A new job for Sherman

[RashanGary]

A new job for Sherman?


Former Packers coach Mike Sherman reportedly is one of the top candidates to be the next football coach at Texas A&M, following the embattled Dennis Franchione's resignation after Thursday's win over Texas.

Among the news outlets mentioning Sherman as a possible successor to Franchione: ESPN.com, the Austin American-Statesman, the Houston Chronicle and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

An announcement on a new coach is expected next week.

There are plenty of other candidates as well, with Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville also at or near the top of most wish lists.

Sherman, 52, is the Houston Texans' offensive coordinator but has ties to A&M. He was the Aggies' offensive line coach from 1989 to 1993 and in 1995 and 1996.

He then spent two seasons as the Packers' tight ends and assistant offensive line coach under Mike Holmgren, then accompanied Holmgren to the Seattle Seahawks in 1999 as offensive coordinator.

Sherman returned to Green Bay as head coach in 2000 and went 57-39 in six seasons, winning three consecutive NFC North Division titles from 2002 to 2004. However, his teams were just 2-4 in the playoffs. He was fired after the Packers went 4-12 in 2005.

[RashanGary]

I don't know what kind of recruiter he would be, but he seems like a better fit for college ball than pro.

He always seemed biased against young guys. That plays perfectly into the college game. The vets aren't really vets. They are juniors and seniors and any good coach would play those guys. Typically they are the heart of the team. In the NFL the old guys are often times just old and MS stuck with some old duds just for the sake of not going young. I think this will translate better to the college game. There is very little downside to playing seniors.

He also picked pets and stuck with them even if they sucked. In college, by the time his pet is a JR or SR and he can start, Sherman will only have one or two years to stick with him. It basically takes away his ability to shoot himself in the foot.

Sherman also coached a perfectionist style. From everything I read, it was just about getting his plays down and running them to perfection. MM has more flexibility and freedom for the players to make decisions within the offense. That is great on game day. It makes MM look brilliant because the players are able to adjust on the fly based on the defense and go for the juggular. In college, those guys are just figuring things out. Shermans style kept us from becoming great, but in college it might be exactly what is needed.

Ultimately I think Sherm was a bad fit for the NFL game. He had ideas, and he had no flexibility to change his ways. I guess if you are going to go down, you should go down you way. That he did. Anyway, this looks like a good gig for him. I think he could be a good college coach (if he can take his pear shaped rump into living rooms and recruit). His frumpy look might not translate so well to recruiting. You never know though.

[Joemailman]

I'm surprised Sherman hasn't gotten another shot at an NFL job. If stiffs like Dick Jauron and Norv Turner can get another chance, why not him? Sherman's only losing season was one where his offense was decimated by injuries and the loss of his starting guards. Sherman was a fine head coach before he was saddled with the GM job.

[cuqui]

If I remember correctly Sherman was the lead candidate for the Arizona Cardinals job but demanded way too much money.

[Rastak]

I'm surprised Sherman hasn't gotten another shot at an NFL job. If stiffs like Dick Jauron and Norv Turner can get another chance, why not him? Sherman's only losing season was one where his offense was decimated by injuries and the loss of his starting guards. Sherman was a fine head coach before he was saddled with the GM job.

I agree. He wasn't a great game day tactical guy but he always had his teams prepared and his x's and o's were solid.

[KYPack]

Yeah, I hope he gets that gig. the guy is a good coach. GB asked him to do a job (GM) he wasn't prepared to do. He always liked A&M guys, now he can grow 'em himself.

[FritzDontBlitz]

Sherman would be a good college coach. Think about it: his best draft picks all wanted out after 4 years anyway.

Seriously. I think he does well with younger players but I think the honeymoon wears off after 3 or 4 years, similar to his career in Green Bay. I wish him well.

[b bulldog]

I don't think he is open enough for the college kids and the babysitting that is needed wil drive the control freak nuts.

[swede]

I don't think he is open enough for the college kids and the babysitting that is needed wil drive the control freak nuts.

I agree with the notion that he would be an outstanding college head coach on the football field.

B-dog, I think he'd be good at leading young players, but I'm not sure he can recruit them in the first place.

[Badgerinmaine]

I'm surprised Sherman hasn't gotten another shot at an NFL job. If stiffs like Dick Jauron and Norv Turner can get another chance, why not him? Sherman's only losing season was one where his offense was decimated by injuries and the loss of his starting guards. Sherman was a fine head coach before he was saddled with the GM job.

I agree--and how the %^!! is Norv Turner working as a head coach in the NFL? TAMU is a high pressure job, but so is coaching the Packers. I think his personality would work well in the college game. I'd wish him all the best if he took it.

[Scott Campbell]

As a college coach he won't be able to draft a punter in the 3rd round.

[mmmdk]

I'm surprised Sherman hasn't gotten another shot at an NFL job. If stiffs like Dick Jauron and Norv Turner can get another chance, why not him? Sherman's only losing season was one where his offense was decimated by injuries and the loss of his starting guards. Sherman was a fine head coach before he was saddled with the GM job.

Shermy will still need probowlers or, say, a HOF QB to bail him out in the NFL; try Texas A&M dear Shermy. Better work hours too...and time to catch a nappy.

[jvandehey19]

Sherman was a lousy head coach and a disaster as a GM. His playoff record alone should convince anyone that he could not prepare his teams to play. His teams were inconsistent from week to week and half to half. He was incapable of making adjustments. He tried to keep veteran players who required less coaching in favor of promising young players. He drove his better assistant coaches away with a dictatorial management style, and his general incompetence. He was totally an excuse maker and buck passer. If he were ever to get a college head coaching job, his tenure would play out like Bill Calllahan at Nebraska.

[KYPack]

If I remember correctly Sherman was the lead candidate for the Arizona Cardinals job but demanded way too much money.

Didn't TT extend Shermy 3 yrs before he canned him?

If so, we are paying him something thru next season. He won't really need a gig 'til after next season.

[cpk1994]

I'm surprised Sherman hasn't gotten another shot at an NFL job. If stiffs like Dick Jauron and Norv Turner can get another chance, why not him? Sherman's only losing season was one where his offense was decimated by injuries and the loss of his starting guards. Sherman was a fine head coach before he was saddled with the GM job.Im not. More than a few of his assistants after they left GB did not have kind words for him in the press. It was also well known that he did not take criticism from assistants well and possibly in the case the Jeff J., fired him for it. That shoots up a big red flag to GMs.

[Bretsky]

As a college coach he won't be able to draft a punter in the 3rd round.


Or a Pro Bowler and one of the best Defensive Lineman in the NFL in the Fifth

[mraynrand]

As a college coach he won't be able to draft a punter in the 3rd round.


Or a Pro Bowler and one of the best Defensive Lineman in the NFL in the Fifth

Or 3/4 of the current starting DL Jenkins, Williams, and Kampman. Hell, in his first two years as GM, Sherman may end up bringing in 4 pro bowlers: Walker, Kampman, Barnett and Harris. Shermy wasted a lot of picks, but he got some high quality guys with what he had. Whether he he has an eye for high school talent begs the question of whether the eye for talent he had as a GM was his, Hatley's or his pro personnel department (esp. Reggie Mckenzie).

[The Leaper]

I think Sherman would do well in the NCAA. Wasn't he a teacher prior to becoming a football coach? I think he would deal with the college kids far better than he dealt with professional athletes.

[RashanGary]

Or a Pro Bowler and one of the best Defensive Lineman in the NFL in the Fifth

I can't thank Sherman for that. The artical came out explaining that his scouts were really high on Kamp. We didn't need a DE at that time, so I'm guessing Sherman ran out of pets to pick and just let the scouts make a pick. I thank the scouts for that one.

I have a hard time giving Sherman credit. His desperation and ineptitude makes me shudder, so even the good things lose their luster.

[GrnBay007]

I'm surprised Sherman hasn't gotten another shot at an NFL job. If stiffs like Dick Jauron and Norv Turner can get another chance, why not him? Sherman's only losing season was one where his offense was decimated by injuries and the loss of his starting guards. Sherman was a fine head coach before he was saddled with the GM job.

I agree. He wasn't a great game day tactical guy but he always had his teams prepared and his x's and o's were solid.

Maybe he will be the Vikings next coach. :wink:

[Rastak]

I'm surprised Sherman hasn't gotten another shot at an NFL job. If stiffs like Dick Jauron and Norv Turner can get another chance, why not him? Sherman's only losing season was one where his offense was decimated by injuries and the loss of his starting guards. Sherman was a fine head coach before he was saddled with the GM job.

I agree. He wasn't a great game day tactical guy but he always had his teams prepared and his x's and o's were solid.

Maybe he will be the Vikings next coach. :wink:


Umm, no thanks. If you guys take Denny Green I'll agree to take Sherman.

:wink:

[The Leaper]

Whether he he has an eye for high school talent begs the question of whether the eye for talent he had as a GM was his, Hatley's or his pro personnel department (esp. Reggie Mckenzie).

The bottom line is Sherman missed far more than he hit. He had a couple of drafts that produced almost nothing in terms of starting caliber talent, and most of his FA and trade forays were failures outside of the Al Harris deal. I don't think he had an eye for anything...except the back of his eyelids at the combine.

[RashanGary]

As a college coach he won't be able to draft a punter in the 3rd round.


Or a Pro Bowler and one of the best Defensive Lineman in the NFL in the Fifth

Or 3/4 of the current starting DL Jenkins, Williams, and Kampman. Hell, in his first two years as GM, Sherman may end up bringing in 4 pro bowlers: Walker, Kampman, Barnett and Harris. Shermy wasted a lot of picks, but he got some high quality guys with what he had. Whether he he has an eye for high school talent begs the question of whether the eye for talent he had as a GM was his, Hatley's or his pro personnel department (esp. Reggie Mckenzie).

hahaha, you brag up Sherman like he was some great GM. The guy completely stripped a team in a matter of 4 short years. We have 5 drafted players from his entire stint as GM. Yuck.

Thompson has as many players in one draft (Hawk, Jennings, Colledge, Jolly, Spitz) than Sherman had in 4 years.

Sherman got a couple good players. He gets some credit for not screwing every single pick up. The ultimate judge is the quality of the teams he built. After 4 years, the core of this team was junk and that pretty much describes Shermans job as GM.

Grant
Bigby
Hawk
Spitz
Colledge
Moll
Coston
Tracy White
Rouse
Tramon William
Jennings
Jones
Korey Hall
Donald Lee
John Jolly

and we don't even know how many more good YOUNG players will emerge from the guys TT has assembled through the draft and fringe markets. In a couple years, who knows how many probowler we will have, but one thing is certain, the core of this team will not be completely stripped after 4 years of Ted.

You talk Sherman up, but it is rediculous exaggeration, focusing on the 4 or 5 successes Sherman had, and not comparing it to the 20 or 30 good moves that a decent GM makes in the same amount of time. Puh leeze. Sherman found a couple really good players in 4 years. That is supposed to be good :bs:

The career of his 4 best picks does not define Sherman the GM. The state he left the team after having the reigns for 4 years does.

Sherman gets about 15% credit for the team we have today. Very few of his players are left. He gets about 40% credit for last year and 80% credit the year before. Those were his teams. This is Thompsons team.

[jvandehey19]

Welll said JustinHarrell.

[Bretsky]

As a college coach he won't be able to draft a punter in the 3rd round.


Or a Pro Bowler and one of the best Defensive Lineman in the NFL in the Fifth

Or 3/4 of the current starting DL Jenkins, Williams, and Kampman. Hell, in his first two years as GM, Sherman may end up bringing in 4 pro bowlers: Walker, Kampman, Barnett and Harris. Shermy wasted a lot of picks, but he got some high quality guys with what he had. Whether he he has an eye for high school talent begs the question of whether the eye for talent he had as a GM was his, Hatley's or his pro personnel department (esp. Reggie Mckenzie).

hahaha, you brag up Sherman like he was some great GM. The guy completely stripped a team in a matter of 4 short years. We have 5 drafted players from his entire stint as GM. Yuck.

Thompson has as many players in one draft (Hawk, Jennings, Colledge, Jolly, Spitz) than Sherman had in 4 years.

