choices. But if you factor in the "primary focus" then maybe not. This is truly a judgement call because we can't see the "other choices" because they never happened.

Finally, who the hell are you to tell us what belongs or doesn't belong? How can you "objectively evaluate" a GM without factoring in the WHOLE JOB? If this statement doesn't show your "anti Sherman" bias, I don't know what will. thanks for exposing yourself.... LMAO.


you are the one saying that sherman wasn't a bad drafter because he brought in guys like glenn and harris. WTF does that have to do with drafting? i said plain and simple he sucked at drafting,

he sucked at drafting, i have said that over and over, that is what this thread is about, i could give two flying shits about anything else that sherman did right now. he sucked at drafting, thats what the thread was about

do you have anything that proves he was good at drafting? otherwise go start your own threads to talk about how hung the guy was, or any other man crush shit you can spew out

you don't like my me or my threads and posts, don't fucking read them

[Anti-Polar Bear]

you don't like my threads and posts, don't fucking read them

Yeah, Patler..err..Shermrockfan is boycotting my posts too. I have to agree with you on this notion.

[woodbuck27]

but he was still pretty bad at drafting, and handling draft picks IMO

Red,

This really gets to the heart of what this debate is all about. To reach this conclusion, you have to assume/consider that sherman was trying to draft well to build a competitive team into the future.

I do not share this view. While he tried to do this, it was not his primary focus. When you compare Sherman to Thompson you have to consider what each primary focus is. I believe them to be different, NOT THE SAME.

For example, it is clear through Thompsons statements and actions that he is building for the future, and while trying to field a competitive team this season, that is CLEARLY NOT his number one priority. His number one priority seems to be, restocking depth for a Super Bowl run at some point in the future.

Plenty of things indicate this, such as limited activity in Free Agency, lack of interest in players available via trade, limited use of waiver wire, and lack of contracts for undrafted free agent talent. He obviously places a great deal of emphasis and value on draft choices, preferring to accumulate more over focusing on one specific player and doing anything to get them. Nothing about this indicated urgency to "build a winner". It is clearly the "turtle" approach of "we'll get there, sooner or later, and we'll be solid when we finally arrive".

Now, contrast that with the manner that Mike Sherman drafted. (In my opinion, completely opposite). I don't think anyone would argue that Sherman was anything but a "needs" drafter. Why? Brett Favre. He continually assessed the team, and attacked its weakest link first. 2002 - receivers, 2003 - linebackers, 2004 - cornerbacks. It was clear, and looked at objectively, pretty transparent, I think.

Joe Johnson illustrates this perfectly. Shermans biggest need initially was a pass rush end, and he preferred to bring in an established veteran. Why? No need to develop. He needed it NOW. Also, he had no receivers. Insert Terry Glenn. Why? Proven Experience when he had NONE. Third - Draft Javon Walker. The biggest position of need were additional receivers. He had Ferguson, now he needed a big deep threat. We've got Glenn for experience, then AFTER THAT, get a guy to step in later. Fast forward to 2003, after the Nickerson bust, now we "need" a linebacker and a cornerback. Trade the #2 for Al Harris who is proven, and get the "best guy" you can find for linebacker in the draft. Then in 2004, we need a cornerback due to the McKenzie disaster. He preferred Carroll over Gamble, mainly because he valued the speed to keep up with Moss.

Sherman did this, I think, because, he had a veteran team, and the leagues best QB, coupled with an impatient fan base. If he got the team over the hump, he could "ride the wave" and begin the "rebuilding" process. Favre would "ride off into the sunset" leaving lower expectations and "time" to rebuild. I can find no indication in any of Shermans moves that he ever focused on "building for the future". The guys he drafted were always at a position of weakness and had the "potential" of filling a hole.

None of this indicates that Sherman is a crappy evaluator, nor that he was unqualified. Rather, it indicates. in my opinion, that he faced a "sense of desparation" whether that was internal or external doesn't really matter. That "desparation" got worse, clouded his judgement, and caused him to make stranger and stranger decisions as those previous decisions blew up in his face. There was no one in the organization who could say "Stop it, just Stop it" after Hatley died.

The four biggest factors, in my opinion that caused Sherman to fail, were, lack of a pass rush from the DT failures, injuries (2002), poor play calling in critical situations, and the death of Hatley who was never replaced.

If only one of these four hadn't happened, I think, he'd have got them at least to a championship game, and probably into the Super Bowl. It didn't happen, so now he's everybody's favorite punching bag. It is just unfortunate that most "fans" aren't interested in putting the puzzle pieces together and just prefer to call him names and pick on both his ability and his weight.

It defies logic that he could have ascended to the top position in the NFL hierarchy and not be qualified, and if you look at his physical appearance from 2001 - 2006, it defies logic that he wasn't totally committed to his task. Bashing him from these perspectives is not only short sighted, it's cruel and WRONG. It shows the shallowness of the "fan" doing the "critique", not the "true perspective" of Mike Sherman, the coach, or the GM.

Retailguy:

Now that was an insightful and IMO very objective /honest assessmernt of Mike Sherman - the Packer GM/HC.

I commend you on having the parts, the integrity/grit . . .'the balls', to stand in there for what it really was in your view. To point out, that trying and being close - is often still deemed as a flop, and that in no way, does Mike Sherman deserve those labels and the unfair judgements and derogatory insults, those of us who admired him must suffer, on a Packer forum.

