Half a Decade of Mediocrity: The Mike Sherman Years

[MichiganPackerFan]

Someone mentioned Will Whitticker in another thread and it made me review the rosters for those years.

Putrid personnel decisions like that really wasted the first half of the decade and that part of Favre's tenure in GB. Looking back, the management stuck to average players with expended upside. (I have to give Wist credit for his comments on the team at that time.) Who knows what could have happened with talent upgraded from the underwhelming likes of:
Bill Schroeder
Marques Anderson
Mark Roman
Ahmad Carroll
Matt Bowen
Antonio Chatman
Tyrone Williams
Na’il Diggs
Antuan Edwards
Robert Ferguson
Tony Fisher
Cleditus Hunt
Joe Johnson
Bhawaoh Jue
Nick Luchey
Torrance Marshall
Hannibal Navies
Hardy Nickerson
Kenny Peterson
Ben Steele
Joey Thomas

[Harlan Huckleby]

Marques Anderson & Matt Bowen weren't so bad
Na’il Diggs was a good player

[mraynrand]

Sherman was constantly trying to upgrade talent. For example, in 2001, the Packers started Freeman and Schroeder at wide out. They were sorely inadequate. Next year, Driver and Glenn were starting and Sherman drafted Walker. Reynolds was a bust; he brought in Joe Johnson. Johnson was a bust, he drafted Kampman. The Linebackers were inadequate; Sherman drafted Barnett. The secondary was inadequate, so he traded #2 pick for Harris. The secondary was in shambles following 2003 - Sherman drafted Carrol and Joey Thomas (and Slowit then attempted a ludicrous scheme) . Those picks, the scheme, plus his mismanagement of the McKenzie situation - among other things (moving up and using two draft picks on a punter) led to his demise. But he was constantly trying to upgrade and I think he was always trying to play for 'this year' at the expense of the future. That and he fell in love with certain players and wasted picks to get them.

There were several reasons the Packers didn't get past 'mediocrity' during Sherman (although as a GM he had a .667 record - hardly mediocrity). Looming huge was the Reynolds bust (Wolf's pick), the slew of injuries in 2002 that destroyed an 8-1 team, and bad personnel and game decisions, most obvious/frequent during and following 2003. I don't count 2005 at all, because Thompson was brought in and he blew everything up to build the team his way. Sherman should have been fired from both jobs at once.

[Scott Campbell]

Sherman was constantly trying to upgrade talent.


Agreed. But then again, what GM and coaching staff aren't trying to constantly upgrade talent. (Outside of this guy)




http://thegregger63.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/matt-millen.jpg

[mraynrand]

Sherman was constantly trying to upgrade talent.


Agreed. But then again, what GM and coaching staff aren't trying to constantly upgrade talent. (Outside of this guy)




http://thegregger63.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/matt-millen.jpg

Funny. Yes, but my point was that Sherman did have some success upgrading certain positions, specifically some of the personnel on Mich's list.

[Scott Campbell]

There were several reasons the Packers didn't get past 'mediocrity' during Sherman (although as a GM he had a .667 record - hardly mediocrity).


My biggest gripe with Sherman (outside of his use of the challenge flag) was how political he got towards the end of his tenure. Stories abound about not being able to disagree with him. I think that more than anything else has prevented him from getting another NFL shot, which his record would indicate he deserves.

With the right GM, I think Sherman could have been more successful as a head coach.

[mraynrand]

There were several reasons the Packers didn't get past 'mediocrity' during Sherman (although as a GM he had a .667 record - hardly mediocrity).


My biggest gripe with Sherman (outside of his use of the challenge flag) was how political he got towards the end of his tenure. Stories abound about not being able to disagree with him. I think that more than anything else has prevented him from getting another NFL shot, which his record would indicate he deserves.

With the right GM, I think Sherman could have been more successful as a head coach.

I think you're right. Most of the reports said he was becoming increasingly closed off from other viewpoints.

Oh, BTW, you forgot!
http://www.dack.com/images/weblog/mike-sherman-sleeping.jpg

[rbaloha1]

Sherman's ego was ridiculous. Consistently overestimated roster talent and always felt he was a few players away from a super bowl.

Emphasized athletic ability over being an actual football player. Too much gambling with the draft which produced more busts than solid f-ball players.

[retailguy]

Sherman's ego was ridiculous. Consistently overestimated roster talent and always felt he was a few players away from a super bowl.

Emphasized athletic ability over being an actual football player. Too much gambling with the draft which produced more busts than solid f-ball players.

I think you could say in 2001 he was just a few players from the super bowl. don't forget the 8-1 start.

After that, he got more and more desperate.

[Freak Out]

Sherman traded for Green which hid a few warts over the years....but when he drafted Clubber "mini" Lange in the first round and traded up for a punter he shot himself in the balls.

[Patler]

Sherman made big mistakes in two drafts by:

- trading up for, and investing two draft picks in Kenny Peterson
- trading up for, and investing two draft picks in James Lee
- trading up for, and investing two draft picks in Hunter Hillenmeyer, then waiving him
- trading up for, and investing two draft picks in Donnell Washington
- trading up for, and investing two draft picks in B.J Sander


When you invest two draft picks in each player, you can't afford to be wrong too often. Sherman screwed up all five of these situations with four bad picks and one bad roster decision. He wasted 10 draft picks on these and decimated the Packers roster depth.

