A new job for Sherman

[RashanGary]

Yes, Sherman did do a few things well, Bretsky. I just find it funny when people go through the short list of good from 4 years of his work and act like he had some great eye for talent.

Sherman had some good scouts. He used their opinions to fill his 1 or 2 most glaring needs every off season. He seemed to think that if he got that one more piece, his team would be over the hump and into the SB. What he failed to realize is that every time he gave up picks to move up, he slowly stripped his team of depth and talent. Every time he took the 20th best player on his board because he really needed that player, he robbed his team of quality. His desperation and short sightedness is his legacy.

Did he and his scouts hit on a few players over his time? Sure they did, but in the grand scheme, he did a lot more harm than he did good. After 4 years of Sherman we had 4-12 and 8-8. That speaks for itself. After 3 years of TT we have 10-1.

[RashanGary]

But this isn't about the shit job he did as GM here. This is about his new job oppertunity. I wish him the best, but there is some good riddence bitterness in my voice because I strongly believe he ruined this team for the last couple years. I shudder thinking about the team I invest so much of my time follwoing being lead by such a short sighted moron. Thank bob that nightmare is over.

[Scott Campbell]

While he managed some success amongst a lot of failures, Shermy's defining moment as a GM was trading up to draft BJ Sander.

IMO.

And as unfair as this may be to me his defining moment as a coach was not going for it against the Eagles on 4th and 1

I agree with that statement too.

[Carolina_Packer]

But this isn't about the shit job he did as GM here. This is about his new job oppertunity. I wish him the best, but there is some good riddence bitterness in my voice because I strongly believe he ruined this team for the last couple years. I shudder thinking about the team I invest so much of my time follwoing being lead by such a short sighted moron. Thank bob that nightmare is over.

Wasn't Bob the one who gave Sherman the power in the first place? I know he probably was listening to Ron Wolf as well. Curious that they were willing to let Sherman have all that power but not Holmgren. I always kind of wondered, if Holmgren wanted both roles and Wolf knew he might retire, why didn't they just have Holmgren hang on? In the end, too bad they combined the roles of GM and HC. It rarely works well.

Yeah, it's funny to hear stories of assistant coaches speaking out against a head coach, but it happened. That whole thing with the revolving door DC's was kind of his coaching undoing, but not in one play. The vanilla, preditable play calling didn't help either.

Good luck to Sherman on getting the HC job at A&M. He was obviously talented enough to win some games at Green Bay. He had a lousy playoff record and was a marginal GM.

[cpk1994]

Yes, Sherman did do a few things well, Bretsky. I just find it funny when people go through the short list of good from 4 years of his work and act like he had some great eye for talent.

Sherman had some good scouts. He used their opinions to fill his 1 or 2 most glaring needs every off season. He seemed to think that if he got that one more piece, his team would be over the hump and into the SB. What he failed to realize is that every time he gave up picks to move up, he slowly stripped his team of depth and talent. Every time he took the 20th best player on his board because he really needed that player, he robbed his team of quality. His desperation and short sightedness is his legacy.

Did he and his scouts hit on a few players over his time? Sure they did, but in the grand scheme, he did a lot more harm than he did good. After 4 years of Sherman we had 4-12 and 8-8. That speaks for itself. After 3 years of TT we have 10-1.

Sherman used his scouts opinions? Thats a laugh. From all reports he rarely, if ever, listened to the scouts.

[Fritz]

While he managed some success amongst a lot of failures, Shermy's defining moment as a GM was trading up to draft BJ Sander.

IMO.

And as unfair as this may be to me his defining moment as a coach was not going for it against the Eagles on 4th and 1

You know Bretsky I've always thought that was his actual moment of truth. At the end of the half when the Packers had that fourth down, I thought he should have taken the points. At the end of the game, given the field position, the inability of the GB punter to hit the ball with any touch to get it inside the twenty, and the gassed looks on the Eagles' defenders' faces, I thought it was really worth the risk of going for it. Even if you failed, all you would be giving up was about what, twenty yards? And the reward was that you'd pretty much salt the game away with a first down. Yet tht was the moment that Shermy's scrotum tightened, and he punted. Ugh.

