A new job for Sherman

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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.

Rand gets it. Parcells only hoped to get a third of his picks on the roster. And, it gets harder as you get a better team.

That is why it furher compounds the problem by having less picks. You have 6 picks..that is like 2 players making the squad.

#29: I don't know when the modern era begins, but I would put Derrick Alexander up against barnett. And, i'm surprised that you dont' feel the same about Pickett. Marlin Jackson is doing pretty well as well. Don't forget Nick Mangold.

I don't think it is as a clear cut case as you think.

[The Leaper]

Thompson started off in a way different position than Sherman.

Not really. Thompson had the 26th selection his first year. Take away the Hawk selection at #5 overall, and he's not picking any differently than where Sherman was with the rest of the other picks. Sherman also was awarded some free picks during his tenure received via trade (McKenzie, etc.)

I was comparing the top 150 selections...Sherman had 14 in 4 years and missed convincingly on 10 of them. Thompson had 14 in his first 2 years (which alone goes to show the difference in their philosophy). Take away the Murphy pick as a wash, and he missed convincingly on 6 of 13.

10 of 14 failures

vs.

6 of 13 failures

Thompson clearly has a much better track record...and if you go back to his days in Seattle, it becomes even more apparent how Thompson is a far better college talent evaluator than Sherman was.

Sitting here and trying to say Sherman wasn't that bad as a GM just seems illogical to me. He had a few great moves that merely MAINTAINED the level of the team's play...but he had far more duds and absolutely destroyed the depth on the roster in just 4 years that it took Ron Wolf a decade to build.

[The Leaper]

Rand gets it. Parcells only hoped to get a third of his picks on the roster. And, it gets harder as you get a better team.

I strongly disagree.

Each team gets 7-9 picks a year, including compensatory selections. If only 2-3 guys are just MAKING your roster every year, your team is failing big time. There are 50 guys on a roster...and the average NFL career span is roughly 5-6 years.

With that in mind, you are turning over 8-10 spots a year on average...so you will need probably closer to 2/3 of your picks to make the roster on average unless you are going to be a major player in free agency every year.

You actually need 1/3 of your picks to become STARTERS (24 starting positions with special teams). Starters will have a longer career span than non-starters on average, let's say 8 years. That means you are going to turn over around 3 of those spots every year on average.

In Sherman's case, he seemed to meet the need for starters to an extent, barely. I don't even think he managed to bring in 3 starters a year on average. Maybe he didn't need too...I don't have time to evaluate that right now. Where he really failed was in bringing in enough role talent to support the starting cast, which is why the team tanked in 2004 when injuries mounted.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Rand gets it. Parcells only hoped to get a third of his picks on the roster. And, it gets harder as you get a better team.

I strongly disagree.

Each team gets 7-9 picks a year, including compensatory selections. If only 2-3 guys are just MAKING your roster every year, your team is failing big time. There are 50 guys on a roster...and the average NFL career span is roughly 5-6 years.

With that in mind, you are turning over 8-10 spots a year on average...so you will need probably closer to 2/3 of your picks to make the roster on average unless you are going to be a major player in free agency every year.

You actually need 1/3 of your picks to become STARTERS (24 starting positions with special teams). Starters will have a longer career span than non-starters on average, let's say 8 years. That means you are going to turn over around 3 of those spots every year on average.

In Sherman's case, he seemed to meet the need for starters to an extent, barely. I don't even think he managed to bring in 3 starters a year on average. Maybe he didn't need too...I don't have time to evaluate that right now. Where he really failed was in bringing in enough role talent to support the starting cast, which is why the team tanked in 2004 when injuries mounted.

You are an idiot. You are disagreeing with Parcells? Ok.

We are talking draft. There is also free agents, undrafted players, practice squad, etc.

I'm not even going to touch your math because it is so freakin faulty. You can't do stats like that. Ok, let's just pull 8 years..well, because you feel like it. LOL

It is ludicrous how you make things up. Starters and draft. Ok. Let's take a look at the Pats...um, 2 starters total that are 4 years or under. 3 if you include the kicker.

Cowboys: 4 starters under 4 years experience.

Panthers: 4

Rams: 5

Fins: 6

Do i need to go on?

[The Leaper]

You are an idiot. You are disagreeing with Parcells? Ok.