This man, Mike Sherman, worked his tail off for us, in the dual role as Coach and GM, and his reputation for extra curricular activity in the local community was by all accounts, exemplary. He didn't get us to another Super Bowl, and 'of course' he made some bad moves, as they turned out as OUR GM and Coach. I'm sure, he felt at the time those moves would be more productive, as this man in no dummy.

I make a motion now , for cutting him a break. As a man he was one I truly admired, and what he was handed last season, and all the adversity we had to deal with, was too much for any man. The blame for 4-12 can hardly be placed in the lap of Mike Sherman. Too many things went flat out,bare butt ass wrong for us.

What I deem strongest in his favor, is the positive manner in which he dealt with his dismissal, and having the guts to leap right back into the game in at least some capacity. with another Organization.

Give errrr "H" Mike! Your a solid man and have alot to give to the NFL,yet.

[falco]

I like TT much better as GM than Sherman, based on approach...as far as results that remains to be seen.

But keep in mind, because of his success Sherman was typically picking in the bottom 1/4 of each round. That makes a big difference; the man was a victim of his own success.

[RashanGary]

Nick, your whole perspective is based on what you, or what the "masses" believe that a GM sould do. A GM has choices. Some are good and some are bad, but neither makes one "unqualified" per se. Society determines "good" and "bad" after the fact, based upon the results.

You believe that there is only ONE way to build a winner, however plenty of teams have "tooled up" for one shot. The Ravens made it, and the early Panthers almost made it. The Raiders have built a franchise on this model, and it has had mixed results for them. Undoubtedly there are others.

Point for you to consider is, you've got Brett Favre, what do you do? You'll get criticized no matter what, but if you're a loyal guy, you'll do everything you can to get him the prize....won't you? Tell me, objectively, that IS NOT what Sherman did...

Yes, I am fairly certain that value is the first thing all GM's should consider in any move be it FA or the draft or resigning their own players. A good GM should consider if the production is worth the pay or the draft slot and use that as the scale most actions are weighed on.

This desperation that you speak of is something that will hinder value. When you pay more for a guy than he is worth, you have less money to spend in other areas of your team like depth for example. When you draft a player higher than he should be based on his draft grade, you're not getting the best player possible for your slot and there for are not getting good value.

The main reason I like Ted Thompson and have been and avid supporter since day one is because he speaks of value every time he opens his mouth. He's more than once stated how deseration and needs based panic can lead to costly mistakes for the franchise. In short, he will not fill a hole quickly to fix todays problem if it is not a value concious choice. He will not draft the needs based pick if he believes there is a better player available. He will get the most talent on his roster 100 mil can buy and also the best football players his draft will allow based on his abilities to measure talent and not be clouded by panic. In short, he is the anti-Sherm.

I thought Sherman was a horrible GM, but don't take my word for it. Look no further than 4-12. The lack of depth left to Ted Thompson was a direct result of Sherman needs based panic. The franchise was crippled for a year. Lets judge Thompson over the next 5 years. If value translates to the NFL the way many including NE, Pitts and Seattle believe, Greenbay will be a very good team in the near future.

Thaler and Massey did some research on this exact topic. They basically said Sherman sucks and Thompson is the bomb. They based it on their theory that Value transfers to many areas of the NFL. After stating it, they backed it up with more research than even shamrock is willing to dig up. Look it up. YOu can google it. After reading, you will see that Sherman was a bad GM and diplayed the exact panic that you say was ok but was a common pattern amongst many o'crappy GM across the league. Make excuses, say that the only reason he is judged poorly is because of the result which could have went either way, but many hours of educated research will completely disagree with you and even before reading it, so would I. You are incorrect sir. It was a bad way to conduct buisness and more often than not, his mentality will fail. Esspecially in the draft. This is not a fact, it is just a very educated theory. If you care to find out, I suggest the above authors.

[pbmax]

This really gets to the heart of what this debate is all about. To reach this conclusion, you have to assume/consider that sherman was trying to draft well to build a competitive team into the future.

I do not share this view. While he tried to do this, it was not his primary focus. When you compare Sherman to Thompson you have to consider what each primary focus is. I believe them to be different, NOT THE SAME....

Now, contrast that with the manner that Mike Sherman drafted. (In my opinion, completely opposite). I don't think anyone would argue that Sherman was anything but a "needs" drafter. Why? Brett Favre. He continually assessed the team, and attacked its weakest link first. 2002 - receivers, 2003 - linebackers, 2004 - cornerbacks. It was clear, and looked at objectively, pretty transparent, I think.

Joe Johnson illustrates this perfectly. Shermans biggest need initially was a pass rush end, and he preferred to bring in an established veteran. Why? No need to develop. He needed it NOW. Also, he had no receivers. Insert Terry Glenn.
retailguy, I agree COMPETELY with your analysis, but differ with your conclusion. Sherman was concerned with need and plugging gaps. That was his approach and his intent. On this, I think we are on firm ground. I also agree that Favre was the impetus. Short window of opportunity.

His results, and whether Sherman was a good talent evaluator were less than desirable.

Harris was a great deal, he has been obviously worth the 2nd. Glenn for two 4th round picks was a waste of time. A fragile receiver in a West Coast offense and a QB with a propensity to send his receivers into the DB (or high into the air) was not a good mix. Joe Johnson had every warning sign available (age, injury, played on a line with other, more talented players).

Sherman's best move was drafting Walker, a player that needed two years to develop.

Nickerson was already too old. Fergie and Carrol were just bad personnel decisions (Carrol, at least, so far). My memories of Moss haven't been of him coasting by our DBs, its been of him outjumping our DBs for the ball. Yes, Sharper, I am thinking of you.