Sherman got a couple good players. He gets some credit for not screwing every single pick up. The ultimate judge is the quality of the teams he built. After 4 years, the core of this team was junk and that pretty much describes Shermans job as GM.

Grant
Bigby
Hawk
Spitz
Colledge
Moll
Coston
Tracy White
Rouse
Tramon William
Jennings
Jones
Korey Hall
Donald Lee
John Jolly

and we don't even know how many more good YOUNG players will emerge from the guys TT has assembled through the draft and fringe markets. In a couple years, who knows how many probowler we will have, but one thing is certain, the core of this team will not be completely stripped after 4 years of Ted.

You talk Sherman up, but it is rediculous exaggeration, focusing on the 4 or 5 successes Sherman had, and not comparing it to the 20 or 30 good moves that a decent GM makes in the same amount of time. Puh leeze. Sherman found a couple really good players in 4 years. That is supposed to be good :bs:

The career of his 4 best picks does not define Sherman the GM. The state he left the team after having the reigns for 4 years does.

Sherman gets about 15% credit for the team we have today. Very few of his players are left. He gets about 40% credit for last year and 80% credit the year before. Those were his teams. This is Thompsons team.


I think overall Sherman stunk as a GM.

But JH, you don't give him due credit. From his regime he brought in

Scott Wells
Nick Barnett
Javon Walker...which essentially turned into the pick of D Colledge
Cullen Jenkins
Corey Williams
Al Harris
Aaron Kampman


Those are very key players to our current success.

[Rastak]

As a college coach he won't be able to draft a punter in the 3rd round.


Or a Pro Bowler and one of the best Defensive Lineman in the NFL in the Fifth

Or 3/4 of the current starting DL Jenkins, Williams, and Kampman. Hell, in his first two years as GM, Sherman may end up bringing in 4 pro bowlers: Walker, Kampman, Barnett and Harris. Shermy wasted a lot of picks, but he got some high quality guys with what he had. Whether he he has an eye for high school talent begs the question of whether the eye for talent he had as a GM was his, Hatley's or his pro personnel department (esp. Reggie Mckenzie).

hahaha, you brag up Sherman like he was some great GM. The guy completely stripped a team in a matter of 4 short years. We have 5 drafted players from his entire stint as GM. Yuck.

Thompson has as many players in one draft (Hawk, Jennings, Colledge, Jolly, Spitz) than Sherman had in 4 years.

Sherman got a couple good players. He gets some credit for not screwing every single pick up. The ultimate judge is the quality of the teams he built. After 4 years, the core of this team was junk and that pretty much describes Shermans job as GM.

Grant
Bigby
Hawk
Spitz
Colledge
Moll
Coston
Tracy White
Rouse
Tramon William
Jennings
Jones
Korey Hall
Donald Lee
John Jolly

and we don't even know how many more good YOUNG players will emerge from the guys TT has assembled through the draft and fringe markets. In a couple years, who knows how many probowler we will have, but one thing is certain, the core of this team will not be completely stripped after 4 years of Ted.

You talk Sherman up, but it is rediculous exaggeration, focusing on the 4 or 5 successes Sherman had, and not comparing it to the 20 or 30 good moves that a decent GM makes in the same amount of time. Puh leeze. Sherman found a couple really good players in 4 years. That is supposed to be good :bs:

The career of his 4 best picks does not define Sherman the GM. The state he left the team after having the reigns for 4 years does.

Sherman gets about 15% credit for the team we have today. Very few of his players are left. He gets about 40% credit for last year and 80% credit the year before. Those were his teams. This is Thompsons team.


I think overall Sherman stunk as a GM.

But JH, you don't give him due credit. From his regime he brought in

Scott Wells
Nick Barnett
Javon Walker...which essentially turned into the pick of D Colledge
Cullen Jenkins
Corey Williams
Al Harris
Aaron Kampman


Those are very key players to our current success.

Bretsky nails it. If you're going to nail him for his mistakes, don't try and gloss over the stuff he did right.,,,,or pretend it was an accident when something good happened. I thought he was an OK coach, not great and a below average GM but he did have alot of success in the NFL.

[Scott Campbell]

While he managed some success amongst a lot of failures, Shermy's defining moment as a GM was trading up to draft BJ Sander.

IMO.

[Rastak]

While he managed some success amongst a lot of failures, Shermy's defining moment as a GM was trading up to draft BJ Sander.

IMO.


And then to keep him on the roster for a whole year inactive instead of admitting he screwed up. Even coach Shenanigan cut Maurice Clarett after realizing he blew it with a 3rd round pick.

[jvandehey19]

Sherman is history as far as the Packers are concerned. Defend his record as the Packer's Head Coach. Defend his record as the Packer's GM. Whatever makes you happy. He's now helped the Houston Texans to an 11-16 record over two seasons. (After 4-12 his last year in GB.) The Thompson/McCarthy record over the same period is 18-9. I'm happy too.

[Bretsky]

While he managed some success amongst a lot of failures, Shermy's defining moment as a GM was trading up to draft BJ Sander.

IMO.



And as unfair as this may be to me his defining moment as a coach was not going for it against the Eagles on 4th and 1

[RashanGary]

Yes, Sherman did do a few things well, Bretsky. I just find it funny when people go through the short list of good from 4 years of his work and act like he had some great eye for talent.

Sherman had some good scouts. He used their opinions to fill his 1 or 2 most glaring needs every off season. He seemed to think that if he got that one more piece, his team would be over the hump and into the SB. What he failed to realize is that every time he gave up picks to move up, he slowly stripped his team of depth and talent. Every time he took the 20th best player on his board because he really needed that player, he robbed his team of quality. His desperation and short sightedness is his legacy.

Did he and his scouts hit on a few players over his time? Sure they did, but in the grand scheme, he did a lot more harm than he did good. After 4 years of Sherman we had 4-12 and 8-8. That speaks for itself. After 3 years of TT we have 10-1.

[RashanGary]

But this isn't about the shit job he did as GM here. This is about his new job oppertunity. I wish him the best, but there is some good riddence bitterness in my voice because I strongly believe he ruined this team for the last couple years. I shudder thinking about the team I invest so much of my time follwoing being lead by such a short sighted moron. Thank bob that nightmare is over.

[Scott Campbell]

While he managed some success amongst a lot of failures, Shermy's defining moment as a GM was trading up to draft BJ Sander.

IMO.



And as unfair as this may be to me his defining moment as a coach was not going for it against the Eagles on 4th and 1


I agree with that statement too.

[Carolina_Packer]

But this isn't about the shit job he did as GM here. This is about his new job oppertunity. I wish him the best, but there is some good riddence bitterness in my voice because I strongly believe he ruined this team for the last couple years. I shudder thinking about the team I invest so much of my time follwoing being lead by such a short sighted moron. Thank bob that nightmare is over.

Wasn't Bob the one who gave Sherman the power in the first place? I know he probably was listening to Ron Wolf as well. Curious that they were willing to let Sherman have all that power but not Holmgren. I always kind of wondered, if Holmgren wanted both roles and Wolf knew he might retire, why didn't they just have Holmgren hang on? In the end, too bad they combined the roles of GM and HC. It rarely works well.

Yeah, it's funny to hear stories of assistant coaches speaking out against a head coach, but it happened. That whole thing with the revolving door DC's was kind of his coaching undoing, but not in one play. The vanilla, preditable play calling didn't help either.

Good luck to Sherman on getting the HC job at A&M. He was obviously talented enough to win some games at Green Bay. He had a lousy playoff record and was a marginal GM.

[cpk1994]

Yes, Sherman did do a few things well, Bretsky. I just find it funny when people go through the short list of good from 4 years of his work and act like he had some great eye for talent.

Sherman had some good scouts. He used their opinions to fill his 1 or 2 most glaring needs every off season. He seemed to think that if he got that one more piece, his team would be over the hump and into the SB. What he failed to realize is that every time he gave up picks to move up, he slowly stripped his team of depth and talent. Every time he took the 20th best player on his board because he really needed that player, he robbed his team of quality. His desperation and short sightedness is his legacy.

Did he and his scouts hit on a few players over his time? Sure they did, but in the grand scheme, he did a lot more harm than he did good. After 4 years of Sherman we had 4-12 and 8-8. That speaks for itself. After 3 years of TT we have 10-1.Sherman used his scouts opinions? Thats a laugh. From all reports he rarely, if ever, listened to the scouts.

[Fritz]

While he managed some success amongst a lot of failures, Shermy's defining moment as a GM was trading up to draft BJ Sander.

IMO.



And as unfair as this may be to me his defining moment as a coach was not going for it against the Eagles on 4th and 1

You know Bretsky I've always thought that was his actual moment of truth. At the end of the half when the Packers had that fourth down, I thought he should have taken the points. At the end of the game, given the field position, the inability of the GB punter to hit the ball with any touch to get it inside the twenty, and the gassed looks on the Eagles' defenders' faces, I thought it was really worth the risk of going for it. Even if you failed, all you would be giving up was about what, twenty yards? And the reward was that you'd pretty much salt the game away with a first down. Yet tht was the moment that Shermy's scrotum tightened, and he punted. Ugh.

I wonder if Shermy wants to wait to see if he can get an NFL job. He doesn't want to be the next Forrest Gregg, does he?

[retailguy]

Yes, Sherman did do a few things well, Bretsky. I just find it funny when people go through the short list of good from 4 years of his work and act like he had some great eye for talent.

Sherman had some good scouts. He used their opinions to fill his 1 or 2 most glaring needs every off season. He seemed to think that if he got that one more piece, his team would be over the hump and into the SB. What he failed to realize is that every time he gave up picks to move up, he slowly stripped his team of depth and talent. Every time he took the 20th best player on his board because he really needed that player, he robbed his team of quality. His desperation and short sightedness is his legacy.

Did he and his scouts hit on a few players over his time? Sure they did, but in the grand scheme, he did a lot more harm than he did good. After 4 years of Sherman we had 4-12 and 8-8. That speaks for itself. After 3 years of TT we have 10-1.Sherman used his scouts opinions? Thats a laugh. From all reports he rarely, if ever, listened to the scouts.

But see, if Sherman was the idiot that all claim him to be, then, SOMEONE ELSE had to be responsible for drafting the good players. It couldn't have been Sherman because he was the idiot, remember? Therefore, to get there, you HAVE to ignore the fact that multiple people said that he wouldn't listen to the others in the building. If you consider that, then your point makes no sense. If your point makes no sense, then you're stuck with the argument that "even a blind squirrel gets a nut occasionally". That's a tougher argument... and not as "conspiracy theory based". Got it? Glad I could help. :P

What kind of good conspiracy theorist are you? :wink: :roll:

[Merlin]

Yes, Sherman did do a few things well, Bretsky. I just find it funny when people go through the short list of good from 4 years of his work and act like he had some great eye for talent.

Sherman had some good scouts. He used their opinions to fill his 1 or 2 most glaring needs every off season. He seemed to think that if he got that one more piece, his team would be over the hump and into the SB. What he failed to realize is that every time he gave up picks to move up, he slowly stripped his team of depth and talent. Every time he took the 20th best player on his board because he really needed that player, he robbed his team of quality. His desperation and short sightedness is his legacy.

Did he and his scouts hit on a few players over his time? Sure they did, but in the grand scheme, he did a lot more harm than he did good. After 4 years of Sherman we had 4-12 and 8-8. That speaks for itself. After 3 years of TT we have 10-1.

Someone correct me if I am wrong here but our "scouts" didn't really change all that much from Sherman to Thompson. I seem to remember Thompson specifically saying that the Packers had excellent scouts and there wouldn't me much turn over there.

So if all of Sherman's successes were because of his scouts and all the bad choices were Sherman's, then how's come that same standard doesn't apply for Thompson?

Face it, when someone doesn't agree with your love affair with Thompson then they are stupid and wrong. Sherman was a good head coach, you cannot deny his record or his results, they are what they are. No matter how much negativity you try and bring into it he was a success in Green Bay. He was an "ok" GM IMO but nothing spectacular. Thompson is also an "ok" GM and nothing spectacular IF you use the same standard to measure him by as you have Sherman. But of course you aren't and that in lies the problem.

