Interesting comments on Mike Sherman by Dylan Tomlinson

[Zool]

I'll hardly be haunted by anything about Shermin except for 4th and 1, and "with their 3rd selection in the draft, the Packers select...BJ Sanders."

[Patler]

Re: Sherman

Seems like you'd have to be a pretty decent GM and a pretty good coach to keep a 1st class OL in place for SIX years. When did Wolf do that? Remember Adam Timmerman? He was allowed to walk away, then we started over with Rivera, then started over again, with Clifton and Tauscher. Revolving door on that line before Sherman came around. Man that guy was an idiot. Didn't have a CLUE what he was doing. Same guys for SIX years. PATHETIC. I SAY, SIMPLY PATHETIC. How could he know what he was doing. I tell you, he LUCKED into the best OL in the NFL in 2003. IT WAS LUCK. Not a plan.. Look at Wolf, now THAT is the way to build an OL. Don't value the guards. Hell, you can get THOSE guys anywhere.... Just ask TT who shares the same philosophy. We're damn lucky that Favre was back there. Any other QB would have been KILLED in 2005....

Well in an effort for accuracy, it wasn't six years with the same O-line.

1999 was before Clifton and Tauscher were there.
2000 had Verba the starter at left guard, and Winters at center.
2001 Wahle and Flanagan became starters.
2005 Wahle and rivera were gone.

So in fact it was only 4 years with the same group, 2001-2004, ignoring the year Tauscher and Cllifton were out with injuries,

And, Sherman had nothing to do with getting them to GB, all were drafted by Wolf. He did, however, re-sign each one once. Part of Sherman's problem was that he did not bring in enough potential O-lineman. Wolf insisted that that was always important as part of cap management. New, younger players to take over at less cap cost for some, but not all of the more expensive veteran O-linemen. That's why Wolf could let Taylor and Timmerman go. He paid for tackles and a center, but replaced guards. Sherman engineered the contracts so he had the chance of losing both guards in one year, and had no suitable replacement on the roster for even one of them.

Again, if Sherman had not traded so many draft picks in "2 for 1" deals to move up in the draft, he may have hit on another lineman like Wolf did with Timmerman and Tauscher in 7th round picks, Rivera in the 6th, etc. He should have given himself more chances to be right. He didn't, so when guys like Ferrario (he or Wolf), Houghton and Curtin didn't pan out, there was only Wells to plan the future with. Just one more guy might have made 2005 a little different.

[Packnut]

Re: Sherman

Your response is totally flawed. First off, it was a failure for the Dolphins to not go to a SB with Marino cause he also had a pretty good offense. Duper and Clayton were a solid 1,2 punch.

And Who was the Coach? Oh yeah, some old guy named Shula. Isn't he in the hall of fame? should there be debate here, packnut? Couldn't one say that Shula was inept and incompetent not to have succeeded with talent like Marino, Duper & Clayton?

2nd- The Chiefs did not surround Montana with adequate talent.

And where does the blame lie here? With the GM? Wasn't that Peterson? Is he inept too? How can an organization "waste" the talent of a guy like Montana? Could it be because it is DIFFICULT to put a Super Bowl caliber team together? Could it be that more good, quality people FAIL than succeed? Nah, this shit is EASY. Just look at Sherman, he was a bumbling FOOL...

3rd- injuries are part of the game and happen to all teams. To use them as an excuse is very weak. As for Favre's broken thumb, HE gets all the credit for playing not Shermy.

Nope, the coaching staff gets ZERO credit for "designing" an offense in which a guy with a broken thumb can play. Hell, people do it all the time. Favre can just chuck it 70 yards 15 times a game with a broken thumb. There won't be any pain, residual swelling, or ball control problems. C'mon, Packnut, you are smarter than this... If the coaching staff doesn't design the proper formations and the proper plays to "take the pressure" off of the thumb, nothing works... Yep it's FAVRE. He's calling SIXTY audibles per game...

Also, please use some common sense if your going to criticize. One of the reasons Brett is a top 5 QB is he did have some talent around him. You must have selective memory. Shermy had one of the best O lines ever assembled in GB. He had Green in his prime.