By concentrating on need and believing he could select winners with fewer picks, Sherman was lengthening his odds and leaving himself no room for error.

By trading up, signing average and above average players to market value second contracts, and letting other teams dictate the contracts (Diggs, Hunt, KGB, etc.) Sherman was tying a noose around his own neck.

By having NO depth, Sherman felt he had to re-sign these players because he had nothing behind them. He was right, and that's why his time was short.

[woodbuck27]

Mike Sherman is gone and replaced by GM Ted Thompson and HC Mike Mccarthy and that's now. . . and that is what we need to try to support.

Yet for posterity, here is a litle bit on Mike Shermans record. He did after
all have to coach the players he acquired in the dual role as GM.

Here’s a little known, if largely overlooked fact: In the illustrious history of the Green Bay Packers, only the late, great Vince Lombardi has had a higher winning percentage than Mike Sherman.

Looking past last season, the record Mike sherman has compiled:

2000: 9-7

2001: 12-4, playoff berth

2002: 12-4, NFC North Champions

2003: 10-6, NFC North Champions

2004: 10-6, NFC North Champions

Also :

- second fastest of Green Bay’s thirteen head coaches to reach fifty career victories

- 6-2 road record in 2004, a team best since 1972

- in his first five seasons, had a 20-4 record on or after December 1st, best in the NFL over that time span

- 4-0 on or after December 1st in 2003 and 2004

- 8-0 at Lambeau Field in 2002

- three consecutive division titles from ‘02-‘04 are matched in club history only by Lombardi’s 1965-67 and Holmgren’s 1995-97 division winners

- one of four head coaches in Packers history with a career winning percentage over .500, joining Lombardi, Holmgren, and team founder Curly Lambeau.

I know the bottom line is based on getting to the Super Bowl and he failed at that but didn't he still do pretty good?

[RashanGary]

retailguy, I agree COMPETELY with your analysis, but differ with your conclusion. Sherman was concerned with need and plugging gaps. That was his approach and his intent. On this, I think we are on firm ground. I also agree that Favre was the impetus. Short window of opportunity.

His results, and whether Sherman was a good talent evaluator were less than desirable.

Harris was a great deal, he has been obviously worth the 2nd. Glenn for two 4th round picks was a waste of time. A fragile receiver in a West Coast offense and a QB with a propensity to send his receivers into the DB (or high into the air) was not a good mix. Joe Johnson had every warning sign available (age, injury, played on a line with other, more talented players).

Sherman's best move was drafting Walker, a player that needed two years to develop.

Nickerson was already too old. Fergie and Carrol were just bad personnel decisions (Carrol, at least, so far). My memories of Moss haven't been of him coasting by our DBs, its been of him outjumping our DBs for the ball. Yes, Sharper, I am thinking of you.

By concentrating on need and believing he could select winners with fewer picks, Sherman was lengthening his odds and leaving himself no room for error.

By trading up, signing average and above average players to market value second contracts, and letting other teams dictate the contracts (Diggs, Hunt, KGB, etc.) Sherman was tying a noose around his own neck.

By having NO depth, Sherman felt he had to re-sign these players because he had nothing behind them. He was right, and that's why his time was short.

I think that sums it up pretty nicely. Sherm gave his best, but he was inexperienced and it showed in his approach. Saying it was just bad luck or the bounce of the ball would just be a complete cop-out and excuse. What you wrote is far more likely. The bad approach that Sherman took is what lead to his firing. He was not a good GM by result and based on common sense deduction it wasn't flukish bad luck that hurt him but an overall low percentage, poor approach.

[pbmax]

You must be hibernating last year. The biggest problem last year wasnt the injures to Walker, Franks and Green; it was the OL, and the OL was healthy last year. Driver stepped up for Walker. Gado, though not as good, was an OK fill in. The OL is what kept setting the Pack back.

Who was responsible for failing to resign Wahle and/or Rivera? Who failed to drafted an quility OL? Who failed to find quality replacements for Wahle and Rivera? As I am found of saying, show Wahle the money and he wouldve stayed (more than what Carolina offered him). Draft Mankins. OL problem solved.
I believe losing Walker was huge and at least as significant as the OLine play.

And speaking of OLine play, somehow, by midseason, Gado would put together a couple of 100 yard games. And the OLine kept Favre upright enough to rank in top six in sack perentage allowed (Favre also helps with 29 ints). The OLine was not up to it previous standards, but it didn't fall off the chart. This wasn't the 1986 Eagles.

There had been signs the running game was becoming less effective as far back as the end of the 2003 season. Walker was a big reason the offense kept its rating high in 2004.

This Packer team with Wahle and Sharper had demonstrated its top end the previous three years, going 1-3 in the playoffs.

If, as you hope, Sherman would have resigned Wahle, we would have had another backloaded contract. The Packers don't pay cash like the Redskins and had no room to front end the contract like the Vikings, Eagles or Patriots.

Wahle would not have put the team over the top, even if the team had stayed healthy. And we would have lost more depth, gotten older and been another year from a roster makeover.

Of his top ten contracts, Sherman had acquired exactly one, Walker. By signing another vestige of Wolf's tenure, we would have simply delayed the inevitable.

I have no idea if T2 and M3 can do it either. But why spend 2 more years finding out what we knew already; Sherman wasn't going to do it.

And with a better team, somehow Logan Mankins failed to put the Patriots back in the championship game. I shudder that a guard could fail to make such a difference.