[rbaloha1]

Sherman made big mistakes in two drafts by:

- trading up for, and investing two draft picks in Kenny Peterson
- trading up for, and investing two draft picks in James Lee
- trading up for, and investing two draft picks in Hunter Hillenmeyer, then waiving him
- trading up for, and investing two draft picks in Donnell Washington
- trading up for, and investing two draft picks in B.J Sander


When you invest two draft picks in each player, you can't afford to be wrong too often. Sherman screwed up all five of these situations with four bad picks and one bad roster decision. He wasted 10 draft picks on these and decimated the Packers roster depth.

Yes -- the antithesis of Ron Wolf. It was like he was trying to disprove the Wolf draft philosophy. Recall Wolf was a consultant and stated Sherman never called him.

[CaptainKickass]

A wiser man than I once told me this:

"We learn from the past that people seldom learn from the past".

Sherman, while a great coach, couldn't hack the GM portion of things. I agree he could team with the right GM and get another shot at success.

I am well beyond stewing on Sherman's tenure and choose to quote an immature movie - Wayne's World

"Live in the now"



http://candidchatter.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/wayne-garth-waynes-world-15834539.jpg



:D

[MichiganPackerFan]

I recall a lot of frustrating contract extensions for average players with no upside resulting from panic when nothing better was easily found. He also tried to "upgrade" by signing average players to above average salaries, not only preventing the team from growing, but putting us right up against the cap. The safety position is a perfect example of a revolving door of mediocrity.

[mraynrand]

Sherman made big mistakes in two drafts by:

- trading up for, and investing two draft picks in Kenny Peterson
- trading up for, and investing two draft picks in James Lee
- trading up for, and investing two draft picks in Hunter Hillenmeyer, then waiving him
- trading up for, and investing two draft picks in Donnell Washington
- trading up for, and investing two draft picks in B.J Sander


When you invest two draft picks in each player, you can't afford to be wrong too often. Sherman screwed up all five of these situations with four bad picks and one bad roster decision. He wasted 10 draft picks on these and decimated the Packers roster depth.

Except that all of these were picked in the 3rd round or below, using late round draft picks to move up (so errors, but perhaps not 'big' errors). I agree with the Thompson philosophy of seldom giving up or packaging multiple picks to move up, because the rate of failure of any single pick is too high. Sherman needed all his picks to work out, or the depth of the team would be destroyed. He also spent an extra #2 on Walker, a #2 on Harris and two #4s on Glenn. That's just being way too loose with draft picks.

[Pugger]

We should also blast Harlan (and Wolf) for giving such a neophyte both the HC and GM jobs. When Harlan first hired Wolf he said that no man can do both jobs but Harlan broke his own 'rule' later on with the hiring fiasco of Sherman as GM. Thankfully he corrected that problem by hiring TT. But TT's biggest goof in my eyes was extending Sherman's contract! What a waste of Favre's best years with Sherman running the show. :?

[pbmax]

Mr. Rand has a good point that each year you could see what position Sherman had targeted for an upgrade in quality. He often made this public like he did the year he sought to upgrade receivers.

But he upgraded it like a coach would. Trading assets that were no use to him now, like a lower round pick or future cap money. His eyes were on starters and key backups. Its one reason his special teams were atrocious.

But after a few years of this, there were not enough picks not enough money to plug all the holes.

[mraynrand]

We should also blast Harlan (and Wolf) for giving such a neophyte both the HC and GM jobs. When Harlan first hired Wolf he said that no man can do both jobs but Harlan broke his own 'rule' later on with the hiring fiasco of Sherman as GM. Thankfully he corrected that problem by hiring TT. But TT's biggest goof in my eyes was extending Sherman's contract! What a waste of Favre's best years with Sherman running the show. :?

Except that the first thing Shermy did was to hire Mark Hatley, who had been GM for the Bears. If Shermy lacked experience as GM, which I think he did, he at least made a reasonable move to address his own inexperience.

[mraynrand]

But he upgraded it like a coach would

I think that's exactly right. I would add that I always had this feeling that he was really thinking Favre was about done, and he wanted to get that championship in before Favre really faded out. It shoulda happened in 2002. Damn injuries.

[sharpe1027]

Sherman made big mistakes in two drafts by:

- trading up for, and investing two draft picks in Kenny Peterson
- trading up for, and investing two draft picks in James Lee
- trading up for, and investing two draft picks in Hunter Hillenmeyer, then waiving him
- trading up for, and investing two draft picks in Donnell Washington
- trading up for, and investing two draft picks in B.J Sander


When you invest two draft picks in each player, you can't afford to be wrong too often. Sherman screwed up all five of these situations with four bad picks and one bad roster decision. He wasted 10 draft picks on these and decimated the Packers roster depth.

The one that really bugs me is when he didn not offer KGB the maximum tender offer even though he was willing to pay him more than that anyway. Instead of other teams having to risk the loss of a first round pick (and a third?) and the Packers having the right of first refusal, the Packers got into a bidding war and paide way more than the tender. No excuse for that.

