Thank you mike Sherman

[pbmax]

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.

I think we agree on all but the conclusion. By choosing the riskier path, he wasn't doomed to fail. But I believe he did fail. Not Kotite failure, but slowly sliding down the hill. And he failed because many of his reasonable decisions failed to pan out.

Sherman had the same backing as Thompson does, and Thompson managed to choose BPA and value over needs. Even if Thompson doesn't prove to be the answer, he is evidence that another choice could have been made.

And decisions such as low tendering KGB and Diggs, among a few others, weren't a result of a needs assessment. He tried to save some cap room because he was up against it every year. And that short term thinking burned him in two different offseasons.

I think Sherman was done in by the short term of his plan as well as his miscalls in drafting for need.

[retailguy]

And he failed because many of his reasonable decisions failed to pan out.

I think Sherman was done in by the short term of his plan as well as his miscalls in drafting for need.

I'm not even sure we disagree about the conclusion. The odds didn't "doom him" but he wasn't likely to "beat the odds" and he didn't. Sherman had NO LUCK whatsoever.

His "short term plan" needed no injuries to be successful and he didn't get that. His miscalls in drafting for need closed his window a little sooner than it would have, but his window closed in 2003, I think. The "outside shot" they had in 2004 wasn't nearly as competitive.

As far as "reasonable decisions" I think a case could be made that only a few more needed to pan out. Sherman definitely didn't have much "luck". I wonder what the odds are of having Reynolds, Johnson, Hunt, Peterson, Lee, Williams, Truluck, and the others I can't remember ALL fail to generate a pass rush? How could ONE of them not generate a pass rush? It really boggles the mind.

[pbmax]

As far as "reasonable decisions" I think a case could be made that only a few more needed to pan out. Sherman definitely didn't have much "luck". I wonder what the odds are of having Reynolds, Johnson, Hunt, Peterson, Lee, Williams, Truluck, and the others I can't remember ALL fail to generate a pass rush? How could ONE of them not generate a pass rush? It really boggles the mind.

I can almost see that outcome, as a pass rush is one of the hardest things to draft and develop. What kills me is that what little O-Line depth we had left and wasn' replaced. Esp at guard, you should be able to find something mid to late round. Same at LB, its not hard to find later round picks turn into something, even if they aren't the ferocious pass rush types.

[esoxx]

It's illogical to defend Sherman's tenure as GM. He was way less then below average. He was reckless in the draft, way off target in FA and blind to the salary cap. Pretty much the hat trick in my book.

[falco]

i'm not sure a minor in economics makes you an expert...

[RashanGary]

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....

If you read the whole paper like I so pain stakingly did, you'd realize that that whole thing applies to the entire draft. They explained how the trade calculator teams use to determine value is very onesided to the team that is willing to move down. According to Thaler and Masseys research, Sherman gave up too much value to continuously move up. On the flip side, Thompson gets more value on the chart to move down and the chart is already one sided. Thompson is getting a steal. I thought it was pretty easy deduction but of course you will stand by your premise that Sherman just had a bunch of bad luck. We'll just agree to disagree on this one. Sherman will never have another GM job so I guess 32 teams agree with me.

[RashanGary]

Oh yeah, it also explained how paying too much for good players hurts your team. Sherman did that consistantly. Oh yeah, that was bad luck too. Oops. He should have a job next season then. I'm sure this million dollar industry knows enough to recognize a good GM. Sherman got his chance to prove himself.

Again, we'll agree to disagree. But I know what your saying that you understand his actions. I understand what he was trying to do. I just think the fact that he was that desperate in a job that depseration often begets error accroding to TT shows he was in over his head. It's an educated thought based on research but anyone can think anything about it so I'll never PROVE anything to you. If youw ant to beleive he was a good GM who just had bad luck, well that is on you. Unfortunately the evedince weights strong against you and the biggest piece of evidence is the fact that he'll never have another job in a front office.

[retailguy]

i'm not sure a minor in economics makes you an expert...

Wasn't claiming to be an expert. Was claiming to have an understanding of economics and was willing to debate. Hope that clears it up for you.

[retailguy]

Oh yeah, it also explained how paying too much for good players hurts your team. Sherman did that consistantly. Oh yeah, that was bad luck too. Oops. He should have a job next season then. I'm sure this million dollar industry knows enough to recognize a good GM. Sherman got his chance to prove himself.