Seems like you'd have to be a pretty decent GM and a pretty good coach to keep a 1st class OL in place for SIX years. When did Wolf do that? Remember Adam Timmerman? He was allowed to walk away, then we started over with Rivera, then started over again, with Clifton and Tauscher. Revolving door on that line before Sherman came around. Man that guy was an idiot. Didn't have a CLUE what he was doing. Same guys for SIX years. PATHETIC. I SAY, SIMPLY PATHETIC. How could he know what he was doing. I tell you, he LUCKED into the best OL in the NFL in 2003. IT WAS LUCK. Not a plan.. Look at Wolf, now THAT is the way to build an OL. Don't value the guards. Hell, you can get THOSE guys anywhere.... Just ask TT who shares the same philosophy. We're damn lucky that Favre was back there. Any other QB would have been KILLED in 2005....

Sherman failed as a coach plain and simple. Proof is in the pudding as they say. With all the coaching positions available since Shermy was given the boot, none of the available teams share your opinion of him.............

I will enjoy using this quote as my signature in the years to come. Every time I use the terms "always" and "never" they come back to haunt me. I will haunt you and the rest of the "anti Sherman" crowd with quotes like this. Count on it.

[/quote]


Gee, did'nt Shula win a SB? Did'nt Shula produce BEFORE Marino got there? The fact he never won with Danny boy does take a bit of luster off his shine, but in the NFL, winning at least 1 super bowl does mean SOMETHING!

I could go on and refute every point you make, but what would be the sense of it? The facts speak for themselves. Sherman let a sub-par Falcon team come into Lambeau and win. Give me your lame excuse for that one.

Last point needed to make my case- the Philly game. That game will forever define Sherman the coach. It indeed is UNFORGIVEABLE. Go back and watch that game and then tell me with a straight face that Shermy was a "good" coach. I can't wait to read your spin on that one.

As far as GM, He did hit on a few picks but hell, law of avg's say you should hit once in a while. Look, bottom line is he under-achieved with the talent he had. All the BS in the world will not change that fact.

[retailguy]

Re: Sherman

Well in an effort for accuracy, it wasn't six years with the same O-line.

1999 was before Clifton and Tauscher were there.
2000 had Verba the starter at left guard, and Winters at center.
2001 Wahle and Flanagan became starters.
2005 Wahle and rivera were gone.

So in fact it was only 4 years with the same group, 2001-2004, ignoring the year Tauscher and Cllifton were out with injuries,

And, Sherman had nothing to do with getting them to GB, all were drafted by Wolf. He did, however, re-sign each one once. Part of Sherman's problem was that he did not bring in enough potential O-lineman. Wolf insisted that that was always important as part of cap management. New, younger players to take over at less cap cost for some, but not all of the more expensive veteran O-linemen. That's why Wolf could let Taylor and Timmerman go. He paid for tackles and a center, but replaced guards. Sherman engineered the contracts so he had the chance of losing both guards in one year, and had no suitable replacement on the roster for even one of them.

Again, if Sherman had not traded so many draft picks in "2 for 1" deals to move up in the draft, he may have hit on another lineman like Wolf did with Timmerman and Tauscher in 7th round picks, Rivera in the 6th, etc. He should have given himself more chances to be right. He didn't, so when guys like Ferrario (he or Wolf), Houghton and Curtin didn't pan out, there was only Wells to plan the future with. Just one more guy might have made 2005 a little different.

Well, then we replace SIX with FOUR and have mostly the same analysis. I never said that he "acquired" them, but you're right he did extend each one of them. This also doesn't alter my point that Sherman was smart enough to know that you win with solid lines. Had Sherman succeeded the same way with the DL that he did with the OL, we'd be having a different discussion.

I have always agreed with you about the trading of picks. THAT was his downfall. If you're going to trade picks like they are candy, then you need to be "very active" in free agency. Looking at GM responsibility from a "long term" perspective, this doesn't work, most of us can see this, however, when you "match" that philosophy with the greatest NFL QB watching his career end, long term doesn't matter much either.

Those in here who criticize Sherman for not looking long term, also criticize him for wasting Favre's final years. You cannot have it both ways. Sherman CLEARLY, to any OBJECTIVE mind (of which there are few in this forum), CLEARLY was looking short term. Building depth is of lesser importance than finding guys who could "play now". You find the guys to "play now" to make a run, followed by a "tear-down" and rebuild.

