Interesting comments on Mike Sherman by Dylan Tomlinson

[motife]

Tomlinson's whole chat is worth reading, but the following was titallating :

http://cf.wisinfo.com/Packers_Chat/old_chats/q_a_022407.cfm

Ralph, Whitehall, WI: Dylan, Any chance one of the Packer beat writers such as yourself will get an interview with former Green Bay Head Coach Mike Sherman soon? Is Sherman present at the Indy Combine there? Thanks for reading/taking my question.

Dylan Tomlinson: There are about 12 writers who cover the Packers on a daily basis. Sherman only likes one of them and I assure you, I'm not the one... Sherman is very thin-skinned and reads everything that is written about him and he's very aware of how critical we've all been of the job he did as a GM and as a coach. Sherman has a very high opinion of himself and to this day thinks he was a great GM and a great coach. If you look at the job he did as a GM it's amazing that McCarthy was able to go 8-8 his first season.

[BF4MVP]

I found this interesting, and encouraging, as well..

Nik, Eden Prairie, MN: Thanks for the chat. A couple of weeks ago, Marshawn Lynch got into some trouble. Have you seen him talk/met with him at the combine, and if so, does he seem like the kind of person that the Packers would want in their locker room? Also, how much do you think that incident will affect the Packers' view of him?

Dylan Tomlinson: Lynch was accused of beating up an ex-girlfriend, but was cleared of all charges because of inconsistencies in the woman's statement. I don't know what that means, but I certainly didn't see any red flags from talking with Lynch today. Seemed pretty intelligent, was interesting to talk to, there was a nice mix of cockiness and sense of humor... I don't think his problems even approach what Ahman Green went through. I can't imagine Lynch would be any problem in the Packers locker room. For what it's worth, he seemed like a decent enough guy to me... I say they should pick him...

[BallHawk]

Maybe he talks better when the camera's are off. He comes across as complete dumbass in interviews, but who knows? Maybe he's a better person to talk to when the blinking red light is turned off.

[RashanGary]

LOL about Mike Sherman...

The GBPG seems to be so much cooler since Havs left. I don't ever remember people from that paper being so opinionated and fun / funny.

I'm trying to remember who it was that gave the summary on Ted's job but they did a really good job too. Was that DT? It might have been Demovsky

[Partial]

Maybe he talks better when the camera's are off. He comes across as complete dumbass in interviews, but who knows? Maybe he's a better person to talk to when the blinking red light is turned off.

Most NFL players do. Have you heard a brett favre interview? Oye. It tests the patience big time.

[MJZiggy]

Yes, Partial, but from what I've heard, you'd better have some spare time if you wanna talk to Favre in private as well.

[Scott Campbell]

Maybe Sherman has been reading Tank's press clippings. Sounds dellusional.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Yes, Partial, but from what I've heard, you'd better have some spare time if you wanna talk to Favre in private as well.

He's from the South. People aren't in big hurry down there.

These Green Bay writers aren't that great--in my book. Tomlinson's credibility is hit on this--by him acting so enthusiastic about the Packers possibly taking Lynch. When you have an emotional attachment like that, you're going to see what you want to see (e.g. Lynch seemed fine to him). It's as if PackerPro42 was giving the interview. It's why I prefer my writers detached and crusty--like Uncle Cliffy.

[red]

Maybe Sherman has been reading Tank's press clippings. Sounds dellusional.

tanks probably the one green bay "writer" that sherman still likes

[b bulldog]

Sherman hurt this organization big time.

[red]

Sherman hurt this organization big time.

don't let retail guy see you write that. now that he's got mod cred, he might just ban your ass for life after that kind of statement

but i would agree

[retailguy]

Sherman hurt this organization big time.

don't let retail guy see you write that. now that he's got mod cred, he might just ban your ass for life after that kind of statement

but i would agree

maybe I'll just ban you both. but then MTP would chicken out and reinstate you... It's not worth it... :wink:

I don't share your Sherman musings... did he leave us with the need to rebuild? Yes, but not because of idiocy. He did it purposely. He went for the gold and missed. That's not the sign of an idiot. A desperate person perhaps, but not an idiot.

sherman is a smart man, and at some point he'll get another chance.

[GrnBay007]

Maybe he talks better when the camera's are off.


Yeah, take Rex Grossman for example.........


:P :wink: :P

[Guiness]

Maybe he talks better when the camera's are off.


Yeah, take Rex Grossman for example.........


:P :wink: :P

Something about Sexy Rexy you want to tell us??? :shock:

[mraynrand]

Sherman hurt this organization big time.

Perhaps, if you don't like Kampman, Harris, Williams, Jenkins, Barnett, Wells, Clifton, Tauscher, Green, and KGB (the final four were Sherman re-signings). Also, if Sherman was resposible for losing Walker, then you would think he hurth the organization.

The bottom line is that Sherman wasn't allowed time to actually prove that he hurt the organization. He was .667 in the regular season as a coach and won 3 division titles and was 1-3 in the playoffs during his GM tenure, which was better than Parcells and most other GMs over the same stretch. Perhaps if Harlan had left him in place he would have run the organization into the ground, but we don't know that. All we know is that he had an exceptional GM year in 2002, an average year in 2003, and a horrible year in 2004 (very similar to Wolf's 2001 year where he got Martin and Ferguson and Sherman got Wells and Williams).


Maybe Sherman has a high opinion of himself because he did reasonably well until Thompson arrived, and never actually failed on his own watch.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Sherman stunk as a GM. I don't think there's any arguing left to be done.

[Partial]

Sherman stunk as a GM. I don't think there's any arguing left to be done.

Right, and its been done for 3 years. No sense in living in the past and debating. Whats done is done, time to look towards the future and what TT can do.

[retailguy]

Sherman stunk as a GM. I don't think there's any arguing left to be done.

Personally, I've always disagreed with that. Time is showing MANY of the things people point to, in order to criticize him are off base or distorted. Those of us, besides Tank, that consistently defend him don't say that he will ever be "GM of the year", however, he surely doesn't "stink" as bad as many of the GM's still employed in this league.

Sherman got caught in a philosophical change within the Green Bay organization. That change happened, most likely, as a result of his "failure" to get to the Super Bowl.

This whole issue is in no way as "simple" as you make it out to be. Quite honestly Harvey, I know you know better than that.

[MadtownPacker]

I understand what Sherm was trying to do (win a SB with Favre) but for a blind loyalist like Retailguy to deny that Sherm the GM sucked just proves he truly is full of Koolaid among other things.

[red]

I understand what Sherm was trying to do (win a SB with Favre) but for a blind loyalist like Retailguy to deny that Sherm the GM sucked just proves he truly is full of Koolaid among other things.

yeah, he's senile, and off his meds

[mraynrand]

I understand what Sherm was trying to do (win a SB with Favre) but for a blind loyalist like Retailguy to deny that Sherm the GM sucked just proves he truly is full of Koolaid among other things.

Why is it that when people try to evaluate Sherman objectively, they become 'blind loyalists' only if they happen to disagree with your assessment?

A GM who sucks doesn't draft two pro bowlers in his first (rookie) year as GM. A GM who sucks doesn't pick one of the best players ever drafted at position #29. A GM who sucks doesn't bring in three quality rookie FAs and several FA that are quality either in a trade (#2 pick for Harris) or off the scrap heap (Grady Jackson).

Of course, people like to say how terrible it was that Sherman drafted a failed punter, but Ron Wolf blew a #3 pick on Conway. People harp about how Sherman blew #3 picks and late picks on failed linemen, but then ignore Wolf guys like Holland, Warren, and Brown. People condemn Sherman for a terrible draft like 2004, but then try to ignore Wolf's final draft, both of which netted two marginal/conditional starters. (Or they try to pass off the 2001 draft as being Sherman's when all the factual evidence says it was Wolf's draft).

