A new job for Sherman

[mraynrand]

Ty,

good post, but you can't be serious saying that 2002 was just OK? Two pro bowlers and some starting material - plus two contributing FAs. Glenn not a good fit - I agree, but he was hurt and given the crap at WR the previous year, Shermy had to do something. 2002 was an outstanding year - but I attribute a lot of that to Hatley. 2003 was good - Barnett and the #2 for Harris - both could be pro bowlers. Still, not enough picks.

Walker gt hurt in 2005 and it was TTs choice to let him go. Mc--- was all Sherman's fault (except if you want to lay some blame on the player). After 2003 and into 2004, Sherman was absolutely awful - terrible decision to go with Slowit - completely failed retooling of the secondary, crappy draft, failed to replace Hatley. But I suspect he was let go for personality reasons - especially given what Harlan did w regard to Jones. People didn't like him - he was way abrasive and he ran out his welcome. Plus, I think Harlan really DID want to go back to the separate coach GM positions - and I bet Wolf lobbied for TT. But I totally agree that Shermy was picking for the short term and targeting specific players - and if you do that, you have to be right on a higher percentage - 50-75% rather than the approx 40% success rate of most decent GMs.

[RashanGary]

I have a problem with the "shoot for the moon" mentality. I think you have to take a more level headed approach, capitalizing on advantagous situations as they arise. Sherman made some good decisions, but ultimately I think his desperate approach caused the Packers to lose out on more good than they gained. I just don't think he'd seen enough from teh GM's perspective to realize how detrimental it can be to pass on good players for need players. TT talks about how he's seen it blow up time and time again. He had the experience to learn from others mistakes from the objective position of somebody watching the decisions for many years, not making them. It's easier to see why someone else failed than to admit why you yourself failed. Sherman just never had the experience to know what a mistake was. He seemed to truely believe that he should just take the player they needed most and not even consider how it would effect the whole term of that players impact. There is short term. There is long term. I think you have to look at the whole impact and go with the guy who is going to be a true core player over a guy that might be a little better than what you have now just because you don't like the guy you have now.

Bottom line, I think Ted is a better GM and watching MM lately, I think he is a better coach. That is not to say Sherman wasn't a good coach and it's not really saying he was the worst GM ever, but the Packers are better off without him, that is my opinion, anyway.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ty,

good post, but you can't be serious saying that 2002 was just OK? Two pro bowlers and some starting material - plus two contributing FAs. Glenn not a good fit - I agree, but he was hurt and given the crap at WR the previous year, Shermy had to do something. 2002 was an outstanding year - but I attribute a lot of that to Hatley. 2003 was good - Barnett and the #2 for Harris - both could be pro bowlers. Still, not enough picks.

Walker gt hurt in 2005 and it was TTs choice to let him go. Mc--- was all Sherman's fault (except if you want to lay some blame on the player). After 2003 and into 2004, Sherman was absolutely awful - terrible decision to go with Slowit - completely failed retooling of the secondary, crappy draft, failed to replace Hatley. But I suspect he was let go for personality reasons - especially given what Harlan did w regard to Jones. People didn't like him - he was way abrasive and he ran out his welcome. Plus, I think Harlan really DID want to go back to the separate coach GM positions - and I bet Wolf lobbied for TT. But I totally agree that Shermy was picking for the short term and targeting specific players - and if you do that, you have to be right on a higher percentage - 50-75% rather than the approx 40% success rate of most decent GMs.

02: Walker was a pro bowl and yes Kampy as well. However, getting lucky on your 5th rounder is just that..getting lucky. No one, including Sherman ever thought he would turn out that way. Flaming out on Najeh and Anderson is to me worse than stumbling on a pro bowler.

I didn't include the FA. Just was talking draft. I've never said Sherman was bad at acquiring FA talent. If the talent doesn't work out that is a different story. I don't blame him totally for JJ even though he had a history of injuries. But, I do blame him for Glenn. And, we didn't get squat for him compared to what we gave up.

Walker: You are right. But, i also fault Sherman for not renogiating with him early. He had been at odds with the org since 04. Again, if Sherman is "shooting the moon" then you have to play it that way. You can't get hamstrung on stupid "we don't renogiate contracts."

If we aren't operating in that mode (we have limited time till Brett is gone) then I'm all in favor of sticking to your guns.

This mode applies to Mc. That was a terrible decision. It lead to us wasting picks trying to replace him..which we never did. I cringe at the players Sherman might have got instead...and that is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Hatley, etc. We are pretty much in agreement. Could be a first!!!

uh,oh...hell might be freezin over.

[HarveyWallbangers]

02: Walker was a pro bowl and yes Kampy as well. However, getting lucky on your 5th rounder is just that..getting lucky. No one, including Sherman ever thought he would turn out that way. Flaming out on Najeh and Anderson is to me worse than stumbling on a pro bowler.