You also cannot blame the past two seasons on Sherman because he wasn't the guy bringing in the personell, Thompson was. You also have some serious bias issues going on here. GMs make mistakes but Sherman gets crucified and Thompson gets a pass? Why? Because Thompson is barely over .500 in three years as the Packers GM? Because we are 10-1? Why does he get a pass? Why does he get a pass on Justin Harrell? Why does he get a pass on Marquand Manual? Adrian Klemm? O'Dwyer? Why? How about Desawn Wynn? Brandon Jackson? Coston? Colledge? Spitz?

One 1-2 weeks ago everyone was bitching about our guard play. But they are listed as "successes" for Thompson? Which is it?

When you are trying to make a comparison, keep it apples to apples and apply the same litmus test to ALL you are comparing, not just the ones you like. As much as I love being 10-1 and having a great season, it has just brought out the worst in fans. From bandwagoners to some kind of screwed up thinking that all is 100% perfect and fine. It's one thing to be a homer about your entire team, it's entirely another to be a homer about a GM who to date has not earned anything but a 22-21 record over three seasons thus far.

Will it get better? Short term sure. When Favre retires? What will be the excuse then? Rodgers has had plenty of time to become a starting NFL QB. he is no Tony Romo and you can take that to the bank.

[Bretsky]

Yes, I believe our scouts have remained the same. To be fair, there were rumblings that sometimes Sherman didn't listen as much to his scouts as he should have, but nothing factual.

Sherman the coach inherited some pretty good talent IMO; he was alright. But for some reason I didn't ever want him coaching our team going into the playoffs.

Sherman the GM made some nice moves to get some of the upper echelon players that we have on our current roster. His free agent choices did not work. Some of TT's have and some have not.

But it's hard to argue that his MS's constant packaging of draft picks to trade up for players in the draft watered down the depth of this squad.

TT seems to be a solid replacement opposite of this mentality. While Sherman packaged picks to move up for a specific player, TT just thinks the draft if hit and miss to a point so he'd rather build up picks. That lessons the impact of his mistakes. Since Jones has been so good we overlook how shitty Harrell has been...etc

[MJZiggy]

You also cannot blame the past two seasons on Sherman because he wasn't the guy bringing in the personell, Thompson was. You also have some serious bias issues going on here. GMs make mistakes but Sherman gets crucified and Thompson gets a pass? Why? Because Thompson is barely over .500 in three years as the Packers GM? Because we are 10-1? Why does he get a pass? Why does he get a pass on Justin Harrell? Why does he get a pass on Marquand Manual? Adrian Klemm? O'Dwyer? Why? How about Desawn Wynn? Brandon Jackson? Coston? Colledge? Spitz?

Two years ago, Thompson's team was playing with mostly Sherman personnel, but that's a little beside the point. The only thing I really blame Sherman for was trading up to get a punter and then keeping him inactive on the roster when he didn't perform well. That is not good GM work no matter what else he did and he did do some good things, bringing in some great players (who, coincidentally all by now have had time to develop to their potential). Why does Thompson get a pass? Here's why. He took over a team that went 4-12 his first year here. In his second year, they went 8-8 with a lot of rookies he brought in. Not contending but an improvement which is what you look for year to year. They almost made the playoffs even with that record. This year they're 10-1 and on a tear, possibly looking at a first-round bye in the playoffs. Even if (god forbid) they lose out the rest of the season--and I don't see that happening, do you? It would still be an improvement over last season. That's what you look for--improvement, right?

He gets a pass on Harrel because it's just too soon to tell. Let him have time to develop like all of Sherman's guys have had and then judge him. He gets a pass on Manual because he brought in someone he thought would be good and when someone else proved better, he didn't hang on to him to feed his own ego. Manual didn't perform=Manual is gone. Same with Klemm and O'Dwyer. They didn't perform to expectations. Are they still here? DeShawn Wynn was a 7th round pick. He's made some contributions but how many 7th rounders don't even make their teams much less get a chance to play? Brandon Jackson may still turn into something. I'm not giving up on him, but I know if he doesn't perform as well as other RB's, he will be gone. Coston, Colledge, Spitz? As far as I can tell, the line is doing what they did last year without as much max protect. Last I checked, Favre's jersey is staying pretty clean. Colledge I'm still not thrilled with this season, though he seems to be doing better after having a "chat" with his coach (you know, the really good coach that our GM found for us).

There are high expectations around this team. It is a talented bunch. They are a GOOD TEAM, balanced and face it, do you REALLY think they're going to lose many more games this season? Collins gets injured, Rouse steps in. Woodson left the Detroit game and we still won. Are they perfect? no, yet we found out last night that not even NE is perfect though like them we're still winning the games even when imperfect. Why do you have such a hard time admitting that the man has assemble a VERY GOOD football team?

[Bretsky]

He gets a pass on Harrel because it's just too soon to tell. Let him have time to develop like all of Sherman's guys have had and then judge him. He gets a pass on Manual because he brought in someone he thought would be good and when someone else proved better, he didn't hang on to him to feed his own ego. Manual didn't perform=Manual is gone.

For what it's worth I've laid into TT for both of the above; too early on Harrell though and TT found somebody kind of competent to replace Manual

Same with Klemm and O'Dwyer. They didn't perform to expectations. Are they still here?

O'Dwyer was a minimum wage guy; hard to fault him for that one. I've lit up TT on Klemm; but again for me the record overrides all negatives at this point. It appears we might be quite good for a while

DeShawn Wynn was a 7th round pick. He's made some contributions but how many 7th rounders don't even make their teams much less get a chance to play?

Hard to ever criticize a GM either way for a player in round 7

[The Leaper]

You also cannot blame the past two seasons on Sherman because he wasn't the guy bringing in the personell, Thompson was.

Honestly, I don't think you can blame 2005 on anyone in particular. The team had a ridiculous number of injuries that would've scuttled even the most robust of rosters. That season was a perfect storm...but I think Sherman's approach to what happened caused his downfall.

2006 really can't be blamed on anyone either. Thompson was retooling, which was necessary and expected. The team was adjusting to a new coaching staff. There were going to be growing pains. Going 8-8 was actually a success in my book.

Overall, Sherman was not a complete failure as GM. He never had high picks to work with, but still managed to find some great players. However, his strategy was a failure. Constantly tossing away picks to move around in the draft...especially after the first 75 picks where it really becomes a crap shoot for the most part...was foolish. It caused him to get into bad situations that forced us to overpay for guys like KGB, Hunt, Ferguson, Luchey and Franks because we had no one in the pipeline to replace them.

Thompson strategy of valuing draft picks and continually replenishing the talent base rather than reaching for a specific need is far more sound...and you are starting to see the dividends of that.

[mraynrand]

Whether he he has an eye for high school talent begs the question of whether the eye for talent he had as a GM was his, Hatley's or his pro personnel department (esp. Reggie Mckenzie).

The bottom line is Sherman missed far more than he hit. He had a couple of drafts that produced almost nothing in terms of starting caliber talent, and most of his FA and trade forays were failures outside of the Al Harris deal. I don't think he had an eye for anything...except the back of his eyelids at the combine.

I don't understand. He traded a #2 to move up and get Walker, he trade two #4s for Glenn and traded a #2 for Harris. He signed Joe Johnson who was considered the top defensive FA of the 2001 offseason. Johnson got injured twice. Sherman got burned, but was it due to a poor eye for talent or bad luck. If he had a poor eye for talent, what does that say for every other guy that thought highly of Joe Johnson? Since Sherman only had three drafts and got 2 pro bowlers from the first (Walker and Kampman) and possibly two from the second (Barnett and Harris with the #2 pick) how can you say this isn't starting caliber talent? His third draft produced two starters (Wells and Williams) although I agree it was a bad draft overall. His rookie FAs included Fisher, Barry and Cullen Jenkins, so he was pretty good in the rookie FA market. Also, Sherman was better than 50-50 in resigning his own FA talent, including Tauscher, Clifton, Green and KGB, who all remained fairly productive.

I also noticed that Davenport (Pittsburgh) and Kenny Peterson (Denver) are still logging significant minutes for other teams.


I understand the disappointment with Sherman coming up short three straight playoff years, with obvious f-ups in games and drafting; what I don't understand is the over the top negative assessment and the lack of understanding about circumstances - like the massive injuries in 2002 and 2005. Some people (I prefer to use the phrase ignorant fools) still think the Packers should have beaten Atlanta in the 2002 playoffs, when they were missing 9 starters (Clifton, Tauscher, Davenport, Green, Glenn, Driver, Sharper, Johnson, (I count Flanagan at center, since he moved to LT for Clifton)). The same team, with all the starters in place, barely beat Atlanta in the opener. How can anyone be seen as rational who thinks the Packers were talented enough at the end of 2002 as at the beginning?

[mmmdk]

While he managed some success amongst a lot of failures, Shermy's defining moment as a GM was trading up to draft BJ Sander.

IMO.



And as unfair as this may be to me his defining moment as a coach was not going for it against the Eagles on 4th and 1

The Eagles game was the defining moment for me too; from then on Mike II was in this Mike's dog house. :lol: The game was no laughing matter though.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Whether he he has an eye for high school talent begs the question of whether the eye for talent he had as a GM was his, Hatley's or his pro personnel department (esp. Reggie Mckenzie).

The bottom line is Sherman missed far more than he hit. He had a couple of drafts that produced almost nothing in terms of starting caliber talent, and most of his FA and trade forays were failures outside of the Al Harris deal. I don't think he had an eye for anything...except the back of his eyelids at the combine.

I don't understand. He traded a #2 to move up and get Walker, he trade two #4s for Glenn and traded a #2 for Harris. He signed Joe Johnson who was considered the top defensive FA of the 2001 offseason. Johnson got injured twice. Sherman got burned, but was it due to a poor eye for talent or bad luck. If he had a poor eye for talent, what does that say for every other guy that thought highly of Joe Johnson? Since Sherman only had three drafts and got 2 pro bowlers from the first (Walker and Kampman) and possibly two from the second (Barnett and Harris with the #2 pick) how can you say this isn't starting caliber talent? His third draft produced two starters (Wells and Williams) although I agree it was a bad draft overall. His rookie FAs included Fisher, Barry and Cullen Jenkins, so he was pretty good in the rookie FA market. Also, Sherman was better than 50-50 in resigning his own FA talent, including Tauscher, Clifton, Green and KGB, who all remained fairly productive.

I also noticed that Davenport (Pittsburgh) and Kenny Peterson (Denver) are still logging significant minutes for other teams.


I understand the disappointment with Sherman coming up short three straight playoff years, with obvious f-ups in games and drafting; what I don't understand is the over the top negative assessment and the lack of understanding about circumstances - like the massive injuries in 2002 and 2005. Some people (I prefer to use the phrase ignorant fools) still think the Packers should have beaten Atlanta in the 2002 playoffs, when they were missing 9 starters (Clifton, Tauscher, Davenport, Green, Glenn, Driver, Sharper, Johnson, (I count Flanagan at center, since he moved to LT for Clifton)). The same team, with all the starters in place, barely beat Atlanta in the opener. How can anyone be seen as rational who thinks the Packers were talented enough at the end of 2002 as at the beginning?

I hear your points. For the record i think he was a decent/good coach and an average to below average GM...being GM also includes dealing with players which he demonstrated with Walker/(and the DB whose name shall not be mentioned) that he couldn't separate the GM from the coach..not that I know anybody who could.

In my opinion Sherman felt that the window was closing on an ageing team and he essentially went with a "shoot the moon" philosophy. And, for that reason he acquired Johnson, Glenn, harris, etc. He kept hoping that would push us over the edge. And, like most reasonable fans i thought/hoped they would as well.

But, if that is what you are doing, then why would you lose a WR like Javon or a db to NO. He had to know that would be crippling.

But, Glenn for 2 picks. That was terrible. He was the wrong fit for our offense and didn't score TDs. 52 receptions in 16 games isn't the type of production you expect outta glenn. So, the question is whether it was the wrong offense or bad play calling for him. Either way, that rests on sherman.

