Harlan regrets giving Sherman both jobs

[Brainerd]

http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070503/VIDEO1101/70502183

An intersting short video where Harlan explains why he thought giving Sherman both jobs was good for the organization, and later regrets the decision.

He also mentions that TT was being considered for the GM position at both Miami and Cleveland. News to me.

Sorry if its already been posted.

[digitaldean]

Though it's water under the bridge, I am glad that he regrets putting Shermy in the dual role.

[oregonpackfan]

At least he is big enough to admit he made a mistake. Sherman was a terrible GM. Only Matt Millan is a worse GM.

[RashanGary]

At least he is big enough to admit he made a mistake. Sherman was a terrible GM. Only Matt Millan is a worse GM.

I don't think he was as bad as Matt Millen or even close but I agree that he was pretty bad overall. He took over a team that would have been over .500 if he did nothing for 3 years. He did make them better in his first couple years but he had no concern over depth and keeping a constant revolving door of talent which keeps teams from dropping off.

He put big money into Johnson, Hunt, KGB which eventually cost us Wahle. He traded away multiple picks, ending up with little to no depth by the time he was fired in 2005.

He just did more bad things than he did good things but he did take a shot and came up short. He did draft Walker, Kamp, Williams, Barnett and maybe one or 2 other NFL starters. He did trade for Harris.

Horrible? Not really but he wasn't good or even average by any means by my estimation. His mistakes were more costly than the things he did right contributed.

[Merlin]

At least he is big enough to admit he made a mistake. Sherman was a terrible GM. Only Matt Millan is a worse GM.

Not many GM/Coaches are successful. Sherman would probably be good at one or the other at the same time. He wasn't horrible, there are worse. He made mistakes but he also drafted some quality players and wasn't afraid to look to free agency.

[PackerBlues]

They had different views on winning is all. Sherman wanted to keep a winning team on the field. Thompson wants to build a winning team that he can finish putting together after Favre is gone.

[Scott Campbell]

Thompson wants to build a winning team that he can finish putting together after Favre is gone.

Yeah, I heard Ted say just the other day "I'd love to win a Superbowl, as long as it comes after Brett retires".

[Lurker64]

Thompson wants to build a winning team that he can finish putting together after Favre is gone.

Yeah, I heard Ted say just the other day "I'd love to win a Superbowl, as long as it comes after Brett retires".

All silliness aside, I strongly disagree with the sentiments that Ted doesn't want the team to win until Brett is gone. The way I'm reading it, and the way I would personally want to do it, is that Ted wants to keep Brett around to carry the team on his shoulders for a few more years until Ted has managed to build a team that doesn't depend on a first ballot hall of fame quarterback for years to come.

Think of it this way, Favre can win games with a great defense behind him. Ingle Martin can also win games with a great defense behind him. Hell, even Rex Grossman was able to win games with a great defense behind him. On the other hand, if we invested a lot in developing an offense that's suited to Brett's particular talents, and then Favre retires next year, then suppose Ingle gets injured and Rodgers can't play worth a darn. What then?

You can win football games with a mediocre offense and a dominant defense (Bears, Ravens, Bucs historically). You can win football games with a dominant offense and a mediocre defense (Rams and Vikings during the 90's). You're not going to light the world on fire with a team that's merely "pretty good" on both sides of the ball. So considering we were mediocre (or worse) on both sides of the ball a couple years ago, which are you going to spend the most effort building? Suppose you can incrementally improve one unit and make the other unit dominant. Well, if you build a dominant offense then your offense is probably not quite so dominant when the inevitable switch at quarterback comes, and your performance as a team drops off dramatically. On the other hand, if you build a dominant defense, then Ingle can reap the benefits of it just as well as Brett can.

So I really don't think Thompson wants Brett gone, on the contrary I think Thompson wants Brett to hang around as long as he can play. For the simple reason that Brett is what's going to carry this franchise until this becomes A.J.'s team (or the team of whichever defensive leader really steps up.) A GMs job is easier the fewer questions you have at a position, and Brett instantly answers the question at quarterback.

[woodbuck27]

Thompson wants to build a winning team that he can finish putting together after Favre is gone.

Yeah, I heard Ted say just the other day "I'd love to win a Superbowl, as long as it comes after Brett retires".

All silliness aside, I strongly disagree with the sentiments that Ted doesn't want the team to win until Brett is gone. The way I'm reading it, and the way I would personally want to do it, is that Ted wants to keep Brett around to carry the team on his shoulders for a few more years until Ted has managed to build a team that doesn't depend on a first ballot hall of fame quarterback for years to come.

Think of it this way, Favre can win games with a great defense behind him. Ingle Martin can also win games with a great defense behind him. Hell, even Rex Grossman was able to win games with a great defense behind him. On the other hand, if we invested a lot in developing an offense that's suited to Brett's particular talents, and then Favre retires next year, then suppose Ingle gets injured and Rodgers can't play worth a darn. What then?

