Harlan regrets giving Sherman both jobs

[Brainerd]

http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070503/VIDEO1101/70502183

An intersting short video where Harlan explains why he thought giving Sherman both jobs was good for the organization, and later regrets the decision.

He also mentions that TT was being considered for the GM position at both Miami and Cleveland. News to me.

Sorry if its already been posted.

[digitaldean]

Though it's water under the bridge, I am glad that he regrets putting Shermy in the dual role.

[oregonpackfan]

At least he is big enough to admit he made a mistake. Sherman was a terrible GM. Only Matt Millan is a worse GM.

[RashanGary]

At least he is big enough to admit he made a mistake. Sherman was a terrible GM. Only Matt Millan is a worse GM.

I don't think he was as bad as Matt Millen or even close but I agree that he was pretty bad overall. He took over a team that would have been over .500 if he did nothing for 3 years. He did make them better in his first couple years but he had no concern over depth and keeping a constant revolving door of talent which keeps teams from dropping off.

He put big money into Johnson, Hunt, KGB which eventually cost us Wahle. He traded away multiple picks, ending up with little to no depth by the time he was fired in 2005.

He just did more bad things than he did good things but he did take a shot and came up short. He did draft Walker, Kamp, Williams, Barnett and maybe one or 2 other NFL starters. He did trade for Harris.

Horrible? Not really but he wasn't good or even average by any means by my estimation. His mistakes were more costly than the things he did right contributed.

[Merlin]

At least he is big enough to admit he made a mistake. Sherman was a terrible GM. Only Matt Millan is a worse GM.

Not many GM/Coaches are successful. Sherman would probably be good at one or the other at the same time. He wasn't horrible, there are worse. He made mistakes but he also drafted some quality players and wasn't afraid to look to free agency.

[PackerBlues]

They had different views on winning is all. Sherman wanted to keep a winning team on the field. Thompson wants to build a winning team that he can finish putting together after Favre is gone.

[Scott Campbell]

Thompson wants to build a winning team that he can finish putting together after Favre is gone.



Yeah, I heard Ted say just the other day "I'd love to win a Superbowl, as long as it comes after Brett retires".

[Lurker64]

Thompson wants to build a winning team that he can finish putting together after Favre is gone.

Yeah, I heard Ted say just the other day "I'd love to win a Superbowl, as long as it comes after Brett retires".

All silliness aside, I strongly disagree with the sentiments that Ted doesn't want the team to win until Brett is gone. The way I'm reading it, and the way I would personally want to do it, is that Ted wants to keep Brett around to carry the team on his shoulders for a few more years until Ted has managed to build a team that doesn't depend on a first ballot hall of fame quarterback for years to come.

Think of it this way, Favre can win games with a great defense behind him. Ingle Martin can also win games with a great defense behind him. Hell, even Rex Grossman was able to win games with a great defense behind him. On the other hand, if we invested a lot in developing an offense that's suited to Brett's particular talents, and then Favre retires next year, then suppose Ingle gets injured and Rodgers can't play worth a darn. What then?

You can win football games with a mediocre offense and a dominant defense (Bears, Ravens, Bucs historically). You can win football games with a dominant offense and a mediocre defense (Rams and Vikings during the 90's). You're not going to light the world on fire with a team that's merely "pretty good" on both sides of the ball. So considering we were mediocre (or worse) on both sides of the ball a couple years ago, which are you going to spend the most effort building? Suppose you can incrementally improve one unit and make the other unit dominant. Well, if you build a dominant offense then your offense is probably not quite so dominant when the inevitable switch at quarterback comes, and your performance as a team drops off dramatically. On the other hand, if you build a dominant defense, then Ingle can reap the benefits of it just as well as Brett can.

So I really don't think Thompson wants Brett gone, on the contrary I think Thompson wants Brett to hang around as long as he can play. For the simple reason that Brett is what's going to carry this franchise until this becomes A.J.'s team (or the team of whichever defensive leader really steps up.) A GMs job is easier the fewer questions you have at a position, and Brett instantly answers the question at quarterback.

[woodbuck27]

Thompson wants to build a winning team that he can finish putting together after Favre is gone.

Yeah, I heard Ted say just the other day "I'd love to win a Superbowl, as long as it comes after Brett retires".

All silliness aside, I strongly disagree with the sentiments that Ted doesn't want the team to win until Brett is gone. The way I'm reading it, and the way I would personally want to do it, is that Ted wants to keep Brett around to carry the team on his shoulders for a few more years until Ted has managed to build a team that doesn't depend on a first ballot hall of fame quarterback for years to come.

Think of it this way, Favre can win games with a great defense behind him. Ingle Martin can also win games with a great defense behind him. Hell, even Rex Grossman was able to win games with a great defense behind him. On the other hand, if we invested a lot in developing an offense that's suited to Brett's particular talents, and then Favre retires next year, then suppose Ingle gets injured and Rodgers can't play worth a darn. What then?