The reason people think Sherman sucked, versus he was so-so, is that they focus only on the negatives. That's much more like a 'blind loyalist' in the negative sense than anyone who tries to objectively analyze Sherman.

[MadtownPacker]

The reason people think Sherman sucked, versus he was so-so, is that they focus only on the negatives. That's much more like a 'blind loyalist' in the negative sense than anyone who tries to objectively analyze Sherman.Take your blinders off before you crash on a curve... :lol:

When I say Sherm sucked I dont really mean his picks so much cuz like you said, many where good, but as GM his job was also to keep the team well stocked and in good cap situation. Sherman failed terribly at both. Like I said, I understand that he was under pressure to win NOW but he didnt know when to go back to the drawing board and restock and that is what doomed him. His damn stubborness.

[Zool]

So is your contention is that he should have been given more time? I would definitely not agree with that. He made far too many bad judgment calls to keep his GM job. When you're a GM, you have to make more good calls than bad calls to keep your job IMO.

Sherman as a coach, I dont want to get into because thats an opinion based discussion. I personally hated him as a coach, but I know plenty of people loved him.

If I was Harlan, I would have stripped him of his GM title 30 seconds after he traded UP for a punter.

[Scott Campbell]

Perhaps if Harlan had left him in place he would have run the organization into the ground, but we don't know that. .

Perhaps if we freed Charles Manson he would kill again, but we don't know that.

[BlueBrewer]

Sherman has rabbit ears, that is hilarious.

[mraynrand]

If I was Harlan, I would have stripped him of his GM title 30 seconds after he traded UP for a punter.

You know it wasn't that simple (it was actually worse, the way Sherman manuvered picks). But do you think Harlan should have fired Wolf when Brett Conway failed as a #3 draft pick? Should Wolf have been fired for blowing a #5 pick on Buckley or a #10 and Hasselbeck on Reynolds? Certainly those two failed picks are worse than any Sherman made, considering where they were picked.

People want to blame Sherman for leaving the cupboard bare, but Wolf had two drafts in 1999 and 2001 that only netted four starters. He had a tremendous year in 2000, but McKenzie, Driver, Martin, and Ferguson were not enough from two drafts.

[mraynrand]

Perhaps if Harlan had left him in place he would have run the organization into the ground, but we don't know that. .

Perhaps if we freed Charles Manson he would kill again, but we don't know that.

Pretty funny, but not an apt analogy. Sherman's worst record as a GM was 10-6, so there was no precendent for him producing overall a terrible team.

[mraynrand]

The reason people think Sherman sucked, versus he was so-so, is that they focus only on the negatives. That's much more like a 'blind loyalist' in the negative sense than anyone who tries to objectively analyze Sherman.Take your blinders off before you crash on a curve... :lol:

When I say Sherm sucked I dont really mean his picks so much cuz like you said, many where good, but as GM his job was also to keep the team well stocked and in good cap situation. Sherman failed terribly at both. Like I said, I understand that he was under pressure to win NOW but he didnt know when to go back to the drawing board and restock and that is what doomed him. His damn stubborness.

Don't you think that if he had changed his strategy from 'win now' to 'focus on the draft' the Packers would have suffered a similar 4-12 season in 2005?

In any case, I think it's a valid point to argue that Sherman may have continued to try and keep the team afloat with his method of trading picks for players or trying to strike gold by trading up in the draft , and that it may have eventually caused a collapse of the team. But didn't TT effectively, deliberately bring this about in 2005? If Harlan was convinced that Sherman would never change draft strategy, and he believed in a GM who valued draft picks more highly, then Harlan made the right move. But that being said, it still doesn't guarantee that TT will be any better at drafting guys. That remains to be determined.

[Patler]

Every GM makes draft "mistakes".
Sherman's biggest failing was that he continually traded up, even in the low rounds. As a result, everyone of his "mistakes" counted double, and slowly but surely the strength of the roster eroded. He geve hmself less room for error, and he wasn't up to it.

[Zool]

If I was Harlan, I would have stripped him of his GM title 30 seconds after he traded UP for a punter.

You know it wasn't that simple (it was actually worse, the way Sherman manuvered picks). But do you think Harlan should have fired Wolf when Brett Conway failed as a #3 draft pick? Should Wolf have been fired for blowing a #5 pick on Buckley or a #10 and Hasselbeck on Reynolds? Certainly those two failed picks are worse than any Sherman made, considering where they were picked.

People want to blame Sherman for leaving the cupboard bare, but Wolf had two drafts in 1999 and 2001 that only netted four starters. He had a tremendous year in 2000, but McKenzie, Driver, Martin, and Ferguson were not enough from two drafts.

Kicker in the 3rd is miles apart from trading away picks to draft a punter. Everyone reaches on picks and fails. Sherman reached over a railing and fell off a balcony with that one. How many teams even draft a punter at all let alone a first day pick? He was clearly not thinking straight. Its like trading up to draft a long snapper in the 3rd who has no o-line skills.

Its just impossible to fathom and from that moment on I lost all respect for the man. 4th and 1, 4th and 26. Blame them on who you will. The half Wolf half Sherman draft, no one here will ever know who was in control of those picks. I have read articles saying both sides.

All GM's screw up. You just have to make more good decisions than bad ones, and avoid the "blooper reel" picks. Punters are blooper reel picks.

[red]

and to run the salt in the wound a little more
matt schaub, was taken 3 picks after we took BJ

we got to cut BJ and got nothing for him, atlanta might be able to get a 1st and 3rd rounder this year for schaub

don't forget was also traded up in that draft to take donut washington.

we traded up 3 times in that draft and traded down once (our second round pick, which ended up being joey thomas and part of the donut trade up)

our 6th rounder had been traded away the year before, so we had to trade the 6th round pick we got for terry glenn and our 7th round pick to move up in the 6th to take corey williams

sherman was just all over the place with this draft, and the only real talent he got in the draft was scott wells, who he took in the 7th with our compensatory pick that he probably would have traded away if he could have

the only pick we made at the spot we were originally suppose to pick at was carroll, all the rest of the picks we traded for, except wells.

all that work for nothing

[retailguy]

I understand what Sherm was trying to do (win a SB with Favre) but for a blind loyalist like Retailguy to deny that Sherm the GM sucked just proves he truly is full of Koolaid among other things.


Well, I must be full of it, but for some strange reason I keep hanging out with you guys... :roll: :wink:

Could Sherman have done as well in 2004 without all the trading? Yes. Might have done better, however, we don't get to know that. You can point to all the bad, and continue to ignore the good (there was some), and your "viewpoint" will be just as polluted with "black koolaid" as mine.

Sherm brought some great players to GB. He drafted better in the first two rounds than most GM's ever do. He drafted rather poorly in the lower rounds for the reason Patler said - He didn't value the picks as much as they should have been.

Mraynrand brings up some compelling points, yet most of the "rockheads" in this forum can't even read them with objectivity.

I'll never understand the insidious hatred of Mike Sherman. Does he have flaws? Sure, but remember, we could have had Mike Tice, or worse, Matt Millen. How about Floyd Reese and the AWESOME job he did managing the cap in Tennessee? Maybe we should get Butch Davis? How about Steve Spurrier or Dan Snyder? Maybe we could get Nick Saban? How about Dennis Green? Maybe we could get Mike Ditka out of retirement and he could trade the whole draft for Calvin Johnson? How about Tom Donahue? Maybe we could reunite Dwight Smith and Carmen Policy?

Anyone?

[retailguy]

Perhaps if Harlan had left him in place he would have run the organization into the ground, but we don't know that. .

Perhaps if we freed Charles Manson he would kill again, but we don't know that.

Pretty funny, but not an apt analogy. Sherman's worst record as a GM was 10-6, so there was no precendent for him producing overall a terrible team.