[swede]

Sherman reminds me of the boss that spends countless hours in his office creating ridiculous Powerpoints meant to raise employee morale while the veteran team of employees put together by the prior boss breaks all five-year sales records.

All of "his" people on the board of directors trot out his "work ethic" and these impressive sales stastistics to get their guy raises and golfing trips to Palm Springs in appreciation for his dedication and leadership. The unrewarded salesmen seethe.

Eventually word of his poor understanding of how to effectively run a business gets around. Key defections begin to take place. Prospective employees hear about the boss and quality replacements won't even come in for interviews. The team of employees unravels. Few of the original team are left and sales plummet.

The boss is let go, with supporters and detractors both voicing loud opinions. Was he a good boss? He had to have been, argue some. Look at the sales records in the five years prior!

I think the position that Sherman deserves more credit for the 4-12 season and less credit for the gob of wins he achieved with Wolf's talent is highly defensible.

[woodbuck27]

" I think the position that Sherman deserves more credit for the 4-12 season and less credit for the gob of wins he achieved with Wolf's talent is highly defensible. " swede

I believe you are saying that the patchy roofwork finally caught up to him and that roof fell in on top of his head.

[retailguy]

retailguy, I agree COMPETELY with your analysis, but differ with your conclusion. Sherman was concerned with need and plugging gaps. That was his approach and his intent. On this, I think we are on firm ground. I also agree that Favre was the impetus. Short window of opportunity.

His results, and whether Sherman was a good talent evaluator were less than desirable.

Harris was a great deal, he has been obviously worth the 2nd. Glenn for two 4th round picks was a waste of time. A fragile receiver in a West Coast offense and a QB with a propensity to send his receivers into the DB (or high into the air) was not a good mix. Joe Johnson had every warning sign available (age, injury, played on a line with other, more talented players).

Sherman's best move was drafting Walker, a player that needed two years to develop.

Nickerson was already too old. Fergie and Carrol were just bad personnel decisions (Carrol, at least, so far). My memories of Moss haven't been of him coasting by our DBs, its been of him outjumping our DBs for the ball. Yes, Sharper, I am thinking of you.

By concentrating on need and believing he could select winners with fewer picks, Sherman was lengthening his odds and leaving himself no room for error.

By trading up, signing average and above average players to market value second contracts, and letting other teams dictate the contracts (Diggs, Hunt, KGB, etc.) Sherman was tying a noose around his own neck.

By having NO depth, Sherman felt he had to re-sign these players because he had nothing behind them. He was right, and that's why his time was short.


PBMAX,

I'm not sure where our opinions differ? I thought this was what I was saying. Let me be clear, I wasn't trying to defend Sherman's selections as the "right" moves, or the "wrong" moves, I was merely saying that I understood WHY he did what he did, that a case could be made that it wasn't that unreasonable, and finally that he has to live with the consequences that he failed.

I just don't believe that these things establish that he is a horrible coach, GM, or talent evaluator (all that may be true but there is no proof at this point), but that he made a calculated decision that ended with poor results.

As to Terry Glenn, when he brought him in, he had no proven receivers. Donald Driver barely made the cut to 53, they almost kept a guy by the name of Charles Lee. Ferguson had shown flashes of potential, but couldn't be relied upon, and there was no one else. I don't think bringing Terry Glenn in for a 4th round pick was the bad move. He was clearly, at that point, more proven and dependable than anything else we had. The fact that he reached the playing incentive that required a second 4th round pick proves that out. Now, at the close of the season, this is where it all blew up in his face. He had a guy that was no longer necessary, that would impede the development of Ferguson & Walker, that wouldn't have accepted a demotion to third WR very well, and a situation where no one wanted him. So, in summary, I don't think the "problem" with Terry Glenn was bringing him in, it was getting rid of him, and I agree that he blew that, and always have. I did intially think he got a 6th round pick, but what I didn't know is that it was conditional, and we didn't actually get it. I forget how that worked, but Shamler could remind us, of that I am sure.

Joe Johnson was a gamble, however, he had been healthy. In 2002, Sherman believed that the ONLY thing he was missing was a pass rush end. Clearly he overpaid, but if you recall, Johnson ALMOST resigned with NO. I seem to remember that NO offered to match the deal, but some bad blood caused Johnson to reject it... Can't prove that though. I personally think that a few other things were missing on that team, but thats another story. I truly believe that had injuries not decimated that team we'd have got to the championship round. I don't think we'd have gotten to the Super Bowl. In hindsight Johnson was a terrible deal, however at the time Sherman got more praise than criticism.

That's the thing with Sherman, everything he did could be critisized in hindsight. Very few of the things he did (in proportion) could be criticized at the time. The selection of Sander is one noteable exception. I don't think taking a chance on Sander was necessarily a bad move, however trading up in the third round to get a punter can't be defended by anyone, including APB. It wouldn't have been that great of a "loss" to sit tight and lose a punter. That part of the "job" Sherman never understood. This critique relates back to the "needs" analysis we talked about. Sherman set his sight on a player and that was it. Dangerous mode of operation. Works sometimes (Walker & Barnett), but fails more often than not.

Again, in my mind, the only thing that the Sherman years prove, is that a "needs" based mentality is a much riskier mode of operating than what Thompson is doing. Thompsons biggest risk is that he can identify NFL talent more often than not, and he's got a good track record to do that.

