Favre cudos Sherman

[IPBprez]

This is fresh off the Presses at PackersNews Premium - by Chris Havel

Posted May 22, 2005

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Chris Havel
E-mail Chris Havel at
[email protected]

Sherman a reason Favre returned

In many ways, Mike Sherman is no different than most NFL head coaches.

He is praised when he wins. He is panned when he loses.

He is painstakingly thorough, chronically concerned and acutely sensitive to anything

 

[NDPackerFan]

Refreshing article as usually it is about how Sherman doesn't relate to coaches, players, etc.

I agree with you...Sherm Lewis was a true technician. Man, back a few years with Lewis and Shurmur running the D. They were a dynamic duo, weren't they? :new:

 

[PackerTraxx]

I liked Sherman when he first came here, being a Packer fan and all. But I really lost a lot of respect for him that he used Donatell as a scapegoat when Rossley was the real problem. He did not do what was right for the Green Bay Packers.

 

[ArizonaPackerFan]

I liked the way Sherman stood up for Clifton when Sapp blindsided him, and I think a lot of the players respected him for that too. I think this article is another example of how some players respect Sherman because Sherman seems to care about his players. Great article.

I disagree with you guys about Sherm Lewis though. Holmgren called the plays here when Sherm Lewis was the O-coordinator. When Sherm Lewis was totally in charge of the offense when Ray Rhodes was the coach, I didn't think the offense was nearly as effective compared to when Holmgren called the plays. I didn't think Lewis adjusted as well to defenses, and his offense seemed more predictable when he was totally in charge of the offense under Rhodes.

 

[NDPackerFan]

Arizona - Sometimes a man has to admit when he is wrong, and I think I missed the boat. You are right - Holmgren did call the plays in the Packers hay-day. Sherm filled the position of O-Coordinator but Holmgren sailed that ship. I stand corrected.

OK, Holmgren-Shurmur were awesome, weren't they? :lol:

 

[ricky]

AZP, I have followed you from forum to forum (don't worry, I'm really not a stalker or predator). I thought your response about Sherman was good, but imcomplete.
1. Sherman had/has Favre as his QB. Yet he has regressed in the playoffs each year. Think about it. Sherman has "taken them" (with Favre at QB, Green, etc., should anything else be considered?) to the second tier twice. Both times, a disappointing loss where victory could have been achieved.
2. After the Philly loss (the infamous 4th and 26), Sherman jettisoned Donatell. The next year, the Packer defense was MUCH worse. Was this "assigning blame", or "buck passing"?
3. Sherman is not a demonstrative coach, and shows (to my eyes) excessive loyalty to his coaches. Agreed, Beightol has done wonders on the offensive line (and, quite seriously, I hope they have him in a "good health" program so he can be a Packer "stalwart" for years to come). However, his promotion of Slowik, the addition of Schottenheimer above Washington as DB's coach (don't get me started about McKenzie!) and the general "uncertainty" of the Packer defense (added to the general disappearance of the Packer offense in several games ) helped lead to a team collapse. Oh, sure, they posted a winning record- but looked embarrasignly inept in the Minnesota game (which, to my chagrin, some Vikings fans are trying to tout on Packer sites).
4. Sherman has his moments- the outburst against Sapp; the impassioned plea to the team after the Packers started out 1-4 last year). However, Sherman is not a leader, nor is he an inspirational coach. Why would having Sherman around lure Favre back? Less opposition as the true leader of the team. I posted years ago, when Sherman first was assigned the GM/HC position, that Favre was the true leader of the team. He's still the "800 pound gorilla", and will be until he retires. This is not something I look forward to at all. I see it as a repeat of the fortunes of the Denver Broncos: contenders with Elway, at best, scramblers at QB (Jake Plummer??) at QB and also-rans in the playoff hunt. In the meanwhile, the "masters of mediocrity" forge a winning team in New England, using a cobination of luck, savvy and a return to old time, rock 'em, sock 'em football (enough to warm a relatively old man's heart warm).