You can win football games with a mediocre offense and a dominant defense (Bears, Ravens, Bucs historically). You can win football games with a dominant offense and a mediocre defense (Rams and Vikings during the 90's). You're not going to light the world on fire with a team that's merely "pretty good" on both sides of the ball. So considering we were mediocre (or worse) on both sides of the ball a couple years ago, which are you going to spend the most effort building? Suppose you can incrementally improve one unit and make the other unit dominant. Well, if you build a dominant offense then your offense is probably not quite so dominant when the inevitable switch at quarterback comes, and your performance as a team drops off dramatically. On the other hand, if you build a dominant defense, then Ingle can reap the benefits of it just as well as Brett can.

So I really don't think Thompson wants Brett gone, on the contrary I think Thompson wants Brett to hang around as long as he can play. For the simple reason that Brett is what's going to carry this franchise until this becomes A.J.'s team (or the team of whichever defensive leader really steps up.) A GMs job is easier the fewer questions you have at a position, and Brett instantly answers the question at quarterback.

Interesting take on this.You put alot of thought into that post Lurker64.

[woodbuck27]

At least he is big enough to admit he made a mistake. Sherman was a terrible GM. Only Matt Millan is a worse GM.

Not many GM/Coaches are successful. Sherman would probably be good at one or the other at the same time. He wasn't horrible, there are worse. He made mistakes but he also drafted some quality players and wasn't afraid to look to free agency.

My take is that Bob Harlan should show more class and not go down that road.

How long must Mike Sherman be the fall guy in Green Bay?

ENOUGH !!!!!

[RashanGary]

Yeah, I heard Ted say just the other day "I'd love to win a Superbowl, as long as it comes after Brett retires".

These people are pretty brilliant because they can analyse 3 years of work by Ted Thompson and come to one sentence conclusions that explain, in entirety, the goals and focus of Ted Thompson.

Instead of making remarks of obvious disagreement :wink: I think you should start thanking these people for their godlike ability to explain everything around them with so many other possible explainations that nobody else can eliminate.

[RashanGary]

ENOUGH !!!!!

Woodbuck, if you havn't been paying attention, Mike Sherman shredded this team to the point that one off season wasn't going to rebuild it or at least Harlan, the board of the Green Bay Packers and every other NFL football team in the last 2 years that has needed a GM has felt this way.

Instead of sticking to what seems to be a stubborn and unmovable position that Sherman left this team in condition to win, why don't you start to consider the possiblity that your initial conclusion might have been wrong. Instead of assuming Bob Harlan is tyring to "find a fall guy" why don't you at least stay open to the possibliyt that Harlan made a mistake and like Wolf appologizing for not getting Favre a weapon and reflecting on it; Harlan is reflecting on his time in office and appologizing for a decision that he believes cost the Packers. Who knows, some people just might have the self confidence to admit mistake publicly. Harlan has no future job to protect; if anythign he's making himself look worse by because he made the ultimate mistake. YOu can't blame Sherman for taking teh job.

[PackerBlues]

Thompson wants to build a winning team that he can finish putting together after Favre is gone.

Yeah, I heard Ted say just the other day "I'd love to win a Superbowl, as long as it comes after Brett retires".

All silliness aside, I strongly disagree with the sentiments that Ted doesn't want the team to win until Brett is gone. The way I'm reading it, and the way I would personally want to do it, is that Ted wants to keep Brett around to carry the team on his shoulders for a few more years until Ted has managed to build a team that doesn't depend on a first ballot hall of fame quarterback for years to come.

Think of it this way, Favre can win games with a great defense behind him. Ingle Martin can also win games with a great defense behind him. Hell, even Rex Grossman was able to win games with a great defense behind him. On the other hand, if we invested a lot in developing an offense that's suited to Brett's particular talents, and then Favre retires next year, then suppose Ingle gets injured and Rodgers can't play worth a darn. What then?

You can win football games with a mediocre offense and a dominant defense (Bears, Ravens, Bucs historically). You can win football games with a dominant offense and a mediocre defense (Rams and Vikings during the 90's). You're not going to light the world on fire with a team that's merely "pretty good" on both sides of the ball. So considering we were mediocre (or worse) on both sides of the ball a couple years ago, which are you going to spend the most effort building? Suppose you can incrementally improve one unit and make the other unit dominant. Well, if you build a dominant offense then your offense is probably not quite so dominant when the inevitable switch at quarterback comes, and your performance as a team drops off dramatically. On the other hand, if you build a dominant defense, then Ingle can reap the benefits of it just as well as Brett can.