For all I know, someone misquoted Parcells. Is he on here posting? I haven't seen shit on here pertaining to a direct quote from Parcells. Until I do, you have no room to talk about where Parcells really does stand. Did he really mean only 1/3 of his draft picks needed to make the roster? Where's the direct quote and source of this information?

We are talking draft. There is also free agents, undrafted players, practice squad, etc.

Of course we are. Few undrafted players make final NFL rosters though. Free agency is mostly a zero sum game...you are going to lose as many as you pick up over time. Granted, at any one time, free agency could impact heavily one way or another.

I'm not even going to touch your math because it is so freakin faulty. You can't do stats like that. Ok, let's just pull 8 years..well, because you feel like it. LOL

What's faulty about it? I will admit that these were all assumptions, but they seemed reasonable to me. Why are they unreasonable to you? Because you looked at 4 teams that you knew had a lot of veterans and ignored the younger teams in the league?

It is ludicrous how you make things up. Starters and draft. Ok. Let's take a look at the Pats...um, 2 starters total that are 4 years or under. 3 if you include the kicker.

The Pats are ONE TEAM...and a veteran one. The other teams you mention are also veteran teams. Why did you not mention a young team like Green Bay? You can't take one team and extrapolate that to your advantage. The Packers probably have over 20 guys on the roster with 4 years experience or less. This is about averages. I never said it is a hard fast rule at all times. Some teams might be younger and not need as many picks to pan out...other may be older and will need more to pan out.

Do i need to go on?

Yes, you do. You can't take 4 teams that are specifically tilted to your side of the argument and then declare that you are right and the discussion is over. Naming 4 veteran laden teams as your evidence that the league average is apparently only 4 or 5 guys a team under 4 years of experience is hardly proving your point.

Nice try...but some people are here are a little smarter than your friends who you can easily bully with shoddy rhetoric.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You are an idiot. You are disagreeing with Parcells? Ok.

For all I know, someone misquoted Parcells. Is he on here posting? I haven't seen shit on here pertaining to a direct quote from Parcells. Until I do, you have no room to talk about where Parcells really does stand.

We are talking draft. There is also free agents, undrafted players, practice squad, etc.

Of course we are. Few undrafted players make final NFL rosters though. Free agency is mostly a zero sum game...you are going to lose as many as you pick up over time. Granted, at any one time, free agency could impact heavily one way or another.

I'm not even going to touch your math because it is so freakin faulty. You can't do stats like that. Ok, let's just pull 8 years..well, because you feel like it. LOL

What's faulty about it? I will admit that these were all assumptions, but they seemed reasonable to me. Why are they unreasonable to you? Because you looked at 4 teams that you knew had a lot of veterans and ignored the younger teams in the league?

It is ludicrous how you make things up. Starters and draft. Ok. Let's take a look at the Pats...um, 2 starters total that are 4 years or under. 3 if you include the kicker.

The Pats are ONE TEAM...and a veteran one. The other teams you mention are also veteran teams. Why did you not mention a young team like Green Bay? You can't take one team and extrapolate that to your advantage. The Packers probably have over 20 guys on the roster with 4 years experience or less. This is about averages. I never said it is a hard fast rule at all times. Some teams might be younger and not need as many picks to pan out...other may be older and will need more to pan out.

Do i need to go on?

Yes, you do. You can't take 4 teams that are specifically tilted to your side of the argument and then declare that you are right and the discussion is over. Naming 4 veteran laden teams as your evidence that the league average is apparently only 4 or 5 guys a team under 4 years of experience is hardly proving your point.

Nice try...but some people are here are a little smarter than your friends who you can easily bully with shoddy rhetoric.

Man, you are grasping.I just randomly picked 2 decent teams and 2 teams that sucked. Do you really think I know the average age of teams. I just went to espn and looked at the depth charts.

I didn't pick the two super bowl teams because I figured they would be outta whack.

Green bay...sure, let's take the youngest team. LOL

Your constant attention to my posts and discussions with others is fascinating. I love the attention..your mancrush on me is getting ridiculous.

[The Leaper]

Man, you are grasping.I just randomly picked 2 decent teams and 2 teams that sucked. Do you really think I know the average age of teams. I just went to espn and looked at the depth charts.