[retailguy]

We should also blast Harlan (and Wolf) for giving such a neophyte both the HC and GM jobs. When Harlan first hired Wolf he said that no man can do both jobs but Harlan broke his own 'rule' later on with the hiring fiasco of Sherman as GM. Thankfully he corrected that problem by hiring TT. But TT's biggest goof in my eyes was extending Sherman's contract! What a waste of Favre's best years with Sherman running the show. :?

Except that the first thing Shermy did was to hire Mark Hatley, who had been GM for the Bears. If Shermy lacked experience as GM, which I think he did, he at least made a reasonable move to address his own inexperience.

Yep, this was probably the brightest move Sherman made as GM. Had Hatley not passed away, and Joe Johnson not been washed up, things most certainly would have been different.

But, both those things happened, Sherman started to panic, walled himself off, made increasingly desperate moves, and we are where we are.

Watching the desperate trades, and decisions like keeping Hunt over Holliday, was really like watching the water go down the drain.

I'll always respect the guy, but, in the end, he destroyed himself. He should have tried to hire another Mark Hatley, and then "listened" to him.

[mraynrand]

Sherman traded for Green which hid a few warts over the years....but when he drafted Clubber "mini" Lange in the first round and traded up for a punter he shot himself in the balls.

Wolf was the GM at the time of the Green trade. Sure, Sherman was the OC at Seattle in '99, and may have suggested or been enthusiastic about Green as the new coach in 2000, but he was not the GM that year so Wolf gets the credit.

[mraynrand]

We should also blast Harlan (and Wolf) for giving such a neophyte both the HC and GM jobs. When Harlan first hired Wolf he said that no man can do both jobs but Harlan broke his own 'rule' later on with the hiring fiasco of Sherman as GM. Thankfully he corrected that problem by hiring TT. But TT's biggest goof in my eyes was extending Sherman's contract! What a waste of Favre's best years with Sherman running the show. :?

Except that the first thing Shermy did was to hire Mark Hatley, who had been GM for the Bears. If Shermy lacked experience as GM, which I think he did, he at least made a reasonable move to address his own inexperience.

Yep, this was probably the brightest move Sherman made as GM. Had Hatley not passed away, and Joe Johnson not been washed up, things most certainly would have been different.


I'm not sure. Hatley was there for the moves following the 2003 season. losing McKenzie, drafting Carroll and Thomas, allowing Slowit to run that absurd D with a third rate CB like Hawthorne in there. The key to Sherman's demise to me was that the injuries killed him in 2002, and then he killed himself in 2003, particularly in the playoffs. Sometimes a single playoff loss can doom a coach and that loss in Philly, with all the things that went wrong in the second half, pretty much finished Sherman. The rest was just ridiculous (e.g. boxing gloves) and very painful (2005) denouement.

[Freak Out]

Sherman traded for Green which hid a few warts over the years....but when he drafted Clubber "mini" Lange in the first round and traded up for a punter he shot himself in the balls.

Wolf was the GM at the time of the Green trade. Sure, Sherman was the OC at Seattle in '99, and may have suggested or been enthusiastic about Green as the new coach in 2000, but he was not the GM that year so Wolf gets the credit.

My bad....that just makes Sherman the bigger dart board I guess. :)

[bobblehead]

I'll tell you my big beef with shermy( and rhodes) and why I liked Holmgren and MM so much.

Holmgren was absolutely intolerant of turnovers. He was all over favre for bad throws and would bench a RB for fumbles in a heartbeat. He traded Ahman BECAUSE he was a fumbler...Sherman gladly grabbed him. Sherman also decided BF was god and allowed to throw 20 picks a season.

A few of those teams with that offensive line should have gone deep into the playoffs and maybe even superbowl. Injuries may have ruined a season, but Greens fumbles and BF's picks (the truly boneheaded ones) cost us a lot more than injuries ever did.

When Rodgers threw one right into Uhrlachers stomach last season I couldn't help mumbling "yep, he did learn a lot from favre".

[mraynrand]

Greens fumbles and BF's picks (the truly boneheaded ones) cost us a lot more than injuries ever did.

Disagree. 2002: by halftime of the Wildcard game, 9 starters were gone with injury. No team can withstand that.

2003: Shermy's (and Donatell's) feet of clay cost us the NFC championship game.

[pbmax]

But he upgraded it like a coach would

I think that's exactly right. I would add that I always had this feeling that he was really thinking Favre was about done, and he wanted to get that championship in before Favre really faded out. It shoulda happened in 2002. Damn injuries.
And Andrew Brandt, Capologist, Esq. could have fed into that speculation. Even today he half seriously tells of the shared hope between he and Bus Cook that Favre would reach year 3 of the extension. He is now on year 8 :lol:

Another poster mentioned Mark Hatley's hire as evidence that Sherman knew he needed GM assistance. I would also add that never finding a replacement for Hatley hurt, and was one of the items cited by Harlan when he stripped Sherman of the job.

I have no problem with his hire as coach. He succeeded in most ways, esp. regular season. He had a problem with clock management and playoff games, which affects half the coaches in the league. The one area he struggled with that was odd was the season always starting in the doldrums or the long periods of indifferent play. And then Sherman would have to give the fiery+emotional speech to rally the team. Over time, that was going to stop working.

[mraynrand]

And then Sherman would have to give the fiery+emotional speech to rally the team. Over time, that was going to stop working.