So I really don't think Thompson wants Brett gone, on the contrary I think Thompson wants Brett to hang around as long as he can play. For the simple reason that Brett is what's going to carry this franchise until this becomes A.J.'s team (or the team of whichever defensive leader really steps up.) A GMs job is easier the fewer questions you have at a position, and Brett instantly answers the question at quarterback.

Interesting take on this.You put alot of thought into that post Lurker64.

I have to agree with Woodbuck here. That was pretty damned good Lurker.

[RashanGary]

Edited

[retailguy]

Thompson wants to build a winning team that he can finish putting together after Favre is gone.

Yeah, I heard Ted say just the other day "I'd love to win a Superbowl, as long as it comes after Brett retires".

All silliness aside,


Don't tell Campbell to 'put aside silliness' . He would no longer be able to post... :P

[Bretsky]

Thompson wants to build a winning team that he can finish putting together after Favre is gone.



Yeah, I heard Ted say just the other day "I'd love to win a Superbowl, as long as it comes after Brett retires".


Did Ted Thompson actually say something that specific ? That'd be one more thing that I've witnessed.

[Scott Campbell]

Thompson wants to build a winning team that he can finish putting together after Favre is gone.

Yeah, I heard Ted say just the other day "I'd love to win a Superbowl, as long as it comes after Brett retires".

All silliness aside,


Don't tell Campbell to 'put aside silliness' . He would no longer be able to post... :P


Hey, 3 of them have been serious.

[RashanGary]

Moved

[Joemailman]

At least he is big enough to admit he made a mistake. Sherman was a terrible GM. Only Matt Millan is a worse GM.

Not many GM/Coaches are successful. Sherman would probably be good at one or the other at the same time. He wasn't horrible, there are worse. He made mistakes but he also drafted some quality players and wasn't afraid to look to free agency.

My take is that Bob Harlan should show more class and not go down that road.

How long must Mike Sherman be the fall guy in Green Bay?

ENOUGH !!!!!

I don't think Harlan said this to make Sherman look bad. I think he did it to clear the air about the whole situation surrounding the Sherman firing. He is pointing out that a situation that he created (hiring Thompson but keeping Sherman as coach), wasn't working. He is essentially saying that Thompson tried to make the situation work, but in the end had no choice but to make a change. Harlan is about to leave his job, and I believe just wanted to clear the air before he does.

[Merlin]

Thompson wants to build a winning team that he can finish putting together after Favre is gone.

Yeah, I heard Ted say just the other day "I'd love to win a Superbowl, as long as it comes after Brett retires".

All silliness aside, I strongly disagree with the sentiments that Ted doesn't want the team to win until Brett is gone. The way I'm reading it, and the way I would personally want to do it, is that Ted wants to keep Brett around to carry the team on his shoulders for a few more years until Ted has managed to build a team that doesn't depend on a first ballot hall of fame quarterback for years to come.

Think of it this way, Favre can win games with a great defense behind him. Ingle Martin can also win games with a great defense behind him. Hell, even Rex Grossman was able to win games with a great defense behind him. On the other hand, if we invested a lot in developing an offense that's suited to Brett's particular talents, and then Favre retires next year, then suppose Ingle gets injured and Rodgers can't play worth a darn. What then?

You can win football games with a mediocre offense and a dominant defense (Bears, Ravens, Bucs historically). You can win football games with a dominant offense and a mediocre defense (Rams and Vikings during the 90's). You're not going to light the world on fire with a team that's merely "pretty good" on both sides of the ball. So considering we were mediocre (or worse) on both sides of the ball a couple years ago, which are you going to spend the most effort building? Suppose you can incrementally improve one unit and make the other unit dominant. Well, if you build a dominant offense then your offense is probably not quite so dominant when the inevitable switch at quarterback comes, and your performance as a team drops off dramatically. On the other hand, if you build a dominant defense, then Ingle can reap the benefits of it just as well as Brett can.

So I really don't think Thompson wants Brett gone, on the contrary I think Thompson wants Brett to hang around as long as he can play. For the simple reason that Brett is what's going to carry this franchise until this becomes A.J.'s team (or the team of whichever defensive leader really steps up.) A GMs job is easier the fewer questions you have at a position, and Brett instantly answers the question at quarterback.