Actually, using forum logic, TT is NOT and will NEVER be responsible for 2005. See, that was ALL Shermans fault for the TERRIBLE state he left the GM role in. I just wanted you to know, that TT brought in perfectly capable guys to fill the guard slots, and got us an AWESOME replacement safety in Mark Roman. Clearly, it was TT's goal to "win now", as he denied over and over and over again that he was "rebuilding". If that's true, then he believed he was providing adequate personnel to field a competitive team. If he didn't believe that, then he's a LIAR. There is no middle ground.

This logic is directly borrowed from the "2001 Draft" logic that says Sherman was really pulling the strings for a 25 year veteran by the name of Ron Wolf.

[RashanGary]

We've all talked about this before and after listenting to a few resonable Sherm supporters *I think the ones here, now* I came to the opinion that he was just below average and not a horrible as my underthought impression originally lead me to conclude.

However, I'm thrilled to have a GM with Thompsons credentials and spoken goals. It was Shermans approach that bothered me more than the acctual results. IN the end, he hurt us but Thompson also contributed to these bad seasons by going cold turkey of FA's and overpriced rosters spots. It was the right move, but it made Sherman look even worse. With the huge cap increases, Sherm probalby could have danced that line and kept us competitive for a while.

My opinion is: Sherm average, TT really good. Normally I don't just leave it at that but most here have heard me beat my little drum more than they probably care to hear.

[Charles Woodson]

and to run the salt in the wound a little more
matt schaub, was taken 3 picks after we took BJ

we got to cut BJ and got nothing for him, atlanta might be able to get a 1st and 3rd rounder this year for schaub

don't forget was also traded up in that draft to take donut washington.

we traded up 3 times in that draft and traded down once (our second round pick, which ended up being joey thomas and part of the donut trade up)

our 6th rounder had been traded away the year before, so we had to trade the 6th round pick we got for terry glenn and our 7th round pick to move up in the 6th to take corey williams

sherman was just all over the place with this draft, and the only real talent he got in the draft was scott wells, who he took in the 7th with our compensatory pick that he probably would have traded away if he could have

the only pick we made at the spot we were originally suppose to pick at was carroll, all the rest of the picks we traded for, except wells.

all that work for nothing


Yea well if teams knew how Shaub or anybody aheadof us that were great was gana turn out then they would have chose them alot higher. You never know whose gana turn out like what. If we knew fergy would suck then we would have chosen Chambers. If we knew Carroll would have sucked then we would have chosen _________. I mean i see what your saying and i dont agree with shermy as anything even a coach(i just never liked sherm)

[BooHoo]

I would take Sherman over Millen.

[retailguy]

I would take Sherman over Millen.

So would everyone else except William Clay Ford, and most of the posters here in this forum.... 8) You'd think that "Sherman" was a synonym for "Anti-Christ".

[BooHoo]

Sorry, I stated the obvious. :lol:

[swede]

Life is good if you don't particularly care for Mike Sherman. For one thing, he's no longer here. And making jest of him just gets better with time.

And because he was and is a decent man and a pretty good football coach he's got plenty of supporters with whom to debate.

[red]

Maybe we could get Mike Ditka out of retirement and he could trade the whole draft for Calvin Johnson?

its interesting that you mention this, because CJ has more talent, and would improve this team more then shermans entire last draft combined(2004) did.

[retailguy]

Maybe we could get Mike Ditka out of retirement and he could trade the whole draft for Calvin Johnson?

its interesting that you mention this, because CJ has more talent, and would improve this team more then shermans entire last draft combined(2004) did.


It's also interesting that you chose to ignore everything else.... and it's also interesting that Ricky Williams did so much to improve the state of the New Orleans Saints as well...

[Scott Campbell]

Was Sherman anywhere near Wall Street today?

[red]

Was Sherman anywhere near Wall Street today?

probably not

but i bet he was in china

come on RG, you served that one up on a silver platter for me

[MadtownPacker]

I'll never understand the insidious hatred of Mike Sherman. Does he have flaws? Sure, but remember, we could have had Mike Tice, or worse, Matt Millen.I dont hate Sherman, it was just time for a change. He was a good (but not great) HC and had alot of heart for the team.

By mentioning tice and millen you make your standards seem very low.

[retailguy]

Was Sherman anywhere near Wall Street today?

probably not

but i bet he was in china

come on RG, you served that one up on a silver platter for me


I think I'm going to change your username to "blue" just for kicks.

sherman is singlehandedly responsible for global warming and famine in africa, if he'd have been in china, there would be no stock market, and we'd be missing massive amounts of authentic chinese food.

[retailguy]

By mentioning tice and millen you make your standards seem very low.

Are you related to "red"? I mentioned a few other guys too which you conveniently omitted... I started with those two idiots because they are in the NFC north...

[retailguy]

Was Sherman anywhere near Wall Street today?

Most likely, he is in Indianapolis, sleeping on a bleacher. But, I digress... That's your line, isn't it? :twisted:

[red]

Was Sherman anywhere near Wall Street today?

probably not

but i bet he was in china

come on RG, you served that one up on a silver platter for me


I think I'm going to change your username to "blue" just for kicks.

sherman is singlehandedly responsible for global warming and famine in africa, if he'd have been in china, there would be no stock market, and we'd be missing massive amounts of authentic chinese food.

see, now you're starting to understand things a little better

next we'll talk about how sherman killed all the dinosaurs

[HarveyWallbangers]

Most likely, he is in Indianapolis, sleeping on a bleacher. But, I digress... That's your line, isn't it? :twisted:

They actually showed him talking to Holmgren today on the NFL Channel. He looked like he had aged another 10 years. The next clip they showed Mike Tice. I got a chuckle.

[Packnut]

Hard to understand that there really is any debate here. Facts and history cannot be changed. Both Sherman the coach and Sherman the GM had one of the top 5 QB's of all time and went to ZERO super bowls.

But, it's not all Sherman's fault. Harlan made him GM and has pretty much escaped any blame for a STUPID move. I'll never understand why. I guess Harlan hiring Wolf absolved him for all wrong-doing after that. :lol:

[Kiwon]

Very few guys could handle effectively both the GM and HC positions.

Everyone has their good and bad points. IMO, the GM role revealed Sherman's bad points and the HC role revealed his good points.

Thin-skinned? Everybody's thin-skinned with the press. What about the press' responsibility in building a good working relationship with the front office?

What does it say about the GB press corp that they can't remember to shut off the cell phones during media sessions and then when Sherman called them out no one admitted that he was the culprit nor did any of the other reporters rat the person out.

Sherman was right to walk out after being repeatedly disrespected. That doesn't make him thin-skinned. It showed that Sherman had some self-respect and that the press regulars were acting like jerks.

[mraynrand]

Hard to understand that there really is any debate here. Facts and history cannot be changed. Both Sherman the coach and Sherman the GM had one of the top 5 QB's of all time and went to ZERO super bowls.

But, it's not all Sherman's fault. Harlan made him GM and has pretty much escaped any blame for a STUPID move. I'll never understand why. I guess Harlan hiring Wolf absolved him for all wrong-doing after that. :lol:

How many Superbowls did the Dolphins go to in Marino's years 10+? How many Superbowls did the Chiefs go to with Montana?

How many top 5 QBs played with a broken thumb? How many played with a broken thumb and made it to the Divisional round of the playoffs?

Can you name a team that went to the superbowl with 9 starters (7 on offense and 2 on defense) lost for the year with injuries?

Just some perspective to add to your simple-minded evaluation.

[mraynrand]

Maybe we could reunite Dwight Smith and Carmen Policy?

Anyone?