Again, we'll agree to disagree. But I know what your saying that you understand his actions. I understand what he was trying to do. I just think the fact that he was that desperate in a job that depseration often begets error accroding to TT shows he was in over his head. It's an educated thought based on research but anyone can think anything about it so I'll never PROVE anything to you. If youw ant to beleive he was a good GM who just had bad luck, well that is on you. Unfortunately the evedince weights strong against you and the biggest piece of evidence is the fact that he'll never have another job in a front office.

Please point out where I said he was a "good" gm. In fact, I think I said the opposite in several places.

You can "agree to disagree" whenever you like, just quit putting words in my mounth. I also believe that I used the words "inexperienced" and "over his head" in my analysis of Sherman.

Perhaps you should devote the same level of care to reading what I wrote to reading what Massey & what's his name wrote... You still can't make those inferences directly to Sherman or Thompson, but whatever, Nick. You stand alone on whatever battlefield you want....

[retailguy]

I can almost see that outcome, as a pass rush is one of the hardest things to draft and develop. What kills me is that what little O-Line depth we had left and wasn' replaced. Esp at guard, you should be able to find something mid to late round. Same at LB, its not hard to find later round picks turn into something, even if they aren't the ferocious pass rush types.

Well, yes, I'd have to say that Sherman either considered Ruegamer and Bedell??(can't remember his name) as adequate guards, or he didn't have any.

I guess keeping Wahle would have eliminated one issue, but ruegamer was not a solution for the other. Also, the cap ramifications of keeping Wahle would not have been pretty, although it could have been done. I have claimed repeatedly that keeping Wahle was not the right decision. After the decision to pay Tauscher and Clifton, more money for the line would have had serious cap problems.

Again, there can be a school of thought that says Sherman had "planned" to be rebuilding by the end of 2004.... but when you trade 20 picks in three years to move up almost exclusively, then you can't restock through the draft, I'd guess he'd have had to get them either as undrafted free agents, or more likely as free agents. From my perspective that is not a way to get a guard.

'Course you could craft an offer sheet with a poison pill and get Steve Hutchinson, but barring that, I'd guess you're screwed, which is kind of where we were last year. Blaming that on Sherman is a stretch perhaps, but blaming that on Thompson is almost the same thing. End of the line, Sherman probably gets the blame for no plan, and Thompson gets the blame for bringing in two duds....

Guess we'll see if "plan B" works any better.

[RashanGary]

RetailguyPlease point out where I said he was a "good" gm. In fact, I think I said the opposite in several places.

Retailguy; Page 5, Post 1If 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.


My responseYou clearly imply here that a few chance happenings led to Sherman’s decline. Fans pick on his ability and consider what he did to be mistakes where you believe it was a string of bad luck. Do you think maybe a qualified GM would have experience with the desperation and panic that are involved on draft day and during the off season. Apparently not in your book. This is why we have to agree to disagree. You think that desperation was OK to have while running a draft/offseason and many others believe that is horrible and hurts the team, reference Thaler and Massey here. Again, you have to read it first.





RetailguyYou can "agree to disagree" whenever you like, just quit putting words in my mounth. I also believe that I used the words "inexperienced" and "over his head" in my analysis of Sherman.

Retailguy; Page 5, Post 1It 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.

My responseWhat part of fans don’t put puzzle pieces together and pick on his ability doesn’t translate to you defending his choices? Now that you’re back tracking from your original stand, you seem much more accepting that Sherman was in over his head and underqualified. Here on Page 5, Post 1 you clearly state “It defies logic that he could have ascended to the top position in the NFL hierarchy and not be qualified” Now you’re saying he was “in over his head” Apparently we’re not agreeing to disagree anymore because you made a complete flip-flop.






RetailguyPerhaps you should devote the same level of care to reading what I wrote to reading what Massey & what's his name wrote... You still can't make those inferences directly to Sherman or Thompson, but whatever, Nick. You stand alone on whatever battlefield you want...

My response Well, since you've backed off your original statements, it appears I do stand alone and victorious.

[retailguy]

RetailguyPlease point out where I said he was a "good" gm. In fact, I think I said the opposite in several places.

Retailguy; Page 5, Post 1If 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.


My responseYou clearly imply here that a few chance happenings led to Sherman’s decline. Fans pick on his ability and consider what he did to be mistakes where you believe it was a string of bad luck. Do you think maybe a qualified GM would have experience with the desperation and panic that are involved on draft day and during the off season. Apparently not in your book. This is why we have to agree to disagree. You think that desperation was OK to have while running a draft/offseason and many others believe that is horrible and hurts the team, reference Thaler and Massey here. Again, you have to read it first.