I agree with Wood, you put a lot of thought into this and it makes sense. But it doesn't change my attitude that Thompson wants Favre gone. A subpar QB can cost you games as well. Grossman cost the Bears dearly. Also, those teams that won the super bowl with great defense, never repeated because they never had an offense. The teams that you mentioned still have great defense but haven't gotten back to the super bowl (accept the Bucs who were dismantled post super bowl). There is no doubt in my mind that the Packers great defense in the 90's won them games, but it was a consistent top 5 or 10 offense that kept them dominant in the 90's. For whatever reason, defenses win you games in the regular season, then in the playoffs, normally it's the team with an okay defense that goes the distance because the players step up. In the 00's, the Packers have not had a "good" defense and it cost them in the playoffs. If TT doesn't want Favre gone then explain why he has done nothing on offense? You don't take an aging QB and give him a bunch of no names on offense and expect him to carry the team. Favre still has a rocket for an arm and as last year proved, he is capable of making good decisions with the ball. However I have to question how far this team can go with Driver, Jennings and Morency as the only real threats on offense. It was painfully obvious last season that the WR's and Favre didn't sync well with the exception of Driver. So instead of getting veteran leadership into our WR corps, we got more rookies. Thompson may be building a team for the future and that's all fine and well, however he doesn't have a QB in camp that can step in for Favre and move the ball (which is needed in order to win). Martin won't get a shot until Rodgers is finally tagged as a bust.

[MJZiggy]

Merlin, firstly you're not suggesting that Favre is a subpar QB are you? Or that Ted Thompson thinks Aaron Rodgers is superior to him? TT does attend camps and workouts and it's never even been hinted at that Rodgers might even be close to the level that Brett Favre is on.

Secondly, what leads you to believe that TT is intentionally not giving Favre an offense. If you listened to Favre's press conference when he announced his return this season, he himself said he was excited about this young offense. What are the odds that TT actually believes in the offensive personnel that he has on the team? They may be young and largely unproven, but we have a #1 wideout and a #2 and a lot of guys to compete hard for the rest of the available spots. M3 is talking like he's just been given a new toy in Brandon Jackson, and said that the backs we have all have different styles, so they really could be a threat even with Green gone. It's just a matter of who steps into the role. He is not afraid to go with runningback by committee which means that none of them HAVE to be able to carry the full load. We'll see what the line's been able to accomplish in their offseason training, and Bob Sanders has stated that he's seen what the weaknesses in the line were last year and knows what it will take to correct the issues. Even if they don't, M3 showed last year a willingness to adjust and use a different tactic when he added more pulling plays to the mix at the end of the season because they were working better. We have an offense. The offense has been addressed last offseason and this offseason. And I also believe that if Martin beats out Rodgers in camp, he will get a shot at the #2 spot. They will do what is necessary for this team.

[Scott Campbell]

Wants Favre gone? Uh - ok.

I guess that's a conspiracy theory.

My guess is that if Ted really wanted Favre gone, that he would have just whispered in Brett's ear, and Brett would have bowed out gracefully and just retired.

[Bretsky]

Merlin, firstly you're not suggesting that Favre is a subpar QB are you? Or that Ted Thompson thinks Aaron Rodgers is superior to him? TT does attend camps and workouts and it's never even been hinted at that Rodgers might even be close to the level that Brett Favre is on.

Secondly, what leads you to believe that TT is intentionally not giving Favre an offense. If you listened to Favre's press conference when he announced his return this season, he himself said he was excited about this young offense. What are the odds that TT actually believes in the offensive personnel that he has on the team? They may be young and largely unproven, but we have a #1 wideout and a #2 and a lot of guys to compete hard for the rest of the available spots. M3 is talking like he's just been given a new toy in Brandon Jackson, and said that the backs we have all have different styles, so they really could be a threat even with Green gone. It's just a matter of who steps into the role. He is not afraid to go with runningback by committee which means that none of them HAVE to be able to carry the full load. We'll see what the line's been able to accomplish in their offseason training, and Bob Sanders has stated that he's seen what the weaknesses in the line were last year and knows what it will take to correct the issues. Even if they don't, M3 showed last year a willingness to adjust and use a different tactic when he added more pulling plays to the mix at the end of the season because they were working better. We have an offense. The offense has been addressed last offseason and this offseason. And I also believe that if Martin beats out Rodgers in camp, he will get a shot at the #2 spot. They will do what is necessary for this team.

I fall in between on this; some will throw TT under the bridge and some will put a pro TT spin on everything.

A few thoughts

TT does not want Favre gone; but he is building this team w/o taking into consideration that he has a superb QB with a couple years left. This is fine by some and not fine by others.

Using Favre's press conference when he announced that he is coming back to argue anything is going too far. What is Favre suppose to say ? He's going to put the rosy spin on everything and using his comments to argue anything is doing the same thing as well.

We have a #1 WR; there is no evidence we have a #2 that can stay healthy throughout a season. I do believe that we have a #2, but that's just my viewpoint. The other guys...maybe they will be just fine or maybe they will not.

All of these other points you make in paragraph two are pure speculation that you taint to support TT as best you can. That's fine if that's what you want to do; some in here choose to question things and not assume everything he does is the right way.

IMO we are not strong enough on offense and TT absolutely knows that; but he's chosen to build around the defense and there is nothing wrong with that.

[MJZiggy]

All of these other points you make in paragraph two are pure speculation that you taint to support TT as best you can. That's fine if that's what you want to do; some in here choose to question things and not assume everything he does is the right way.