Like in Baltimore in 2005. OUCH!

[pbmax]

KGB, Hunt versus Holliday and Diggs were examples of the kind of starters and depth you lose with a coaches approach to personnel. He had boxed himself in with little cap room and tried to lowball KGB and Diggs tenders to gain some room. That cost him dearly.

He had little depth for replacements, so he had to pay a fortune to keep them. Hunt I understand as they basically tried to keep a DT over a DE, except the DT was a slug.

[KYPack]

This is a good and proper post mortem of the MS era. Basically, he was a top coach and a rookie GM who never caught on to the GM gig.

It's always painful to watch a capable person be given a job they can't handle. Sherm behaved like most, making panic moves while he tried desperately to work his way thru things. That doesn't make him a bad guy, but he was a poor GM.

I really fault Harlan in all this. He should have insisted the VP of personnel slot be filled immediatley after hatley's demise, by a top player guy with some juice at his position.

In the end of MS's regime as GM, some things really stood out. Trading up to draft BJ Sanders, then keeping him on the roster with another punter was an inexcusable move. The other player move that was very poor was trading TWO picks to get R Kal Truluck. Truluck was a journeyman DE, a Div III and CFL, AFL player. KC was gonna cut him in a couple days, but Shermy had to have him and burned a 5 & 6 to obtain his contract.

Sherm was a clinic on how to back a team into cap jail, while failing to build team depth to compensate for vet loss.

Harlan should have made the move on MS much earlier than he did.
Few can be a coach & GM and Mike was another guy who couldn't do both jobs.

[MOBB DEEP]

Someone mentioned Will Whitticker in another thread and it made me review the rosters for those years.

Putrid personnel decisions like that really wasted the first half of the decade and that part of Favre's tenure in GB. Looking back, the management stuck to average players with expended upside. (I have to give Wist credit for his comments on the team at that time.) Who knows what could have happened with talent upgraded from the underwhelming likes of:
Bill Schroeder
Marques Anderson
Mark Roman
Ahmad Carroll
Matt Bowen
Antonio Chatman
Tyrone Williams
Na’il Diggs
Antuan Edwards
Robert Ferguson
Tony Fisher
Cleditus Hunt
Joe Johnson
Bhawaoh Jue
Nick Luchey
Torrance Marshall
Hannibal Navies
Hardy Nickerson
Kenny Peterson
Ben Steele
Joey Thomas

lmbo off at the players in bold!

[MichiganPackerFan]

lmbo off at the players in bold!

We had some good times ripping on those personel choices back then!

[Zool]

I've said this for many years now.

PSL rode the coat tails of a HOF QB and a superstud RB with a stellar O-line. Hell Ray Rhodes might have had a good record with those 01-04 teams.

[Merlin]

While true that Mike Sherman had an ego as big as the state of Texas, so does our current GM. Neither of them let anyone else tell them how to run the team and both of them are guilty of drafting poorly. Unlike Sherman who overestimated the talent he had and was always looking for that one player to make a difference (Reggie White anyone?), Thompson overestimates the talent he has and thinks who we have is good enough to win every year. Admirable as it may be that Thompson supports every player on the roster, even the worst GM can see that our offensive line has truly been offensive during the Thompson era. Add to that the lack of healthy, quality tight ends, healthy, quality defensive linemen, and mediocrity in the running game at best, it isn't a stretch to see that Thompson's approach hasn't won us a lot of games or transpired into his "I like who we have here" and "We expect to win" mantra. He has made some good personnel decisions, and some very poor ones. I agree in the hiring of McCarthy, he is more Holgrenesqe, but the choices for the rest of the coaching staff have been poor at best, at least we got a big upgrade on defense this year. The whole idea of the ZBS has been a disaster. Sherman won a lot of games for Green Bay, that can't be denied. Outside of his injuries, the one thing that sticks out as his downfall - his inability to adjust to in game scenarios. His offense hardly changed during his entire career. Remember the U71 I think it was? Year after year he ran that play and in the end it stopped working, just like a lot of his offense did. He never changed anything and that helped with his own demise.

[Deputy Nutz]

I think Mike Sherman was an above average coach that was way over his head as a GM. He got fired as a coach because he couldn't manage the roster. The beef with McKenzie prooves that. His hat as a GM caused players to resent him as a coach.

I thought giving the GM spot to Sherman was a move made by Harlan and Wolf to spite Mike Holmgren.

[sharpe1027]

Paragraphs would help. :wink:


While true that Mike Sherman had an ego as big as the state of Texas, so does our current GM. Neither of them let anyone else tell them how to run the team and both of them are guilty of drafting poorly.

Scott Campbell mentioned that there were stories about staff not being able to disagree with Sherman. If true (any articles written about that?), then fine. I've never heard about TT not using/listening to his staff, unless you consider B. Favre an assistant GM... What is your basis for these allegations?



Unlike Sherman who overestimated the talent he had and was always looking for that one player to make a difference (Reggie White anyone?), Thompson overestimates the talent he has and thinks who we have is good enough to win every year.

I assume you are talking about how TT always tells the media he expects the team to win? Name a GM that doesn't do the same. What exactly are you getting at?



Admirable as it may be that Thompson supports every player on the roster, even the worst GM can see that our offensive line has truly been offensive during the Thompson era.

