Thank you mike Sherman

[red]

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

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

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

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

Red,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anti-Polar Bear]

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

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

[woodbuck27]

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

Red,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retailguy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[falco]

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

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

[RashanGary]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

Joe Johnson illustrates this perfectly. Shermans biggest need initially was a pass rush end, and he preferred to bring in an established veteran. Why? No need to develop. He needed it NOW. Also, he had no receivers. Insert Terry Glenn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[woodbuck27]

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

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

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

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

2000: 9-7

2001: 12-4, playoff berth

2002: 12-4, NFC North Champions

2003: 10-6, NFC North Champions

2004: 10-6, NFC North Champions

Also :

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

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

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

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

- 8-0 at Lambeau Field in 2002

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

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

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

[RashanGary]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

I believe losing Walker was huge and at least as significant as the OLine play.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[swede]

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

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

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

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

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

[woodbuck27]

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

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

[retailguy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PBMAX,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[retailguy]

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

Nick,

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

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

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

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

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

[red]

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

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

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

jesus christ

[The Leaper]

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

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