How is quoting M3 speculation?

[Bretsky]

All of these other points you make in paragraph two are pure speculation that you taint to support TT as best you can. That's fine if that's what you want to do; some in here choose to question things and not assume everything he does is the right way.



How is quoting M3 speculation?


You didn't quote him; you paraphrased some of his views

BTW, isn't Bob Sanders the defensive coordinator ? I hope he isn't going to be correcting the OL issues; he needs to lead the defense

[MJZiggy]

:oops: I meant Philbin...

[Fritz]

For all those folks who believe that Thompson should throw everything at the wall in a last ditch effort to win a SB with Brett Favre, I would refer you to the Mike Sherman years.

Sherman tried just that - when Favre was younger and ostensibly a better QB than he is now. Sherman signed Wahle to a crazy contract that everyone knew had a "poison pill" in it that all but assured the Pack would have to let him go at some point. He threw lots of money at defenders like cletidus hunt and Joe Johnson and KGB, he traded up in draft after draft in an effort to get immediate, impact players. Sometimes this worked (Javon Walker) and often it didn't (Donnell Washington, James Lee, BJ Sander). He traded a second round pick for a proven corner (Al Harris) and traded a fourth rounder for a receiver he thought would be a huge asset for the offense (Terry Glenn).

This is not meant as a criticism of Sherman. It was what he thought was best for the organization, and he pursued a Super Bowl as he thought best. You can't argue with his reasons for acting as he did.

However, it did not work. It didn't even get the Packers into the NFC championship game.

Given that, and given the free agent class this year, I'm not sure how anyone can stand back and look at the situation and believe that signing some free agents and trading for Randy Moss (who by all reports was not terribly keen to come here) would get this club to a Super Bowl.

[Bretsky]

For all those folks who believe that Thompson should throw everything at the wall in a last ditch effort to win a SB with Brett Favre, I would refer you to the Mike Sherman years.

Sherman tried just that - when Favre was younger and ostensibly a better QB than he is now. Sherman signed Wahle to a crazy contract that everyone knew had a "poison pill" in it that all but assured the Pack would have to let him go at some point. He threw lots of money at defenders like cletidus hunt and Joe Johnson and KGB, he traded up in draft after draft in an effort to get immediate, impact players. Sometimes this worked (Javon Walker) and often it didn't (Donnell Washington, James Lee, BJ Sander). He traded a second round pick for a proven corner (Al Harris) and traded a fourth rounder for a receiver he thought would be a huge asset for the offense (Terry Glenn).

This is not meant as a criticism of Sherman. It was what he thought was best for the organization, and he pursued a Super Bowl as he thought best. You can't argue with his reasons for acting as he did.

However, it did not work. It didn't even get the Packers into the NFC championship game.

Given that, and given the free agent class this year, I'm not sure how anyone can stand back and look at the situation and believe that signing some free agents and trading for Randy Moss (who by all reports was not terribly keen to come here) would get this club to a Super Bowl.


Last year was the year to go all out; guys like Chris Hope; Weatherspoon. There were plenty of LB's and Safeties that he could have signed in addition to Woodsen if we didn't heavily frontload that deal.

I agree the free agent class was weak this year; but we could have done something.

Either way I've lowered my Super Bowl soon expecations and am resigned to see how this thing plays out.

[Fritz]

This may be the source of our disagreement, Bretsky: my thinking is that even if he'd signed Hope and Weatherspoon and maybe even kept Javon Walker, this still wouldn't have been a Super Bowl team.

But maybe I am wrong. We just don't know. Still, it's fun to see other perspectives.

[Scott Campbell]

For all those folks who believe that Thompson should throw everything at the wall in a last ditch effort to win a SB with Brett Favre, I would refer you to the Mike Sherman years.

Sherman tried just that - when Favre was younger and ostensibly a better QB than he is now. Sherman signed Wahle to a crazy contract that everyone knew had a "poison pill" in it that all but assured the Pack would have to let him go at some point. He threw lots of money at defenders like cletidus hunt and Joe Johnson and KGB, he traded up in draft after draft in an effort to get immediate, impact players. Sometimes this worked (Javon Walker) and often it didn't (Donnell Washington, James Lee, BJ Sander). He traded a second round pick for a proven corner (Al Harris) and traded a fourth rounder for a receiver he thought would be a huge asset for the offense (Terry Glenn).

This is not meant as a criticism of Sherman. It was what he thought was best for the organization, and he pursued a Super Bowl as he thought best. You can't argue with his reasons for acting as he did.

However, it did not work. It didn't even get the Packers into the NFC championship game.

Given that, and given the free agent class this year, I'm not sure how anyone can stand back and look at the situation and believe that signing some free agents and trading for Randy Moss (who by all reports was not terribly keen to come here) would get this club to a Super Bowl.