Well, it would be pretty stupid not to publicly support your own players. What exactly do you expect? He has cut ties with players that didn't work out.



Add to that the lack of healthy, quality tight ends, healthy, quality defensive linemen, and mediocrity in the running game at best, it isn't a stretch to see that Thompson's approach hasn't won us a lot of games or transpired into his "I like who we have here" and "We expect to win" mantra.

Again, you seem focused on form over substance. Do you really expect him to say "I don't like player XYZ" and "I think we'll lose most of our games this year"?


He has made some good personnel decisions, and some very poor ones.

Agreed, but at least the poor ones have not handicapped the team for years to come.


I agree in the hiring of McCarthy, he is more Holgrenesqe, but the choices for the rest of the coaching staff have been poor at best, at least we got a big upgrade on defense this year. The whole idea of the ZBS has been a disaster.

This is intersting as you seem to be praising MM, while at the same time you are ripping on things that were largely MM's fault.


Sherman won a lot of games for Green Bay, that can't be denied. Outside of his injuries, the one thing that sticks out as his downfall - his inability to adjust to in game scenarios. His offense hardly changed during his entire career. Remember the U71 I think it was? Year after year he ran that play and in the end it stopped working, just like a lot of his offense did. He never changed anything and that helped with his own demise.

Agreed.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I'll tell you my big beef with shermy( and rhodes) and why I liked Holmgren and MM so much.

Holmgren was absolutely intolerant of turnovers. He was all over favre for bad throws and would bench a RB for fumbles in a heartbeat. He traded Ahman BECAUSE he was a fumbler...Sherman gladly grabbed him. Sherman also decided BF was god and allowed to throw 20 picks a season.

A few of those teams with that offensive line should have gone deep into the playoffs and maybe even superbowl. Injuries may have ruined a season, but Greens fumbles and BF's picks (the truly boneheaded ones) cost us a lot more than injuries ever did.

When Rodgers threw one right into Uhrlachers stomach last season I couldn't help mumbling "yep, he did learn a lot from favre".

I think we got far more positive contributions from Green than negative ones. Except for the yr he lost due to injury, he never rushed for less than 1000 yds and was a very good receiving back as well. Sure he fumbled a bunch, but I'd gladly trade the production he gave to us in spite of those.

[Fritz]

Hey, is there an entrepreneur in Green Bay who sells Mike Sherman punching bags?

I want one!

Seriously, I agree that it was a mistake for Wolf to hire a first-time head coach and then give him the GM position immediately after.

It was too much for one guy. Just too much.

I agree to with PB that Sherman-the-GM thought more like Sherman-the-coach. But is that anything like letting your little head do the thinking for your big head??

[mraynrand]

I think we got far more positive contributions from Green than negative ones. Except for the yr he lost due to injury, he never rushed for less than 1000 yds and was a very good receiving back as well. Sure he fumbled a bunch, but I'd gladly trade the production he gave to us in spite of those.

No kidding. But The fumbles were way oversold. Green was in the top three running backs 2000-2004 (average), with great numbers in yards rushing, receptions (73, 62, 57, 50, 40) and combined yards from scrimmage 1734(7th), 1633, 1981(3rd), 2250(3rd), 1438. His Fumbles? (6,5,4,7,7 = 29). Not all that different from other guys with similar carries/duties Tomlinson (8,3,2,6,3= 22 - 2001-2005), Ricky Williams (6,6,8,7,7=34, 1999-2003), and Priest Holmes (2,4,1,1,4= 12). I think Holmes was the best at ball security over that stretch.

[mraynrand]

While true that Mike Sherman had an ego as big as the state of Texas, so does our current GM. Neither of them let anyone else tell them how to run the team and both of them are guilty of drafting poorly.

I guess using that logic (what is the logic there? please explain), both are guilty of drafting well, too. Barnett, Kampman, Rodgers, Jennings. Thompson accumulated draft picks and, unlike Sherman, had a huge bonanza year in 2006, in which he had an extra #2 from Walker and high draft picks in each round because of scuttling/rediricting (depending on your view/bias) the team in 2005. Both drafted good picks, and both had stinkers. Thompson, as been noted elsewhere, had an outstanding day 2 in 2007, and has built the current team through the draft. The next two years will really tell the story of his draft picks

[bobblehead]

Greens fumbles and BF's picks (the truly boneheaded ones) cost us a lot more than injuries ever did.

Disagree. 2002: by halftime of the Wildcard game, 9 starters were gone with injury. No team can withstand that.

2003: Shermy's (and Donatell's) feet of clay cost us the NFC championship game.

I didn't say they didn't cost us, but the turnovers cost us every year. I remember a game against the chefs where we were dominating every facet of the game. Up by 10 if I recall and running it down their throats. BF tosses a pick 6 at the KC 20ish yardline. Then after shermy abandoned the run and we end up in OT, Green is again running it down their throats as I scream "thats what I'm talking about...run the.....FUCK, FUCK" as Ahman put the ball on the turf. We lost and didn't really recover.

How about the viking playoff game with a fumble by green and 4 picks by BF if i recall. Atlanta...don't get me started. The rams...truly an epic day where Bill schroeder ran 6 wrong routes.

