A new job for Sherman

[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.

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.

You don't get to count guys that made it on OTHER TEAMS. Tons of players can become decent in the NFL if given enough time..ie, Romo and the way the NFL use to develop QBs.

I"m not giving wolf credit anymore than I'm giving shermy.

Wolf was better because he had more picks. You throw enough darts you'll hit on some. That is the point. I'd be willing to guess that given any decent GM who was at their post for 8 years and had as many picks as wolf would have the same results.

If i have some time I'll look at Accorsi, Pioli, etc.

Wolf was great in the 3/4 rounds.

[mraynrand]

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.

After writing all that, in your sum up you essentially agree with me. Yawn.

[The Leaper]

After writing all that, in your sum up you essentially agree with me. Yawn.

You said you didn't understand why I could think Sherman had a poor eye. I explained it. Sherman wasn't a complete failure (see Matt Millen) but he certainly wasn't any good either. He was bailed out by the guys Ron Wolf left him...Favre, Green, the OL.

Sherman had NOTHING to do with aquiring those guys. I will give him credit for DEVELOPING some of those OL guys. Sherman did a damn good job there. However, that doesn't mean he had an eye for talent. I know I've mentioned elsewhere that I don't view Sherman as a total disaster as GM. He did make a few great moves. However, he made far more horrible moves. Someone with a good eye for talent doesn't screw up that much. I'm saying he was more LUCKY than good. Is that what you were saying?

[MadtownPacker]

The Packers are under new management and are 10-1 with a huge game in 2 days and you clown are still talking about Sherm?

[The Leaper]

The Packers are under new management and are 10-1 with a huge game in 2 days and you clown are still talking about Sherm?

Sherm just got a new job, if you hadn't noticed.

[mraynrand]

Wolf was better because he had more picks. You throw enough darts you'll hit on some. That is the point. I'd be willing to guess that given any decent GM who was at their post for 8 years and had as many picks as wolf would have the same results.

If i have some time I'll look at Accorsi, Pioli, etc.

Wolf was great in the 3/4 rounds.

And if you suck, like the current Philly GM/player personnel group, your team goes down the tubes rapidly because you miss the dart board completely. Plus, Wolf was old school. He mixed it up pretty well, with trades, FA and draft. To be fair to all the Packer GMs and player personnel guys, really one trade has meant success for 16 years. Why do the Packers have the best record over the past 16 years in the NFL?

[The Leaper]

Why do the Packers have the best record over the past 16 years in the NFL?

Brett Favre.

[MadtownPacker]

Sherm just got a new job, if you hadn't noticed.

Yes I did and good for him. I just dont understand why people want to talk bad about him after he has been gone for 2 yrs. He was put in the unenviable position of getting Favre to another Superbowl. It didnt work out but I admire the love and loyalty he had for the Packers.

[mraynrand]

After writing all that, in your sum up you essentially agree with me. Yawn.

You said you didn't understand why I could think Sherman had a poor eye. I explained it. Sherman wasn't a complete failure (see Matt Millen) but he certainly wasn't any good either. He was bailed out by the guys Ron Wolf left him...Favre, Green, the OL.

Sherman had NOTHING to do with aquiring those guys. I will give him credit for DEVELOPING some of those OL guys. Sherman did a damn good job there. However, that doesn't mean he had an eye for talent. I know I've mentioned elsewhere that I don't view Sherman as a total disaster as GM. He did make a few great moves. However, he made far more horrible moves. Someone with a good eye for talent doesn't screw up that much. I'm saying he was more LUCKY than good. Is that what you were saying?

I guess we don't agree. Sherman moved up to draft Walker in his first pick as GM. Guy was a pro bowler. He also got a pro bowler out of the #5 he received in the trade (Kampman). He drafted Barnett at 29 and guy is probably a pro bowler - easily the best #29 pick in the history of the modern draft. He traded for Al Harris in the same year and guy is one of the best corners in the NFL over the past 4 years. These are all targeted moves that Sherman pushed for. Two pro bowlers and two pro bowl caliber starters from your first two years ever as GM is pretty good. If you can't acknowledge that he had an eye for talent picking these guys out, there's nothing more to say to you.