Well, you can't randomly pick out 4 team out of 32 and expect that to be statistical evidence to support your own theory.

I'm not suggesting Green Bay is normal. I suggested that Green Bay stands in direct opposition to your examples of teams with low numbers of inexperienced players...and that you likely should expand your horizon before claiming that I'm off my rocker with my assumptions.

If 5 years isn't a logical guess for the length of the average NFL player's career, what is?

If 8 years isn't a logical guess for the length of the average NFL starter's career, what is?

It can't be all that far from those numbers, although I never said this was some kind of result from a year of research on the topic. It was taken off the top of my head as a guess...and I clearly noted as such.

[The Leaper]

http://www.nflpa.org/Faqs/NFL_HopefulsFaq.aspx

How long do most NFL careers last?
The average length of an NFL career is about 3 and a half seasons. Although there are some exceptional players who have long careers that extend 10 or twelve seasons and beyond, most players only stay active for about three seasons. Players leave the game because of injury, self-induced retirement, or being cut by the team. This also means that while players may make more money than most people, they are only making it for an average of three and a half years. To make sure they are successful in the future, players must invest their money well and make plans for another career when they can no longer play football.

- - -

From the NFLPA website...the average NFL career is only 3.5 seasons. So, my estimate is actually TOO HIGH...meaning that teams would have to replace players even more often than I suggested. For a 50 man roster, you will turn over 14 guys a year ON AVERAGE if the average career span is 3.5 years. Clearly, that won't be true every year based on each team's individual roster breakdown and talent level...but ON AVERAGE, that will be what you need to replace.

Still want to claim that getting 1/3 of your draft picks on the final roster is gonna cut it?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

http://www.nflpa.org/Faqs/NFL_HopefulsFaq.aspx

How long do most NFL careers last?
The average length of an NFL career is about 3 and a half seasons. Although there are some exceptional players who have long careers that extend 10 or twelve seasons and beyond, most players only stay active for about three seasons. Players leave the game because of injury, self-induced retirement, or being cut by the team. This also means that while players may make more money than most people, they are only making it for an average of three and a half years. To make sure they are successful in the future, players must invest their money well and make plans for another career when they can no longer play football.

- - -

From the NFLPA website...the average NFL career is only 3.5 seasons. So, my estimate is actually TOO HIGH...meaning that teams would have to replace players even more often that I suggested.

Still want to claim that getting 1/3 of your draft picks on the final roster is gonna cut it?

Everyone with a brain knows the average career is less than 4 years. However, you are obviously not familiar with the terms: mean, median, and mode.

In order for you to present any sort of argument you would have to determine it by position, by starter, etc. For example, offensive linemen have a much longer life than running backs. Using a average is just dumb.

You are so stupid that it pains me. For example, if I have a player that plays one game and then never plays again that counts. There are tons of guys who get a cup of coffee in the NFL.

[The Leaper]

Everyone with a brain knows the average career is less than 4 years. However, you are obviously not familiar with the terms: mean, median, and mode.

In order for you to present any sort of argument you would have to determine it by position, by starter, etc. For example, offensive linemen have a much longer life than running backs. Using a average is just dumb.

You are so stupid that it pains me. For example, if I have a player that plays one game and then never plays again that counts. There are tons of guys who get a cup of coffee in the NFL.

That is precisely why my estimate was a conservative 5 years, dumbass. But thanks for proving my point for me.

The bottom line FACT is that turnover in the NFL requires far more than 3 draft picks making the final roster every year for success. Anyone who isn't a dumbass can clearly see that.

[MJZiggy]

Everyone with a brain knows the average career is less than 4 years. However, you are obviously not familiar with the terms: mean, median, and mode.

In order for you to present any sort of argument you would have to determine it by position, by starter, etc. For example, offensive linemen have a much longer life than running backs. Using a average is just dumb.

You are so stupid that it pains me. For example, if I have a player that plays one game and then never plays again that counts. There are tons of guys who get a cup of coffee in the NFL.

That's a little harsh, don't you think? Read your post again as if someone were saying it to you. And I know plenty of people with very high-functioning brains who would have no idea of the average NFL career. It is possible to make your point and still respect your fellow poster, or are you just trying to be a cyberbully like Mad said. I'm starting to think he has a VERY valid point.