You can win football games with a mediocre offense and a dominant defense (Bears, Ravens, Bucs historically). You can win football games with a dominant offense and a mediocre defense (Rams and Vikings during the 90's). You're not going to light the world on fire with a team that's merely "pretty good" on both sides of the ball. So considering we were mediocre (or worse) on both sides of the ball a couple years ago, which are you going to spend the most effort building? Suppose you can incrementally improve one unit and make the other unit dominant. Well, if you build a dominant offense then your offense is probably not quite so dominant when the inevitable switch at quarterback comes, and your performance as a team drops off dramatically. On the other hand, if you build a dominant defense, then Ingle can reap the benefits of it just as well as Brett can.

So I really don't think Thompson wants Brett gone, on the contrary I think Thompson wants Brett to hang around as long as he can play. For the simple reason that Brett is what's going to carry this franchise until this becomes A.J.'s team (or the team of whichever defensive leader really steps up.) A GMs job is easier the fewer questions you have at a position, and Brett instantly answers the question at quarterback.

Interesting take on this.You put alot of thought into that post Lurker64.

[woodbuck27]

At least he is big enough to admit he made a mistake. Sherman was a terrible GM. Only Matt Millan is a worse GM.

Not many GM/Coaches are successful. Sherman would probably be good at one or the other at the same time. He wasn't horrible, there are worse. He made mistakes but he also drafted some quality players and wasn't afraid to look to free agency.

My take is that Bob Harlan should show more class and not go down that road.

How long must Mike Sherman be the fall guy in Green Bay?

ENOUGH !!!!!

[RashanGary]

Yeah, I heard Ted say just the other day "I'd love to win a Superbowl, as long as it comes after Brett retires".

These people are pretty brilliant because they can analyse 3 years of work by Ted Thompson and come to one sentence conclusions that explain, in entirety, the goals and focus of Ted Thompson.

Instead of making remarks of obvious disagreement I think you should start thanking these people for their godlike ability to explain everything around them with so many other possible explainations that nobody else can eliminate.

[RashanGary]

ENOUGH !!!!!

Woodbuck, if you havn't been paying attention, Mike Sherman shredded this team to the point that one off season wasn't going to rebuild it or at least Harlan, the board of the Green Bay Packers and every other NFL football team in the last 2 years that has needed a GM has felt this way.

Instead of sticking to what seems to be a stubborn and unmovable position that Sherman left this team in condition to win, why don't you start to consider the possiblity that your initial conclusion might have been wrong. Instead of assuming Bob Harlan is tyring to "find a fall guy" why don't you at least stay open to the possibliyt that Harlan made a mistake and like Wolf appologizing for not getting Favre a weapon and reflecting on it; Harlan is reflecting on his time in office and appologizing for a decision that he believes cost the Packers. Who knows, some people just might have the self confidence to admit mistake publicly. Harlan has no future job to protect; if anythign he's making himself look worse by because he made the ultimate mistake. YOu can't blame Sherman for taking teh job.

[PackerBlues]

Thompson wants to build a winning team that he can finish putting together after Favre is gone.

Yeah, I heard Ted say just the other day "I'd love to win a Superbowl, as long as it comes after Brett retires".

All silliness aside, I strongly disagree with the sentiments that Ted doesn't want the team to win until Brett is gone. The way I'm reading it, and the way I would personally want to do it, is that Ted wants to keep Brett around to carry the team on his shoulders for a few more years until Ted has managed to build a team that doesn't depend on a first ballot hall of fame quarterback for years to come.

Think of it this way, Favre can win games with a great defense behind him. Ingle Martin can also win games with a great defense behind him. Hell, even Rex Grossman was able to win games with a great defense behind him. On the other hand, if we invested a lot in developing an offense that's suited to Brett's particular talents, and then Favre retires next year, then suppose Ingle gets injured and Rodgers can't play worth a darn. What then?

You can win football games with a mediocre offense and a dominant defense (Bears, Ravens, Bucs historically). You can win football games with a dominant offense and a mediocre defense (Rams and Vikings during the 90's). You're not going to light the world on fire with a team that's merely "pretty good" on both sides of the ball. So considering we were mediocre (or worse) on both sides of the ball a couple years ago, which are you going to spend the most effort building? Suppose you can incrementally improve one unit and make the other unit dominant. Well, if you build a dominant offense then your offense is probably not quite so dominant when the inevitable switch at quarterback comes, and your performance as a team drops off dramatically. On the other hand, if you build a dominant defense, then Ingle can reap the benefits of it just as well as Brett can.

So I really don't think Thompson wants Brett gone, on the contrary I think Thompson wants Brett to hang around as long as he can play. For the simple reason that Brett is what's going to carry this franchise until this becomes A.J.'s team (or the team of whichever defensive leader really steps up.) A GMs job is easier the fewer questions you have at a position, and Brett instantly answers the question at quarterback.

Interesting take on this.You put alot of thought into that post Lurker64.

I have to agree with Woodbuck here. That was pretty damned good Lurker.

[RashanGary]

Edited

[retailguy]

Thompson wants to build a winning team that he can finish putting together after Favre is gone.

Yeah, I heard Ted say just the other day "I'd love to win a Superbowl, as long as it comes after Brett retires".

All silliness aside,

Don't tell Campbell to 'put aside silliness' . He would no longer be able to post... :P