[DEBATE] Staff

Re: Florio: Sherman only?

Well the article is not entirely accurate.
As to players:
"Dunno" Washington had plenty of red flags. A punter should never be drafted on day one(even if it is Ray Guy) etc. But every team has made mistakes with high picks.

The real key is the impatience exhibited in each draft.
The willingness to trade up. Giving up 2 draft picks for "True Luck".

The other thing to learn is how costly a mistake can be.
If Marshall had panned out a 1st round pick would not be spent on Barnett.
If Jue had been a good selection Carroll (or possibly Nick Collins would not have been drafted).

The flip side of that is when a lower pick like Tauscher, Wells, or KGB is a good pick up few high picks are spent on that position.

Only about 50% of draft choices work for the team. What Thompson has learned is that 50% of double digit picks leads to more success than Sherman's 50% of 4-5 picks.

The quality/quantity debate will always go on because the draft is imprecise as is any endeavor involving humans.

While many are tired of hearing about the Hadl trade followed up the next year by the Del Gazo trade, there are plenty of examples in the history of the draft to learn what works and what does not work.

Unless extreme rebuilding is going on it is unlikely a dozen rookies will make the final roster.

There is no formula for success but there are many for failure.
Not being extreme in anything helps.
**************************************
Hiring Schottenheimer got McKenzie to blow up and want out. Some can make the connection between Schottenheimer hring leading to drafting Carroll.
Historical context is essential for proper analysis.

Wolf doesn't have to be employed by the team to affect it. His draft picks were the ones making the impact. Drafts take around 3-4 years to make their impact.

The same thing goes for Sherman's picks. They are affecting the team now.

Bad drafts=bad teams 3-4 years down the road.

Re: Florio: Sherman only?

The biggest problem with Sherman's drafts wasn't the supporting staff but the philosophy.

A GM wants to get young players who will develop into good starters over time. A coach wants to get players who can help the team win now, basically filling holes for the upcoming season.

Sherman focused on the holes and used FA and the draft to fill those holes. This lead to him focusing on certain players and trading draft picks to get those who they determined are the best to fill a particular hole.

TT is focusing on talented prospects who are likely to develop into good starters. With that in mind, it's better to use the shotgun approach of getting as many talented young guys as possible onto the roster and see how they develop. Therefore TT trades down for more picks.

Sherman's philosophy led to competitive teams each season, while TT's philospohy has led to us having to be patient waiting for this team to develop. Now that I think about it, that may have been what led to the break between Sherman and TT. TT decreased the experience on the team in thoughts of upgrading over time, while Sherman needed more experience to win now.

Either way, our only choice right now is to sit back and be patient. Hopefully TT's approach will pay off, but only time will tell.

Re: Florio: Sherman only?

:agree:

Re: Florio: Sherman only?

Exactly. When Sherman was the GM, extra picks were spent to trade up and reach for the players that he thought would help the team right away. When those guys didn't pan out, he didn't just throw away one pick, but 2 or 3. Trading down and taking more players gives more opportunities to land a good player.

When you trade up and miss, you whiff big time. You whiff so hard that you fly up in the air and land on your ***, much like Charlie Brown.

Re: Florio: Sherman only?

Priceless!!! ROFLMAO

So Thompson has a built in excuse for going 4-12 for 4 seasons. Gimme a break. I'll let the history books keep record. Meanwhile you guys can tell your grandkids about that nasty ole Mike Sherman that killed this team.

You better hope your grandkids don't have the smarts to look up the records or they'll be putting you in a home faster than you can type TT.

Oh and I suppose that Vince Lombardi was successful because of the players Scooter McLean and Lisle Blackburn brought in. In '57 Blackburn was 3-9,. In '58 Ray "Scooter" McLean was 1-10-1. In '59 Lombardi's first year he was 7-5 and in '60 they went to the Championship game. You guys make sure you call the historians that have it wrong. Let them know that the only reason Lombardi was successful was because of the players that Blackburn and McLean brought in.

Re: Florio: Sherman only?

44-20 Man TT would love to have that record after 4 seasons.

Re: Florio: Sherman only?

5-15 thusfar and counting.

With Ferggy likely done for a while (he said he thought he broke his foot), and Driver injured, and K-Rob being our #3, I must say I am miffed as to why TT hasn't signed ANY WR.

This is a potential disaster waiting to happen, God forbid Driver not play, we basically have Martin as our only other WR. :-?

It is in times like these I question if TT knows the concept of not putting his coaches under the bus. Get a body for the sake of giving the coach some options.

This was the exact same thing last year, we were terrible at WR and TT signed Taco Wallace. There were grumblings he didn't give the coaching staff adequate talent to compensate the injuries, and this year he seems to think that McCarthy can make due with a guy who hasn't played much this season in Robinson, a rookie who could end up being double teamed, a WR who is injured and won't be as effective/might not even play in Driver, and a WR who hasn't had a ball thrown his way all season in Martin.

Curious, to say the least.

Sherman is no Lombardi. Most would consider Lombardi the greatest Head Coach EVER. That can make a huge difference in how a team plays.

You can say what you want about history books but you can't dispute the absolute fact that Ron Wolf built the team that Sherman inherited. That is why Bob Harlan made the change at GM because Sherman wasn't qualified to be one and wasn't doing a very good job at being one either. If Sherman was doing this grand job like your trying to give him credit for as a GM then Harlan would of left Sherman in charge.