[mraynrand]

Greens fumbles and BF's picks (the truly boneheaded ones) cost us a lot more than injuries ever did.

Disagree. 2002: by halftime of the Wildcard game, 9 starters were gone with injury. No team can withstand that.

2003: Shermy's (and Donatell's) feet of clay cost us the NFC championship game.

I didn't say they didn't cost us, but the turnovers cost us every year. I remember a game against the chefs where we were dominating every facet of the game. Up by 10 if I recall and running it down their throats. BF tosses a pick 6 at the KC 20ish yardline. Then after shermy abandoned the run and we end up in OT, Green is again running it down their throats as I scream "thats what I'm talking about...run the.....FUCK, FUCK" as Ahman put the ball on the turf. We lost and didn't really recover.

How about the viking playoff game with a fumble by green and 4 picks by BF if i recall. Atlanta...don't get me started. The rams...truly an epic day where Bill schroeder ran 6 wrong routes.

I don't see where your're going with this. Under Sherman, the best chance the Pack had at getting to the Superbowl were 2002 and 2003. 2002 was derailed by injuries (even had they never turned the ball over against Atlanta, they still wouldn't have won - even if they had won that game, they would have been slaughtered by Philly, That was a destroyed team. Why can't you figure that out??)

2003? Turnovers didn't decide that Philly game. Feet of clay. Donatell wimped out on fourth and 26 and didn't bring pressure, and Shermy wimped out on a fourth and one just before that. Sherman called the entire second half like he was protecting a three TD lead. Favre's OT INT, painful as it was, should never have happened.

Turnovers have a great effect on any game, but the best chances to win it all in the Sherman era were not decided by turnovers.

[MOBB DEEP]

lmbo off at the players in bold!

We had some good times ripping on those personel choices back then!

Omg yes!

Remember Torrance Marshall's "girlfriend?" ROFLMAO....classic scenario, classic times...

[MichiganPackerFan]

The next two years will really tell the story of his draft picks

I totally agree. Thompson may have to draft more similart to this year rather than the constant trade downs. If there are a lot more trade downs, it really means his first couple of drafts were useless.

[Deputy Nutz]

I have to admit, Shermy did put together a stellar offensive line, a horrible defensive line, a less than explosive receiver corps outside of the one year, a very solid running game especially if Green could play more than 2 plays in a row. The defensive line was his down fall along with his feeble efforts at replacing aging pieces in the secondary, finding a safety to go next to Sharper was a laughable experience as well. Linebacker? not real good either.

[Patler]

I have to admit, Shermy did put together a stellar offensive line, a horrible defensive line, a less than explosive receiver corps outside of the one year, a very solid running game especially if Green could play more than 2 plays in a row. The defensive line was his down fall along with his feeble efforts at replacing aging pieces in the secondary, finding a safety to go next to Sharper was a laughable experience as well. Linebacker? not real good either.

What do you mean by "put together"? Do you mean "acquired" as a GM or "coached up" (Sherman's term) as the head coach? As a GM, Sherman brought the Packers Scott Wells, and no backups worth a crap for the O-line.

[mraynrand]

I have to admit, Shermy did put together a stellar offensive line, a horrible defensive line, a less than explosive receiver corps outside of the one year, a very solid running game especially if Green could play more than 2 plays in a row. The defensive line was his down fall along with his feeble efforts at replacing aging pieces in the secondary, finding a safety to go next to Sharper was a laughable experience as well. Linebacker? not real good either.

What do you mean by "put together"? Do you mean "acquired" as a GM or "coached up" (Sherman's term) as the head coach? As a GM, Sherman brought the Packers Scott Wells, and no backups worth a crap for the O-line.

He did bring in 'Ole U71' (Barry) as a rookie FA. Not much else on the O line in the draft in 3 years as GM.

[MichiganPackerFan]

He did bring in 'Ole U71' (Barry) as a rookie FA. Not much else on the O line in the draft in 3 years as GM.

Did Barry disappear out of football when Sherman left the Packers? Did he even try out anywhere? Sherman seemed to prize a lot of players who couldn't make the roster elsewhere.

Edit: Removed excess quotes

[mraynrand]

I have to admit, Shermy did put together a stellar offensive line, a horrible defensive line, a less than explosive receiver corps outside of the one year, a very solid running game especially if Green could play more than 2 plays in a row. The defensive line was his down fall along with his feeble efforts at replacing aging pieces in the secondary, finding a safety to go next to Sharper was a laughable experience as well. Linebacker? not real good either.

What do you mean by "put together"? Do you mean "acquired" as a GM or "coached up" (Sherman's term) as the head coach? As a GM, Sherman brought the Packers Scott Wells, and no backups worth a crap for the O-line.

He did bring in 'Ole U71' (Barry) as a rookie FA. Not much else on the O line in the draft in 3 years as GM.

Did Barry disappear out of football when Sherman left the Packers? Did he even try out anywhere? Sherman seemed to prize a lot of players who couldn't make the roster elsewhere.

As Patler indicated, Barry wasn't even a good backup. He was U71 material and not much else. Still, that's not too shabby for a rookie FA.

[Patler]

He did bring in 'Ole U71' (Barry) as a rookie FA. Not much else on the O line in the draft in 3 years as GM.