He was GM in O1, but supposedly Sherman had heavy influence. Look at that draft. Essentially that draft killed us. When your best player is arguably David Martin you are in trouble. Not one of those guys turned out to be an above average player. Reynolds, Fergie, Ferrario, Jue, Marshall.

According to Parcells you wanna 1/3 to half your players in the draft on your roster. That is success. So, the less picks the less on your roster. Simple math.

02: A decent draft at best. Javon and Kampy are very good players. Anderson blew, Najeh..well, you could find guys like that all the time, Nall..well, you find guys like that every year. Houghton..el busto.

03: A terrible draft. One starter. Flameouts like Peterson, Lee, etc. What makes it even more disgusting is they let a STARTER go to the bears. Hillenmeyer is exactly the late round pick that makes you look like a genius when he starts.

04: Terrible draft. Yes, we got some players, but all from the late rounds. Geez, anyone on this board coulda whiffed on 4 players in the first 3 rounds. Two CBs because he pissed of a DB.

In 3 years he had 20 picks. So looking at it he at best had a shot at getting 10 players on the roster that were decent, more like 7.

In 3 drafts for TT he has drafted 34 players. I don't think i need to do the math. You get the point.

[mraynrand]

Ty,

good post, but you can't be serious saying that 2002 was just OK? Two pro bowlers and some starting material - plus two contributing FAs. Glenn not a good fit - I agree, but he was hurt and given the crap at WR the previous year, Shermy had to do something. 2002 was an outstanding year - but I attribute a lot of that to Hatley. 2003 was good - Barnett and the #2 for Harris - both could be pro bowlers. Still, not enough picks.

Walker gt hurt in 2005 and it was TTs choice to let him go. Mc--- was all Sherman's fault (except if you want to lay some blame on the player). After 2003 and into 2004, Sherman was absolutely awful - terrible decision to go with Slowit - completely failed retooling of the secondary, crappy draft, failed to replace Hatley. But I suspect he was let go for personality reasons - especially given what Harlan did w regard to Jones. People didn't like him - he was way abrasive and he ran out his welcome. Plus, I think Harlan really DID want to go back to the separate coach GM positions - and I bet Wolf lobbied for TT. But I totally agree that Shermy was picking for the short term and targeting specific players - and if you do that, you have to be right on a higher percentage - 50-75% rather than the approx 40% success rate of most decent GMs.

[RashanGary]

I have a problem with the "shoot for the moon" mentality. I think you have to take a more level headed approach, capitalizing on advantagous situations as they arise. Sherman made some good decisions, but ultimately I think his desperate approach caused the Packers to lose out on more good than they gained. I just don't think he'd seen enough from teh GM's perspective to realize how detrimental it can be to pass on good players for need players. TT talks about how he's seen it blow up time and time again. He had the experience to learn from others mistakes from the objective position of somebody watching the decisions for many years, not making them. It's easier to see why someone else failed than to admit why you yourself failed. Sherman just never had the experience to know what a mistake was. He seemed to truely believe that he should just take the player they needed most and not even consider how it would effect the whole term of that players impact. There is short term. There is long term. I think you have to look at the whole impact and go with the guy who is going to be a true core player over a guy that might be a little better than what you have now just because you don't like the guy you have now.

Bottom line, I think Ted is a better GM and watching MM lately, I think he is a better coach. That is not to say Sherman wasn't a good coach and it's not really saying he was the worst GM ever, but the Packers are better off without him, that is my opinion, anyway.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ty,

good post, but you can't be serious saying that 2002 was just OK? Two pro bowlers and some starting material - plus two contributing FAs. Glenn not a good fit - I agree, but he was hurt and given the crap at WR the previous year, Shermy had to do something. 2002 was an outstanding year - but I attribute a lot of that to Hatley. 2003 was good - Barnett and the #2 for Harris - both could be pro bowlers. Still, not enough picks.

Walker gt hurt in 2005 and it was TTs choice to let him go. Mc--- was all Sherman's fault (except if you want to lay some blame on the player). After 2003 and into 2004, Sherman was absolutely awful - terrible decision to go with Slowit - completely failed retooling of the secondary, crappy draft, failed to replace Hatley. But I suspect he was let go for personality reasons - especially given what Harlan did w regard to Jones. People didn't like him - he was way abrasive and he ran out his welcome. Plus, I think Harlan really DID want to go back to the separate coach GM positions - and I bet Wolf lobbied for TT. But I totally agree that Shermy was picking for the short term and targeting specific players - and if you do that, you have to be right on a higher percentage - 50-75% rather than the approx 40% success rate of most decent GMs.

02: Walker was a pro bowl and yes Kampy as well. However, getting lucky on your 5th rounder is just that..getting lucky. No one, including Sherman ever thought he would turn out that way. Flaming out on Najeh and Anderson is to me worse than stumbling on a pro bowler.

I didn't include the FA. Just was talking draft. I've never said Sherman was bad at acquiring FA talent. If the talent doesn't work out that is a different story. I don't blame him totally for JJ even though he had a history of injuries. But, I do blame him for Glenn. And, we didn't get squat for him compared to what we gave up.

Walker: You are right. But, i also fault Sherman for not renogiating with him early. He had been at odds with the org since 04. Again, if Sherman is "shooting the moon" then you have to play it that way. You can't get hamstrung on stupid "we don't renogiate contracts."

If we aren't operating in that mode (we have limited time till Brett is gone) then I'm all in favor of sticking to your guns.

This mode applies to Mc. That was a terrible decision. It lead to us wasting picks trying to replace him..which we never did. I cringe at the players Sherman might have got instead...and that is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Hatley, etc. We are pretty much in agreement. Could be a first!!! :oops:

uh,oh...hell might be freezin over. :lol:

[HarveyWallbangers]

02: Walker was a pro bowl and yes Kampy as well. However, getting lucky on your 5th rounder is just that..getting lucky. No one, including Sherman ever thought he would turn out that way. Flaming out on Najeh and Anderson is to me worse than stumbling on a pro bowler.

I disagree here. You have to give him major credit for the 5th round pick. Ron Wolf made a living on second day picks. You can't just say it was lucky.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I have a problem with the "shoot for the moon" mentality. I think you have to take a more level headed approach, capitalizing on advantagous situations as they arise. Sherman made some good decisions, but ultimately I think his desperate approach caused the Packers to lose out on more good than they gained. I just don't think he'd seen enough from teh GM's perspective to realize how detrimental it can be to pass on good players for need players. TT talks about how he's seen it blow up time and time again. He had the experience to learn from others mistakes from the objective position of somebody watching the decisions for many years, not making them. It's easier to see why someone else failed than to admit why you yourself failed. Sherman just never had the experience to know what a mistake was. He seemed to truely believe that he should just take the player they needed most and not even consider how it would effect the whole term of that players impact. There is short term. There is long term. I think you have to look at the whole impact and go with the guy who is going to be a true core player over a guy that might be a little better than what you have now just because you don't like the guy you have now.

Bottom line, I think Ted is a better GM and watching MM lately, I think he is a better coach. That is not to say Sherman wasn't a good coach and it's not really saying he was the worst GM ever, but the Packers are better off without him, that is my opinion, anyway.

Sometimes you have to "shoot the moon." That is essentially the problem Woody and Merlin have with TT. That he isn't going balls out to win right now with Favre.

There are windows in all sports and you need to capitalize on them.

Everyone sane and rational understands that window closed for us and we needed to build another. Hopefully in time with Brett.

Sherman made some desparate moves because he saw an aging team. Think about it...Ahman is now pretty much done, he saw big contracts coming that we couldn't afford, etc.

Better: Maybe, maybe not. For sure they are in different times and mindsets. Who knows what TT woulda done if he had been in GB then..when brett couldn't decide EVERY year if he was coming back.

I don't have a problem with the mindset of Sherman. It is like playcalling...often it isn't the play itself, but the EXECUTION. If Sherman hits on the limited draftees...let's just say Carroll turned out to be a decent starter, Anderson is serviceable, either donnell or kenny can actually play, and pick either torrance or jue, and JJ doesn't get hurt...are we even having this conversation.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

double post

[The Leaper]

I don't understand.

OK, you cite these examples of "hits" in the draft:

Walker
Harris (used a pick to get him, so it is like a draft pick)
Barnett
Kampman
Wells
Williams
Davenport

Resigning guys like Tauscher, Clifton, Green and KGB is hardly a sign that Sherman had a good eye. That was just simple common sense.

Still not understanding? OK. He had more misses than hits because HERE is his list of draft failures...and I'm not counting late round picks, just top 150 or so picks:

Carroll
Thomas
Washington
Sander
Peterson
Anderson
Reynolds (yes, I hold Sherman partially at fault in the 2001 debacle)
Ferguson
Jue
Marshall

So, in 4 drafts, he had 10 horrible blunders...wasting a top 150 pick on a guy who really contributed very little for the organization, especially in relation to his draft position.

How many top 150 picks did Sherman have overall? 14.

He failed on 10 of the 14 picks.

That is why I view Sherman as less than stellar in term of player judgment. He wasn't a complete failure, as I previously mentioned. He was saved by the fact that his few good picks turned out to be very good players...and he had a couple late round/undrafted gems that also were a success.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

02: Walker was a pro bowl and yes Kampy as well. However, getting lucky on your 5th rounder is just that..getting lucky. No one, including Sherman ever thought he would turn out that way. Flaming out on Najeh and Anderson is to me worse than stumbling on a pro bowler.

I disagree here. You have to give him major credit for the 5th round pick. Ron Wolf made a living on second day picks. You can't just say it was lucky.

How many second day picks did Wolf have that turned out to be Pro bowlers.

That Ron hit on players is true. But, let's not go overboard. He hit because he DRAFTED A TON. That is being a smart GM.

Looking at 5th round and beyond. Starters within a reasonable time period.

92: 9 players drafted. 1 starter. Chewy.
93: 6 players drafted. 1 starter. Doug Evans. Deep QB with Detmer, so Brunell alllowed to develop and then traded.

94: 6 players. 1 starter. Dorsey. 2 average WRs. Schroeder and Mickens..and to call Mickens average is a HUGE compliment.

95: 4 players. 1 starter. Timmerman.

96: 3 players. 1 starter. Rivera. Mck played a bit.

97: 4 players. NOT ONE EVEN MADE A CONTRIBUTION. Course we were deep. Sowell played in the league.

98: 4 players. Not one starter. Bradford. LOL. Hasselback had time to develop. Still, never played for us. Let's not even talk about whiffs on brown and blackmon.

99: 6 players. 1 starter. DD..and 4 years to do something significant..ok, 3 if you count 38 catches the year before. Overall a terrible draft of Hunt, Vinson and Edwards. All of them average at best.

00: 7 players. 1.5 starters. Tauscher and KGB.

At best you have 6. However, he did that in 8 years of drafting (02-00). He drafted 49 players in the 5th and after. That is around 8 a year. So, essentially you find less than one one time PB type player a year.

Sherman got one. ONE. That is luck. 11 players from the 5th on.

Finding more is not luck. It is called playing the percentages.

What wolf did better than most was getting good 3/4rd round picks. Mack, Tyrone, Diggs, Brooks, Bennett, Dotson, Wilkins, Henderson, Holland, Williams, Free, Brooks, Bidwell.

And, being savvy enought to always draft QBs that could develop and then be traded for picks: Brunell, Hasselbeck, Detmer, Brooks.

Wolf wasn't a great drafter, but he drafted a lot of players and he made the right trades and brought in free agents and hired holmgren.

[Bretsky]

Whether he he has an eye for high school talent begs the question of whether the eye for talent he had as a GM was his, Hatley's or his pro personnel department (esp. Reggie Mckenzie).

The bottom line is Sherman missed far more than he hit. He had a couple of drafts that produced almost nothing in terms of starting caliber talent, and most of his FA and trade forays were failures outside of the Al Harris deal. I don't think he had an eye for anything...except the back of his eyelids at the combine.

