Half a Decade of Mediocrity: The Mike Sherman Years

[mraynrand]

True. The U71 was almost unstoppable. The o-line was a definite Sherman strength.

It was unstoppable for a year. It was effective for one more. It became stoppable by good teams after that. Everything gets countered eventually.

Sherman was planning to put Barry in as an extra QB in an early version of the wildcat formation. That's when Harlan pulled the plug.

[Patler]

Well lets see, I do believe Wahle was a horrible left tackle, was moved to guard, Winters was retired, Flanigan stepped up at center, Clifton and Tauscher were inserted as cornerstones of the offensive line, Dotson was also retired. So I guess under Sherman the Packers had their best offensive line since the 1960s. I don't really know why I was questioned by Patler in the first place, but under Sherman the Packers had a really offensive line, who really wants to dispute that?

Very simple. I didn't understand what you meant, so I asked a question. We've been discussing Sherman's performance as coach and as GM, and I didn't understand at which your comment was directed.

Bringing them to GB - no credit to Sherman.
Putting them on the field - Sherman gets the credit, just like any HC does. And yes, for about 4 years it was a very good line.

The failed experiment of Wahle at LT was under Sherman. In '98 and '99 Wahle was a guard and Verba was the LT. Sherman flipped them the next year, Wahle bombed as a LT after a few games, was sent to the bench and Clifton was inserted. The next year Sherman moved Wahle back to guard.

Moving Winters to the bench and making Flanagan the starter, Sherman's idea absolutely. Dotson got hurt, so Tauscher got his chance, just like Clifton did because Wahle at LT was horrible. Pretty interesting year with two rookie starters at the tackles, but Sherman and Beightol sure made it work.

[Scott Campbell]

True. The U71 was almost unstoppable. The o-line was a definite Sherman strength.

It was unstoppable for a year. It was effective for one more. It became stoppable by good teams after that. Everything gets countered eventually.

Sherman kept going to the well even after teams had figured out how to handle it.

[Fritz]

That, too me, is a key element in a coach's success: the ability to adapt.

And that has to be so, so tough for a coach. He makes a name for himself wit some brand of football - he's a power run guy, he's an offensive innovator, he's a 3-4 guy.

So he installs his signature thing, whatever it is, and after awhile other teams figure it out. But coaches seem like stubborn creatures sometimes, and who can blame them? Football is a manly game, and it's much more manly to shove something down someone else's throat then to counter their moves. Be in control! Don't re-act - act.

So the real geniuses might be the ones who have that ability to change, that fluidity, that ability to adapt and respond.

I sometimes wonder if Lombardi, had he kept coaching, would have been less successful with his big run-to-daylight thing, or if teams would have caught on and stopped him. Football evolved more slowly then, I think.

[pbmax]

True. The U71 was almost unstoppable. The o-line was a definite Sherman strength.

It was unstoppable for a year. It was effective for one more. It became stoppable by good teams after that. Everything gets countered eventually.

Sherman was planning to put Barry in as an extra QB in an early version of the wildcat formation. That's when Harlan pulled the plug.

It was to be known as the Woolly Mammoth offense.

[mraynrand]

That, too me, is a key element in a coach's success: the ability to adapt.

And that has to be so, so tough for a coach. He makes a name for himself wit some brand of football - he's a power run guy, he's an offensive innovator, he's a 3-4 guy.

So he installs his signature thing, whatever it is, and after awhile other teams figure it out. But coaches seem like stubborn creatures sometimes, and who can blame them? Football is a manly game, and it's much more manly to shove something down someone else's throat then to counter their moves. Be in control! Don't re-act - act.

So the real geniuses might be the ones who have that ability to change, that fluidity, that ability to adapt and respond.

I sometimes wonder if Lombardi, had he kept coaching, would have been less successful with his big run-to-daylight thing, or if teams would have caught on and stopped him. Football evolved more slowly then, I think.

Stubby seems to have his troubles with adapting too. I don't think it's because he isn't clever or a good offensive mind (on the contrary, I think he designs some great things, disguising similar plays with multiple formations), but he can be a bit stubborn (that, and his stature = Stubby) - you can seen it in games where he thinks he ought to be able to run against a team, and keeps at it, even when it is failing. The run game in Chicago in 2007 comes to mind - it was working in the first half and Stubby kept with it even when it went south. A lot of coaches are like that to an extent, and Stubby has a lot of other redeeming qualities, so it's really not a major quibble, still I think it's valid.

[packerbacker1234]

Sherman wasn't all that horrible. HE had just as many "good moves" compared to "bad moves" as most other GM's and Head coaches. I mean, the packers were seemingly always a winning team and a playoff contendor during his tenure. He won nearly 70% of the games the packers played during his era. The problem? They couldn't get out of round 1 of hte playoffs, and as people are pointing out usually there was a lot of bad luck that went into those seasons and it just always felt that in the playoffs, the only way we were going to win was for #4 to dominate... he needed help and just didn't really get it until the season his dad died.

[Patler]

Sherman wasn't all that horrible. HE had just as many "good moves" compared to "bad moves" as most other GM's and Head coaches. I mean, the packers were seemingly always a winning team and a playoff contendor during his tenure. He won nearly 70% of the games the packers played during his era. The problem? They couldn't get out of round 1 of hte playoffs, and as people are pointing out usually there was a lot of bad luck that went into those seasons and it just always felt that in the playoffs, the only way we were going to win was for #4 to dominate... he needed help and just didn't really get it until the season his dad died.

I wouldn't say the Packers were playoff contenders as much as playoff participants under Sherman. During Sherman's years as HC, no other team in their Division had a winning record. The best was Minnesota at 48-48. If you look at the 5 years of 2000-2004, Minnesota was 39-41, Chicago 34-46 and Detroit 25-55.

If you look at Sherman's record against winning teams, it declined:

2000 - 6/4 against teams that ended with winning records.
2001 - 3/1
2002 - 3/3
2003 - 3/4
2004 - 0/3

In 2004 the Packers made it to the playoffs with a 10/6 record achieved in a division where MN was 8/8, Detroit 6/10 and Chicago 5/11. In addition, the Packers played only 3 games against teams that ended the year with a winning record, and lost all 3. Things fell right for the Packers a lot of Sherman's years, which is why I viewed them as a playoff participant more than a playoff contender..

[Fritz]

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether Shermy was a good coach at all, but as a fan perceptions can influence you, and I always hated how Shermy just looked kinda lost on the sideline.