A conscious decision that doesn't work out, DOES NOT make one an idiot or incompetent. These guys in this forum CANNOT have it both ways... It doesn't work.

[retailguy]

Re: Sherman

Gee, did'nt Shula win a SB? Did'nt Shula produce BEFORE Marino got there? The fact he never won with Danny boy does take a bit of luster off his shine, but in the NFL, winning at least 1 super bowl does mean SOMETHING!

I could go on and refute every point you make, but what would be the sense of it? The facts speak for themselves. Sherman let a sub-par Falcon team come into Lambeau and win. Give me your lame excuse for that one.

Last point needed to make my case- the Philly game. That game will forever define Sherman the coach. It indeed is UNFORGIVEABLE. Go back and watch that game and then tell me with a straight face that Shermy was a "good" coach. I can't wait to read your spin on that one.

As far as GM, He did hit on a few picks but hell, law of avg's say you should hit once in a while. Look, bottom line is he under-achieved with the talent he had. All the BS in the world will not change that fact.

Well, it never changes, does it? What's the point in refuting what I say... Ok, eeorye have it your way.

This "tactic" of taking the "its useless" perspective WON'T work with me.

I'll pass. Volley with someone else.

On one point, yep, Shula did win, if you understood sarcasm you'd get the point. However, the simple fact that one succeeds and one fails does not indicate the intelligence level of the coach. IT MERELY EXPLAINS THAT MORE WENT RIGHT THAN WENT WRONG, AND THAT THIS STUFF IS BEYOND DIFFICULT AND REQUIRES A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF LUCK WITH THE INTELLIGENCE AND FORTITUDE.

You don't get to the NFL level by being incompetent.

Enjoy your "limited" perspective. It seems to suit you well.

[Guiness]

Well, I must be full of it, but for some strange reason I keep hanging out with you guys...

Could Sherman have done as well in 2004 without all the trading? Yes. Might have done better, however, we don't get to know that. You can point to all the bad, and continue to ignore the good (there was some), and your "viewpoint" will be just as polluted with "black koolaid" as mine.

Sherm brought some great players to GB. He drafted better in the first two rounds than most GM's ever do. He drafted rather poorly in the lower rounds for the reason Patler said - He didn't value the picks as much as they should have been.

Mraynrand brings up some compelling points, yet most of the "rockheads" in this forum can't even read them with objectivity.

I'll never understand the insidious hatred of Mike Sherman. Does he have flaws? Sure, but remember, we could have had Mike Tice, or worse, Matt Millen. How about Floyd Reese and the AWESOME job he did managing the cap in Tennessee? Maybe we should get Butch Davis? How about Steve Spurrier or Dan Snyder? Maybe we could get Nick Saban? How about Dennis Green? Maybe we could get Mike Ditka out of retirement and he could trade the whole draft for Calvin Johnson? How about Tom Donahue? Maybe we could reunite Dwight Smith and Carmen Policy?

Anyone?

It's not 'insidious hatred'. I just happen to think he did a shitty job. Essentially, his time ran out, and he left the cupboard bare. For whatever reason (poor drafting, poor personnel retention decisions) the team was devoid of talent when the '05 season rolled around.

My personal thoughts are along the line of Patler's, he left himself little margin for error and wasn't up to the task.

As far as the other GM's you mention, you really scraped the crap off the bottom of the barrel (except maybe Policy - crooked, but he's got the rings) so of course we want nothing to do with any of them.

[retailguy]

As far as the other GM's you mention, you really scraped the crap off the bottom of the barrel (except maybe Policy - crooked, but he's got the rings) so of course we want nothing to do with any of them.

This is a riot. Every time Sherman is "compared" for his GM role, he's compared to Ron Wolf. You know him, right? The guy who brought the "Title" back to Title Town after 30 years.

So, what I conclude from the above, is two-fold.

1st - IT IS appropriate to compare the "job" Sherman did with the "job" that an EXCELLENT GM does, but it is inappropriate to compare Sherman to the "crap off the bottom of the barrel".

2nd - The other GM's that I mentioned are WORSE than Sherman, so, therefore, he really is better than "incompetent" and "inept", which HAS BEEN MY POINT ALL ALONG.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the help.