Judging Sherman as a failure, requires that we ignore the influence of having someone like Brett Favre on your team, sadly, all decisions were made from that viewpoint. Sherman was too inexperienced to handle the pressure of that situation, but the decisions he made were rooted in some reasonable basis. The odds just got him in the end.

What set me off on this, more than anything, is Red's ridiculous assertion that "the Packer should sue Sherman for what he's done to the franchise".

The guy gave his whole life for 6 years, got two shots at glory and failed, but because he didn't build depth he should be sued. I am not sure I've seen a more stupid perspective in all my years following the Packers. Red obviously cannot remember Dan Devine, Phil Bengston, Bart Starr, Forrest Gregg or Lindy Infante. I can clearly remember all of them, and sitting week one in front of our old console TV thinking "There is no hope for this season". That NEVER HAPPENED during the Mike Sherman years, even in 2005.

[retailguy]

Thaler and Massey did some research on this exact topic. They basically said Sherman sucks and Thompson is the bomb. They based it on their theory that Value transfers to many areas of the NFL. After stating it, they backed it up with more research than even shamrock is willing to dig up. Look it up. YOu can google it. After reading, you will see that Sherman was a bad GM and diplayed the exact panic that you say was ok but was a common pattern amongst many o'crappy GM across the league. Make excuses, say that the only reason he is judged poorly is because of the result which could have went either way, but many hours of educated research will completely disagree with you and even before reading it, so would I. You are incorrect sir. It was a bad way to conduct buisness and more often than not, his mentality will fail. Esspecially in the draft. This is not a fact, it is just a very educated theory. If you care to find out, I suggest the above authors.


Nick,

Massey & Thaler did an analysis of the value of first round picks. When they determined that the likliehood of success did not vary in the first round, (In other words, the success rate for pick 32, was not that different than pick 1.) this could only lead to the conclusion that the lower round of the 1st round represented a better value than the top because of the cost differential.

An economist would NEVER apply their research to one particular situation, and would NEVER support anyone doing that with their research. The conclusions you drew related to Thompson and Sherman are unsupportable using your analysis. The factors in each situation are specific to that situation and other factors cannot be "inferred" to other situation. It does not work that way.

The closest conclusion that one could draw from this, or any other research is that "needs" based drafting is riskier than picking the best available player. No ones has ever debated this point to my knowledge.

Oh yeah, and a little bit about my background, my undergrad degree is in Managerial Accounting, but I have a minor in Economics from the University of Wisconsin. I've got an MBA and teach both Macro & Micro Economics, in addition to Managerial Accounting at the local community college where I live for the last 4 years.

You want to get in an economics debate with me, I'm ready, but lets take it off the forum, we don't want to bore everyone to tears with it.... :mrgreen:

[red]

What set me off on this, more than anything, is Red's ridiculous assertion that "the Packer should sue Sherman for what he's done to the franchise".

The guy gave his whole life for 6 years, got two shots at glory and failed, but because he didn't build depth he should be sued. I am not sure I've seen a more stupid perspective in all my years following the Packers. Red obviously cannot remember Dan Devine, Phil Bengston, Bart Starr, Forrest Gregg or Lindy Infante. I can clearly remember all of them, and sitting week one in front of our old console TV thinking "There is no hope for this season". That NEVER HAPPENED during the Mike Sherman years, even in 2005.

OMG, thats what all this bullshit was about? it was a fucking joke

jesus christ

[The Leaper]

Sherman was an IDIOT for trading up in later rounds to acquire talent. I don't care about his free agency moves or what he did in the first round. I can understand his philosophy there. What I don't understand is continually throwing away draft picks to move up in later rounds when the players selected are a tremendous crap shoot anyway. Sherman did this time and time again...and it cannot be merely explained away by saying he was trying to capitalize on the closing window of Favre's career. Very, very few 3rd or 4th round picks are going to drastically change the fortune of the franchise.

As far as saying Sherman was swinging for the fences...I can agree with that logic. However, Sherman repeated far too many mistakes during his time as GM and coach for him to be given a free pass. You must learn from your mistakes. Sherman often repeated them. That is why he is no longer a GM or head coach in the league at present.

[pbmax]

Again, in my mind, the only thing that the Sherman years prove, is that a "needs" based mentality is a much riskier mode of operating than what Thompson is doing. Thompsons biggest risk is that he can identify NFL talent more often than not, and he's got a good track record to do that.

Judging Sherman as a failure, requires that we ignore the influence of having someone like Brett Favre on your team, sadly, all decisions were made from that viewpoint. Sherman was too inexperienced to handle the pressure of that situation, but the decisions he made were rooted in some reasonable basis. The odds just got him in the end.
I think we agree on all but the conclusion. By choosing the riskier path, he wasn't doomed to fail. But I believe he did fail. Not Kotite failure, but slowly sliding down the hill. And he failed because many of his reasonable decisions failed to pan out.

Sherman had the same backing as Thompson does, and Thompson managed to choose BPA and value over needs. Even if Thompson doesn't prove to be the answer, he is evidence that another choice could have been made.

And decisions such as low tendering KGB and Diggs, among a few others, weren't a result of a needs assessment. He tried to save some cap room because he was up against it every year. And that short term thinking burned him in two different offseasons.

I think Sherman was done in by the short term of his plan as well as his miscalls in drafting for need.

[retailguy]

And he failed because many of his reasonable decisions failed to pan out.

I think Sherman was done in by the short term of his plan as well as his miscalls in drafting for need.


I'm not even sure we disagree about the conclusion. The odds didn't "doom him" but he wasn't likely to "beat the odds" and he didn't. Sherman had NO LUCK whatsoever.