I wonder if Shermy wants to wait to see if he can get an NFL job. He doesn't want to be the next Forrest Gregg, does he?

[retailguy]

Yes, Sherman did do a few things well, Bretsky. I just find it funny when people go through the short list of good from 4 years of his work and act like he had some great eye for talent.

Sherman had some good scouts. He used their opinions to fill his 1 or 2 most glaring needs every off season. He seemed to think that if he got that one more piece, his team would be over the hump and into the SB. What he failed to realize is that every time he gave up picks to move up, he slowly stripped his team of depth and talent. Every time he took the 20th best player on his board because he really needed that player, he robbed his team of quality. His desperation and short sightedness is his legacy.

Did he and his scouts hit on a few players over his time? Sure they did, but in the grand scheme, he did a lot more harm than he did good. After 4 years of Sherman we had 4-12 and 8-8. That speaks for itself. After 3 years of TT we have 10-1.

Sherman used his scouts opinions? Thats a laugh. From all reports he rarely, if ever, listened to the scouts.

But see, if Sherman was the idiot that all claim him to be, then, SOMEONE ELSE had to be responsible for drafting the good players. It couldn't have been Sherman because he was the idiot, remember? Therefore, to get there, you HAVE to ignore the fact that multiple people said that he wouldn't listen to the others in the building. If you consider that, then your point makes no sense. If your point makes no sense, then you're stuck with the argument that "even a blind squirrel gets a nut occasionally". That's a tougher argument... and not as "conspiracy theory based". Got it? Glad I could help. :P

What kind of good conspiracy theorist are you?

[Merlin]

Yes, Sherman did do a few things well, Bretsky. I just find it funny when people go through the short list of good from 4 years of his work and act like he had some great eye for talent.

Sherman had some good scouts. He used their opinions to fill his 1 or 2 most glaring needs every off season. He seemed to think that if he got that one more piece, his team would be over the hump and into the SB. What he failed to realize is that every time he gave up picks to move up, he slowly stripped his team of depth and talent. Every time he took the 20th best player on his board because he really needed that player, he robbed his team of quality. His desperation and short sightedness is his legacy.

Did he and his scouts hit on a few players over his time? Sure they did, but in the grand scheme, he did a lot more harm than he did good. After 4 years of Sherman we had 4-12 and 8-8. That speaks for itself. After 3 years of TT we have 10-1.

Someone correct me if I am wrong here but our "scouts" didn't really change all that much from Sherman to Thompson. I seem to remember Thompson specifically saying that the Packers had excellent scouts and there wouldn't me much turn over there.

So if all of Sherman's successes were because of his scouts and all the bad choices were Sherman's, then how's come that same standard doesn't apply for Thompson?

Face it, when someone doesn't agree with your love affair with Thompson then they are stupid and wrong. Sherman was a good head coach, you cannot deny his record or his results, they are what they are. No matter how much negativity you try and bring into it he was a success in Green Bay. He was an "ok" GM IMO but nothing spectacular. Thompson is also an "ok" GM and nothing spectacular IF you use the same standard to measure him by as you have Sherman. But of course you aren't and that in lies the problem.

You also cannot blame the past two seasons on Sherman because he wasn't the guy bringing in the personell, Thompson was. You also have some serious bias issues going on here. GMs make mistakes but Sherman gets crucified and Thompson gets a pass? Why? Because Thompson is barely over .500 in three years as the Packers GM? Because we are 10-1? Why does he get a pass? Why does he get a pass on Justin Harrell? Why does he get a pass on Marquand Manual? Adrian Klemm? O'Dwyer? Why? How about Desawn Wynn? Brandon Jackson? Coston? Colledge? Spitz?

One 1-2 weeks ago everyone was bitching about our guard play. But they are listed as "successes" for Thompson? Which is it?

When you are trying to make a comparison, keep it apples to apples and apply the same litmus test to ALL you are comparing, not just the ones you like. As much as I love being 10-1 and having a great season, it has just brought out the worst in fans. From bandwagoners to some kind of screwed up thinking that all is 100% perfect and fine. It's one thing to be a homer about your entire team, it's entirely another to be a homer about a GM who to date has not earned anything but a 22-21 record over three seasons thus far.