[Patler]

Re: Sherman

Well, then we replace SIX with FOUR and have mostly the same analysis. I never said that he "acquired" them, but you're right he did extend each one of them. This also doesn't alter my point that Sherman was smart enough to know that you win with solid lines. Had Sherman succeeded the same way with the DL that he did with the OL, we'd be having a different discussion.
...

Those in here who criticize Sherman for not looking long term, also criticize him for wasting Favre's final years. You cannot have it both ways. Sherman CLEARLY, to any OBJECTIVE mind (of which there are few in this forum), CLEARLY was looking short term. Building depth is of lesser importance than finding guys who could "play now". You find the guys to "play now" to make a run, followed by a "tear-down" and rebuild.

A conscious decision that doesn't work out, DOES NOT make one an idiot or incompetent. These guys in this forum CANNOT have it both ways... It doesn't work.

Wolf knew the importance of the O-line, but he also understood the importance of balance. You can't stick too much of your available cap in only one area of the team.

Why can't you have it both ways? I maintain that if you are smart, you can. Sherman traded away draft picks to move up and draft players no one else wanted, or that were no different than dozens of others also still available. Year after year the stories were the same. Had Sherman built the depth of the team better, it would have been better able to withstand the injury plagued seasons and would have been better and more consistent on ST. It may have been the depth that short-circuited them more than anything else in the playoffs, so long term thinking would have paid short term results.

Letting Sharper, Diggs, KGB, Hunt, Wahle or Rivera go at their previous renewal, with a replacement planned ahead of time so as to save the money to invest elsewhere, while bringing in more draft choices to pick from may have had the effect of both a long-term plan and short term success.
Keeping all of them at higher and higher contracts each time, may have been the worst thing possible, both long term and short term. Maybe the line would have been just as good with Wahle replaced by cheaper "Joe Guard" and the team better and more successful with the money spent on a better kick returner, for example. Or with more draft picks to find a better return man. There are reasons many front office types are not willing to spend big money all in one unit of a team.

[red]

for drafting, he sucked. for the reason that he gave up so many picks, and got little in return. this we both agree with RG

as for keeping his own talent, i thought he was pretty good, BUT...

i think he was horrible at understanding the salary cap game. he kept his own good guys by giving them huge backloaded deals that ment we either had to restructer the guys contract at a certain point or let him go. do to poor long term planning we couldn't rework deals, couldn't resign guys, and couldn't keep them at the salary they were suppose to make. we were lucky to have the salary cap go up as much as it did, or else we would have been in more trouble with players like KGB

i'll also say, i think he was good at trading for already established players. but he was poor at evaluating unproven talent

as for the idea that you can't plan for the long term plus try and win now, i say Blah

you can keep your talent and plan for the long term. you have to look at the total cap picture for many years down the road. you have to stagger contracts and set them up so you aren't in a position to lose both your starting guards in the same year

and thinking that you are trying to win now by trading up with every single pick is just stupid. IMO you aren't trying to "win now" with any guy you pick in the draft. most draft picks take a year or two before they turn into anything good. so why trade 2 picks for 1 every single time to get a player that still won't help you win now

and for god sakes, a punter?

you do now that sherman killed jesus right? thats just common knowledge

[red]

Re: Sherman

Well, then we replace SIX with FOUR and have mostly the same analysis. I never said that he "acquired" them, but you're right he did extend each one of them. This also doesn't alter my point that Sherman was smart enough to know that you win with solid lines. Had Sherman succeeded the same way with the DL that he did with the OL, we'd be having a different discussion.
...

Those in here who criticize Sherman for not looking long term, also criticize him for wasting Favre's final years. You cannot have it both ways. Sherman CLEARLY, to any OBJECTIVE mind (of which there are few in this forum), CLEARLY was looking short term. Building depth is of lesser importance than finding guys who could "play now". You find the guys to "play now" to make a run, followed by a "tear-down" and rebuild.

A conscious decision that doesn't work out, DOES NOT make one an idiot or incompetent. These guys in this forum CANNOT have it both ways... It doesn't work.

Wolf knew the importance of the O-line, but he also understood the importance of balance. You can't stick too much of your available cap in only one area of the team.