I don't understand. He traded a #2 to move up and get Walker, he trade two #4s for Glenn and traded a #2 for Harris. He signed Joe Johnson who was considered the top defensive FA of the 2001 offseason. Johnson got injured twice. Sherman got burned, but was it due to a poor eye for talent or bad luck. If he had a poor eye for talent, what does that say for every other guy that thought highly of Joe Johnson? Since Sherman only had three drafts and got 2 pro bowlers from the first (Walker and Kampman) and possibly two from the second (Barnett and Harris with the #2 pick) how can you say this isn't starting caliber talent? His third draft produced two starters (Wells and Williams) although I agree it was a bad draft overall. His rookie FAs included Fisher, Barry and Cullen Jenkins, so he was pretty good in the rookie FA market. Also, Sherman was better than 50-50 in resigning his own FA talent, including Tauscher, Clifton, Green and KGB, who all remained fairly productive.

I also noticed that Davenport (Pittsburgh) and Kenny Peterson (Denver) are still logging significant minutes for other teams.


I understand the disappointment with Sherman coming up short three straight playoff years, with obvious f-ups in games and drafting; what I don't understand is the over the top negative assessment and the lack of understanding about circumstances - like the massive injuries in 2002 and 2005. Some people (I prefer to use the phrase ignorant fools) still think the Packers should have beaten Atlanta in the 2002 playoffs, when they were missing 9 starters (Clifton, Tauscher, Davenport, Green, Glenn, Driver, Sharper, Johnson, (I count Flanagan at center, since he moved to LT for Clifton)). The same team, with all the starters in place, barely beat Atlanta in the opener. How can anyone be seen as rational who thinks the Packers were talented enough at the end of 2002 as at the beginning?


To further analyze MS giving up a 2nd for Javon Walker:

In that deal he also received a fifth round draft pick
With that pick I believe he added Aaron Kampman

Turned out to be a GREAT deal

[b bulldog]

Sherman was a horrible GM and a average coach. If he was such a good coach, why was he coaching the line in Houston? Just think of the players we could have had if shermy didn't trade all those picks away.

[Bossman641]

I don't care to rehash Sherman as GM. That's been beaten to death far too many times. He was here, he tried, it didn't work.

I'm just happy for him. He seemed like a great guy and the players respected him. Best of luck Coach Sherman.

[HarveyWallbangers]

02: Walker was a pro bowl and yes Kampy as well. However, getting lucky on your 5th rounder is just that..getting lucky. No one, including Sherman ever thought he would turn out that way. Flaming out on Najeh and Anderson is to me worse than stumbling on a pro bowler.

I disagree here. You have to give him major credit for the 5th round pick. Ron Wolf made a living on second day picks. You can't just say it was lucky.

How many second day picks did Wolf have that turned out to be Pro bowlers.

That Ron hit on players is true. But, let's not go overboard. He hit because he DRAFTED A TON. That is being a smart GM.

Looking at 5th round and beyond. Starters within a reasonable time period.

92: 9 players drafted. 1 starter. Chewy.
93: 6 players drafted. 1 starter. Doug Evans. Deep QB with Detmer, so Brunell alllowed to develop and then traded.

94: 6 players. 1 starter. Dorsey. 2 average WRs. Schroeder and Mickens..and to call Mickens average is a HUGE compliment.

95: 4 players. 1 starter. Timmerman.

96: 3 players. 1 starter. Rivera. Mck played a bit.

97: 4 players. NOT ONE EVEN MADE A CONTRIBUTION. Course we were deep. Sowell played in the league.

98: 4 players. Not one starter. Bradford. LOL. Hasselback had time to develop. Still, never played for us. Let's not even talk about whiffs on brown and blackmon.

99: 6 players. 1 starter. DD..and 4 years to do something significant..ok, 3 if you count 38 catches the year before. Overall a terrible draft of Hunt, Vinson and Edwards. All of them average at best.

00: 7 players. 1.5 starters. Tauscher and KGB.

At best you have 6.

9 guys you mentioned made a Pro Bowl. That's a lot. That's the point. That's why Wolf was good. Kind of a dumb argument to make--that Sherman was just lucky on Kampman and shouldn't get credit for it.

[b bulldog]

Shermy should get credit for his picks and also the ones he traded away. One thing is that the guys he picked may never have achieved the success they have achieved under Sherman as coach as they have under MM. Shermy was a great coack Monday till Saturday but his in game coaching :oops: and his GM skills were awful. I remember Wolf looking at the Packers and saying that they looked like an NFL Europe team. Coaching wise, howe many more games would the Packers have won if Shermy dealt with Brett as MM does?

[RashanGary]

I don't look at the team a GM inherits. I look at the quality of the team after 3-4 years. Sherman took over a good team and when he left it was bad.

Thompson took over a bad team and in a short time made it good. We can anylyze the details all damn day and twist things to fit our opinions, but at the end of the day, Shermans teams got progressively worse and Thompsons have gotten progressively better. As TT would say, "the proofs in the pudding". I think there is a lot of relevance to that statement when it comes to judging a GM. The proof is what you've constructed. It speaks for itself. Shermans teams went from 12-4 to 10-6 to 4-12 with all of the injuries and cap problems. Thompsons went from 4-12 to 8-8 to whatever happens this year. That is what is the most important; the results as they relate to winning. Sherman kept fielding progressively worse teams with less money and older players. TT fields progressively better teams with more money and younger players. It is what it is and the results don't speak well of Mike Sherman unless you consider inheriting 12-4 and leaving it in broke and in shambles a good thing.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sherman was a horrible GM and a average coach. If he was such a good coach, why was he coaching the line in Houston? Just think of the players we could have had if shermy didn't trade all those picks away.

Coaching the line: That is a spurrious argument. Just like saying he was a great coach because he was the offensive coordinator in Seattle or head coach at A&M.

There are other factors leading to coaching the line. Perhaps he didn't get the HC he wanted (he asked for to much cash here in AZ), wanted to stay involved in pro football while waiting, knew that A&M job would open....OR that he did it as a favor to longtime friend Kubiak.

I'm willing to speculate that Kubiak relied on him more than just his title indicated.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

02: Walker was a pro bowl and yes Kampy as well. However, getting lucky on your 5th rounder is just that..getting lucky. No one, including Sherman ever thought he would turn out that way. Flaming out on Najeh and Anderson is to me worse than stumbling on a pro bowler.

I disagree here. You have to give him major credit for the 5th round pick. Ron Wolf made a living on second day picks. You can't just say it was lucky.

How many second day picks did Wolf have that turned out to be Pro bowlers.

That Ron hit on players is true. But, let's not go overboard. He hit because he DRAFTED A TON. That is being a smart GM.

Looking at 5th round and beyond. Starters within a reasonable time period.

92: 9 players drafted. 1 starter. Chewy.
93: 6 players drafted. 1 starter. Doug Evans. Deep QB with Detmer, so Brunell alllowed to develop and then traded.

94: 6 players. 1 starter. Dorsey. 2 average WRs. Schroeder and Mickens..and to call Mickens average is a HUGE compliment.

95: 4 players. 1 starter. Timmerman.

96: 3 players. 1 starter. Rivera. Mck played a bit.

97: 4 players. NOT ONE EVEN MADE A CONTRIBUTION. Course we were deep. Sowell played in the league.

98: 4 players. Not one starter. Bradford. LOL. Hasselback had time to develop. Still, never played for us. Let's not even talk about whiffs on brown and blackmon.

99: 6 players. 1 starter. DD..and 4 years to do something significant..ok, 3 if you count 38 catches the year before. Overall a terrible draft of Hunt, Vinson and Edwards. All of them average at best.

00: 7 players. 1.5 starters. Tauscher and KGB.

At best you have 6.

9 guys you mentioned made a Pro Bowl. That's a lot. That's the point. That's why Wolf was good. Kind of a dumb argument to make--that Sherman was just lucky on Kampman and shouldn't get credit for it.

You don't get to count guys that made it on OTHER TEAMS. Tons of players can become decent in the NFL if given enough time..ie, Romo and the way the NFL use to develop QBs.

I"m not giving wolf credit anymore than I'm giving shermy.

Wolf was better because he had more picks. You throw enough darts you'll hit on some. That is the point. I'd be willing to guess that given any decent GM who was at their post for 8 years and had as many picks as wolf would have the same results.

If i have some time I'll look at Accorsi, Pioli, etc.

Wolf was great in the 3/4 rounds.

[mraynrand]

I don't understand.

OK, you cite these examples of "hits" in the draft:

Walker
Harris (used a pick to get him, so it is like a draft pick)
Barnett
Kampman
Wells
Williams
Davenport

Resigning guys like Tauscher, Clifton, Green and KGB is hardly a sign that Sherman had a good eye. That was just simple common sense.

Still not understanding? OK. He had more misses than hits because HERE is his list of draft failures...and I'm not counting late round picks, just top 150 or so picks:

Carroll
Thomas
Washington
Sander
Peterson
Anderson
Reynolds (yes, I hold Sherman partially at fault in the 2001 debacle)
Ferguson
Jue
Marshall

So, in 4 drafts, he had 10 horrible blunders...wasting a top 150 pick on a guy who really contributed very little for the organization, especially in relation to his draft position.

How many top 150 picks did Sherman have overall? 14.

He failed on 10 of the 14 picks.

That is why I view Sherman as less than stellar in term of player judgment. He wasn't a complete failure, as I previously mentioned. He was saved by the fact that his few good picks turned out to be very good players...and he had a couple late round/undrafted gems that also were a success.

After writing all that, in your sum up you essentially agree with me. Yawn.

[The Leaper]

After writing all that, in your sum up you essentially agree with me. Yawn.

You said you didn't understand why I could think Sherman had a poor eye. I explained it. Sherman wasn't a complete failure (see Matt Millen) but he certainly wasn't any good either. He was bailed out by the guys Ron Wolf left him...Favre, Green, the OL.

Sherman had NOTHING to do with aquiring those guys. I will give him credit for DEVELOPING some of those OL guys. Sherman did a damn good job there. However, that doesn't mean he had an eye for talent. I know I've mentioned elsewhere that I don't view Sherman as a total disaster as GM. He did make a few great moves. However, he made far more horrible moves. Someone with a good eye for talent doesn't screw up that much. I'm saying he was more LUCKY than good. Is that what you were saying?

[MadtownPacker]

The Packers are under new management and are 10-1 with a huge game in 2 days and you clown are still talking about Sherm? :eyes:

[The Leaper]

The Packers are under new management and are 10-1 with a huge game in 2 days and you clown are still talking about Sherm? :eyes:

Sherm just got a new job, if you hadn't noticed.

[mraynrand]

Wolf was better because he had more picks. You throw enough darts you'll hit on some. That is the point. I'd be willing to guess that given any decent GM who was at their post for 8 years and had as many picks as wolf would have the same results.

If i have some time I'll look at Accorsi, Pioli, etc.

Wolf was great in the 3/4 rounds.

And if you suck, like the current Philly GM/player personnel group, your team goes down the tubes rapidly because you miss the dart board completely. Plus, Wolf was old school. He mixed it up pretty well, with trades, FA and draft. To be fair to all the Packer GMs and player personnel guys, really one trade has meant success for 16 years. Why do the Packers have the best record over the past 16 years in the NFL?

[The Leaper]

Why do the Packers have the best record over the past 16 years in the NFL?

Brett Favre.

[MadtownPacker]

Sherm just got a new job, if you hadn't noticed.Yes I did and good for him. I just dont understand why people want to talk bad about him after he has been gone for 2 yrs. He was put in the unenviable position of getting Favre to another Superbowl. It didnt work out but I admire the love and loyalty he had for the Packers.

[mraynrand]

After writing all that, in your sum up you essentially agree with me. Yawn.

You said you didn't understand why I could think Sherman had a poor eye. I explained it. Sherman wasn't a complete failure (see Matt Millen) but he certainly wasn't any good either. He was bailed out by the guys Ron Wolf left him...Favre, Green, the OL.

Sherman had NOTHING to do with aquiring those guys. I will give him credit for DEVELOPING some of those OL guys. Sherman did a damn good job there. However, that doesn't mean he had an eye for talent. I know I've mentioned elsewhere that I don't view Sherman as a total disaster as GM. He did make a few great moves. However, he made far more horrible moves. Someone with a good eye for talent doesn't screw up that much. I'm saying he was more LUCKY than good. Is that what you were saying?