I disagree here. You have to give him major credit for the 5th round pick. Ron Wolf made a living on second day picks. You can't just say it was lucky.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I have a problem with the "shoot for the moon" mentality. I think you have to take a more level headed approach, capitalizing on advantagous situations as they arise. Sherman made some good decisions, but ultimately I think his desperate approach caused the Packers to lose out on more good than they gained. I just don't think he'd seen enough from teh GM's perspective to realize how detrimental it can be to pass on good players for need players. TT talks about how he's seen it blow up time and time again. He had the experience to learn from others mistakes from the objective position of somebody watching the decisions for many years, not making them. It's easier to see why someone else failed than to admit why you yourself failed. Sherman just never had the experience to know what a mistake was. He seemed to truely believe that he should just take the player they needed most and not even consider how it would effect the whole term of that players impact. There is short term. There is long term. I think you have to look at the whole impact and go with the guy who is going to be a true core player over a guy that might be a little better than what you have now just because you don't like the guy you have now.

Bottom line, I think Ted is a better GM and watching MM lately, I think he is a better coach. That is not to say Sherman wasn't a good coach and it's not really saying he was the worst GM ever, but the Packers are better off without him, that is my opinion, anyway.

Sometimes you have to "shoot the moon." That is essentially the problem Woody and Merlin have with TT. That he isn't going balls out to win right now with Favre.

There are windows in all sports and you need to capitalize on them.

Everyone sane and rational understands that window closed for us and we needed to build another. Hopefully in time with Brett.

Sherman made some desparate moves because he saw an aging team. Think about it...Ahman is now pretty much done, he saw big contracts coming that we couldn't afford, etc.

Better: Maybe, maybe not. For sure they are in different times and mindsets. Who knows what TT woulda done if he had been in GB then..when brett couldn't decide EVERY year if he was coming back.

I don't have a problem with the mindset of Sherman. It is like playcalling...often it isn't the play itself, but the EXECUTION. If Sherman hits on the limited draftees...let's just say Carroll turned out to be a decent starter, Anderson is serviceable, either donnell or kenny can actually play, and pick either torrance or jue, and JJ doesn't get hurt...are we even having this conversation.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

double post

[The Leaper]

I don't understand.

OK, you cite these examples of "hits" in the draft:

Walker
Harris (used a pick to get him, so it is like a draft pick)
Barnett
Kampman
Wells
Williams
Davenport

Resigning guys like Tauscher, Clifton, Green and KGB is hardly a sign that Sherman had a good eye. That was just simple common sense.

Still not understanding? OK. He had more misses than hits because HERE is his list of draft failures...and I'm not counting late round picks, just top 150 or so picks:

Carroll
Thomas
Washington
Sander
Peterson
Anderson
Reynolds (yes, I hold Sherman partially at fault in the 2001 debacle)
Ferguson
Jue
Marshall

So, in 4 drafts, he had 10 horrible blunders...wasting a top 150 pick on a guy who really contributed very little for the organization, especially in relation to his draft position.

How many top 150 picks did Sherman have overall? 14.

He failed on 10 of the 14 picks.

That is why I view Sherman as less than stellar in term of player judgment. He wasn't a complete failure, as I previously mentioned. He was saved by the fact that his few good picks turned out to be very good players...and he had a couple late round/undrafted gems that also were a success.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

02: Walker was a pro bowl and yes Kampy as well. However, getting lucky on your 5th rounder is just that..getting lucky. No one, including Sherman ever thought he would turn out that way. Flaming out on Najeh and Anderson is to me worse than stumbling on a pro bowler.

I disagree here. You have to give him major credit for the 5th round pick. Ron Wolf made a living on second day picks. You can't just say it was lucky.

How many second day picks did Wolf have that turned out to be Pro bowlers.

That Ron hit on players is true. But, let's not go overboard. He hit because he DRAFTED A TON. That is being a smart GM.

Looking at 5th round and beyond. Starters within a reasonable time period.

92: 9 players drafted. 1 starter. Chewy.
93: 6 players drafted. 1 starter. Doug Evans. Deep QB with Detmer, so Brunell alllowed to develop and then traded.

94: 6 players. 1 starter. Dorsey. 2 average WRs. Schroeder and Mickens..and to call Mickens average is a HUGE compliment.

95: 4 players. 1 starter. Timmerman.

96: 3 players. 1 starter. Rivera. Mck played a bit.

97: 4 players. NOT ONE EVEN MADE A CONTRIBUTION. Course we were deep. Sowell played in the league.

98: 4 players. Not one starter. Bradford. LOL. Hasselback had time to develop. Still, never played for us. Let's not even talk about whiffs on brown and blackmon.

99: 6 players. 1 starter. DD..and 4 years to do something significant..ok, 3 if you count 38 catches the year before. Overall a terrible draft of Hunt, Vinson and Edwards. All of them average at best.

00: 7 players. 1.5 starters. Tauscher and KGB.

At best you have 6. However, he did that in 8 years of drafting (02-00). He drafted 49 players in the 5th and after. That is around 8 a year. So, essentially you find less than one one time PB type player a year.

Sherman got one. ONE. That is luck. 11 players from the 5th on.