Why can't you have it both ways? I maintain that if you are smart, you can. Sherman traded away draft picks to move up and draft players no one else wanted, or that were no different than dozens of others also still available. Year after year the stories were the same. Had Sherman built the depth of the team better, it would have been better able to withstand the injury plagued seasons and would have been better and more consistent on ST. It may have been the depth that short-circuited them more than anything else in the playoffs, so long term thinking would have paid short term results.

Letting Sharper, Diggs, KGB, Hunt, Wahle or Rivera go at their previous renewal, with a replacement planned ahead of time so as to save the money to invest elsewhere, while bringing in more draft choices to pick from may have had the effect of both a long-term plan and short term success.
Keeping all of them at higher and higher contracts each time, may have been the worst thing possible, both long term and short term. Maybe the line would have been just as good with Wahle replaced by cheaper "Joe Guard" and the team better and more successful with the money spent on a better kick returner, for example. Or with more draft picks to find a better return man. There are reasons many front office types are not willing to spend big money all in one unit of a team.

patler, i'm convinced you are the smart part of my brain, and you're working without me knowing it.

this isn't the first time i've taken 15 minutes to type something up, only to see you posted the same thing while is was typing

stay out of my head

[mraynrand]

Re: Sherman

Sherman let a sub-par Falcon team come into Lambeau and win. Give me your lame excuse for that one.

This is the position that some take - that being the Packers were better than the Falcons and should have won this game - that kills their credibility utterly. The Falcons gave the Packers all they could handle in game one of 2002. Sixteen games later the packers had lost 9 starters, 7 on offense and 2 on defense to injury. In addition, they were playing a QB with a pretty banged up knee. They stumbled into the playoffs, barely beating also rans like Chicago and Minnesota. This was a ruined team by Jan 2003. Fans who don't understand this are virtually worthless as adversaries in a debate - particularly one regarding Sherman. I know this is harsh, but it's the truth. You have no credibility with this claim, and it undermines any argument you make. It pretty much identifies you as an irrational emoter. in some ways, that's fine - it's part of being a fan. But don't expect to be taken seriously in a real debate.

[mraynrand]

Re: Sherman

Year after year the stories were the same. Had Sherman built the depth of the team better, it would have been better able to withstand the injury plagued seasons and would have been better and more consistent on ST. It may have been the depth that short-circuited them more than anything else in the playoffs, so long term thinking would have paid short term results.

Are you really serious about this Patler? Sherman had a great draft in 2002, and built some depth - at RB (Fisher and Davenport) and on the O-line (Barry). Okay, he traded a #2 to move up tio get Walker and a #4 to bring in Glenn. Glenn didn't work out over time, but it was a great GM year, especially since he had to overhaul the entire WR crew, with pathetic starters Schroeder and Freeman not returning. Joe Johnson was a good risk, probably would have been okay if not for injuries.

But the point is that yo're blaming Sherman for lack of depth in what year? The year they suffered injuries in the playoffs was 2002 - HIS FIRST YEAR AS GM. Sure, you may be right, they may have been able to withstand the loss of Clifton and Walker in the 2004 wildcard against Minnesota with more depth, but Sherman only really lost them depth in a couple of drafts, particularly 2004. and I don't think you expected them to have drafted viable replacements for a Clifton and Walker in the 2004 draft that could play that year. Wolf also contributed to the loss of depth by having light drafts number-wise in 1999 (McKenzie and Driver remaining) and 2001 (Martin and Ferguson remaining - I guess Torrence Marshall was around for a while too, pathetically so). So you must admit that the depth the Packers lacked in 2002, had very little to do with Sherman. And be reasonable, you can't just replace 9 starters, even if you have good depth. If you're focusing on 2004 playoffs, you have more of a point about lack of depth. But by 2004, Sherman had screwed up a collection of things that led to that season's demise, and almost all of it can be traced to the hangover from the Philly loss and the death of Mark Hatley.

[mraynrand]

Re: Sherman

Hard to understand that there really is any debate here. Facts and history cannot be changed. Both Sherman the coach and Sherman the GM had one of the top 5 QB's of all time and went to ZERO super bowls.