Did you mean Dwight Clark? That guy is a total asshole. I went to a Niners game once in '90 and the guy was doing the post game show on the field. Some little 8 year old kid asks him during a commerical break if he can have an autograph and Clark screams at him (in this really high-pitched pansy voice) "Shut up, I'm doing a show!!!" Kids' dad says, "Son, you don't really need his autograph." The entire crowd watching the post-game show (about 40 people) left in disgust.

[mraynrand]

Was Sherman anywhere near Wall Street today?

I understand that he traded several stocks low and bought one stock that he 'had his eye on' for a long time at a very high price.

[Packnut]

Hard to understand that there really is any debate here. Facts and history cannot be changed. Both Sherman the coach and Sherman the GM had one of the top 5 QB's of all time and went to ZERO super bowls.

But, it's not all Sherman's fault. Harlan made him GM and has pretty much escaped any blame for a STUPID move. I'll never understand why. I guess Harlan hiring Wolf absolved him for all wrong-doing after that. :lol:

How many Superbowls did the Dolphins go to in Marino's years 10+? How many Superbowls did the Chiefs go to with Montana?

How many top 5 QBs played with a broken thumb? How many played with a broken thumb and made it to the Divisional round of the playoffs?

Can you name a team that went to the superbowl with 9 starters (7 on offense and 2 on defense) lost for the year with injuries?

Just some perspective to add to your simple-minded evaluation.


Your response is totally flawed. First off, it was a failure for the Dolphins to not go to a SB with Marino cause he also had a pretty good offense. Duper and Clayton were a solid 1,2 punch.

2nd- The Chiefs did not surround Montana with adequate talent.

3rd- injuries are part of the game and happen to all teams. To use them as an excuse is very weak. As for Favre's broken thumb, HE gets all the credit for playing not Shermy.

Also, please use some common sense if your going to criticize. One of the reasons Brett is a top 5 QB is he did have some talent around him. You must have selective memory. Shermy had one of the best O lines ever assembled in GB. He had Green in his prime. Sherman failed as a coach plain and simple. Proof is in the pudding as they say. With all the coaching positions available since Shermy was given the boot, none of the available teams share your opinion of him.............

[red]

yeah, that packers offense during the sherman years was wicked good, except at WR, i think they were just so-so there

but the o-line was one of the best, if not the best, they had the best blocking FB in the game, one of the top 3 rb's in the game at the time (production wise the best in the game during that time), and one of the greatest QB's of all time

and our defense wasn't too shabby either

[MadtownPacker]

and our defense wasn't too shabby eitherOK now you are tripping. The D was terrible against the run. They always put the pressure on the O to win games. Had the defense been just "OK" who know what could have happened.

[red]

and our defense wasn't too shabby eitherOK now you are tripping. The D was terrible against the run. They always put the pressure on the O to win games. Had the defense been just "OK" who know what could have happened.

ok, ok, so they were shabby lol

[retailguy]

yeah, that packers offense during the sherman years was wicked good, except at WR, i think they were just so-so there

but the o-line was one of the best, if not the best, they had the best blocking FB in the game, one of the top 3 rb's in the game at the time (production wise the best in the game during that time), and one of the greatest QB's of all time

and our defense wasn't too shabby either


So happy you brought this up. I just want to go on the record and say that TT and Wolf should get the credit for this. Nevermind that Ray Rhodes went a pathetic 8-8 with the Wolf players, never mind that Sherman went 9-7 his first year.

Red, in a good natured way, you are a hypocrite.... :wink: :D

The team was damn good, but also bitten with injuries in both 2002 and 2004...

[retailguy]

Your response is totally flawed. First off, it was a failure for the Dolphins to not go to a SB with Marino cause he also had a pretty good offense. Duper and Clayton were a solid 1,2 punch.

And Who was the Coach? Oh yeah, some old guy named Shula. Isn't he in the hall of fame? should there be debate here, packnut? Couldn't one say that Shula was inept and incompetent not to have succeeded with talent like Marino, Duper & Clayton?




2nd- The Chiefs did not surround Montana with adequate talent.

And where does the blame lie here? With the GM? Wasn't that Peterson? Is he inept too? How can an organization "waste" the talent of a guy like Montana? Could it be because it is DIFFICULT to put a Super Bowl caliber team together? Could it be that more good, quality people FAIL than succeed? Nah, this shit is EASY. Just look at Sherman, he was a bumbling FOOL...



3rd- injuries are part of the game and happen to all teams. To use them as an excuse is very weak. As for Favre's broken thumb, HE gets all the credit for playing not Shermy.

Nope, the coaching staff gets ZERO credit for "designing" an offense in which a guy with a broken thumb can play. Hell, people do it all the time. Favre can just chuck it 70 yards 15 times a game with a broken thumb. There won't be any pain, residual swelling, or ball control problems. C'mon, Packnut, you are smarter than this... If the coaching staff doesn't design the proper formations and the proper plays to "take the pressure" off of the thumb, nothing works... Yep it's FAVRE. He's calling SIXTY audibles per game...



Also, please use some common sense if your going to criticize. One of the reasons Brett is a top 5 QB is he did have some talent around him. You must have selective memory. Shermy had one of the best O lines ever assembled in GB. He had Green in his prime.

Seems like you'd have to be a pretty decent GM and a pretty good coach to keep a 1st class OL in place for SIX years. When did Wolf do that? Remember Adam Timmerman? He was allowed to walk away, then we started over with Rivera, then started over again, with Clifton and Tauscher. Revolving door on that line before Sherman came around. Man that guy was an idiot. Didn't have a CLUE what he was doing. Same guys for SIX years. PATHETIC. I SAY, SIMPLY PATHETIC. How could he know what he was doing. I tell you, he LUCKED into the best OL in the NFL in 2003. IT WAS LUCK. Not a plan.. Look at Wolf, now THAT is the way to build an OL. Don't value the guards. Hell, you can get THOSE guys anywhere.... Just ask TT who shares the same philosophy. We're damn lucky that Favre was back there. Any other QB would have been KILLED in 2005....



Sherman failed as a coach plain and simple. Proof is in the pudding as they say. With all the coaching positions available since Shermy was given the boot, none of the available teams share your opinion of him.............

I will enjoy using this quote as my signature in the years to come. Every time I use the terms "always" and "never" they come back to haunt me. I will haunt you and the rest of the "anti Sherman" crowd with quotes like this. Count on it.[/quote]

[Zool]

I'll hardly be haunted by anything about Shermin except for 4th and 1, and "with their 3rd selection in the draft, the Packers select...BJ Sanders."

[Patler]

Seems like you'd have to be a pretty decent GM and a pretty good coach to keep a 1st class OL in place for SIX years. When did Wolf do that? Remember Adam Timmerman? He was allowed to walk away, then we started over with Rivera, then started over again, with Clifton and Tauscher. Revolving door on that line before Sherman came around. Man that guy was an idiot. Didn't have a CLUE what he was doing. Same guys for SIX years. PATHETIC. I SAY, SIMPLY PATHETIC. How could he know what he was doing. I tell you, he LUCKED into the best OL in the NFL in 2003. IT WAS LUCK. Not a plan.. Look at Wolf, now THAT is the way to build an OL. Don't value the guards. Hell, you can get THOSE guys anywhere.... Just ask TT who shares the same philosophy. We're damn lucky that Favre was back there. Any other QB would have been KILLED in 2005....



Well in an effort for accuracy, it wasn't six years with the same O-line.

1999 was before Clifton and Tauscher were there.
2000 had Verba the starter at left guard, and Winters at center.
2001 Wahle and Flanagan became starters.
2005 Wahle and rivera were gone.

So in fact it was only 4 years with the same group, 2001-2004, ignoring the year Tauscher and Cllifton were out with injuries,

And, Sherman had nothing to do with getting them to GB, all were drafted by Wolf. He did, however, re-sign each one once. Part of Sherman's problem was that he did not bring in enough potential O-lineman. Wolf insisted that that was always important as part of cap management. New, younger players to take over at less cap cost for some, but not all of the more expensive veteran O-linemen. That's why Wolf could let Taylor and Timmerman go. He paid for tackles and a center, but replaced guards. Sherman engineered the contracts so he had the chance of losing both guards in one year, and had no suitable replacement on the roster for even one of them.