I guess we don't agree. Sherman moved up to draft Walker in his first pick as GM. Guy was a pro bowler. He also got a pro bowler out of the #5 he received in the trade (Kampman). He drafted Barnett at 29 and guy is probably a pro bowler - easily the best #29 pick in the history of the modern draft. He traded for Al Harris in the same year and guy is one of the best corners in the NFL over the past 4 years. These are all targeted moves that Sherman pushed for. Two pro bowlers and two pro bowl caliber starters from your first two years ever as GM is pretty good. If you can't acknowledge that he had an eye for talent picking these guys out, there's nothing more to say to you.

Your points about wasting picks and making bad decisions are valid too - over his three year run he was probably average to below average among NFL GMs, with most GMs averaging about a 40% success rate with draft picks starting for them - and of course he has some other celebrated f-ups. But those things have nothing to do with his eye for talent. Have you ever gone through drafts of multiple teams and then compared the draft to their rosters over the following several years? Even the great GMs have marginal drafts where they get just one or two guys. and don't just look at good teams. look at all the crappy teams too. I've looked through that stuff. If you look through it, You'll see that Sherman compares pretty favorably with a lot of teams. most teams that make a SB run have one or two outstanding draft years together, mixed in with some pretty down years. And very good teams very often have really thin drafts because they pick at the bottom of every round.

[mraynrand]

Sherm just got a new job, if you hadn't noticed.Yes I did and good for him. I just dont understand why people want to talk bad about him after he has been gone for 2 yrs. He was put in the unenviable position of getting Favre to another Superbowl. It didnt work out but I admire the love and loyalty he had for the Packers.

Or the enviable position. Gotta admit I'd rather inherit a team with Favre than a team with Sage Rosenfels. Sherman did have to manage a Favre playing with a damaged knee (2002) a broken thumb (2003) and a broken defense (2004)!

[MadtownPacker]

Sherm just got a new job, if you hadn't noticed.Yes I did and good for him. I just dont understand why people want to talk bad about him after he has been gone for 2 yrs. He was put in the unenviable position of getting Favre to another Superbowl. It didnt work out but I admire the love and loyalty he had for the Packers.

Or the enviable position. Gotta admit I'd rather inherit a team with Favre than a team with Sage Rosenfels. Sherman did have to manage a Favre playing with a damaged knee (2002) a broken thumb (2003) and a broken defense (2004)!Maybe but with Sage Rosenfels you arent EXPECTED to win the Superbowl.

[mraynrand]

Sherm just got a new job, if you hadn't noticed.Yes I did and good for him. I just dont understand why people want to talk bad about him after he has been gone for 2 yrs. He was put in the unenviable position of getting Favre to another Superbowl. It didnt work out but I admire the love and loyalty he had for the Packers.

Or the enviable position. Gotta admit I'd rather inherit a team with Favre than a team with Sage Rosenfels. Sherman did have to manage a Favre playing with a damaged knee (2002) a broken thumb (2003) and a broken defense (2004)!Maybe but with Sage Rosenfels you arent EXPECTED to win the Superbowl.

Point taken. With Sage, you're happy just to complete a pass.

[The Leaper]

Sherman moved up to draft Walker in his first pick as GM. Guy was a pro bowler.

Yes. I agree it was a great pick. However, can you really say Sherman had a great eye because of this pick?

Walker is a physical freak. He was big and fast, which is a good start for any potential great receiver. There wasn't any doubts from anyone that the guy had the potential to develop into a great player if he focused 100% on football. The question was his focus. Physical talent wasn't really a question with Javon.


He also got a pro bowler out of the #5 he received in the trade (Kampman).

This one is a better choice to look to if you want to claim Sherman had a good eye for talent. Kampman has sneaky good athletic ability and a tremendous motor. It was an excellent pick in the 5th round. However, Sherman made precious few other excellent picks outside of round 1. That is where the "good eye" viewpoint has a major problem. Kampman was a very late 5th rounder, I believe. He was taken in a borderline total crap-shoot area. Was it a great eye, or just luck of the draw?


He drafted Barnett at 29 and guy is probably a pro bowler - easily the best #29 pick in the history of the modern draft. He traded for Al Harris in the same year and guy is one of the best corners in the NFL over the past 4 years.

Al Harris...can't really say Sherman had an eye there. Harris was well known as a very good player on a team with a deep secondary who probably had the ability to start on a lesser defense. It was a great move on Sherman's part to assume the risk, but he was in the advantageous position of having a very late 2nd round pick that was roughly the right price to acquire Harris. It is to his credit that he made the move, but I'm not sure it can be strictly credited toward his having an eye for talent.

Barnett...probably the best example if you are looking to prove Sherman had an eye for talent. Barnett was not the general choice as the best LB in the draft...although he was considered by most to be one of the top 3. Sherman made him the first LB selected...and it was the right choice. Probably Sherman's best pick considering the need he filled and that he got a tough choice right.


These are all targeted moves that Sherman pushed for. Two pro bowlers and two pro bowl caliber starters from your first two years ever as GM is pretty good. If you can't acknowledge that he had an eye for talent picking these guys out, there's nothing more to say to you.

But what about his other failings in the top 150 picks? He missed BADLY on 10 of his 14 top 150 selections. The guys I mentioned mostly weren't even capable BACKUPS. Does a guy with a great eye for talent miss so horribly on all those picks?

Clearly, Sherman's strategy was horrible. He had 14 top 150 picks in 4 years. Thompson has had 19 top 150 picks in 3 years. Sherman threw away a TON of picks...and got a few good players to show for it, but precious little in the areas of depth and role players.

However, if you look at Thompson's 14 top 150 picks in his first 2 years (this year's picks are tough to judge at this point) how many have been failures?

I would claim that Hodge, Cory Rodgers, Blackmon, Martin, Coston and Underwood have been mostly failures to this point. That is only 6...compared to the 10 failures of Sherman. Thompson has been at least moderately successful with the rest to this point...ARod, Collins, Poppinga, Hawk, Colledge, Jennings, and Spitz. Murphy is an incomplete...the guy got hurt and we'll never know if he would've been any good or not.

In my mind, that shows why Thompson has a better eye for talent...he doesn't miss on taking guys who can at least contribute in SOME manner regardless. Sherman, to me, was a guy who was always swinging for the fences. He was Rob Deer as a GM. Sure, he hit a few homers...but he stuck out the majority of the time. I don't see how that can be translated into having an eye for talent. Sherman tended to take guys with great physical attributes...HOPING they developed into something. A few did...which is to be expected, and hardly a sign that Sherman is a brilliant talent evaluator. However, most did not.

[mraynrand]

However, if you look at Thompson's 14 top 150 picks in his first 2 years (this year's picks are tough to judge at this point) how many have been failures?
.

Thompson started off in a way different position than Sherman. 1 - He drafted at position #5 in every round last year due to record. Sherman never drafted above 20 (and that was via trade to get Walker). Thompson had 2 extra second round picks - one for McKenzie and one for Walker. That alone could easily account for the difference in their success rate - not to mention Sherman trading picks for players (a highly debatable tactic) and Thompson trading picks for more picks. Try looking at a team that drafts at the bottom for three years and look at who they pick and how they did. A while back I looked at Philly and St. Louis over a similar stretch 2002-2004, and if I remember correctly, they both had worse outcomes than Sherman. even the Colts were close to Sherman in efficiency in the draft. They hit on Freeney and I think Sanders - the difference with them is they had a few more starters - but that's to be expected from a GM who is considered among the three best in the NFL. Check out other teams is all I say - and try not to cherry pick. Again, look at teams that, like the Sherman led Packers, had to draft lower due to a good record.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Wolf was better because he had more picks. You throw enough darts you'll hit on some. That is the point. I'd be willing to guess that given any decent GM who was at their post for 8 years and had as many picks as wolf would have the same results.

If i have some time I'll look at Accorsi, Pioli, etc.

Wolf was great in the 3/4 rounds.

And if you suck, like the current Philly GM/player personnel group, your team goes down the tubes rapidly because you miss the dart board completely. Plus, Wolf was old school. He mixed it up pretty well, with trades, FA and draft. To be fair to all the Packer GMs and player personnel guys, really one trade has meant success for 16 years. Why do the Packers have the best record over the past 16 years in the NFL?

I'm not in complete agreement on Philly. Along with Pitt i've never seen a team let so many players leave and yet still be a strong team.

Reid has all the control in that org. For the most part they have had small drafts and been as good as anybody else, but they are in that same Favre like window for McNabb. Hence signing TO.

And, I have no idea how Reid's family issues are affecting his ability to coach or draft players. No matter what anyone says, thats gotta affect him. And, if it isn't..then he and the family should split up.

The difference tween now and back when wolf was GM was that good/great FAs were available. There is no chance a Reggie become available now.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

After writing all that, in your sum up you essentially agree with me. Yawn.

You said you didn't understand why I could think Sherman had a poor eye. I explained it. Sherman wasn't a complete failure (see Matt Millen) but he certainly wasn't any good either. He was bailed out by the guys Ron Wolf left him...Favre, Green, the OL.

Sherman had NOTHING to do with aquiring those guys. I will give him credit for DEVELOPING some of those OL guys. Sherman did a damn good job there. However, that doesn't mean he had an eye for talent. I know I've mentioned elsewhere that I don't view Sherman as a total disaster as GM. He did make a few great moves. However, he made far more horrible moves. Someone with a good eye for talent doesn't screw up that much. I'm saying he was more LUCKY than good. Is that what you were saying?

I guess we don't agree. Sherman moved up to draft Walker in his first pick as GM. Guy was a pro bowler. He also got a pro bowler out of the #5 he received in the trade (Kampman). He drafted Barnett at 29 and guy is probably a pro bowler - easily the best #29 pick in the history of the modern draft. He traded for Al Harris in the same year and guy is one of the best corners in the NFL over the past 4 years. These are all targeted moves that Sherman pushed for. Two pro bowlers and two pro bowl caliber starters from your first two years ever as GM is pretty good. If you can't acknowledge that he had an eye for talent picking these guys out, there's nothing more to say to you.

Your points about wasting picks and making bad decisions are valid too - over his three year run he was probably average to below average among NFL GMs, with most GMs averaging about a 40% success rate with draft picks starting for them - and of course he has some other celebrated f-ups. But those things have nothing to do with his eye for talent. Have you ever gone through drafts of multiple teams and then compared the draft to their rosters over the following several years? Even the great GMs have marginal drafts where they get just one or two guys. and don't just look at good teams. look at all the crappy teams too. I've looked through that stuff. If you look through it, You'll see that Sherman compares pretty favorably with a lot of teams. most teams that make a SB run have one or two outstanding draft years together, mixed in with some pretty down years. And very good teams very often have really thin drafts because they pick at the bottom of every round.

Rand gets it. Parcells only hoped to get a third of his picks on the roster. And, it gets harder as you get a better team.

That is why it furher compounds the problem by having less picks. You have 6 picks..that is like 2 players making the squad.

#29: I don't know when the modern era begins, but I would put Derrick Alexander up against barnett. And, i'm surprised that you dont' feel the same about Pickett. Marlin Jackson is doing pretty well as well. Don't forget Nick Mangold.

I don't think it is as a clear cut case as you think.

[The Leaper]

Thompson started off in a way different position than Sherman.

Not really. Thompson had the 26th selection his first year. Take away the Hawk selection at #5 overall, and he's not picking any differently than where Sherman was with the rest of the other picks. Sherman also was awarded some free picks during his tenure received via trade (McKenzie, etc.)

I was comparing the top 150 selections...Sherman had 14 in 4 years and missed convincingly on 10 of them. Thompson had 14 in his first 2 years (which alone goes to show the difference in their philosophy). Take away the Murphy pick as a wash, and he missed convincingly on 6 of 13.

10 of 14 failures

vs.

6 of 13 failures

Thompson clearly has a much better track record...and if you go back to his days in Seattle, it becomes even more apparent how Thompson is a far better college talent evaluator than Sherman was.