His "short term plan" needed no injuries to be successful and he didn't get that. His miscalls in drafting for need closed his window a little sooner than it would have, but his window closed in 2003, I think. The "outside shot" they had in 2004 wasn't nearly as competitive.

As far as "reasonable decisions" I think a case could be made that only a few more needed to pan out. Sherman definitely didn't have much "luck". I wonder what the odds are of having Reynolds, Johnson, Hunt, Peterson, Lee, Williams, Truluck, and the others I can't remember ALL fail to generate a pass rush? How could ONE of them not generate a pass rush? It really boggles the mind.

[pbmax]

As far as "reasonable decisions" I think a case could be made that only a few more needed to pan out. Sherman definitely didn't have much "luck". I wonder what the odds are of having Reynolds, Johnson, Hunt, Peterson, Lee, Williams, Truluck, and the others I can't remember ALL fail to generate a pass rush? How could ONE of them not generate a pass rush? It really boggles the mind.
I can almost see that outcome, as a pass rush is one of the hardest things to draft and develop. What kills me is that what little O-Line depth we had left and wasn' replaced. Esp at guard, you should be able to find something mid to late round. Same at LB, its not hard to find later round picks turn into something, even if they aren't the ferocious pass rush types.

[esoxx]

It's illogical to defend Sherman's tenure as GM. He was way less then below average. He was reckless in the draft, way off target in FA and blind to the salary cap. Pretty much the hat trick in my book.

[falco]

i'm not sure a minor in economics makes you an expert...

[RashanGary]

Nick,

Massey & Thaler did an analysis of the value of first round picks. When they determined that the likliehood of success did not vary in the first round, (In other words, the success rate for pick 32, was not that different than pick 1.) this could only lead to the conclusion that the lower round of the 1st round represented a better value than the top because of the cost differential.

An economist would NEVER apply their research to one particular situation, and would NEVER support anyone doing that with their research. The conclusions you drew related to Thompson and Sherman are unsupportable using your analysis. The factors in each situation are specific to that situation and other factors cannot be "inferred" to other situation. It does not work that way.

The closest conclusion that one could draw from this, or any other research is that "needs" based drafting is riskier than picking the best available player. No ones has ever debated this point to my knowledge.

Oh yeah, and a little bit about my background, my undergrad degree is in Managerial Accounting, but I have a minor in Economics from the University of Wisconsin. I've got an MBA and teach both Macro & Micro Economics, in addition to Managerial Accounting at the local community college where I live for the last 4 years.

You want to get in an economics debate with me, I'm ready, but lets take it off the forum, we don't want to bore everyone to tears with it.... :mrgreen:

If you read the whole paper like I so pain stakingly did, you'd realize that that whole thing applies to the entire draft. They explained how the trade calculator teams use to determine value is very onesided to the team that is willing to move down. According to Thaler and Masseys research, Sherman gave up too much value to continuously move up. On the flip side, Thompson gets more value on the chart to move down and the chart is already one sided. Thompson is getting a steal. I thought it was pretty easy deduction but of course you will stand by your premise that Sherman just had a bunch of bad luck. We'll just agree to disagree on this one. Sherman will never have another GM job so I guess 32 teams agree with me. :lol:

[RashanGary]

Oh yeah, it also explained how paying too much for good players hurts your team. Sherman did that consistantly. Oh yeah, that was bad luck too. Oops. He should have a job next season then. I'm sure this million dollar industry knows enough to recognize a good GM. Sherman got his chance to prove himself.

Again, we'll agree to disagree. But I know what your saying that you understand his actions. I understand what he was trying to do. I just think the fact that he was that desperate in a job that depseration often begets error accroding to TT shows he was in over his head. It's an educated thought based on research but anyone can think anything about it so I'll never PROVE anything to you. If youw ant to beleive he was a good GM who just had bad luck, well that is on you. Unfortunately the evedince weights strong against you and the biggest piece of evidence is the fact that he'll never have another job in a front office. :?

[retailguy]

i'm not sure a minor in economics makes you an expert...

Wasn't claiming to be an expert. Was claiming to have an understanding of economics and was willing to debate. Hope that clears it up for you.

[retailguy]

Oh yeah, it also explained how paying too much for good players hurts your team. Sherman did that consistantly. Oh yeah, that was bad luck too. Oops. He should have a job next season then. I'm sure this million dollar industry knows enough to recognize a good GM. Sherman got his chance to prove himself.

Again, we'll agree to disagree. But I know what your saying that you understand his actions. I understand what he was trying to do. I just think the fact that he was that desperate in a job that depseration often begets error accroding to TT shows he was in over his head. It's an educated thought based on research but anyone can think anything about it so I'll never PROVE anything to you. If youw ant to beleive he was a good GM who just had bad luck, well that is on you. Unfortunately the evedince weights strong against you and the biggest piece of evidence is the fact that he'll never have another job in a front office. :?

Please point out where I said he was a "good" gm. In fact, I think I said the opposite in several places.

You can "agree to disagree" whenever you like, just quit putting words in my mounth. I also believe that I used the words "inexperienced" and "over his head" in my analysis of Sherman.

Perhaps you should devote the same level of care to reading what I wrote to reading what Massey & what's his name wrote... You still can't make those inferences directly to Sherman or Thompson, but whatever, Nick. You stand alone on whatever battlefield you want....