Your points about wasting picks and making bad decisions are valid too - over his three year run he was probably average to below average among NFL GMs, with most GMs averaging about a 40% success rate with draft picks starting for them - and of course he has some other celebrated f-ups. But those things have nothing to do with his eye for talent. Have you ever gone through drafts of multiple teams and then compared the draft to their rosters over the following several years? Even the great GMs have marginal drafts where they get just one or two guys. and don't just look at good teams. look at all the crappy teams too. I've looked through that stuff. If you look through it, You'll see that Sherman compares pretty favorably with a lot of teams. most teams that make a SB run have one or two outstanding draft years together, mixed in with some pretty down years. And very good teams very often have really thin drafts because they pick at the bottom of every round.

[mraynrand]

Sherm just got a new job, if you hadn't noticed.

Yes I did and good for him. I just dont understand why people want to talk bad about him after he has been gone for 2 yrs. He was put in the unenviable position of getting Favre to another Superbowl. It didnt work out but I admire the love and loyalty he had for the Packers.

Or the enviable position. Gotta admit I'd rather inherit a team with Favre than a team with Sage Rosenfels. Sherman did have to manage a Favre playing with a damaged knee (2002) a broken thumb (2003) and a broken defense (2004)!

[MadtownPacker]

Sherm just got a new job, if you hadn't noticed.

Yes I did and good for him. I just dont understand why people want to talk bad about him after he has been gone for 2 yrs. He was put in the unenviable position of getting Favre to another Superbowl. It didnt work out but I admire the love and loyalty he had for the Packers.

Or the enviable position. Gotta admit I'd rather inherit a team with Favre than a team with Sage Rosenfels. Sherman did have to manage a Favre playing with a damaged knee (2002) a broken thumb (2003) and a broken defense (2004)!

Maybe but with Sage Rosenfels you arent EXPECTED to win the Superbowl.

[mraynrand]

Sherm just got a new job, if you hadn't noticed.

Yes I did and good for him. I just dont understand why people want to talk bad about him after he has been gone for 2 yrs. He was put in the unenviable position of getting Favre to another Superbowl. It didnt work out but I admire the love and loyalty he had for the Packers.

Or the enviable position. Gotta admit I'd rather inherit a team with Favre than a team with Sage Rosenfels. Sherman did have to manage a Favre playing with a damaged knee (2002) a broken thumb (2003) and a broken defense (2004)!

Maybe but with Sage Rosenfels you arent EXPECTED to win the Superbowl.

Point taken. With Sage, you're happy just to complete a pass.

[The Leaper]

Sherman moved up to draft Walker in his first pick as GM. Guy was a pro bowler.

Yes. I agree it was a great pick. However, can you really say Sherman had a great eye because of this pick?

Walker is a physical freak. He was big and fast, which is a good start for any potential great receiver. There wasn't any doubts from anyone that the guy had the potential to develop into a great player if he focused 100% on football. The question was his focus. Physical talent wasn't really a question with Javon.

He also got a pro bowler out of the #5 he received in the trade (Kampman).

This one is a better choice to look to if you want to claim Sherman had a good eye for talent. Kampman has sneaky good athletic ability and a tremendous motor. It was an excellent pick in the 5th round. However, Sherman made precious few other excellent picks outside of round 1. That is where the "good eye" viewpoint has a major problem. Kampman was a very late 5th rounder, I believe. He was taken in a borderline total crap-shoot area. Was it a great eye, or just luck of the draw?

He drafted Barnett at 29 and guy is probably a pro bowler - easily the best #29 pick in the history of the modern draft. He traded for Al Harris in the same year and guy is one of the best corners in the NFL over the past 4 years.

Al Harris...can't really say Sherman had an eye there. Harris was well known as a very good player on a team with a deep secondary who probably had the ability to start on a lesser defense. It was a great move on Sherman's part to assume the risk, but he was in the advantageous position of having a very late 2nd round pick that was roughly the right price to acquire Harris. It is to his credit that he made the move, but I'm not sure it can be strictly credited toward his having an eye for talent.