RetailguyYou can "agree to disagree" whenever you like, just quit putting words in my mounth. I also believe that I used the words "inexperienced" and "over his head" in my analysis of Sherman.

Retailguy; Page 5, Post 1It 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.

My responseWhat part of fans don’t put puzzle pieces together and pick on his ability doesn’t translate to you defending his choices? Now that you’re back tracking from your original stand, you seem much more accepting that Sherman was in over his head and underqualified. Here on Page 5, Post 1 you clearly state “It defies logic that he could have ascended to the top position in the NFL hierarchy and not be qualified” Now you’re saying he was “in over his head” Apparently we’re not agreeing to disagree anymore because you made a complete flip-flop.






RetailguyPerhaps you should devote the same level of care to reading what I wrote to reading what Massey & what's his name wrote... You still can't make those inferences directly to Sherman or Thompson, but whatever, Nick. You stand alone on whatever battlefield you want...

My response I rest my case.

Dude, you kill me... Do you think you might just have taken those things a tad out of context? I don't see the word "good" anywhere. Also, there is a great deal of Sherman bashing going on here, and everywhere. few people are looking at the "reasons" Sherman made the moves he did. Making poor decisions under pressure doesn't make you "unqualified". Being "qualified" doesn't mean you did a "good" job. I took offense to the claims that Sherman never deserved a chance to hold the position he got. I still do.

Good thing you aren't a lawyer Nick. Very good thing. Even your "circumstantial" evidence wouldn't draw a picture.

this is very funny.

[RashanGary]

Whatever....YOu don't quit...

Like I said, we just have to agree to disagree because you're still fighting about how Sherman was qualified and prepared to be an effective GM. Not the case IMO. So our opinoins differ. At no point will either of us prove the other right, wrong or otherwise because it is stricly subjective. The results and Shermans current demotion is evidence that he is not qualified today. Maybe you have different ways of looking it . At this point, I think you've said all you can say in Sherms defense. I still think he was underqualified *so does every team presidnet*. I've said all I can say and you still think he deserved the job. That looks like the classic agree to disagree ground to me. I'm not standing alone on my side though. I have 32 teams and just about everyone else on my side of the hill. YOu seem to only have yourself and APB. The whole world is wrong again and APB/Retailguy have it firgured out

[retailguy]

Whatever....YOu don't quit...

Like I said, we just have to agree to disagree because you're still fighting about how Sherman was qualified and prepared to be an effective GM. Not the case IMO. So our opinoins differ. At no point will either of us prove the other right, wrong or otherwise because it is stricly subjective. The results and Shermans current demotion is evidence that he is not qualified today. Maybe you have different ways of looking it . At this point, I think you've said all you can say in Sherms defense. I still think he was underqualified *so does every team presidnet*. I've said all I can say and you still think he deserved the job. That looks like the classic agree to disagree ground to me. I'm not standing alone on my side though. I have 32 teams and just about everyone else on my side of the hill. YOu seem to only have yourself and APB. The whole world is wrong again and APB/Retailguy have it firgured out

Nick,

I don't quit? Certainly not when you are claiming something I'm not claiming. All one has to do is check the romper room for your multiple posts relating to off topic threads. You ought to be looking in the mirror over that one. You are the one that is unable to "quit".

I have no problem "agreeing to disagree" if you knew what that was. You still DON'T. Nick, you are clueless about what the debate was about. You've come in here guns a blazing, and forgot to read.

You tried to bash my perspective using how you "feel" about Sherman. Then you used economic analysis, after that, you used my own words taken out of context, and now, you are telling me that I'm obstinate and won't quit, and comparing me to tank. You won't have any more success with this then the other "methods". Face it Nick, you got nothin'.....

Why don't you go back and READ, not only my comments but others who agreed with PORTIONS of what I said. It really wasn't that outlandish, nor was it THAT COMPLEMENTARY to Mike Sherman. I saw flaws, and stated them THROUGHOUT my analysis. At this point you seem to be the only one who cannot/willnot see that.

[son of a vic]

Sherman had absolutely ZERO qualifications to be hired as G.M. That's on Wolf and Harlan. That does not however take all the blame off of Sherman, because if he would have been just an average G.M., he'd still be employed by the Pack.

Horrendous G.M. and an average coach, will get you fired more times than not. He was way in over his head on player evaluation, and it cost him both of his titles. He earned his firing, and should not be felt sorry for, or made out to be a victim