Will it get better? Short term sure. When Favre retires? What will be the excuse then? Rodgers has had plenty of time to become a starting NFL QB. he is no Tony Romo and you can take that to the bank.

[Bretsky]

Yes, I believe our scouts have remained the same. To be fair, there were rumblings that sometimes Sherman didn't listen as much to his scouts as he should have, but nothing factual.

Sherman the coach inherited some pretty good talent IMO; he was alright. But for some reason I didn't ever want him coaching our team going into the playoffs.

Sherman the GM made some nice moves to get some of the upper echelon players that we have on our current roster. His free agent choices did not work. Some of TT's have and some have not.

But it's hard to argue that his MS's constant packaging of draft picks to trade up for players in the draft watered down the depth of this squad.

TT seems to be a solid replacement opposite of this mentality. While Sherman packaged picks to move up for a specific player, TT just thinks the draft if hit and miss to a point so he'd rather build up picks. That lessons the impact of his mistakes. Since Jones has been so good we overlook how shitty Harrell has been...etc

[MJZiggy]

You also cannot blame the past two seasons on Sherman because he wasn't the guy bringing in the personell, Thompson was. You also have some serious bias issues going on here. GMs make mistakes but Sherman gets crucified and Thompson gets a pass? Why? Because Thompson is barely over .500 in three years as the Packers GM? Because we are 10-1? Why does he get a pass? Why does he get a pass on Justin Harrell? Why does he get a pass on Marquand Manual? Adrian Klemm? O'Dwyer? Why? How about Desawn Wynn? Brandon Jackson? Coston? Colledge? Spitz?

Two years ago, Thompson's team was playing with mostly Sherman personnel, but that's a little beside the point. The only thing I really blame Sherman for was trading up to get a punter and then keeping him inactive on the roster when he didn't perform well. That is not good GM work no matter what else he did and he did do some good things, bringing in some great players (who, coincidentally all by now have had time to develop to their potential). Why does Thompson get a pass? Here's why. He took over a team that went 4-12 his first year here. In his second year, they went 8-8 with a lot of rookies he brought in. Not contending but an improvement which is what you look for year to year. They almost made the playoffs even with that record. This year they're 10-1 and on a tear, possibly looking at a first-round bye in the playoffs. Even if (god forbid) they lose out the rest of the season--and I don't see that happening, do you? It would still be an improvement over last season. That's what you look for--improvement, right?

He gets a pass on Harrel because it's just too soon to tell. Let him have time to develop like all of Sherman's guys have had and then judge him. He gets a pass on Manual because he brought in someone he thought would be good and when someone else proved better, he didn't hang on to him to feed his own ego. Manual didn't perform=Manual is gone. Same with Klemm and O'Dwyer. They didn't perform to expectations. Are they still here? DeShawn Wynn was a 7th round pick. He's made some contributions but how many 7th rounders don't even make their teams much less get a chance to play? Brandon Jackson may still turn into something. I'm not giving up on him, but I know if he doesn't perform as well as other RB's, he will be gone. Coston, Colledge, Spitz? As far as I can tell, the line is doing what they did last year without as much max protect. Last I checked, Favre's jersey is staying pretty clean. Colledge I'm still not thrilled with this season, though he seems to be doing better after having a "chat" with his coach (you know, the really good coach that our GM found for us).

There are high expectations around this team. It is a talented bunch. They are a GOOD TEAM, balanced and face it, do you REALLY think they're going to lose many more games this season? Collins gets injured, Rouse steps in. Woodson left the Detroit game and we still won. Are they perfect? no, yet we found out last night that not even NE is perfect though like them we're still winning the games even when imperfect. Why do you have such a hard time admitting that the man has assemble a VERY GOOD football team?

[Bretsky]

He gets a pass on Harrel because it's just too soon to tell. Let him have time to develop like all of Sherman's guys have had and then judge him. He gets a pass on Manual because he brought in someone he thought would be good and when someone else proved better, he didn't hang on to him to feed his own ego. Manual didn't perform=Manual is gone.

