Starting to appreciate what Sherman did for GB?

[Brandon494]

haha great thread

[Patler]

As near as I can tell, there are still as many "Wolf players" as "Sherman players" on the roster seven years after Wolf left.

Wolf brought in Favre, Davis, Driver, Tauscher, Clifton, Franks and KGB.
Sherman brought Kampman, Barnett, Harris, Williams, Cole, Jenkins and Wells.

The other 39 have come in the last 3 years.

[Tarlam!]

Well, I would count Nall as a Shermie guy.

[Patler]

Well, I would count Nall as a Shermie guy.

To be honest, I was looking at a roster from the beginning of the season that didn't have Nall on it, and I forgot all about him. Interesting question though, is he a "Shermie" because he drafted him, or a "Teddie" for being signed off the street after leaving in free agency?

[packrat]

I wonder how many Forrest Greg admirers are still around? I thought it was great when he was brought in, and he turned into a Sherman sized disaster. All those waiting to see if TT succeeds or not are just trying to put off the day of their humiliation and the longer they wait, the greater the humiliation. There is still time to put being a fan ahead of trying to preserve your prognosticator credentials, and given the track record of some of the naysayers, don't you think being a fan would be a little more fun?

[RashanGary]

I think bad GM's have a funny way of looking unlucky most of the time and good GM's have a funny way of seeming to get lucky. I don't think it's luck. It's like a poker player who never seems to get burned. It's the cards, right? Not really, there are risks worth taking and some not worth taking. Nothing is sure, but if you play the odds you win over the long haul. Of course there is more to it than a couple sentence poker analogy, but there is something to calculating risks as a GM that tends to look like luck of the cards but is probably better defined as skill.

Sherman did have scouts at his disposal. I dont' think he failed so much on talent evaluation. I think he failed in calculating risks. Ted Thompson, on the other hand, seems to rarely get burned. He looks lucky, but I think there is some skill in calculating risks that Thompson has (and Sherman didn't). On top of that, I think Thompson brings an edge to the scouting department as well. I think Thompson is just better than Sherman accross the board. If I had to desribe Thompson in one word it would be oppertunistic. If I had to describe Sherman in one word it would be desperate, but unqualified or unprepared might hit closer to the root of his problem.

Sherman deserves credit for giving a great effort, doing everythign the way it's supposed to be done. He conformed to the cookie cutter leadership that is supposed to be so successfull. That will only go so far. Some jobs are better to be skilled and wise than to be a follower (of rules and teachings) masking as a leader.

I think Thompson will get credit for being skilled and doing a great job. He might not be the conformist, cookie cutter leader. He might not follow the robotic motivation tactics or live his life according to what he's told works best. What he lacks in passed down cookie cutter leadership, he makes up with unique skill.

[Deputy Nutz]

In regards to the thread title, no not really.