Last year was the year to go all out; guys like Chris Hope; Weatherspoon. There were plenty of LB's and Safeties that he could have signed in addition to Woodsen if we didn't heavily frontload that deal.

I agree the free agent class was weak this year; but we could have done something.

Either way I've lowered my Super Bowl soon expecations and am resigned to see how this thing plays out.


As long as were talking about hindsight, you left out LeCharles Bentley, who you lobbied for big time last year.

[retailguy]

As long as were talking about hindsight, you left out LeCharles Bentley, who you lobbied for big time last year.

And how would you know if LeCharles would've been hurt had he played for Green Bay? The odds of him getting a Staph infection had he been in Green Bay even if he did get hurt are very small. Had he been anywhere else BUT Cleveland his career wouldn't be in danger of being over...

This team NEEDED a veteran to anchor the line last year. Not sure that it needed LeCharles, but he was the best one available. In my opinion it still needs one.

[Zool]

As long as were talking about hindsight, you left out LeCharles Bentley, who you lobbied for big time last year.

And how would you know if LeCharles would've been hurt had he played for Green Bay? The odds of him getting a Staph infection had he been in Green Bay even if he did get hurt are very small. Had he been anywhere else BUT Cleveland his career wouldn't be in danger of being over...

This team NEEDED a veteran to anchor the line last year. Not sure that it needed LeCharles, but he was the best one available. In my opinion it still needs one.I could be wrong, but I think he was just adding a player that probably would have helped. SC is so deadpan sometimes that its hard to tell.

[Guiness]

As long as were talking about hindsight, you left out LeCharles Bentley, who you lobbied for big time last year.

And how would you know if LeCharles would've been hurt had he played for Green Bay? The odds of him getting a Staph infection had he been in Green Bay even if he did get hurt are very small. Had he been anywhere else BUT Cleveland his career wouldn't be in danger of being over...

This team NEEDED a veteran to anchor the line last year. Not sure that it needed LeCharles, but he was the best one available. In my opinion it still needs one.

Not sure what you mean by 'anywhere BUT Cleveland'? Did they have a run on staph infections at the hospitals there?

As far as the veteran presence, our tackles were supposed to provide that...it didn't necessarily work out. FWIW I always thought it was Riviera who was the heart of that line when he was here.

[retailguy]

As long as were talking about hindsight, you left out LeCharles Bentley, who you lobbied for big time last year.

And how would you know if LeCharles would've been hurt had he played for Green Bay? The odds of him getting a Staph infection had he been in Green Bay even if he did get hurt are very small. Had he been anywhere else BUT Cleveland his career wouldn't be in danger of being over...

This team NEEDED a veteran to anchor the line last year. Not sure that it needed LeCharles, but he was the best one available. In my opinion it still needs one.

Not sure what you mean by 'anywhere BUT Cleveland'? Did they have a run on staph infections at the hospitals there?

As far as the veteran presence, our tackles were supposed to provide that...it didn't necessarily work out. FWIW I always thought it was Riviera who was the heart of that line when he was here.

There have been several instances of Cleveland players getting staph infections in the last couple of years, including Kellen Winslow I think.

Seems to me it was 4 or 5, at a time when no other team in the league is experiencing any issues.

[swede]

I remember hearing that as well, RG. I think I heard about it when a college player died from an aggressive staph infection last year. Cleveland was mentioned as a place that had a higher incidence of staph infections.

Another reason to join Sigmund Snopek the III in reminding ourselves to, "Thank God this isn't Cleveland."

[mraynrand]

Harlan's mistakes:

1) Hiring a guy for Coach and GM (contradicted his own philosophy)
2) Firing Sherman as GM but not coach. Terrible move for Sherman, TT, and the organization. If you're starting over, start over. Harlan was justified in firing Sherman - he totally screwed up as GM following the Philly loss (and it could and has been argued that he screwed up within that game). Despite his success in GB, it's perfectly reasonable to fire a guy for not getting to the big game.

Fritz, you're points are well taken. I maintain that barring injury, the 2002 version of the Packers was an NFC Championship team. It all cam down to injuries and in reality, came down to one play in Tampa, where Terry Glenn invented a route, the ball was intercepted and Sapp destroyed Clifton and effectively ended the Packers' season. Sure there were tons of injuries (9 starters lost over the course of the season and the playoff game with ATL), but in retrospect, Sherman got 3 years as GM. Had he won it all in 2002, who knows - perhaps he would have rebuilt like TT. I have to admit, I kinda want him to get another job in the NFL as Coach or GM to see what he does. The time and circumstances in GB really didn't provide a big enough 'sample size'

[Bretsky]

For all those folks who believe that Thompson should throw everything at the wall in a last ditch effort to win a SB with Brett Favre, I would refer you to the Mike Sherman years.