Sherman as a Head Coach will have a winning record. As a GM he did a poor job in even finding that one player that could put this team over the top.

He failed in free agency. His big pickups where Mark Roman, Hannibal Navies, and Wesley Walls. He picked up Grady Jackson off of waivers I believe in 2003.

His Drafts speak for themselves. It's not the fact that GB doesn't have any of those players no more. It's the fact that only 1/3 are still in the league today. That's just awful.

He made one good trade and that was for Al Harris.

You can bring TT in the equation all you want but if you forget Ted Thompson for the moment and just examine the job Mike Sherman did as GM you'll see the FACTS that he took a team built by Ron Wolf to the playoffs as a Head Coach and he took that team as GM and took it to decline.

Re: Florio: Sherman only?

found this post on another forum talking about the above article....Was just wondering if there was any trueth to it.....

Porky here is some sound advice. A little less would go alot further. Your posts are too long, especially when you say the same thing over and over. As a Mod you should realize this.....people stop reading when it's the same thing over and over. I'm only telling you this so people will read your post.

BTW...thanks for not addressing the McLean/Blackburn thing. I scanned your reply and din't see their names.

Re: Florio: Sherman only?

HMMM...no backup to it.

OK....I knew a guy that once met Bill Walsh's wife's hairdresser and she said that Walsh thinks that Mike Sherman was the best GM ever.


It's pretty easy for haters to make up stories, especially when they don't have to back it up.

Re: Florio: Sherman only?

Cloudy, I wouldn't say it is completely accurate.

First of all, Sherman was a coach who relied HEAVILY on his scouting department to scout the players he couldn't. That alone made it such that Sherman valued their input a great deal.

IMO, this scouting group might have labelled players in a manner that ultimately made Sherman draft them. For example, you have the draft board set to Ahmad Carroll and the scouts agree that he is REALLY young and will improve with age, has blazing speed, amazing vertical, has all the tools to develop into a shutdown corner.

Now Sherman reading that may have had the philosophy taht Ahmad could be a great CB, and eventaully a steal for whoever gets him. Thus with CB being a need, and Sherman knowing there was talent on this roster to compete for the playoffs, he decided to go ahead and draft Carroll because he had the potential to be a can't miss player that would have put his team over the top.

I still can't remember where I read it, but I really agree with the person who said Sherman conducted his draft from the view that he needed one more playmaker to put his team over the top. Thus Sherman gambled a great deal in search of that one player who would do that, and ended up missing on his home-run attempts.

I addressed McLean and Blackburn in the 1st paragraph with Lombardi. Their names have nothing to do with Mike Sherman's job as GM anyways. The fact is Lombardi is probably the greatest coach ever. That goes a long way in how a team plays and how the players on the field respond.

Here's some advice. If you want a legit debate please read the entire post of everyone. This is the type of stuff that gets people to overreact to things I say or things others say. Such as Brett Favre or anything else. It's pretty ridiculous that you can't take the time and read the post your going to respond to.

The fact you scanned my reply shows you have no intentions on disputing the fact that Ron Wolf built those teams. I've stated the players Sherman brought in and I've stated the players Wolf brought in yet those who are convince that Sherman was this great GM always forget to respond to that. The list goes on and on. Take the roster and examine it and look who drafted who. Signed who and traded for who. Ron Wolf is the most common name and it's by a pretty good margin especially among the starters.

Actaully De, I don't mind porky's long posts at all, they are always top quality and provide some thought provoking stuff/examples.

I guess it differes from person to person really.

Re: Florio: Sherman only?

I didn't listen to the radio that day evidently otherwise I could say I heard it but it doesn't surprise me Sydney would say that. He definitely was very critical of the job Mike Sherman did and has said things similar to that before.

Apparently you didn't take my advice. I'll drop it. 44-20...vs...5-15....we'll let history judge.







See how it's done.....nice and short.

Re: Florio: Sherman only?

It should be on record then right? Somebody get ahold of that tape.

and my point is pretty much proved. I completely stated that the record is more of a testament to him as a Coach but as a GM that 44-20 record was achieved with players mainly brought in by Ron Wolf.

Is that short enough for you? :roll:

Better.......so why was Lombardi's record not a testament to Blackburn and McLean? Not eveything is black and white. That's why everybody has opinions, but in the future when they list Sherman's record as GM there will not be an asterisk that says they were Wolf's players. Similarly when TT's record is published his record will be all his. Better hope Favre pulls his butt outta the fire or he is gone after this season.

TT will probably be here at least one more season.

As far as I'm concern Vince Lombardi was the greatest coach ever and without him Green Bay might've not won anything. That's how good he was. So I think even in this age if Lombardi was coaching a team he could find a way by making it very good. That’s just how Vince Lombardi was. I’m not disrespecting the older players but I’m sure most would agree that Lombardi was indeed that good of a coach and in fact all of them do according to the books, interviews, and tapes you see.

I'm not sure all the moves made by Lombardi when he took over. I wasn't alive in 1959. I can check the records and look but I'm sure it'll be hard to find anything.

With that said why compare Lombardi and Sherman. It's comparing apples and oranges. Two different eras of the game for one and Sherman wasn't even in close to Lombardi in terms of just about anything to do with football.

All I ask is to forget about Ted Thompson. Forget about the 60's Pack. Forget about all anything else.

Look at Sherman's rosters from the time he was GM until the end and tell me who built that team through the draft, free agency, and trades?

I have done that. I'm sure if others do it as well they will see the valid point critics of Sherman make.