Sitting here and trying to say Sherman wasn't that bad as a GM just seems illogical to me. He had a few great moves that merely MAINTAINED the level of the team's play...but he had far more duds and absolutely destroyed the depth on the roster in just 4 years that it took Ron Wolf a decade to build.

[The Leaper]

Rand gets it. Parcells only hoped to get a third of his picks on the roster. And, it gets harder as you get a better team.

I strongly disagree.

Each team gets 7-9 picks a year, including compensatory selections. If only 2-3 guys are just MAKING your roster every year, your team is failing big time. There are 50 guys on a roster...and the average NFL career span is roughly 5-6 years.

With that in mind, you are turning over 8-10 spots a year on average...so you will need probably closer to 2/3 of your picks to make the roster on average unless you are going to be a major player in free agency every year.

You actually need 1/3 of your picks to become STARTERS (24 starting positions with special teams). Starters will have a longer career span than non-starters on average, let's say 8 years. That means you are going to turn over around 3 of those spots every year on average.

In Sherman's case, he seemed to meet the need for starters to an extent, barely. I don't even think he managed to bring in 3 starters a year on average. Maybe he didn't need too...I don't have time to evaluate that right now. Where he really failed was in bringing in enough role talent to support the starting cast, which is why the team tanked in 2004 when injuries mounted.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Rand gets it. Parcells only hoped to get a third of his picks on the roster. And, it gets harder as you get a better team.

I strongly disagree.

Each team gets 7-9 picks a year, including compensatory selections. If only 2-3 guys are just MAKING your roster every year, your team is failing big time. There are 50 guys on a roster...and the average NFL career span is roughly 5-6 years.

With that in mind, you are turning over 8-10 spots a year on average...so you will need probably closer to 2/3 of your picks to make the roster on average unless you are going to be a major player in free agency every year.

You actually need 1/3 of your picks to become STARTERS (24 starting positions with special teams). Starters will have a longer career span than non-starters on average, let's say 8 years. That means you are going to turn over around 3 of those spots every year on average.

In Sherman's case, he seemed to meet the need for starters to an extent, barely. I don't even think he managed to bring in 3 starters a year on average. Maybe he didn't need too...I don't have time to evaluate that right now. Where he really failed was in bringing in enough role talent to support the starting cast, which is why the team tanked in 2004 when injuries mounted.

You are an idiot. You are disagreeing with Parcells? Ok. :roll:

We are talking draft. There is also free agents, undrafted players, practice squad, etc.

I'm not even going to touch your math because it is so freakin faulty. You can't do stats like that. Ok, let's just pull 8 years..well, because you feel like it. LOL

It is ludicrous how you make things up. Starters and draft. Ok. Let's take a look at the Pats...um, 2 starters total that are 4 years or under. 3 if you include the kicker.

Cowboys: 4 starters under 4 years experience.

Panthers: 4

Rams: 5

Fins: 6

Do i need to go on?

[The Leaper]

You are an idiot. You are disagreeing with Parcells? Ok. :roll:

For all I know, someone misquoted Parcells. Is he on here posting? I haven't seen shit on here pertaining to a direct quote from Parcells. Until I do, you have no room to talk about where Parcells really does stand. Did he really mean only 1/3 of his draft picks needed to make the roster? Where's the direct quote and source of this information?


We are talking draft. There is also free agents, undrafted players, practice squad, etc.

Of course we are. Few undrafted players make final NFL rosters though. Free agency is mostly a zero sum game...you are going to lose as many as you pick up over time. Granted, at any one time, free agency could impact heavily one way or another.


I'm not even going to touch your math because it is so freakin faulty. You can't do stats like that. Ok, let's just pull 8 years..well, because you feel like it. LOL

What's faulty about it? I will admit that these were all assumptions, but they seemed reasonable to me. Why are they unreasonable to you? Because you looked at 4 teams that you knew had a lot of veterans and ignored the younger teams in the league?


It is ludicrous how you make things up. Starters and draft. Ok. Let's take a look at the Pats...um, 2 starters total that are 4 years or under. 3 if you include the kicker.

The Pats are ONE TEAM...and a veteran one. The other teams you mention are also veteran teams. Why did you not mention a young team like Green Bay? You can't take one team and extrapolate that to your advantage. The Packers probably have over 20 guys on the roster with 4 years experience or less. This is about averages. I never said it is a hard fast rule at all times. Some teams might be younger and not need as many picks to pan out...other may be older and will need more to pan out.


Do i need to go on?

Yes, you do. You can't take 4 teams that are specifically tilted to your side of the argument and then declare that you are right and the discussion is over. Naming 4 veteran laden teams as your evidence that the league average is apparently only 4 or 5 guys a team under 4 years of experience is hardly proving your point.

Nice try...but some people are here are a little smarter than your friends who you can easily bully with shoddy rhetoric.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You are an idiot. You are disagreeing with Parcells? Ok. :roll:

For all I know, someone misquoted Parcells. Is he on here posting? I haven't seen shit on here pertaining to a direct quote from Parcells. Until I do, you have no room to talk about where Parcells really does stand.


We are talking draft. There is also free agents, undrafted players, practice squad, etc.

Of course we are. Few undrafted players make final NFL rosters though. Free agency is mostly a zero sum game...you are going to lose as many as you pick up over time. Granted, at any one time, free agency could impact heavily one way or another.


I'm not even going to touch your math because it is so freakin faulty. You can't do stats like that. Ok, let's just pull 8 years..well, because you feel like it. LOL

What's faulty about it? I will admit that these were all assumptions, but they seemed reasonable to me. Why are they unreasonable to you? Because you looked at 4 teams that you knew had a lot of veterans and ignored the younger teams in the league?


It is ludicrous how you make things up. Starters and draft. Ok. Let's take a look at the Pats...um, 2 starters total that are 4 years or under. 3 if you include the kicker.

The Pats are ONE TEAM...and a veteran one. The other teams you mention are also veteran teams. Why did you not mention a young team like Green Bay? You can't take one team and extrapolate that to your advantage. The Packers probably have over 20 guys on the roster with 4 years experience or less. This is about averages. I never said it is a hard fast rule at all times. Some teams might be younger and not need as many picks to pan out...other may be older and will need more to pan out.


Do i need to go on?

Yes, you do. You can't take 4 teams that are specifically tilted to your side of the argument and then declare that you are right and the discussion is over. Naming 4 veteran laden teams as your evidence that the league average is apparently only 4 or 5 guys a team under 4 years of experience is hardly proving your point.

Nice try...but some people are here are a little smarter than your friends who you can easily bully with shoddy rhetoric.

Man, you are grasping.I just randomly picked 2 decent teams and 2 teams that sucked. Do you really think I know the average age of teams. I just went to espn and looked at the depth charts.

I didn't pick the two super bowl teams because I figured they would be outta whack.

Green bay...sure, let's take the youngest team. LOL

Your constant attention to my posts and discussions with others is fascinating. I love the attention..your mancrush on me is getting ridiculous.

[The Leaper]

Man, you are grasping.I just randomly picked 2 decent teams and 2 teams that sucked. Do you really think I know the average age of teams. I just went to espn and looked at the depth charts.

Well, you can't randomly pick out 4 team out of 32 and expect that to be statistical evidence to support your own theory.

I'm not suggesting Green Bay is normal. I suggested that Green Bay stands in direct opposition to your examples of teams with low numbers of inexperienced players...and that you likely should expand your horizon before claiming that I'm off my rocker with my assumptions.

If 5 years isn't a logical guess for the length of the average NFL player's career, what is?

If 8 years isn't a logical guess for the length of the average NFL starter's career, what is?

It can't be all that far from those numbers, although I never said this was some kind of result from a year of research on the topic. It was taken off the top of my head as a guess...and I clearly noted as such.

[The Leaper]

http://www.nflpa.org/Faqs/NFL_HopefulsFaq.aspx

How long do most NFL careers last?
The average length of an NFL career is about 3 and a half seasons. Although there are some exceptional players who have long careers that extend 10 or twelve seasons and beyond, most players only stay active for about three seasons. Players leave the game because of injury, self-induced retirement, or being cut by the team. This also means that while players may make more money than most people, they are only making it for an average of three and a half years. To make sure they are successful in the future, players must invest their money well and make plans for another career when they can no longer play football.

- - -

From the NFLPA website...the average NFL career is only 3.5 seasons. So, my estimate is actually TOO HIGH...meaning that teams would have to replace players even more often than I suggested. For a 50 man roster, you will turn over 14 guys a year ON AVERAGE if the average career span is 3.5 years. Clearly, that won't be true every year based on each team's individual roster breakdown and talent level...but ON AVERAGE, that will be what you need to replace.

Still want to claim that getting 1/3 of your draft picks on the final roster is gonna cut it?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

http://www.nflpa.org/Faqs/NFL_HopefulsFaq.aspx

How long do most NFL careers last?
The average length of an NFL career is about 3 and a half seasons. Although there are some exceptional players who have long careers that extend 10 or twelve seasons and beyond, most players only stay active for about three seasons. Players leave the game because of injury, self-induced retirement, or being cut by the team. This also means that while players may make more money than most people, they are only making it for an average of three and a half years. To make sure they are successful in the future, players must invest their money well and make plans for another career when they can no longer play football.

- - -

From the NFLPA website...the average NFL career is only 3.5 seasons. So, my estimate is actually TOO HIGH...meaning that teams would have to replace players even more often that I suggested.

Still want to claim that getting 1/3 of your draft picks on the final roster is gonna cut it?

Everyone with a brain knows the average career is less than 4 years. However, you are obviously not familiar with the terms: mean, median, and mode.

In order for you to present any sort of argument you would have to determine it by position, by starter, etc. For example, offensive linemen have a much longer life than running backs. Using a average is just dumb.

You are so stupid that it pains me. For example, if I have a player that plays one game and then never plays again that counts. There are tons of guys who get a cup of coffee in the NFL.

[The Leaper]

Everyone with a brain knows the average career is less than 4 years. However, you are obviously not familiar with the terms: mean, median, and mode.

In order for you to present any sort of argument you would have to determine it by position, by starter, etc. For example, offensive linemen have a much longer life than running backs. Using a average is just dumb.

You are so stupid that it pains me. For example, if I have a player that plays one game and then never plays again that counts. There are tons of guys who get a cup of coffee in the NFL.

That is precisely why my estimate was a conservative 5 years, dumbass. But thanks for proving my point for me.

The bottom line FACT is that turnover in the NFL requires far more than 3 draft picks making the final roster every year for success. Anyone who isn't a dumbass can clearly see that.

[MJZiggy]

Everyone with a brain knows the average career is less than 4 years. However, you are obviously not familiar with the terms: mean, median, and mode.

In order for you to present any sort of argument you would have to determine it by position, by starter, etc. For example, offensive linemen have a much longer life than running backs. Using a average is just dumb.

You are so stupid that it pains me. For example, if I have a player that plays one game and then never plays again that counts. There are tons of guys who get a cup of coffee in the NFL.

That's a little harsh, don't you think? Read your post again as if someone were saying it to you. And I know plenty of people with very high-functioning brains who would have no idea of the average NFL career. It is possible to make your point and still respect your fellow poster, or are you just trying to be a cyberbully like Mad said. I'm starting to think he has a VERY valid point.

[mraynrand]

Thompson started off in a way different position than Sherman.

Not really. Thompson had the 26th selection his first year. Take away the Hawk selection at #5 overall, and he's not picking any differently than where Sherman was with the rest of the other picks. Sherman also was awarded some free picks during his tenure received via trade (McKenzie, etc.)


Are you really that (edit: misguided) to think that a #5 pick, isn't a huge deal? That TWO extra round two picks aren't a big deal (TT got both the #2s from the McKenzie and Walker trades). Plus, if you think so highly of Parcells, how come he did significantly worse as a GM when he was in Dallas compared to Sherman in GB? (edit: It wasn't you that brought up Parcells - but he was barely .500 in four years at Dallas and he's supposed to be the guru).