But, it's not all Sherman's fault. Harlan made him GM and has pretty much escaped any blame for a STUPID move. I'll never understand why. I guess Harlan hiring Wolf absolved him for all wrong-doing after that.

How many Superbowls did the Dolphins go to in Marino's years 10+? How many Superbowls did the Chiefs go to with Montana?

How many top 5 QBs played with a broken thumb? How many played with a broken thumb and made it to the Divisional round of the playoffs?

Can you name a team that went to the superbowl with 9 starters (7 on offense and 2 on defense) lost for the year with injuries?

Just some perspective to add to your simple-minded evaluation.

Your response is totally flawed. First off, it was a failure for the Dolphins to not go to a SB with Marino cause he also had a pretty good offense. Duper and Clayton were a solid 1,2 punch.

2nd- The Chiefs did not surround Montana with adequate talent.

3rd- injuries are part of the game and happen to all teams. To use them as an excuse is very weak. As for Favre's broken thumb, HE gets all the credit for playing not Shermy.

Also, please use some common sense if your going to criticize. One of the reasons Brett is a top 5 QB is he did have some talent around him. You must have selective memory. Shermy had one of the best O lines ever assembled in GB. He had Green in his prime. Sherman failed as a coach plain and simple. Proof is in the pudding as they say. With all the coaching positions available since Shermy was given the boot, none of the available teams share your opinion of him.............

You proved my point with your response. Your simple-minded evaluation was that based on having a top 5 QB of all time the Packers should have been in the Superbowl. Yet you then go on to agree, with detail, that the Qb is all cases not necessarily the decisive factor. You illustrate how effective the packer offense was with Green and the O-line, yet fail to acknowledge that over history scores of teams in the NFL with effective offenses coached by great coaches didn't necessarily make and/or win the Superbowl.

But so what? Your simple-minded observation has been nullified. There is no logical connection between having a top 5 QB playing on your team and missing the superbowl as a necessary negative indictment of the head coach.

You claim that Sherman failed plain and simple. If your criteria is a Superbowl, you're correct. And this simple-minded definition of failure is typical of an emoting fan.

And you are incorrect about none of the available teams wanting him. He had the job at Arizona, by all accounts, but wanted more money than they were willing to give him. So you you were wrong. Keep trying. And keep emoting.

[retailguy]

Re: Sherman

If you're focusing on 2004 playoffs, you have more of a point about lack of depth. But by 2004, Sherman had screwed up a collection of things that led to that season's demise, and almost all of it can be traced to the hangover from the Philly loss and the death of Mark Hatley.

Here is probably the "crux" of the whole debate. By 2004, the "window of opportunity" was clearly closing due to many things, some attributable to Sherman the GM, some to Sherman the coach, and some to other things that had nothing to do with him.

Had Hatley lived, Sherman would have continued to defer decisions to him, and the drafts would have been less chaotic, most likely. Had they not lost 9 starters, in 2002 the team would have been ready for the playoffs instead of limping into them. This is the "luck" I was refering to earlier.

It seems to me that by 2004, Sherman had panicked and refused to believe his window was closing. He faced a similar situation when he got the job, and clearly improved the team on what he inherited from Wolf & Rhodes.

By 2004, he seemed incapable or disinterested in doing it again. He had the skills, but in 2004 thought he could make another "shot". As a practical matter, it would have been interesting to see what he would have done in 2005, had he remained. Perhaps he'd have tried again, but it's also possible he'd have begun the re-tooling process in similar manner to TT. Had he done that, at least he'd have been honest with the fans that it was going on, UNLIKE the drivel we get from the current occupant.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda.... It doesn't matter. That's why he got fired, but none of that makes him "inept" or "incompetent", or a bad coach/GM. I'm just tired of listening to the "uninformed" quote someone elses point, and blame him for "destroying" the franchise. While there is no license on idiocy, clearly, this wasn't the case. Sherman kept the "window" of opportunity open longer than many would have been able to do.

Plenty have done WORSE in similar circumstances.

[retailguy]

you do now that sherman killed jesus right? thats just common knowledge

I'm aware of this. It was no accident that Sherman's mother named him Michael "Pontius Pilate" Sherman.

You also heard that he is the "brains" behind Osama bin Laden as well?