[retailguy]

I can almost see that outcome, as a pass rush is one of the hardest things to draft and develop. What kills me is that what little O-Line depth we had left and wasn' replaced. Esp at guard, you should be able to find something mid to late round. Same at LB, its not hard to find later round picks turn into something, even if they aren't the ferocious pass rush types.

Well, yes, I'd have to say that Sherman either considered Ruegamer and Bedell??(can't remember his name) as adequate guards, or he didn't have any.

I guess keeping Wahle would have eliminated one issue, but ruegamer was not a solution for the other. Also, the cap ramifications of keeping Wahle would not have been pretty, although it could have been done. I have claimed repeatedly that keeping Wahle was not the right decision. After the decision to pay Tauscher and Clifton, more money for the line would have had serious cap problems.

Again, there can be a school of thought that says Sherman had "planned" to be rebuilding by the end of 2004.... but when you trade 20 picks in three years to move up almost exclusively, then you can't restock through the draft, I'd guess he'd have had to get them either as undrafted free agents, or more likely as free agents. From my perspective that is not a way to get a guard.

'Course you could craft an offer sheet with a poison pill and get Steve Hutchinson, but barring that, I'd guess you're screwed, which is kind of where we were last year. Blaming that on Sherman is a stretch perhaps, but blaming that on Thompson is almost the same thing. End of the line, Sherman probably gets the blame for no plan, and Thompson gets the blame for bringing in two duds....

Guess we'll see if "plan B" works any better.

[RashanGary]

RetailguyPlease point out where I said he was a "good" gm. In fact, I think I said the opposite in several places.

Retailguy; Page 5, Post 1If only one of these four hadn't happened, I think, he'd have got them at least to a championship game, and probably into the Super Bowl. It didn't happen, so now he's everybody's favorite punching bag. It is just unfortunate that most "fans" aren't interested in putting the puzzle pieces together and just prefer to call him names and pick on both his ability and his weight.


My responseYou clearly imply here that a few chance happenings led to Sherman’s decline. Fans pick on his ability and consider what he did to be mistakes where you believe it was a string of bad luck. Do you think maybe a qualified GM would have experience with the desperation and panic that are involved on draft day and during the off season. Apparently not in your book. This is why we have to agree to disagree. You think that desperation was OK to have while running a draft/offseason and many others believe that is horrible and hurts the team, reference Thaler and Massey here. Again, you have to read it first.





RetailguyYou can "agree to disagree" whenever you like, just quit putting words in my mounth. I also believe that I used the words "inexperienced" and "over his head" in my analysis of Sherman.

Retailguy; Page 5, Post 1It is just unfortunate that most "fans" aren't interested in putting the puzzle pieces together and just prefer to call him names and pick on both his ability and his weight.

My responseWhat part of fans don’t put puzzle pieces together and pick on his ability doesn’t translate to you defending his choices? Now that you’re back tracking from your original stand, you seem much more accepting that Sherman was in over his head and underqualified. Here on Page 5, Post 1 you clearly state “It defies logic that he could have ascended to the top position in the NFL hierarchy and not be qualified” Now you’re saying he was “in over his head” Apparently we’re not agreeing to disagree anymore because you made a complete flip-flop.






RetailguyPerhaps you should devote the same level of care to reading what I wrote to reading what Massey & what's his name wrote... You still can't make those inferences directly to Sherman or Thompson, but whatever, Nick. You stand alone on whatever battlefield you want...

My response Well, since you've backed off your original statements, it appears I do stand alone and victorious. :wink:

[retailguy]

RetailguyPlease point out where I said he was a "good" gm. In fact, I think I said the opposite in several places.

Retailguy; Page 5, Post 1If only one of these four hadn't happened, I think, he'd have got them at least to a championship game, and probably into the Super Bowl. It didn't happen, so now he's everybody's favorite punching bag. It is just unfortunate that most "fans" aren't interested in putting the puzzle pieces together and just prefer to call him names and pick on both his ability and his weight.


My responseYou clearly imply here that a few chance happenings led to Sherman’s decline. Fans pick on his ability and consider what he did to be mistakes where you believe it was a string of bad luck. Do you think maybe a qualified GM would have experience with the desperation and panic that are involved on draft day and during the off season. Apparently not in your book. This is why we have to agree to disagree. You think that desperation was OK to have while running a draft/offseason and many others believe that is horrible and hurts the team, reference Thaler and Massey here. Again, you have to read it first.





RetailguyYou can "agree to disagree" whenever you like, just quit putting words in my mounth. I also believe that I used the words "inexperienced" and "over his head" in my analysis of Sherman.

Retailguy; Page 5, Post 1It is just unfortunate that most "fans" aren't interested in putting the puzzle pieces together and just prefer to call him names and pick on both his ability and his weight.

My responseWhat part of fans don’t put puzzle pieces together and pick on his ability doesn’t translate to you defending his choices? Now that you’re back tracking from your original stand, you seem much more accepting that Sherman was in over his head and underqualified. Here on Page 5, Post 1 you clearly state “It defies logic that he could have ascended to the top position in the NFL hierarchy and not be qualified” Now you’re saying he was “in over his head” Apparently we’re not agreeing to disagree anymore because you made a complete flip-flop.






RetailguyPerhaps you should devote the same level of care to reading what I wrote to reading what Massey & what's his name wrote... You still can't make those inferences directly to Sherman or Thompson, but whatever, Nick. You stand alone on whatever battlefield you want...

My response I rest my case.


