3 players, 5 players and 64 players

[Patler]

The current Packer roster has 72 players.

3 players are left who were brought in by Wolf - Driver, Clifton and Tauscher. I find it somewhat unusual that the Packers continue to list Tauscher on their off season roster, even though he is not under contract.

5 players remain who were brought in by Sherman - Kampman, Barnett, Harris, Jenkins and Wells. This continues to hurt the Packers. The core of strong veterans just is not there. It's not because TT got rid of players that he shouldn't have. There is not one Sherman guy that I can criticize TT for not having held on to. A case can be made for Williams, but not at the price.

64 players on the roster were brought in by Thompson. Some should soon start taking on the leadership rolls on the team. That is what the team will need to be consistently good in the future, a core of starters who are past the growing stage.

[RashanGary]

It absolutely shocks me how a few people cannot see how that 4 year stretch of bad drafts (Wolf's last being the worst) effected this team and in a way still effects it.

These next five years are going to be so very different from the last 5 with how far along our talent is. All of the signs are there, including a stable QB situation and what looks to be damn good offensive and defensive coaches.

[PlantPage55]

It absolutely shocks me how a few people cannot see how that 4 year stretch of bad drafts (Wolf's last being the worst) effected this team and in a way still effects it.

No kidding. So much is ignored and continues to be ignored if brought up. Not to bring Brett Favre into this, but when the media treats your team as ONE player, you begin to forget how little good young talent we refilled our team with during those Sugar Bear years.

[Fritz]

I would agree, Patler, but I would also say that that Sherman core features some of the best players on the team.

But yes, I agree that Wolf's last draft and most of Sherman's drafts did not produce the kind of core that is necessary. I think we'll see Thompson's core of players develop - pronto, I hope.

[Patler]

I would agree, Patler, but I would also say that that Sherman core features some of the best players on the team.

But is Sherman's core group really better than Thompson's core group? Putting the Sherman guys in some reasonable order of value, with some comparable Thompson guys:

Sherman - Kampman, Harris, Barnett, Jenkins, Wells.
Thompson - Woodson, Jennings, Collins, Pickett, Colledge/Spitz/Hawk

Is Kampman better than Woodson?
Is Harris better than Jennings?
Is Barnett better than Collins?
Is Jenkins better than Pickett?
Is Wells better than Colledge, Spitz or Hawk?

That doesn't even include Rodgers, who is a key to the whole rebuilding process.

[sharpe1027]

I would agree, Patler, but I would also say that that Sherman core features some of the best players on the team.

But is Sherman's core group really better than Thompson's core group? Putting the Sherman guys in some reasonable order of value, with some comparable Thompson guys:

Sherman - Kampman, Harris, Barnett, Jenkins, Wells.
Thompson - Woodson, Jennings, Collins, Pickett, Colledge/Spitz/Hawk

Is Kampman better than Woodson?
Is Harris better than Jennings?
Is Barnett better than Collins?
Is Jenkins better than Pickett?
Is Wells better than Colledge, Spitz or Hawk?

That doesn't even include Rodgers, who is a key to the whole rebuilding process.

To be fair, I believe that Sherman might have been operating under the assumption that he had to do everything to win immediately because he realized the team was full of aging Vets at key positions. While I can't be certain, I think it was a conscious effort to forgoe depth in favor of trying to getting a few "key/impact" players. It is quite possible that after the 4-12 season Sherman would have realized the need to tear-down the team and accumulate more picks. Given the chance, maybe he would have replaced just as many as TT?

Personally, I think that trying to win it all in one year at the cost of future success is the wrong approach. IMHO, you have a better chance of winning the big one through consistently good teams rather than by trying to mortgage the farm on a few short years.

The superbowl winners often come from teams that were not looked at as being favorites. Having more shots over a period of time is a better approach than only having a few shots.

[Fritz]

Well, the thing is that Sherman was both coach and GM. So with that power, I would think he could do his job as he saw fit...which he did, and which meant he wanted to try to get it all at once, as so many posters here clamor for.

Patler, I didn't say Sherman's core was the only good group on the team - I was simply pointing out that the guy did draft some players who are some of the best on the team. Without that core, the Pack would be in rough shape.

In short, Sherman did better than Millen! Oh, and Al Davis, too.

[mraynrand]

Sherman wasn't a terrible drafter. He was a good judge of talent - and probably a lot could be attributed to a good scouting dept. and Mark Hatley - essentially another GM just below Sherman on the totem pole. Sherman's error was targeting specific picks, and not recognizing that no matter how well you pick, you still have greater than a 50% attrition rate. So, fewer picks, fewer core players. And even though a Barnett or a Kampman works out, you still lose because you traded picks to move up for a guy who fails in the third round, for example - or you blew two picks on a Walker, who only had a season and a half of productivity. That's the bottom line for Sherman.

But to Patler's point: This is the year that all that TT depth has to blossom - and it should, with the maturity of Rodgers, hopefully a healthy year for Hawk, etc.

[Fritz]

There is a GBPG article in which the writer tries to evaluate Thompson's "Studs and Duds." Interestingly, or perhaps obviously, most of the picks the writer describes as "Studs" are early round picks - first through third - and the majority of the "Duds" are fourth through seventh round picks.

I find that Sherman did fairly well in the later rounds as far as finding gems of talent - Kampman was a fifth, Williams a sixth. Wells was, I think, a seventh.

BTW, the writer of the article lists Harrell as a "Dud." I don't count him that way, not yet.

[Sparkey]

I would agree, Patler, but I would also say that that Sherman core features some of the best players on the team.

But is Sherman's core group really better than Thompson's core group? Putting the Sherman guys in some reasonable order of value, with some comparable Thompson guys:

Sherman - Kampman, Harris, Barnett, Jenkins, Wells.
Thompson - Woodson, Jennings, Collins, Pickett, Colledge/Spitz/Hawk

Is Kampman better than Woodson?
Is Harris better than Jennings?
Is Barnett better than Collins?
Is Jenkins better than Pickett?
Is Wells better than Colledge, Spitz or Hawk?

That doesn't even include Rodgers, who is a key to the whole rebuilding process.

To be fair, I believe that Sherman might have been operating under the assumption that he had to do everything to win immediately because he realized the team was full of aging Vets at key positions. While I can't be certain, I think it was a conscious effort to forgoe depth in favor of trying to getting a few "key/impact" players. It is quite possible that after the 4-12 season Sherman would have realized the need to tear-down the team and accumulate more picks. Given the chance, maybe he would have replaced just as many as TT?

Personally, I think that trying to win it all in one year at the cost of future success is the wrong approach. IMHO, you have a better chance of winning the big one through consistently good teams rather than by trying to mortgage the farm on a few short years.

The superbowl winners often come from teams that were not looked at as being favorites. Having more shots over a period of time is a better approach than only having a few shots.

That is why is normally not a good idea to make the same person both the GM and Head Coach. While the Head Coach is always focused on winning now, the GM needs to balance the here and now with the future stability of the roster.

[Fritz]

Sparkey, are you suggesting Sherman was schizophrenic?

[MJZiggy]

He wasn't. That's the problem...

[SnakeLH2006]

Snakey misses Shermy. Well Snake really misses winning teams and playoffs annually.

Shermy as GM: 53-27....0.06625 winning % = Average of 10.6 wins a year as GM.

TT as GM: 31-33...0.484375 winning % = Average of 7.75 wins a year as GM.

They both inherited teams coming off subpar years. Snake never meant to say Shermy was a good GM (a good coach though), but now after some years, it looks to be 3 less wins a year under TT.