Did Barry disappear out of football when Sherman left the Packers? Did he even try out anywhere? Sherman seemed to prize a lot of players who couldn't make the roster elsewhere.

Edit: Removed excess quotes

Barry didn't disappear when Sherman left the Packers, he followed him to Houston! Spent one year down there with a whole bunch of other former Packers, but Barry was on IR for Houstan following a preseason injury.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Sherman had his own group of players that he seemed to love, that no one else rated very high. Kind of reminds me of Quentin Tarentino's actors in his first few films, except QT got a lot more production out of them!

[mraynrand]

Sherman had his own group of players that he seemed to love, that no one else rated very high. Kind of reminds me of Quentin Tarentino's actors in his first few films, except QT got a lot more production out of them!

A big pile of shit, though bigger than a smaller pile of shit, is still, well, shit.

[Fritz]

I'll give him props for Aaron Kampman, though. And Javon Walker. And Nick Barnett. And Corey Williams was pretty good for what he did. And Najeh Davenport was okay. So was Scott Wells.

Three drafts, three very good players, and three jags. A couple bit players, too - Kenny Peterson, Craig Nall, and Hunter Hillenmeyer was okay for the Bears, but he doesn't count because Shermy cut him to keep an extra player at another positon.

And ol' Mother Hubbard thought her cupboards were bare!

[Pugger]

Oh God, I remember that horrible playoff game against Atlanta. My hubby and I were there. That year that team was absolutely devastated by injuries. BF had only practice squad WRs to throw to by half time. :cry:

[Noodle]

Keep in mind that, because of the team's success in those years, he usually had fairly crappy draft position. So maybe he felt he had to move up a bit and that the value of th lower round picks was not that great.

Except for one year, TT has not labored under that burden.

[Fritz]

Elegantly said, Noodle, but I still think the premise is flawed. Of his three best picks - Kampman, Barnett, Walker - the highest drafted was Walker at, I think, #20. He did trade up, for sure, for that one, but it was still in the second half of the round. And Barnett was picked at the end of round one, and Kampman of course in the fifth.

He saw Ron Wolf move up to nab Jamaal Reynolds at #10 - a lesson on how valuable a high pick may not be.

He may have felt there was pressure to move up, but that pressure was self-generated by a flawed premise. New England has been drafting near the ass end of the first round for a while now, and they're hanging in there and in fact often trade down.

[Deputy Nutz]

Well lets see, I do believe Wahle was a horrible left tackle, was moved to guard, Winters was retired, Flanigan stepped up at center, Clifton and Tauscher were inserted as cornerstones of the offensive line, Dotson was also retired. So I guess under Sherman the Packers had their best offensive line since the 1960s. I don't really know why I was questioned by Patler in the first place, but under Sherman the Packers had a really offensive line, who really wants to dispute that?

[rbaloha1]

Elegantly said, Noodle, but I still think the premise is flawed. Of his three best picks - Kampman, Barnett, Walker - the highest drafted was Walker at, I think, #20. He did trade up, for sure, for that one, but it was still in the second half of the round. And Barnett was picked at the end of round one, and Kampman of course in the fifth.

He saw Ron Wolf move up to nab Jamaal Reynolds at #10 - a lesson on how valuable a high pick may not be.

He may have felt there was pressure to move up, but that pressure was self-generated by a flawed premise. New England has been drafting near the ass end of the first round for a while now, and they're hanging in there and in fact often trade down.

True. The U71 was almost unstoppable. The o-line was a definite Sherman strength.

[pbmax]

I don't really know why I was questioned by Patler in the first place, but under Sherman the Packers had a really offensive line, who really wants to dispute that?
Its relatively simple. You first used the term, put together. If by "put together" you meant acquired, he was going to point out who acquired them.

If by "put together" you meant found the correct positions for the players and coached them up (or hired Beightol to do it) then he was going to agree with you. The point being, this achievement speaks to his coaching ability and not so much to his GM ability.

[pbmax]

True. The U71 was almost unstoppable. The o-line was a definite Sherman strength.
It was unstoppable for a year. It was effective for one more. It became stoppable by good teams after that. Everything gets countered eventually.

[mraynrand]

True. The U71 was almost unstoppable. The o-line was a definite Sherman strength.
It was unstoppable for a year. It was effective for one more. It became stoppable by good teams after that. Everything gets countered eventually.

Sherman was planning to put Barry in as an extra QB in an early version of the wildcat formation. That's when Harlan pulled the plug.

[Patler]

Well lets see, I do believe Wahle was a horrible left tackle, was moved to guard, Winters was retired, Flanigan stepped up at center, Clifton and Tauscher were inserted as cornerstones of the offensive line, Dotson was also retired. So I guess under Sherman the Packers had their best offensive line since the 1960s. I don't really know why I was questioned by Patler in the first place, but under Sherman the Packers had a really offensive line, who really wants to dispute that?

Very simple. I didn't understand what you meant, so I asked a question. We've been discussing Sherman's performance as coach and as GM, and I didn't understand at which your comment was directed.

Bringing them to GB - no credit to Sherman.
Putting them on the field - Sherman gets the credit, just like any HC does. And yes, for about 4 years it was a very good line.