Again, if Sherman had not traded so many draft picks in "2 for 1" deals to move up in the draft, he may have hit on another lineman like Wolf did with Timmerman and Tauscher in 7th round picks, Rivera in the 6th, etc. He should have given himself more chances to be right. He didn't, so when guys like Ferrario (he or Wolf), Houghton and Curtin didn't pan out, there was only Wells to plan the future with. Just one more guy might have made 2005 a little different.

[Packnut]

Your response is totally flawed. First off, it was a failure for the Dolphins to not go to a SB with Marino cause he also had a pretty good offense. Duper and Clayton were a solid 1,2 punch.

And Who was the Coach? Oh yeah, some old guy named Shula. Isn't he in the hall of fame? should there be debate here, packnut? Couldn't one say that Shula was inept and incompetent not to have succeeded with talent like Marino, Duper & Clayton?




2nd- The Chiefs did not surround Montana with adequate talent.

And where does the blame lie here? With the GM? Wasn't that Peterson? Is he inept too? How can an organization "waste" the talent of a guy like Montana? Could it be because it is DIFFICULT to put a Super Bowl caliber team together? Could it be that more good, quality people FAIL than succeed? Nah, this shit is EASY. Just look at Sherman, he was a bumbling FOOL...



3rd- injuries are part of the game and happen to all teams. To use them as an excuse is very weak. As for Favre's broken thumb, HE gets all the credit for playing not Shermy.

Nope, the coaching staff gets ZERO credit for "designing" an offense in which a guy with a broken thumb can play. Hell, people do it all the time. Favre can just chuck it 70 yards 15 times a game with a broken thumb. There won't be any pain, residual swelling, or ball control problems. C'mon, Packnut, you are smarter than this... If the coaching staff doesn't design the proper formations and the proper plays to "take the pressure" off of the thumb, nothing works... Yep it's FAVRE. He's calling SIXTY audibles per game...



Also, please use some common sense if your going to criticize. One of the reasons Brett is a top 5 QB is he did have some talent around him. You must have selective memory. Shermy had one of the best O lines ever assembled in GB. He had Green in his prime.

Seems like you'd have to be a pretty decent GM and a pretty good coach to keep a 1st class OL in place for SIX years. When did Wolf do that? Remember Adam Timmerman? He was allowed to walk away, then we started over with Rivera, then started over again, with Clifton and Tauscher. Revolving door on that line before Sherman came around. Man that guy was an idiot. Didn't have a CLUE what he was doing. Same guys for SIX years. PATHETIC. I SAY, SIMPLY PATHETIC. How could he know what he was doing. I tell you, he LUCKED into the best OL in the NFL in 2003. IT WAS LUCK. Not a plan.. Look at Wolf, now THAT is the way to build an OL. Don't value the guards. Hell, you can get THOSE guys anywhere.... Just ask TT who shares the same philosophy. We're damn lucky that Favre was back there. Any other QB would have been KILLED in 2005....



Sherman failed as a coach plain and simple. Proof is in the pudding as they say. With all the coaching positions available since Shermy was given the boot, none of the available teams share your opinion of him.............

I will enjoy using this quote as my signature in the years to come. Every time I use the terms "always" and "never" they come back to haunt me. I will haunt you and the rest of the "anti Sherman" crowd with quotes like this. Count on it.[/quote]


Gee, did'nt Shula win a SB? Did'nt Shula produce BEFORE Marino got there? The fact he never won with Danny boy does take a bit of luster off his shine, but in the NFL, winning at least 1 super bowl does mean SOMETHING!

I could go on and refute every point you make, but what would be the sense of it? The facts speak for themselves. Sherman let a sub-par Falcon team come into Lambeau and win. Give me your lame excuse for that one.

Last point needed to make my case- the Philly game. That game will forever define Sherman the coach. It indeed is UNFORGIVEABLE. Go back and watch that game and then tell me with a straight face that Shermy was a "good" coach. I can't wait to read your spin on that one.

As far as GM, He did hit on a few picks but hell, law of avg's say you should hit once in a while. Look, bottom line is he under-achieved with the talent he had. All the BS in the world will not change that fact.

[retailguy]

Well in an effort for accuracy, it wasn't six years with the same O-line.

1999 was before Clifton and Tauscher were there.
2000 had Verba the starter at left guard, and Winters at center.
2001 Wahle and Flanagan became starters.
2005 Wahle and rivera were gone.

So in fact it was only 4 years with the same group, 2001-2004, ignoring the year Tauscher and Cllifton were out with injuries,

And, Sherman had nothing to do with getting them to GB, all were drafted by Wolf. He did, however, re-sign each one once. Part of Sherman's problem was that he did not bring in enough potential O-lineman. Wolf insisted that that was always important as part of cap management. New, younger players to take over at less cap cost for some, but not all of the more expensive veteran O-linemen. That's why Wolf could let Taylor and Timmerman go. He paid for tackles and a center, but replaced guards. Sherman engineered the contracts so he had the chance of losing both guards in one year, and had no suitable replacement on the roster for even one of them.

Again, if Sherman had not traded so many draft picks in "2 for 1" deals to move up in the draft, he may have hit on another lineman like Wolf did with Timmerman and Tauscher in 7th round picks, Rivera in the 6th, etc. He should have given himself more chances to be right. He didn't, so when guys like Ferrario (he or Wolf), Houghton and Curtin didn't pan out, there was only Wells to plan the future with. Just one more guy might have made 2005 a little different.


Well, then we replace SIX with FOUR and have mostly the same analysis. I never said that he "acquired" them, but you're right he did extend each one of them. This also doesn't alter my point that Sherman was smart enough to know that you win with solid lines. Had Sherman succeeded the same way with the DL that he did with the OL, we'd be having a different discussion.

I have always agreed with you about the trading of picks. THAT was his downfall. If you're going to trade picks like they are candy, then you need to be "very active" in free agency. Looking at GM responsibility from a "long term" perspective, this doesn't work, most of us can see this, however, when you "match" that philosophy with the greatest NFL QB watching his career end, long term doesn't matter much either.

Those in here who criticize Sherman for not looking long term, also criticize him for wasting Favre's final years. You cannot have it both ways. Sherman CLEARLY, to any OBJECTIVE mind (of which there are few in this forum), CLEARLY was looking short term. Building depth is of lesser importance than finding guys who could "play now". You find the guys to "play now" to make a run, followed by a "tear-down" and rebuild.

A conscious decision that doesn't work out, DOES NOT make one an idiot or incompetent. These guys in this forum CANNOT have it both ways... It doesn't work.

[retailguy]

Gee, did'nt Shula win a SB? Did'nt Shula produce BEFORE Marino got there? The fact he never won with Danny boy does take a bit of luster off his shine, but in the NFL, winning at least 1 super bowl does mean SOMETHING!

I could go on and refute every point you make, but what would be the sense of it? The facts speak for themselves. Sherman let a sub-par Falcon team come into Lambeau and win. Give me your lame excuse for that one.

Last point needed to make my case- the Philly game. That game will forever define Sherman the coach. It indeed is UNFORGIVEABLE. Go back and watch that game and then tell me with a straight face that Shermy was a "good" coach. I can't wait to read your spin on that one.

As far as GM, He did hit on a few picks but hell, law of avg's say you should hit once in a while. Look, bottom line is he under-achieved with the talent he had. All the BS in the world will not change that fact.


Well, it never changes, does it? What's the point in refuting what I say... Ok, eeorye have it your way.

This "tactic" of taking the "its useless" perspective WON'T work with me.