[The Leaper]

Are you really that stupid to think that a #5 pick, isn't a huge deal? That TWO extra round two picks aren't a big deal (TT got both the #2s from the McKenzie and Walker trades). Plus, if you think so highly of Parcells, how come he did significantly worse as a GM when he was in Dallas compared to Sherman in GB?

No...the #5 pick IS a huge deal. I'm not saying that it isn't. I just am pointing out that if you take that pick out of the equation, Thompson was picking in the same general spots as Sherman did.

Again...Thompson's first year = 26th position. How is that different from Sherman AT ALL?

Thompson's second year = 5th position. Take away the Hawk pick, and he is selecting very early in each round the rest of the way...not much different than picking in the late first and thereafter.

I agree, Thompson had a huge advantage with Hawk in terms of getting a player certain to succeed...but everything else pick-wise was very similar. He did gain 2nd round picks in the Walker/McKenzie trades as well...but he still had to make the pick successful, did he not? Just because he had the pick was no guarantee the player taken would succeed.

I have nothing to do with the Parcells quote. That is all Bigguns.

[The Leaper]

That's a little harsh, don't you think? Read your post again as if someone were saying it to you. And I know plenty of people with very high-functioning brains who would have no idea of the average NFL career. It is possible to make your point and still respect your fellow poster, or are you just trying to be a cyberbully like Mad said. I'm starting to think he has a VERY valid point.

This is Bigguns only defense. When he knows he is wrong, he demands that his foil produce a doctoral thesis on the topic at hand or he dismisses their notions as speculation and hodge-podge...regardless of whether or not they make sense.

In this case, he pulled some nonsense about Parcells out of his ass...didn't document where he got it, just tossed it out there as if it validated his opinion.

Clearly, the comment as he stated it is incorrect. Parcells would never say that a 33% success rate at getting drafted players on your roster is optimal. It likely was in reference to drafted players becoming STARTERS, not simply making the roster.

However, Bigguns won't wise up to his error...nor will he admit that other people are correct in calling him out on it, unless they provide a doctoral thesis otherwise.

[mraynrand]

Are you really that stupid to think that a #5 pick, isn't a huge deal? That TWO extra round two picks aren't a big deal (TT got both the #2s from the McKenzie and Walker trades). Plus, if you think so highly of Parcells, how come he did significantly worse as a GM when he was in Dallas compared to Sherman in GB?

No...the #5 pick IS a huge deal. I'm not saying that it isn't. I just am pointing out that if you take that pick out of the equation, Thompson was picking in the same general spots as Sherman did.

Again...Thompson's first year = 26th position. How is that different from Sherman AT ALL?

Thompson's second year = 5th position. Take away the Hawk pick, and he is selecting very early in each round the rest of the way...not much different than picking in the late first and thereafter.

I agree, Thompson had a huge advantage with Hawk in terms of getting a player certain to succeed...but everything else pick-wise was very similar. He did gain 2nd round picks in the Walker/McKenzie trades as well...but he still had to make the pick successful, did he not? Just because he had the pick was no guarantee the player taken would succeed.

I have nothing to do with the Parcells quote. That is all Bigguns.

yes the picks have to work out. But you have to have them to make them. a #5 pick and two extra second rounders gives TT a huge advantage over Sherman in his first three years as GM. And I hope TT has a better success rate with his picks - long term. He seems even to be getting better at the FA thing - Pickett compares favorably with Gravy Jackson, for example - might even be better long term.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Everyone with a brain knows the average career is less than 4 years. However, you are obviously not familiar with the terms: mean, median, and mode.

In order for you to present any sort of argument you would have to determine it by position, by starter, etc. For example, offensive linemen have a much longer life than running backs. Using a average is just dumb.

You are so stupid that it pains me. For example, if I have a player that plays one game and then never plays again that counts. There are tons of guys who get a cup of coffee in the NFL.

That's a little harsh, don't you think? Read your post again as if someone were saying it to you. And I know plenty of people with very high-functioning brains who would have no idea of the average NFL career. It is possible to make your point and still respect your fellow poster, or are you just trying to be a cyberbully like Mad said. I'm starting to think he has a VERY valid point.

I hear your point. However, I dont' think you would have gone round and round with me and acted like he has before i said that.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That's a little harsh, don't you think? Read your post again as if someone were saying it to you. And I know plenty of people with very high-functioning brains who would have no idea of the average NFL career. It is possible to make your point and still respect your fellow poster, or are you just trying to be a cyberbully like Mad said. I'm starting to think he has a VERY valid point.

This is Bigguns only defense. When he knows he is wrong, he demands that his foil produce a doctoral thesis on the topic at hand or he dismisses their notions as speculation and hodge-podge...regardless of whether or not they make sense.

In this case, he pulled some nonsense about Parcells out of his ass...didn't document where he got it, just tossed it out there as if it validated his opinion.

Clearly, the comment as he stated it is incorrect. Parcells would never say that a 33% success rate at getting drafted players on your roster is optimal. It likely was in reference to drafted players becoming STARTERS, not simply making the roster.

However, Bigguns won't wise up to his error...nor will he admit that other people are correct in calling him out on it, unless they provide a doctoral thesis otherwise.

I don't require anything of the sort. I require that you present some sort of facts that backup your assertations. Which you rarely do. And, if you do, don't understand basic stats.

Asking you for a doctoral thesis would really be pushing it.

You make all sorts of speculation.

Parcells: If i could find it i would. But, I wouldn't say something like an idiot and say he never said it. Maybe it was in reference to starters. I could see that being said.

Therefore i will no cease and say that you are right that 1/3 of draftees need to become starters.

Therefore you should be happy and you can now retract statements that i never admit wrongheadness.

[The Leaper]

I don't require anything of the sort. I require that you present some sort of facts that backup your assertations. Which you rarely do. And, if you do, don't understand basic stats.

I offered a simple hypothesis. I clearly acknowledged it was a complete assumption on my part...but I tried to make it logical based on what seems reasonable.

You offer no evidence to say that my reasonable assumption was incorrect...so I will stand by my assumption and hypothesis as being 100% correct until you do.

Having 1/3 of your draft picks make the roster is not going to cut it in the NFL. Hell, Matt Millen probably is batting that well.

[Merlin]

You also cannot blame the past two seasons on Sherman because he wasn't the guy bringing in the personell, Thompson was. You also have some serious bias issues going on here. GMs make mistakes but Sherman gets crucified and Thompson gets a pass? Why? Because Thompson is barely over .500 in three years as the Packers GM? Because we are 10-1? Why does he get a pass? Why does he get a pass on Justin Harrell? Why does he get a pass on Marquand Manual? Adrian Klemm? O'Dwyer? Why? How about Desawn Wynn? Brandon Jackson? Coston? Colledge? Spitz?

Two years ago, Thompson's team was playing with mostly Sherman personnel, but that's a little beside the point. The only thing I really blame Sherman for was trading up to get a punter and then keeping him inactive on the roster when he didn't perform well. That is not good GM work no matter what else he did and he did do some good things, bringing in some great players (who, coincidentally all by now have had time to develop to their potential). Why does Thompson get a pass? Here's why. He took over a team that went 4-12 his first year here. In his second year, they went 8-8 with a lot of rookies he brought in. Not contending but an improvement which is what you look for year to year. They almost made the playoffs even with that record. This year they're 10-1 and on a tear, possibly looking at a first-round bye in the playoffs. Even if (god forbid) they lose out the rest of the season--and I don't see that happening, do you? It would still be an improvement over last season. That's what you look for--improvement, right?

He gets a pass on Harrel because it's just too soon to tell. Let him have time to develop like all of Sherman's guys have had and then judge him. He gets a pass on Manual because he brought in someone he thought would be good and when someone else proved better, he didn't hang on to him to feed his own ego. Manual didn't perform=Manual is gone. Same with Klemm and O'Dwyer. They didn't perform to expectations. Are they still here? DeShawn Wynn was a 7th round pick. He's made some contributions but how many 7th rounders don't even make their teams much less get a chance to play? Brandon Jackson may still turn into something. I'm not giving up on him, but I know if he doesn't perform as well as other RB's, he will be gone. Coston, Colledge, Spitz? As far as I can tell, the line is doing what they did last year without as much max protect. Last I checked, Favre's jersey is staying pretty clean. Colledge I'm still not thrilled with this season, though he seems to be doing better after having a "chat" with his coach (you know, the really good coach that our GM found for us).

There are high expectations around this team. It is a talented bunch. They are a GOOD TEAM, balanced and face it, do you REALLY think they're going to lose many more games this season? Collins gets injured, Rouse steps in. Woodson left the Detroit game and we still won. Are they perfect? no, yet we found out last night that not even NE is perfect though like them we're still winning the games even when imperfect. Why do you have such a hard time admitting that the man has assemble a VERY GOOD football team?


So we need to see how Thompson's picks work out before we can crown him a genius huh? That is the standard you applied to Sherman right? Well since you are dismissing his first year and excusing our guards for their poor play for 2 years (really 3 but you dismissed that year), our poor running game for 2 years, and then asking me why I can't get on board, why then are you on board? Your benchmarks for Sherman haven't even been met by Thompson. They are your benchmarks after all but you aren't applying them equally. 10-1 is no excuse to change how you grade a good GM. Sherman never had a losing season as a GM, but I am sure that was all to the inherited talent he got from Wolf and Thompson's 4-12 was due to Sherman's talent. That is what you said right?

Contrary to popular and misguided belief, I am not on the fire Ted Thompson band wagon. I will admit after 4-12 and his lethargic approach to helping this team with real players, I wanted him gone. I did retract that and say that he needs more time. However the Justin Harrell pick can easily be compared to the BJ Sanders pick. It was wrong for Sherman to trade up for him and then keep him on the roster. It was wrong of Thompson to take Harrell in the first round and keep him on the roster. For all intents and purposes, they have equal playing time on an NFL team in their first season. But you view those differently. I don't. Apples to Apples.

[The Leaper]

However the Justin Harrell pick can easily be compared to the BJ Sanders pick.

Not really.

Taking a punter in the 3rd round is a stretch even if the guy pans out. Punters simply don't provide that much impact. Having a great one is a luxury, not a necessity.

Taking a guy who could potentially be a dominant DT is almost a no-brainer whenever you have the chance.

That...and the fact that Harrell still has plenty of time left to contribute to the organization. He could turn out to be a Pro Bowler...or a dud...or anywhere inbetween.

Too early to start comparing Sanders to Harrell. Few DTs make an immediate impact in the NFL.

[packrat]

Keep it up Merlin. You repeated criticism of TT is the key to the Pack's continued success. A couple more posts like this, and a win over Dallas is assured. Thank you!

[MJZiggy]

(Actually I crown him a genius because this team is performing at a Super Bowl capable level at least 2-3 years before everyone on the planet thought they could. I'm curious as to how our guards can possibly have been playing poorly for 2 o 3 years, when they're only in their second year. Given the fact that they can possibly clinch a playoff berth by week 12, I can't really see why you're not on board, actually. When's the last time we clinched in week 12 (I'm not looking it up but I bet it's been longer than you're guessing).

I don't think you're hearing me. My benchmarks are IMPROVEMENT in their performance and record across the team (not just at RB, but it does seem that TT's found us a gem, now doesn't it). Remind me when the team's performance and record IMPROVED from year to year under Sherman's tenure at GM...

And I didn't blame 4-12 on anyone like you seem determined to do. Injuries were too much of a factor that year to say it was the fault of the GM. However they broke even the following year so, oh look! They IMPROVED!!

If you think BJ Sanders is comparable to taking a D-lineman that other teams (Denver) were interested in then I'll really have to start to worry. Sherman traded UP and gave up picks to draft Sanders. Sanders had little potential and showed it in his performance even given time to develop. At least Harrell has potential and showed flashes in the preseason. Also, how bright was it to keep 2 punters on the team? It's said you can never have too many big d-lineman and that is being proven this week. Harrell will get playing time in Dallas. Let's at least see what he does with it. Even if Harrell turns out to be a mistake, it is not the same mistake as Sanders.

[MOBB DEEP]

SHERM-HEAD IS TERRIBLE IMHO...