For what it's worth I've laid into TT for both of the above; too early on Harrell though and TT found somebody kind of competent to replace Manual

Same with Klemm and O'Dwyer. They didn't perform to expectations. Are they still here?

O'Dwyer was a minimum wage guy; hard to fault him for that one. I've lit up TT on Klemm; but again for me the record overrides all negatives at this point. It appears we might be quite good for a while

DeShawn Wynn was a 7th round pick. He's made some contributions but how many 7th rounders don't even make their teams much less get a chance to play?

Hard to ever criticize a GM either way for a player in round 7

[The Leaper]

You also cannot blame the past two seasons on Sherman because he wasn't the guy bringing in the personell, Thompson was.

Honestly, I don't think you can blame 2005 on anyone in particular. The team had a ridiculous number of injuries that would've scuttled even the most robust of rosters. That season was a perfect storm...but I think Sherman's approach to what happened caused his downfall.

2006 really can't be blamed on anyone either. Thompson was retooling, which was necessary and expected. The team was adjusting to a new coaching staff. There were going to be growing pains. Going 8-8 was actually a success in my book.

Overall, Sherman was not a complete failure as GM. He never had high picks to work with, but still managed to find some great players. However, his strategy was a failure. Constantly tossing away picks to move around in the draft...especially after the first 75 picks where it really becomes a crap shoot for the most part...was foolish. It caused him to get into bad situations that forced us to overpay for guys like KGB, Hunt, Ferguson, Luchey and Franks because we had no one in the pipeline to replace them.

Thompson strategy of valuing draft picks and continually replenishing the talent base rather than reaching for a specific need is far more sound...and you are starting to see the dividends of that.

[mraynrand]

Whether he he has an eye for high school talent begs the question of whether the eye for talent he had as a GM was his, Hatley's or his pro personnel department (esp. Reggie Mckenzie).

The bottom line is Sherman missed far more than he hit. He had a couple of drafts that produced almost nothing in terms of starting caliber talent, and most of his FA and trade forays were failures outside of the Al Harris deal. I don't think he had an eye for anything...except the back of his eyelids at the combine.

I don't understand. He traded a #2 to move up and get Walker, he trade two #4s for Glenn and traded a #2 for Harris. He signed Joe Johnson who was considered the top defensive FA of the 2001 offseason. Johnson got injured twice. Sherman got burned, but was it due to a poor eye for talent or bad luck. If he had a poor eye for talent, what does that say for every other guy that thought highly of Joe Johnson? Since Sherman only had three drafts and got 2 pro bowlers from the first (Walker and Kampman) and possibly two from the second (Barnett and Harris with the #2 pick) how can you say this isn't starting caliber talent? His third draft produced two starters (Wells and Williams) although I agree it was a bad draft overall. His rookie FAs included Fisher, Barry and Cullen Jenkins, so he was pretty good in the rookie FA market. Also, Sherman was better than 50-50 in resigning his own FA talent, including Tauscher, Clifton, Green and KGB, who all remained fairly productive.

I also noticed that Davenport (Pittsburgh) and Kenny Peterson (Denver) are still logging significant minutes for other teams.


I understand the disappointment with Sherman coming up short three straight playoff years, with obvious f-ups in games and drafting; what I don't understand is the over the top negative assessment and the lack of understanding about circumstances - like the massive injuries in 2002 and 2005. Some people (I prefer to use the phrase ignorant fools) still think the Packers should have beaten Atlanta in the 2002 playoffs, when they were missing 9 starters (Clifton, Tauscher, Davenport, Green, Glenn, Driver, Sharper, Johnson, (I count Flanagan at center, since he moved to LT for Clifton)). The same team, with all the starters in place, barely beat Atlanta in the opener. How can anyone be seen as rational who thinks the Packers were talented enough at the end of 2002 as at the beginning?

[mmmdk]

While he managed some success amongst a lot of failures, Shermy's defining moment as a GM was trading up to draft BJ Sander.

IMO.

And as unfair as this may be to me his defining moment as a coach was not going for it against the Eagles on 4th and 1

The Eagles game was the defining moment for me too; from then on Mike II was in this Mike's dog house. The game was no laughing matter though.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Whether he he has an eye for high school talent begs the question of whether the eye for talent he had as a GM was his, Hatley's or his pro personnel department (esp. Reggie Mckenzie).