I'll pass. Volley with someone else.

On one point, yep, Shula did win, if you understood sarcasm you'd get the point. However, the simple fact that one succeeds and one fails does not indicate the intelligence level of the coach. IT MERELY EXPLAINS THAT MORE WENT RIGHT THAN WENT WRONG, AND THAT THIS STUFF IS BEYOND DIFFICULT AND REQUIRES A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF LUCK WITH THE INTELLIGENCE AND FORTITUDE.

You don't get to the NFL level by being incompetent.

Enjoy your "limited" perspective. It seems to suit you well.

[Guiness]

Well, I must be full of it, but for some strange reason I keep hanging out with you guys... :roll: :wink:

Could Sherman have done as well in 2004 without all the trading? Yes. Might have done better, however, we don't get to know that. You can point to all the bad, and continue to ignore the good (there was some), and your "viewpoint" will be just as polluted with "black koolaid" as mine.

Sherm brought some great players to GB. He drafted better in the first two rounds than most GM's ever do. He drafted rather poorly in the lower rounds for the reason Patler said - He didn't value the picks as much as they should have been.

Mraynrand brings up some compelling points, yet most of the "rockheads" in this forum can't even read them with objectivity.

I'll never understand the insidious hatred of Mike Sherman. Does he have flaws? Sure, but remember, we could have had Mike Tice, or worse, Matt Millen. How about Floyd Reese and the AWESOME job he did managing the cap in Tennessee? Maybe we should get Butch Davis? How about Steve Spurrier or Dan Snyder? Maybe we could get Nick Saban? How about Dennis Green? Maybe we could get Mike Ditka out of retirement and he could trade the whole draft for Calvin Johnson? How about Tom Donahue? Maybe we could reunite Dwight Smith and Carmen Policy?

Anyone?

It's not 'insidious hatred'. I just happen to think he did a shitty job. Essentially, his time ran out, and he left the cupboard bare. For whatever reason (poor drafting, poor personnel retention decisions) the team was devoid of talent when the '05 season rolled around.

My personal thoughts are along the line of Patler's, he left himself little margin for error and wasn't up to the task.

As far as the other GM's you mention, you really scraped the crap off the bottom of the barrel (except maybe Policy - crooked, but he's got the rings) so of course we want nothing to do with any of them.

[retailguy]

As far as the other GM's you mention, you really scraped the crap off the bottom of the barrel (except maybe Policy - crooked, but he's got the rings) so of course we want nothing to do with any of them.

This is a riot. Every time Sherman is "compared" for his GM role, he's compared to Ron Wolf. You know him, right? The guy who brought the "Title" back to Title Town after 30 years.

So, what I conclude from the above, is two-fold.

1st - IT IS appropriate to compare the "job" Sherman did with the "job" that an EXCELLENT GM does, but it is inappropriate to compare Sherman to the "crap off the bottom of the barrel".

2nd - The other GM's that I mentioned are WORSE than Sherman, so, therefore, he really is better than "incompetent" and "inept", which HAS BEEN MY POINT ALL ALONG.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the help. :D

[Patler]

Well, then we replace SIX with FOUR and have mostly the same analysis. I never said that he "acquired" them, but you're right he did extend each one of them. This also doesn't alter my point that Sherman was smart enough to know that you win with solid lines. Had Sherman succeeded the same way with the DL that he did with the OL, we'd be having a different discussion.
...

Those in here who criticize Sherman for not looking long term, also criticize him for wasting Favre's final years. You cannot have it both ways. Sherman CLEARLY, to any OBJECTIVE mind (of which there are few in this forum), CLEARLY was looking short term. Building depth is of lesser importance than finding guys who could "play now". You find the guys to "play now" to make a run, followed by a "tear-down" and rebuild.

A conscious decision that doesn't work out, DOES NOT make one an idiot or incompetent. These guys in this forum CANNOT have it both ways... It doesn't work.

Wolf knew the importance of the O-line, but he also understood the importance of balance. You can't stick too much of your available cap in only one area of the team.

Why can't you have it both ways? I maintain that if you are smart, you can. Sherman traded away draft picks to move up and draft players no one else wanted, or that were no different than dozens of others also still available. Year after year the stories were the same. Had Sherman built the depth of the team better, it would have been better able to withstand the injury plagued seasons and would have been better and more consistent on ST. It may have been the depth that short-circuited them more than anything else in the playoffs, so long term thinking would have paid short term results.

Letting Sharper, Diggs, KGB, Hunt, Wahle or Rivera go at their previous renewal, with a replacement planned ahead of time so as to save the money to invest elsewhere, while bringing in more draft choices to pick from may have had the effect of both a long-term plan and short term success.
Keeping all of them at higher and higher contracts each time, may have been the worst thing possible, both long term and short term. Maybe the line would have been just as good with Wahle replaced by cheaper "Joe Guard" and the team better and more successful with the money spent on a better kick returner, for example. Or with more draft picks to find a better return man. There are reasons many front office types are not willing to spend big money all in one unit of a team.

[red]

for drafting, he sucked. for the reason that he gave up so many picks, and got little in return. this we both agree with RG

as for keeping his own talent, i thought he was pretty good, BUT...

i think he was horrible at understanding the salary cap game. he kept his own good guys by giving them huge backloaded deals that ment we either had to restructer the guys contract at a certain point or let him go. do to poor long term planning we couldn't rework deals, couldn't resign guys, and couldn't keep them at the salary they were suppose to make. we were lucky to have the salary cap go up as much as it did, or else we would have been in more trouble with players like KGB

i'll also say, i think he was good at trading for already established players. but he was poor at evaluating unproven talent

as for the idea that you can't plan for the long term plus try and win now, i say Blah

you can keep your talent and plan for the long term. you have to look at the total cap picture for many years down the road. you have to stagger contracts and set them up so you aren't in a position to lose both your starting guards in the same year

and thinking that you are trying to win now by trading up with every single pick is just stupid. IMO you aren't trying to "win now" with any guy you pick in the draft. most draft picks take a year or two before they turn into anything good. so why trade 2 picks for 1 every single time to get a player that still won't help you win now

and for god sakes, a punter?

you do now that sherman killed jesus right? thats just common knowledge

[red]

Well, then we replace SIX with FOUR and have mostly the same analysis. I never said that he "acquired" them, but you're right he did extend each one of them. This also doesn't alter my point that Sherman was smart enough to know that you win with solid lines. Had Sherman succeeded the same way with the DL that he did with the OL, we'd be having a different discussion.
...

Those in here who criticize Sherman for not looking long term, also criticize him for wasting Favre's final years. You cannot have it both ways. Sherman CLEARLY, to any OBJECTIVE mind (of which there are few in this forum), CLEARLY was looking short term. Building depth is of lesser importance than finding guys who could "play now". You find the guys to "play now" to make a run, followed by a "tear-down" and rebuild.

A conscious decision that doesn't work out, DOES NOT make one an idiot or incompetent. These guys in this forum CANNOT have it both ways... It doesn't work.

Wolf knew the importance of the O-line, but he also understood the importance of balance. You can't stick too much of your available cap in only one area of the team.

Why can't you have it both ways? I maintain that if you are smart, you can. Sherman traded away draft picks to move up and draft players no one else wanted, or that were no different than dozens of others also still available. Year after year the stories were the same. Had Sherman built the depth of the team better, it would have been better able to withstand the injury plagued seasons and would have been better and more consistent on ST. It may have been the depth that short-circuited them more than anything else in the playoffs, so long term thinking would have paid short term results.