[mraynrand]

Thompson started off in a way different position than Sherman.

Not really. Thompson had the 26th selection his first year. Take away the Hawk selection at #5 overall, and he's not picking any differently than where Sherman was with the rest of the other picks. Sherman also was awarded some free picks during his tenure received via trade (McKenzie, etc.)

Are you really that (edit: misguided) to think that a #5 pick, isn't a huge deal? That TWO extra round two picks aren't a big deal (TT got both the #2s from the McKenzie and Walker trades). Plus, if you think so highly of Parcells, how come he did significantly worse as a GM when he was in Dallas compared to Sherman in GB? (edit: It wasn't you that brought up Parcells - but he was barely .500 in four years at Dallas and he's supposed to be the guru).

[The Leaper]

Are you really that stupid to think that a #5 pick, isn't a huge deal? That TWO extra round two picks aren't a big deal (TT got both the #2s from the McKenzie and Walker trades). Plus, if you think so highly of Parcells, how come he did significantly worse as a GM when he was in Dallas compared to Sherman in GB?

No...the #5 pick IS a huge deal. I'm not saying that it isn't. I just am pointing out that if you take that pick out of the equation, Thompson was picking in the same general spots as Sherman did.

Again...Thompson's first year = 26th position. How is that different from Sherman AT ALL?

Thompson's second year = 5th position. Take away the Hawk pick, and he is selecting very early in each round the rest of the way...not much different than picking in the late first and thereafter.

I agree, Thompson had a huge advantage with Hawk in terms of getting a player certain to succeed...but everything else pick-wise was very similar. He did gain 2nd round picks in the Walker/McKenzie trades as well...but he still had to make the pick successful, did he not? Just because he had the pick was no guarantee the player taken would succeed.

I have nothing to do with the Parcells quote. That is all Bigguns.

[The Leaper]

That's a little harsh, don't you think? Read your post again as if someone were saying it to you. And I know plenty of people with very high-functioning brains who would have no idea of the average NFL career. It is possible to make your point and still respect your fellow poster, or are you just trying to be a cyberbully like Mad said. I'm starting to think he has a VERY valid point.

This is Bigguns only defense. When he knows he is wrong, he demands that his foil produce a doctoral thesis on the topic at hand or he dismisses their notions as speculation and hodge-podge...regardless of whether or not they make sense.

In this case, he pulled some nonsense about Parcells out of his ass...didn't document where he got it, just tossed it out there as if it validated his opinion.

Clearly, the comment as he stated it is incorrect. Parcells would never say that a 33% success rate at getting drafted players on your roster is optimal. It likely was in reference to drafted players becoming STARTERS, not simply making the roster.

However, Bigguns won't wise up to his error...nor will he admit that other people are correct in calling him out on it, unless they provide a doctoral thesis otherwise.

[mraynrand]

Are you really that stupid to think that a #5 pick, isn't a huge deal? That TWO extra round two picks aren't a big deal (TT got both the #2s from the McKenzie and Walker trades). Plus, if you think so highly of Parcells, how come he did significantly worse as a GM when he was in Dallas compared to Sherman in GB?

No...the #5 pick IS a huge deal. I'm not saying that it isn't. I just am pointing out that if you take that pick out of the equation, Thompson was picking in the same general spots as Sherman did.

Again...Thompson's first year = 26th position. How is that different from Sherman AT ALL?

Thompson's second year = 5th position. Take away the Hawk pick, and he is selecting very early in each round the rest of the way...not much different than picking in the late first and thereafter.

I agree, Thompson had a huge advantage with Hawk in terms of getting a player certain to succeed...but everything else pick-wise was very similar. He did gain 2nd round picks in the Walker/McKenzie trades as well...but he still had to make the pick successful, did he not? Just because he had the pick was no guarantee the player taken would succeed.

I have nothing to do with the Parcells quote. That is all Bigguns.

yes the picks have to work out. But you have to have them to make them. a #5 pick and two extra second rounders gives TT a huge advantage over Sherman in his first three years as GM. And I hope TT has a better success rate with his picks - long term. He seems even to be getting better at the FA thing - Pickett compares favorably with Gravy Jackson, for example - might even be better long term.