Sherman tried just that - when Favre was younger and ostensibly a better QB than he is now. Sherman signed Wahle to a crazy contract that everyone knew had a "poison pill" in it that all but assured the Pack would have to let him go at some point. He threw lots of money at defenders like cletidus hunt and Joe Johnson and KGB, he traded up in draft after draft in an effort to get immediate, impact players. Sometimes this worked (Javon Walker) and often it didn't (Donnell Washington, James Lee, BJ Sander). He traded a second round pick for a proven corner (Al Harris) and traded a fourth rounder for a receiver he thought would be a huge asset for the offense (Terry Glenn).

This is not meant as a criticism of Sherman. It was what he thought was best for the organization, and he pursued a Super Bowl as he thought best. You can't argue with his reasons for acting as he did.

However, it did not work. It didn't even get the Packers into the NFC championship game.

Given that, and given the free agent class this year, I'm not sure how anyone can stand back and look at the situation and believe that signing some free agents and trading for Randy Moss (who by all reports was not terribly keen to come here) would get this club to a Super Bowl.


Last year was the year to go all out; guys like Chris Hope; Weatherspoon. There were plenty of LB's and Safeties that he could have signed in addition to Woodsen if we didn't heavily frontload that deal.

I agree the free agent class was weak this year; but we could have done something.

Either way I've lowered my Super Bowl soon expecations and am resigned to see how this thing plays out.


As long as were talking about hindsight, you left out LeCharles Bentley, who you lobbied for big time last year.

PLEASE FIND MY BIG TIME LOBBING; I MAY HAVE LISTED HIM AS AN OPTION, BUT IF YOU ARE CONCERNED WITH ACCURACY I WANTED A Offensive Guard.

Also, for those who correctly remember will recall that the player I heavily lobbied for was

WILL WITHERSPOON

[retailguy]

PLEASE FIND MY BIG TIME LOBBING; I MAY HAVE LISTED HIM AS AN OPTION, BUT IF YOU ARE CONCERNED WITH ACCURACY I WANTED A Offensive Guard.

Also, for those who correctly remember will recall that the player I heavily lobbied for was

WILL WITHERSPOON

Liar! Liar! You're a TURTLE LOVING liar! :P

[Rastak]

For all those folks who believe that Thompson should throw everything at the wall in a last ditch effort to win a SB with Brett Favre, I would refer you to the Mike Sherman years.

Sherman tried just that - when Favre was younger and ostensibly a better QB than he is now. Sherman signed Wahle to a crazy contract that everyone knew had a "poison pill" in it that all but assured the Pack would have to let him go at some point. He threw lots of money at defenders like cletidus hunt and Joe Johnson and KGB, he traded up in draft after draft in an effort to get immediate, impact players. Sometimes this worked (Javon Walker) and often it didn't (Donnell Washington, James Lee, BJ Sander). He traded a second round pick for a proven corner (Al Harris) and traded a fourth rounder for a receiver he thought would be a huge asset for the offense (Terry Glenn).

This is not meant as a criticism of Sherman. It was what he thought was best for the organization, and he pursued a Super Bowl as he thought best. You can't argue with his reasons for acting as he did.

However, it did not work. It didn't even get the Packers into the NFC championship game.

Given that, and given the free agent class this year, I'm not sure how anyone can stand back and look at the situation and believe that signing some free agents and trading for Randy Moss (who by all reports was not terribly keen to come here) would get this club to a Super Bowl.


Last year was the year to go all out; guys like Chris Hope; Weatherspoon. There were plenty of LB's and Safeties that he could have signed in addition to Woodsen if we didn't heavily frontload that deal.

I agree the free agent class was weak this year; but we could have done something.

Either way I've lowered my Super Bowl soon expecations and am resigned to see how this thing plays out.


As long as were talking about hindsight, you left out LeCharles Bentley, who you lobbied for big time last year.

PLEASE FIND MY BIG TIME LOBBING; I MAY HAVE LISTED HIM AS AN OPTION, BUT IF YOU ARE CONCERNED WITH ACCURACY I WANTED A Offensive Guard.

Also, for those who correctly remember will recall that the player I heavily lobbied for was

WILL WITHERSPOON


Actually Bentley can play gaurd...or could before he destroyed his knee. Also, who's to say the exact same thing would have happened in Green Bay? Highly unlikely if you ask me......

[Bretsky]

For all those folks who believe that Thompson should throw everything at the wall in a last ditch effort to win a SB with Brett Favre, I would refer you to the Mike Sherman years.

Sherman tried just that - when Favre was younger and ostensibly a better QB than he is now. Sherman signed Wahle to a crazy contract that everyone knew had a "poison pill" in it that all but assured the Pack would have to let him go at some point. He threw lots of money at defenders like cletidus hunt and Joe Johnson and KGB, he traded up in draft after draft in an effort to get immediate, impact players. Sometimes this worked (Javon Walker) and often it didn't (Donnell Washington, James Lee, BJ Sander). He traded a second round pick for a proven corner (Al Harris) and traded a fourth rounder for a receiver he thought would be a huge asset for the offense (Terry Glenn).