Letting Sharper, Diggs, KGB, Hunt, Wahle or Rivera go at their previous renewal, with a replacement planned ahead of time so as to save the money to invest elsewhere, while bringing in more draft choices to pick from may have had the effect of both a long-term plan and short term success.
Keeping all of them at higher and higher contracts each time, may have been the worst thing possible, both long term and short term. Maybe the line would have been just as good with Wahle replaced by cheaper "Joe Guard" and the team better and more successful with the money spent on a better kick returner, for example. Or with more draft picks to find a better return man. There are reasons many front office types are not willing to spend big money all in one unit of a team.

patler, i'm convinced you are the smart part of my brain, and you're working without me knowing it.

this isn't the first time i've taken 15 minutes to type something up, only to see you posted the same thing while is was typing

stay out of my head

[mraynrand]

Sherman let a sub-par Falcon team come into Lambeau and win. Give me your lame excuse for that one.

This is the position that some take - that being the Packers were better than the Falcons and should have won this game - that kills their credibility utterly. The Falcons gave the Packers all they could handle in game one of 2002. Sixteen games later the packers had lost 9 starters, 7 on offense and 2 on defense to injury. In addition, they were playing a QB with a pretty banged up knee. They stumbled into the playoffs, barely beating also rans like Chicago and Minnesota. This was a ruined team by Jan 2003. Fans who don't understand this are virtually worthless as adversaries in a debate - particularly one regarding Sherman. I know this is harsh, but it's the truth. You have no credibility with this claim, and it undermines any argument you make. It pretty much identifies you as an irrational emoter. in some ways, that's fine - it's part of being a fan. But don't expect to be taken seriously in a real debate.

[mraynrand]

Year after year the stories were the same. Had Sherman built the depth of the team better, it would have been better able to withstand the injury plagued seasons and would have been better and more consistent on ST. It may have been the depth that short-circuited them more than anything else in the playoffs, so long term thinking would have paid short term results.


Are you really serious about this Patler? Sherman had a great draft in 2002, and built some depth - at RB (Fisher and Davenport) and on the O-line (Barry). Okay, he traded a #2 to move up tio get Walker and a #4 to bring in Glenn. Glenn didn't work out over time, but it was a great GM year, especially since he had to overhaul the entire WR crew, with pathetic starters Schroeder and Freeman not returning. Joe Johnson was a good risk, probably would have been okay if not for injuries.

But the point is that yo're blaming Sherman for lack of depth in what year? The year they suffered injuries in the playoffs was 2002 - HIS FIRST YEAR AS GM. Sure, you may be right, they may have been able to withstand the loss of Clifton and Walker in the 2004 wildcard against Minnesota with more depth, but Sherman only really lost them depth in a couple of drafts, particularly 2004. and I don't think you expected them to have drafted viable replacements for a Clifton and Walker in the 2004 draft that could play that year. Wolf also contributed to the loss of depth by having light drafts number-wise in 1999 (McKenzie and Driver remaining) and 2001 (Martin and Ferguson remaining - I guess Torrence Marshall was around for a while too, pathetically so). So you must admit that the depth the Packers lacked in 2002, had very little to do with Sherman. And be reasonable, you can't just replace 9 starters, even if you have good depth. If you're focusing on 2004 playoffs, you have more of a point about lack of depth. But by 2004, Sherman had screwed up a collection of things that led to that season's demise, and almost all of it can be traced to the hangover from the Philly loss and the death of Mark Hatley.

[mraynrand]

Hard to understand that there really is any debate here. Facts and history cannot be changed. Both Sherman the coach and Sherman the GM had one of the top 5 QB's of all time and went to ZERO super bowls.

But, it's not all Sherman's fault. Harlan made him GM and has pretty much escaped any blame for a STUPID move. I'll never understand why. I guess Harlan hiring Wolf absolved him for all wrong-doing after that. :lol:

How many Superbowls did the Dolphins go to in Marino's years 10+? How many Superbowls did the Chiefs go to with Montana?

How many top 5 QBs played with a broken thumb? How many played with a broken thumb and made it to the Divisional round of the playoffs?

Can you name a team that went to the superbowl with 9 starters (7 on offense and 2 on defense) lost for the year with injuries?

Just some perspective to add to your simple-minded evaluation.


Your response is totally flawed. First off, it was a failure for the Dolphins to not go to a SB with Marino cause he also had a pretty good offense. Duper and Clayton were a solid 1,2 punch.

2nd- The Chiefs did not surround Montana with adequate talent.

3rd- injuries are part of the game and happen to all teams. To use them as an excuse is very weak. As for Favre's broken thumb, HE gets all the credit for playing not Shermy.

Also, please use some common sense if your going to criticize. One of the reasons Brett is a top 5 QB is he did have some talent around him. You must have selective memory. Shermy had one of the best O lines ever assembled in GB. He had Green in his prime. Sherman failed as a coach plain and simple. Proof is in the pudding as they say. With all the coaching positions available since Shermy was given the boot, none of the available teams share your opinion of him.............

You proved my point with your response. Your simple-minded evaluation was that based on having a top 5 QB of all time the Packers should have been in the Superbowl. Yet you then go on to agree, with detail, that the Qb is all cases not necessarily the decisive factor. You illustrate how effective the packer offense was with Green and the O-line, yet fail to acknowledge that over history scores of teams in the NFL with effective offenses coached by great coaches didn't necessarily make and/or win the Superbowl.

But so what? Your simple-minded observation has been nullified. There is no logical connection between having a top 5 QB playing on your team and missing the superbowl as a necessary negative indictment of the head coach.

You claim that Sherman failed plain and simple. If your criteria is a Superbowl, you're correct. And this simple-minded definition of failure is typical of an emoting fan.

And you are incorrect about none of the available teams wanting him. He had the job at Arizona, by all accounts, but wanted more money than they were willing to give him. So you you were wrong. Keep trying. And keep emoting.

[retailguy]

If you're focusing on 2004 playoffs, you have more of a point about lack of depth. But by 2004, Sherman had screwed up a collection of things that led to that season's demise, and almost all of it can be traced to the hangover from the Philly loss and the death of Mark Hatley.

Here is probably the "crux" of the whole debate. By 2004, the "window of opportunity" was clearly closing due to many things, some attributable to Sherman the GM, some to Sherman the coach, and some to other things that had nothing to do with him.

Had Hatley lived, Sherman would have continued to defer decisions to him, and the drafts would have been less chaotic, most likely. Had they not lost 9 starters, in 2002 the team would have been ready for the playoffs instead of limping into them. This is the "luck" I was refering to earlier.

It seems to me that by 2004, Sherman had panicked and refused to believe his window was closing. He faced a similar situation when he got the job, and clearly improved the team on what he inherited from Wolf & Rhodes.

By 2004, he seemed incapable or disinterested in doing it again. He had the skills, but in 2004 thought he could make another "shot". As a practical matter, it would have been interesting to see what he would have done in 2005, had he remained. Perhaps he'd have tried again, but it's also possible he'd have begun the re-tooling process in similar manner to TT. Had he done that, at least he'd have been honest with the fans that it was going on, UNLIKE the drivel we get from the current occupant.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda.... It doesn't matter. That's why he got fired, but none of that makes him "inept" or "incompetent", or a bad coach/GM. I'm just tired of listening to the "uninformed" quote someone elses point, and blame him for "destroying" the franchise. While there is no license on idiocy, clearly, this wasn't the case. Sherman kept the "window" of opportunity open longer than many would have been able to do.

Plenty have done WORSE in similar circumstances.

[retailguy]

you do now that sherman killed jesus right? thats just common knowledge


I'm aware of this. It was no accident that Sherman's mother named him Michael "Pontius Pilate" Sherman.

You also heard that he is the "brains" behind Osama bin Laden as well?

[prsnfoto]

About the only credit I can give Sherman the GM is that he was no worse than Wolf the GM from 1998-2001,though I place a lot more blame on Sherman than RG and mraynrand I place the same amount on Wolf he was great from the begining through the SB's but his handling of Holmgren,Rhodes, and Sherman was as suspisious as Bubba's Minnesota game last year it appears he was trying to throw the game. He was terrible and I was scared to death when he recomended TT lets hope he has decided his legacy is safe now and someone else can be successful in GB again. Besides us as fans this was a injustice to Brett he deserved better and that will always be the part that pisses me off.