The bottom line is Sherman missed far more than he hit. He had a couple of drafts that produced almost nothing in terms of starting caliber talent, and most of his FA and trade forays were failures outside of the Al Harris deal. I don't think he had an eye for anything...except the back of his eyelids at the combine.

I don't understand. He traded a #2 to move up and get Walker, he trade two #4s for Glenn and traded a #2 for Harris. He signed Joe Johnson who was considered the top defensive FA of the 2001 offseason. Johnson got injured twice. Sherman got burned, but was it due to a poor eye for talent or bad luck. If he had a poor eye for talent, what does that say for every other guy that thought highly of Joe Johnson? Since Sherman only had three drafts and got 2 pro bowlers from the first (Walker and Kampman) and possibly two from the second (Barnett and Harris with the #2 pick) how can you say this isn't starting caliber talent? His third draft produced two starters (Wells and Williams) although I agree it was a bad draft overall. His rookie FAs included Fisher, Barry and Cullen Jenkins, so he was pretty good in the rookie FA market. Also, Sherman was better than 50-50 in resigning his own FA talent, including Tauscher, Clifton, Green and KGB, who all remained fairly productive.

I also noticed that Davenport (Pittsburgh) and Kenny Peterson (Denver) are still logging significant minutes for other teams.


I understand the disappointment with Sherman coming up short three straight playoff years, with obvious f-ups in games and drafting; what I don't understand is the over the top negative assessment and the lack of understanding about circumstances - like the massive injuries in 2002 and 2005. Some people (I prefer to use the phrase ignorant fools) still think the Packers should have beaten Atlanta in the 2002 playoffs, when they were missing 9 starters (Clifton, Tauscher, Davenport, Green, Glenn, Driver, Sharper, Johnson, (I count Flanagan at center, since he moved to LT for Clifton)). The same team, with all the starters in place, barely beat Atlanta in the opener. How can anyone be seen as rational who thinks the Packers were talented enough at the end of 2002 as at the beginning?

I hear your points. For the record i think he was a decent/good coach and an average to below average GM...being GM also includes dealing with players which he demonstrated with Walker/(and the DB whose name shall not be mentioned) that he couldn't separate the GM from the coach..not that I know anybody who could.

In my opinion Sherman felt that the window was closing on an ageing team and he essentially went with a "shoot the moon" philosophy. And, for that reason he acquired Johnson, Glenn, harris, etc. He kept hoping that would push us over the edge. And, like most reasonable fans i thought/hoped they would as well.

But, if that is what you are doing, then why would you lose a WR like Javon or a db to NO. He had to know that would be crippling.

But, Glenn for 2 picks. That was terrible. He was the wrong fit for our offense and didn't score TDs. 52 receptions in 16 games isn't the type of production you expect outta glenn. So, the question is whether it was the wrong offense or bad play calling for him. Either way, that rests on sherman.

He was GM in O1, but supposedly Sherman had heavy influence. Look at that draft. Essentially that draft killed us. When your best player is arguably David Martin you are in trouble. Not one of those guys turned out to be an above average player. Reynolds, Fergie, Ferrario, Jue, Marshall.

According to Parcells you wanna 1/3 to half your players in the draft on your roster. That is success. So, the less picks the less on your roster. Simple math.

02: A decent draft at best. Javon and Kampy are very good players. Anderson blew, Najeh..well, you could find guys like that all the time, Nall..well, you find guys like that every year. Houghton..el busto.

03: A terrible draft. One starter. Flameouts like Peterson, Lee, etc. What makes it even more disgusting is they let a STARTER go to the bears. Hillenmeyer is exactly the late round pick that makes you look like a genius when he starts.

04: Terrible draft. Yes, we got some players, but all from the late rounds. Geez, anyone on this board coulda whiffed on 4 players in the first 3 rounds. Two CBs because he pissed of a DB.

In 3 years he had 20 picks. So looking at it he at best had a shot at getting 10 players on the roster that were decent, more like 7.

In 3 drafts for TT he has drafted 34 players. I don't think i need to do the math. You get the point.