The failed experiment of Wahle at LT was under Sherman. In '98 and '99 Wahle was a guard and Verba was the LT. Sherman flipped them the next year, Wahle bombed as a LT after a few games, was sent to the bench and Clifton was inserted. The next year Sherman moved Wahle back to guard.

Moving Winters to the bench and making Flanagan the starter, Sherman's idea absolutely. Dotson got hurt, so Tauscher got his chance, just like Clifton did because Wahle at LT was horrible. Pretty interesting year with two rookie starters at the tackles, but Sherman and Beightol sure made it work.

[Scott Campbell]

True. The U71 was almost unstoppable. The o-line was a definite Sherman strength.
It was unstoppable for a year. It was effective for one more. It became stoppable by good teams after that. Everything gets countered eventually.

Sherman kept going to the well even after teams had figured out how to handle it.

[Fritz]

That, too me, is a key element in a coach's success: the ability to adapt.

And that has to be so, so tough for a coach. He makes a name for himself wit some brand of football - he's a power run guy, he's an offensive innovator, he's a 3-4 guy.

So he installs his signature thing, whatever it is, and after awhile other teams figure it out. But coaches seem like stubborn creatures sometimes, and who can blame them? Football is a manly game, and it's much more manly to shove something down someone else's throat then to counter their moves. Be in control! Don't re-act - act.

So the real geniuses might be the ones who have that ability to change, that fluidity, that ability to adapt and respond.

I sometimes wonder if Lombardi, had he kept coaching, would have been less successful with his big run-to-daylight thing, or if teams would have caught on and stopped him. Football evolved more slowly then, I think.

[pbmax]

True. The U71 was almost unstoppable. The o-line was a definite Sherman strength.
It was unstoppable for a year. It was effective for one more. It became stoppable by good teams after that. Everything gets countered eventually.

Sherman was planning to put Barry in as an extra QB in an early version of the wildcat formation. That's when Harlan pulled the plug.
It was to be known as the Woolly Mammoth offense.

[mraynrand]

That, too me, is a key element in a coach's success: the ability to adapt.

And that has to be so, so tough for a coach. He makes a name for himself wit some brand of football - he's a power run guy, he's an offensive innovator, he's a 3-4 guy.

So he installs his signature thing, whatever it is, and after awhile other teams figure it out. But coaches seem like stubborn creatures sometimes, and who can blame them? Football is a manly game, and it's much more manly to shove something down someone else's throat then to counter their moves. Be in control! Don't re-act - act.

So the real geniuses might be the ones who have that ability to change, that fluidity, that ability to adapt and respond.

I sometimes wonder if Lombardi, had he kept coaching, would have been less successful with his big run-to-daylight thing, or if teams would have caught on and stopped him. Football evolved more slowly then, I think.

Stubby seems to have his troubles with adapting too. I don't think it's because he isn't clever or a good offensive mind (on the contrary, I think he designs some great things, disguising similar plays with multiple formations), but he can be a bit stubborn (that, and his stature = Stubby) - you can seen it in games where he thinks he ought to be able to run against a team, and keeps at it, even when it is failing. The run game in Chicago in 2007 comes to mind - it was working in the first half and Stubby kept with it even when it went south. A lot of coaches are like that to an extent, and Stubby has a lot of other redeeming qualities, so it's really not a major quibble, still I think it's valid.

[packerbacker1234]

Sherman wasn't all that horrible. HE had just as many "good moves" compared to "bad moves" as most other GM's and Head coaches. I mean, the packers were seemingly always a winning team and a playoff contendor during his tenure. He won nearly 70% of the games the packers played during his era. The problem? They couldn't get out of round 1 of hte playoffs, and as people are pointing out usually there was a lot of bad luck that went into those seasons and it just always felt that in the playoffs, the only way we were going to win was for #4 to dominate... he needed help and just didn't really get it until the season his dad died.

[Patler]

Sherman wasn't all that horrible. HE had just as many "good moves" compared to "bad moves" as most other GM's and Head coaches. I mean, the packers were seemingly always a winning team and a playoff contendor during his tenure. He won nearly 70% of the games the packers played during his era. The problem? They couldn't get out of round 1 of hte playoffs, and as people are pointing out usually there was a lot of bad luck that went into those seasons and it just always felt that in the playoffs, the only way we were going to win was for #4 to dominate... he needed help and just didn't really get it until the season his dad died.

I wouldn't say the Packers were playoff contenders as much as playoff participants under Sherman. During Sherman's years as HC, no other team in their Division had a winning record. The best was Minnesota at 48-48. If you look at the 5 years of 2000-2004, Minnesota was 39-41, Chicago 34-46 and Detroit 25-55.

If you look at Sherman's record against winning teams, it declined:

2000 - 6/4 against teams that ended with winning records.
2001 - 3/1
2002 - 3/3
2003 - 3/4
2004 - 0/3

In 2004 the Packers made it to the playoffs with a 10/6 record achieved in a division where MN was 8/8, Detroit 6/10 and Chicago 5/11. In addition, the Packers played only 3 games against teams that ended the year with a winning record, and lost all 3. Things fell right for the Packers a lot of Sherman's years, which is why I viewed them as a playoff participant more than a playoff contender..

[Fritz]

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether Shermy was a good coach at all, but as a fan perceptions can influence you, and I always hated how Shermy just looked kinda lost on the sideline.