[red]

you do now that sherman killed jesus right? thats just common knowledge


I'm aware of this. It was no accident that Sherman's mother named him Michael "Pontius Pilate" Sherman.

You also heard that he is the "brains" behind Osama bin Laden as well?

i assumed he was osama

and sadam

and maybe dracula

[Scott Campbell]

Sherman let a sub-par Falcon team come into Lambeau and win. Give me your lame excuse for that one.

This is the position that some take - that being the Packers were better than the Falcons and should have won this game - that kills their credibility utterly. The Falcons gave the Packers all they could handle in game one of 2002. Sixteen games later the packers had lost 9 starters, 7 on offense and 2 on defense to injury.

I actually agree with you here. This was no doubt Sherman's finest moment as a coach here. There should be no shame in losing to that ATL club at home given the state of the decimated roster.

Sherman did not lose my support as a coach until the Philly game. And I turned on a dime.

[gureski]

I can't believe that there are still guys out there that refuse to admit Sherman was a bad GM. Not poor. Bad.

As I skimmed through the earlier posts in this thread the one thing that caught my eye was someone ripping on Wolf and praising Sherman because Sherman kept the O-Line together where-as Wolf always shuttled someone else into the line up.

HELLO? Wolf had talented guys ready that were making peanuts compared to what it would've taken to keep some of the linemen he let go! He let A.Taylor go and inserted M.Rivera. He let Timmerman go and inserted M.Wahle. What Wolf did in just this one example of GM'ing is exactly what a good GM is supposed to do. You're supposed to balance the here-and-now with the future. Sherman never did this. He never had guys waiting in the wings to come in and take over. That's why the team talent level declined under his GM direction.

I've done the numbers in past debates about this. When you look at the facts you cannot say Sherman was a good GM. You just can't. I went back and found an old post I made in which I list some facts including which players were Wolf guys and which players were Sherman guys. Take a look at it:

"Let's take a look at the overall picture from the beginning of last year 2004:

Taucher (R2000) WOLF, Started 14 games in 2000
Clifton (R2000) WOLF, Started 10 games in 2000
Flanagan WOLF, (R 1996) Backed up Frank Winters and battled injury for years
Wahle (Supplemental - I think 99) WOLF Started 13 games in 1999
Rivera (R 1996) WOLF
Green (FA2000) WOLF via trade
W.Henderson (R 1995) WOLF
Driver (R1999) WOLF
Ferguson (R2001) Sherman/Wolf and not a starter
Walker (R2002) Sherman
Franks (2000) WOLF started 13 games in 2000
Favre WOLF via trade

10 out of the 11 starters on offense were WOLF guys. 1 (Walker) was a Sherman guy and I'll give you Ferguson as a key contributor overall making 2 guys that were from Sherman who we can say were his guys.


KGB (R2000) WOLF
Kampman (R02) Sherman
C.Hunt (R 1999) WOLF
Jackson (FA03 and 04) Sherman Free agent pick up
Diggs (R2000) WOLF
Barnett (R2003) Sherman
H.Naives FA 2003 Sherman
McKenzie (R1999) WOLF
Harris (FA 03) Sherman Trade with Philly
Carrol (R04) Sherman
Sharper (R1997) WOLF
Roman FA 2004 Sherman

5 Guys on Defense that Wolf drafted and McKenzie was jettisoned quickly.

7 Guys who Sherman gets credit for bringing in on defense.

Where did we stink last year again? DEFENSE.

Special Teams:
Kickers: Longwell WOLF FA signing
Punter: Barker Sherman FA Signing

Which position was set and which position was a nightmare? PK was set. Punter was a nightmare because Sherman sent Bidwell, a Wolf guy, packing."

end quote

I know this is long but stick with me for a moment. I'm seriously trying to reach the last of the Sherman GM supporters the way I reached the Nall-ball boys.

It's just fact that the more Sherman did with the team that Wolf gave him, the worse off the roster was. The more Sherman handled the salary cap, the more it got mangled to the point that we had to lose valuable players like Wahle. Sherman traded up something like 7 or times over his drafts and the loss of those valuable draft picks is a direct reason why Sherman stunk as GM. When you go for a homerun swing on a player by trading up and that player doesnt pan out then you not only set the roster back by that one player you missed on but also by the player that would've been picked had you just stood pat! It's like losing twice for every time he traded up and it didn't work!

You can GM a year or two with the attitude that you're one player away from winning but you can't do that over the long haul and still have a roster full of talent. You MUST replace talent ahead of time. You MUST groom players to play. You MUST draft players and develop them in order to keep the balance between the here-and-now and the future. Young draft picks help balance the salary cap and allow you to keep high priced players. The Draft IS the KEY to everything in the NFL. If it wasn't then the Redskins would be going on their 6th consecutive Superbowl run. It's all about the draft and that's where Sherman failed most. You need to get guys every year in order to be a successful GM. Thompson has 3 ALL-ROOKIE players and multiple starters/contributors from his two drafts. Wolf had countless draft picks that were incredible and he won a Superbowl with his picks. Sherman has next to nothing on his draft resume as GM. He traded up for Walker, picked N.Barnett, and A.Kampman. What other players of note did he really draft? What Sherman players are on the team right now that are giving McCarthy and Thompson the same base to play with that Wolf gave to Sherman?

The answer is that there is little to nothing there from the Sherman GM era. You can't deny that. It's just fact. Getting a couple of players isn't success. Look around the leauge. Good GM's replace the talent they lose to injuries, free agency, and retirement. Pittsburgh lost players for years and still replaced them every year and competed. That's what Sherman was supposed to do. That's what he failed at. He just wasn't a good GM. He was above average to great as a head coach but he just flat out stunk as a GM.

[Zool]

:beat:

[Guiness]

Football, hockey - same, same when it comes to being an HC/GM. Has anyone EVER, EVER, EVER succeeded at doing both?

IMO the answer is no. I'm sure there's one out there I've missed, but I essentially think it's a bad idea for any organization to hand all this to one person. Absolute power...and all that jazz.

[woodbuck27]

Football, hockey - same, same when it comes to being an HC/GM. Has anyone EVER, EVER, EVER succeeded at doing both?

IMO the answer is no. I'm sure there's one out there I've missed, but I essentially think it's a bad idea for any organization to hand all this to one person. Absolute power...and all that jazz.

How about Scotty Bowman? He wasn't too bad.

[esoxx]

Football, hockey - same, same when it comes to being an HC/GM. Has anyone EVER, EVER, EVER succeeded at doing both?



Vince Lombardi

[MJZiggy]

Wow, how did I not immediately think of him?

[imscott72]

Football, hockey - same, same when it comes to being an HC/GM. Has anyone EVER, EVER, EVER succeeded at doing both?



Vince Lombardi

The economics of the game were quite different in the Lombardi era.

[esoxx]

That's not the way the question was phrased though. The word "EVER" was emphasized.

So the answer's quite valid.

[b bulldog]

Shanahan has done quite well. Andy Reid has also done well.

[Guiness]

Dang Woody, leave it to the other Canuck to show me up on that one.

Yes, Bowman did succeed (9 cups!) but his championships came when he was a coach only. He did little in Buffalo with the dual roles. With both Les Habitant and the Wings, he was coach only when he brought the cup home.

Lombardi - ok, maybe I shouldn't have put 'ever' in there. One of his most famous actions was leaving the room to trade a player who'd just asked for a raise. A little more power than GM's have now.

Shanny and Reid - yes, obviously successful. Does Reid have full GM duties? I didn't think so.