This is not meant as a criticism of Sherman. It was what he thought was best for the organization, and he pursued a Super Bowl as he thought best. You can't argue with his reasons for acting as he did.

However, it did not work. It didn't even get the Packers into the NFC championship game.

Given that, and given the free agent class this year, I'm not sure how anyone can stand back and look at the situation and believe that signing some free agents and trading for Randy Moss (who by all reports was not terribly keen to come here) would get this club to a Super Bowl.


Last year was the year to go all out; guys like Chris Hope; Weatherspoon. There were plenty of LB's and Safeties that he could have signed in addition to Woodsen if we didn't heavily frontload that deal.

I agree the free agent class was weak this year; but we could have done something.

Either way I've lowered my Super Bowl soon expecations and am resigned to see how this thing plays out.


As long as were talking about hindsight, you left out LeCharles Bentley, who you lobbied for big time last year.

PLEASE FIND MY BIG TIME LOBBING; I MAY HAVE LISTED HIM AS AN OPTION, BUT IF YOU ARE CONCERNED WITH ACCURACY I WANTED A Offensive Guard.

Also, for those who correctly remember will recall that the player I heavily lobbied for was

WILL WITHERSPOON


Actually Bentley can play gaurd...or could before he destroyed his knee. Also, who's to say the exact same thing would have happened in Green Bay? Highly unlikely if you ask me......

Yup, and I find humor for criticisms about Bentley that assume the same thing would have happened at another location.

But I don't recall any "lobbying", but whatever I guess.

And for what it's worth I'd have been "ok" with Bentley, but was not convinced at the price he commanded.

[The Shadow]

At least he is big enough to admit he made a mistake. Sherman was a terrible GM. Only Matt Millan is a worse GM.

Not many GM/Coaches are successful. Sherman would probably be good at one or the other at the same time. He wasn't horrible, there are worse. He made mistakes but he also drafted some quality players and wasn't afraid to look to free agency.

My take is that Bob Harlan should show more class and not go down that road.

How long must Mike Sherman be the fall guy in Green Bay?
ENOUGH !!!!!

Until a time machine is invented :
Remember ?
Ahmad Carroll
Joe Johnson
Donnell Washington
4th & 1
4th & 26
etc., etc., etc.

[GrnBay007]

Until a time machine is invented :
Remember ?

4th & 1
4th & 26
etc., etc., etc.


You had to say it!

:cry: :( :cry: :evil:

[mraynrand]

At least he is big enough to admit he made a mistake. Sherman was a terrible GM. Only Matt Millan is a worse GM.

Not many GM/Coaches are successful. Sherman would probably be good at one or the other at the same time. He wasn't horrible, there are worse. He made mistakes but he also drafted some quality players and wasn't afraid to look to free agency.

My take is that Bob Harlan should show more class and not go down that road.

How long must Mike Sherman be the fall guy in Green Bay?
ENOUGH !!!!!

Until a time machine is invented :
Remember ?
Ahmad Carroll
Joe Johnson
Donnell Washington
4th & 1
4th & 26
etc., etc., etc.


For comparison, how about:
John Michels (first round bust 1997)
high priced FA injury bust (??? can't really think of one - how about Seth Joyner replacing Simmons?)
Jonathon Brown (3rd round DT 1998)
4th and 8 (SB XXXII)
3rd and 3 (with 8 seconds left in the 1998 wild card game v SF - 25 yard td from Young to T.O.)
etc. etc. etc. would include: Buckley, Reynolds, Antuan Edwards, Holliday, Warren .....

[Creepy]

John Michels (first round bust 1997)
high priced FA injury bust (??? can't really think of one - how about Seth Joyner replacing Simmons?)
Jonathon Brown (3rd round DT 1998)
4th and 8 (SB XXXII)
3rd and 3 (with 8 seconds left in the 1998 wild card game v SF - 25 yard td from Young to T.O.)


Going after Holmgren with these isn't fair.

John Michels - Starting LT in SB win over Patriots. may have sucked, but played in and won a SB. Favre was not blind sided in the 1996 SB.

Only high priced FAs signed by Holmgren were all part of SB team in 96. Beyond that I don't know of any.

The 4th and 8 against the Broncos never shuld have happened. On thrid down Freeman dropped a catch that would have been a TD. Should never have been a 4th & 8.

The 49ers shouldn't have won. The refs make the right call on Rices fumble and game over. At least Holmgren didn't blame the DC and fire him at the end of the season.

At least in Holmgrens defense, it wasn't all him. Can't say the same for Sherman.