Barnett...probably the best example if you are looking to prove Sherman had an eye for talent. Barnett was not the general choice as the best LB in the draft...although he was considered by most to be one of the top 3. Sherman made him the first LB selected...and it was the right choice. Probably Sherman's best pick considering the need he filled and that he got a tough choice right.

These are all targeted moves that Sherman pushed for. Two pro bowlers and two pro bowl caliber starters from your first two years ever as GM is pretty good. If you can't acknowledge that he had an eye for talent picking these guys out, there's nothing more to say to you.

But what about his other failings in the top 150 picks? He missed BADLY on 10 of his 14 top 150 selections. The guys I mentioned mostly weren't even capable BACKUPS. Does a guy with a great eye for talent miss so horribly on all those picks?

Clearly, Sherman's strategy was horrible. He had 14 top 150 picks in 4 years. Thompson has had 19 top 150 picks in 3 years. Sherman threw away a TON of picks...and got a few good players to show for it, but precious little in the areas of depth and role players.

However, if you look at Thompson's 14 top 150 picks in his first 2 years (this year's picks are tough to judge at this point) how many have been failures?

I would claim that Hodge, Cory Rodgers, Blackmon, Martin, Coston and Underwood have been mostly failures to this point. That is only 6...compared to the 10 failures of Sherman. Thompson has been at least moderately successful with the rest to this point...ARod, Collins, Poppinga, Hawk, Colledge, Jennings, and Spitz. Murphy is an incomplete...the guy got hurt and we'll never know if he would've been any good or not.

In my mind, that shows why Thompson has a better eye for talent...he doesn't miss on taking guys who can at least contribute in SOME manner regardless. Sherman, to me, was a guy who was always swinging for the fences. He was Rob Deer as a GM. Sure, he hit a few homers...but he stuck out the majority of the time. I don't see how that can be translated into having an eye for talent. Sherman tended to take guys with great physical attributes...HOPING they developed into something. A few did...which is to be expected, and hardly a sign that Sherman is a brilliant talent evaluator. However, most did not.

[mraynrand]

However, if you look at Thompson's 14 top 150 picks in his first 2 years (this year's picks are tough to judge at this point) how many have been failures?
.

Thompson started off in a way different position than Sherman. 1 - He drafted at position #5 in every round last year due to record. Sherman never drafted above 20 (and that was via trade to get Walker). Thompson had 2 extra second round picks - one for McKenzie and one for Walker. That alone could easily account for the difference in their success rate - not to mention Sherman trading picks for players (a highly debatable tactic) and Thompson trading picks for more picks. Try looking at a team that drafts at the bottom for three years and look at who they pick and how they did. A while back I looked at Philly and St. Louis over a similar stretch 2002-2004, and if I remember correctly, they both had worse outcomes than Sherman. even the Colts were close to Sherman in efficiency in the draft. They hit on Freeney and I think Sanders - the difference with them is they had a few more starters - but that's to be expected from a GM who is considered among the three best in the NFL. Check out other teams is all I say - and try not to cherry pick. Again, look at teams that, like the Sherman led Packers, had to draft lower due to a good record.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Wolf was better because he had more picks. You throw enough darts you'll hit on some. That is the point. I'd be willing to guess that given any decent GM who was at their post for 8 years and had as many picks as wolf would have the same results.

If i have some time I'll look at Accorsi, Pioli, etc.

Wolf was great in the 3/4 rounds.

And if you suck, like the current Philly GM/player personnel group, your team goes down the tubes rapidly because you miss the dart board completely. Plus, Wolf was old school. He mixed it up pretty well, with trades, FA and draft. To be fair to all the Packer GMs and player personnel guys, really one trade has meant success for 16 years. Why do the Packers have the best record over the past 16 years in the NFL?

I'm not in complete agreement on Philly. Along with Pitt i've never seen a team let so many players leave and yet still be a strong team.

Reid has all the control in that org. For the most part they have had small drafts and been as good as anybody else, but they are in that same Favre like window for McNabb. Hence signing TO.

And, I have no idea how Reid's family issues are affecting his ability to coach or draft players. No matter what anyone says, thats gotta affect him. And, if it isn't..then he and the family should split up.

The difference tween now and back when wolf was GM was that good/great FAs were available. There is no chance a Reggie become available now.