Finding more is not luck. It is called playing the percentages.

What wolf did better than most was getting good 3/4rd round picks. Mack, Tyrone, Diggs, Brooks, Bennett, Dotson, Wilkins, Henderson, Holland, Williams, Free, Brooks, Bidwell.

And, being savvy enought to always draft QBs that could develop and then be traded for picks: Brunell, Hasselbeck, Detmer, Brooks.

Wolf wasn't a great drafter, but he drafted a lot of players and he made the right trades and brought in free agents and hired holmgren.

[Bretsky]

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?

To further analyze MS giving up a 2nd for Javon Walker:

In that deal he also received a fifth round draft pick
With that pick I believe he added Aaron Kampman

Turned out to be a GREAT deal

[b bulldog]

Sherman was a horrible GM and a average coach. If he was such a good coach, why was he coaching the line in Houston? Just think of the players we could have had if shermy didn't trade all those picks away.

[Bossman641]

I don't care to rehash Sherman as GM. That's been beaten to death far too many times. He was here, he tried, it didn't work.

I'm just happy for him. He seemed like a great guy and the players respected him. Best of luck Coach Sherman.

[HarveyWallbangers]

02: Walker was a pro bowl and yes Kampy as well. However, getting lucky on your 5th rounder is just that..getting lucky. No one, including Sherman ever thought he would turn out that way. Flaming out on Najeh and Anderson is to me worse than stumbling on a pro bowler.

I disagree here. You have to give him major credit for the 5th round pick. Ron Wolf made a living on second day picks. You can't just say it was lucky.

How many second day picks did Wolf have that turned out to be Pro bowlers.

That Ron hit on players is true. But, let's not go overboard. He hit because he DRAFTED A TON. That is being a smart GM.

Looking at 5th round and beyond. Starters within a reasonable time period.

92: 9 players drafted. 1 starter. Chewy.
93: 6 players drafted. 1 starter. Doug Evans. Deep QB with Detmer, so Brunell alllowed to develop and then traded.

94: 6 players. 1 starter. Dorsey. 2 average WRs. Schroeder and Mickens..and to call Mickens average is a HUGE compliment.

95: 4 players. 1 starter. Timmerman.

96: 3 players. 1 starter. Rivera. Mck played a bit.

97: 4 players. NOT ONE EVEN MADE A CONTRIBUTION. Course we were deep. Sowell played in the league.

98: 4 players. Not one starter. Bradford. LOL. Hasselback had time to develop. Still, never played for us. Let's not even talk about whiffs on brown and blackmon.

99: 6 players. 1 starter. DD..and 4 years to do something significant..ok, 3 if you count 38 catches the year before. Overall a terrible draft of Hunt, Vinson and Edwards. All of them average at best.

00: 7 players. 1.5 starters. Tauscher and KGB.

At best you have 6.

9 guys you mentioned made a Pro Bowl. That's a lot. That's the point. That's why Wolf was good. Kind of a dumb argument to make--that Sherman was just lucky on Kampman and shouldn't get credit for it.

[b bulldog]

Shermy should get credit for his picks and also the ones he traded away. One thing is that the guys he picked may never have achieved the success they have achieved under Sherman as coach as they have under MM. Shermy was a great coack Monday till Saturday but his in game coaching and his GM skills were awful. I remember Wolf looking at the Packers and saying that they looked like an NFL Europe team. Coaching wise, howe many more games would the Packers have won if Shermy dealt with Brett as MM does?

[RashanGary]

I don't look at the team a GM inherits. I look at the quality of the team after 3-4 years. Sherman took over a good team and when he left it was bad.

Thompson took over a bad team and in a short time made it good. We can anylyze the details all damn day and twist things to fit our opinions, but at the end of the day, Shermans teams got progressively worse and Thompsons have gotten progressively better. As TT would say, "the proofs in the pudding". I think there is a lot of relevance to that statement when it comes to judging a GM. The proof is what you've constructed. It speaks for itself. Shermans teams went from 12-4 to 10-6 to 4-12 with all of the injuries and cap problems. Thompsons went from 4-12 to 8-8 to whatever happens this year. That is what is the most important; the results as they relate to winning. Sherman kept fielding progressively worse teams with less money and older players. TT fields progressively better teams with more money and younger players. It is what it is and the results don't speak well of Mike Sherman unless you consider inheriting 12-4 and leaving it in broke and in shambles a good thing.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sherman was a horrible GM and a average coach. If he was such a good coach, why was he coaching the line in Houston? Just think of the players we could have had if shermy didn't trade all those picks away.

Coaching the line: That is a spurrious argument. Just like saying he was a great coach because he was the offensive coordinator in Seattle or head coach at A&M.

There are other factors leading to coaching the line. Perhaps he didn't get the HC he wanted (he asked for to much cash here in AZ), wanted to stay involved in pro football while waiting, knew that A&M job would open....OR that he did it as a favor to longtime friend Kubiak.

I'm willing to speculate that Kubiak relied on him more than just his title indicated.