Dude, you kill me... Do you think you might just have taken those things a tad out of context? I don't see the word "good" anywhere. Also, there is a great deal of Sherman bashing going on here, and everywhere. few people are looking at the "reasons" Sherman made the moves he did. Making poor decisions under pressure doesn't make you "unqualified". Being "qualified" doesn't mean you did a "good" job. I took offense to the claims that Sherman never deserved a chance to hold the position he got. I still do.

Good thing you aren't a lawyer Nick. Very good thing. Even your "circumstantial" evidence wouldn't draw a picture.

this is very funny.

[RashanGary]

Whatever....YOu don't quit...

Like I said, we just have to agree to disagree because you're still fighting about how Sherman was qualified and prepared to be an effective GM. Not the case IMO. So our opinoins differ. At no point will either of us prove the other right, wrong or otherwise because it is stricly subjective. The results and Shermans current demotion is evidence that he is not qualified today. Maybe you have different ways of looking it :). At this point, I think you've said all you can say in Sherms defense. I still think he was underqualified *so does every team presidnet*. I've said all I can say and you still think he deserved the job. That looks like the classic agree to disagree ground to me. I'm not standing alone on my side though. I have 32 teams and just about everyone else on my side of the hill. YOu seem to only have yourself and APB. The whole world is wrong again and APB/Retailguy have it firgured out :)

[retailguy]

Whatever....YOu don't quit...

Like I said, we just have to agree to disagree because you're still fighting about how Sherman was qualified and prepared to be an effective GM. Not the case IMO. So our opinoins differ. At no point will either of us prove the other right, wrong or otherwise because it is stricly subjective. The results and Shermans current demotion is evidence that he is not qualified today. Maybe you have different ways of looking it :). At this point, I think you've said all you can say in Sherms defense. I still think he was underqualified *so does every team presidnet*. I've said all I can say and you still think he deserved the job. That looks like the classic agree to disagree ground to me. I'm not standing alone on my side though. I have 32 teams and just about everyone else on my side of the hill. YOu seem to only have yourself and APB. The whole world is wrong again and APB/Retailguy have it firgured out :)

Nick,

I don't quit? Certainly not when you are claiming something I'm not claiming. All one has to do is check the romper room for your multiple posts relating to off topic threads. You ought to be looking in the mirror over that one. You are the one that is unable to "quit".

I have no problem "agreeing to disagree" if you knew what that was. You still DON'T. Nick, you are clueless about what the debate was about. You've come in here guns a blazing, and forgot to read.

You tried to bash my perspective using how you "feel" about Sherman. Then you used economic analysis, after that, you used my own words taken out of context, and now, you are telling me that I'm obstinate and won't quit, and comparing me to tank. You won't have any more success with this then the other "methods". Face it Nick, you got nothin'.....

Why don't you go back and READ, not only my comments but others who agreed with PORTIONS of what I said. It really wasn't that outlandish, nor was it THAT COMPLEMENTARY to Mike Sherman. I saw flaws, and stated them THROUGHOUT my analysis. At this point you seem to be the only one who cannot/willnot see that.

[son of a vic]

Sherman had absolutely ZERO qualifications to be hired as G.M. That's on Wolf and Harlan. That does not however take all the blame off of Sherman, because if he would have been just an average G.M., he'd still be employed by the Pack.

Horrendous G.M. and an average coach, will get you fired more times than not. He was way in over his head on player evaluation, and it cost him both of his titles. He earned his firing, and should not be felt sorry for, or made out to be a victim

[RashanGary]

i agree sov...nice post.

[retailguy]

Sherman had absolutely ZERO qualifications to be hired as G.M. That's on Wolf and Harlan. That does not however take all the blame off of Sherman, because if he would have been just an average G.M., he'd still be employed by the Pack.

Horrendous G.M. and an average coach, will get you fired more times than not. He was way in over his head on player evaluation, and it cost him both of his titles. He earned his firing, and should not be felt sorry for, or made out to be a victim


SOV ... My buddy. Thanks for showing up. I knew you'd be here. Nick needs you....

Thanks for admitting that Harlan/Wolf have some blame here. If you recall, I argued that over and over with you at JSO.

While Sherm's qualifications were definitely "light" others have the dual role with similar backgrounds to Sherman. In 2000, Bellichek had some head coaching experience, (not good experience)and had been a DC a LOT longer, but didn't have any more experience on the personnel side than sherman. Same with Dennis Green. I'm sure there are others.

Am I putting Sherman in the category with Bellichek? Nick, hear me clearly now, NO. My point is, that at some point someone deemed him worthy of the chance with no measurable personnel evaluation credentials either.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. This time it didn't. Rational explanations don't make someone out to be a victim. Even Vic knows that....

[pbmax]

Horrendous G.M. and an average coach, will get you fired more times than not. He was way in over his head on player evaluation, and it cost him both of his titles. He earned his firing, and should not be felt sorry for, or made out to be a victim
Hold the phone there Gladys. I'm sure APB will be along to chime in on this as well, but Sherman's record speaks to better than just an average coach.

I broke down the roster between Sherman in 2004 and what Wolf left him, and at best you could call the starters even and find evidence of a lack of depth.

Before he got his hands fully around this team, they had just gone 8-8 (Rhodes) and 9-7 (Sherman I). What followed was 44 up and 20 down. That's way better than average.

He constructed an O-Line and running game from scratch where there hadn't been one before.

On the minus side, his playoff record stunk and as Christl has pointed out, he hired an average D coord first, followed by a catastrophe followed by a good one.

On the whole, he is better than average as a coach.