 

[ArizonaPackerFan]

Hey there Ricky,

I respectfully disagree with you on this one. I think Sherman is a good leader, but doesn't quite have all the horses to get over the top. Give Sherman a Reggie White like Holmgren had and I think he'd be a better coach too.

If Sherman wasn't a good leader, I think the Packers would have folded their tent when they started 1-4 last year. I think Sherman helped them fight through it to come back and win the division.

And the thing that impressed me about Sherman was his win against the Patriots a couple of years ago on the road. Half the defense was injured, and I was impressed with the way Sherman told the team that instead of finding excuses to lose, let's find reasons to win. And the undermanned Packers beat the defending champions despite being undermanned.

Sherman isn't perfect and has his flaws, but I don't know of anyone available that I'd rather have as a coach at the moment.

 

[Ryan]

<off topic comment>

Ricky glad to have you posting! I noticed you joined back in Dec, it's great to see you on the site again!

</off topic comment>

 

[IPBprez]

Hey Ricky - Welcome aboard...

AG (?) - I think on this one... and it gets a little shady here... colors of grey.... I think both of you have a few things which were correct, especially at the time(s) those incidents happened...

For me (?) - Sherman's biggest failure is his lack of desire to pay attention to the Defense. He's always been an offensive minded Coach - it shows with the way he calls plays out there. For him, I think it's like wearin' your fav pair of sneakers which you thought were lost... He had been helping call plays before and when Rossley (I hate that guy) went down with medical problems - that's when he went back to basics and the Offense flared RED HOT again.

Sherman's BIGGEST failure has been his in-ability to let go of Tom Rossley. It's like when you're protecting a cousin, who's always a screw-up.. but you do it anyway.

Rossley was who should have been let go, immediately after the Eagles game.
And, while most people follow the Sports Pundit's "drink our kool-aid" lead on that game... I have to dis-agree with their premise... It's just that the 4th&26 play was so much of a highlight for the film replays on the evening news, that they have taken to ignoring the real change-up in that game which cost us our chance to blow Carolina out of the water and face up with the Patriots and take that SuperBowl which was ours.....

The play that cost us that Eagles game was the PASS PLAY that Rossley called and the Eagles finally got what they had been prepping for all week. Their D went straight for the jugular and the weak right side, forcing Brett to get rid of the ball way too quickly and without any real control on the ball. He had been totally caught off-guard and the RT was in no way ready to stop even...me!

Think about it - without that flaky INT, from Rossley calling that Play -

<center>"Do we ever get to see the Eagles with the ball ever again....?"</center>

The answer would be a resounding.... "NO"

Time runs out, we still have the lead... game over - we stop the Eagles after decades of flopping consistently against a Team which truly was not better than the Packers...

Sherman should have fired Rossley. Period!

One more thing - if Holmgren was all that great with being "the guy" in calling the plays as opposed to Sherm Lewis who actually has/had kept having success later on, over in Detroit until his retirement... then what the heck has happened with all that, over in Seattle? Spock logic just doesn't follow guys.... If it were really true - then Seattle would have at least made the SuperBowl as an Underdog, at least once. Hasselbeck's a pretty damn decent QB and the O-Line was comparable to our circa 1995, as well. Course, one wonders what/how they would have done, if AL HARRIS hadn't caught that INT at the end of the game, too!

In the end - the Packers have profited greatly with the hiring of Jim Bates and I think for the first time - we have a chance to return to the type of Defense the Packers had under Fritz Shurmur - I still feel his ghost flies around Lambeau. What I'm lookin' for? Is who that Player will be that Bates lights a fire under... so big he will become the Leader in the Locker Room and on the field like Reggie White - something we've not had for many years now... It's the one ingredient left missing!

Just my thoughts.....

 

[leopardmech]

If Sherman wasn't a good leader, I think the Packers would have folded their tent when they started 1-4 last year. I think Sherman helped them fight through it to come back and win the division.

Well said Arizona
This quote basically sums up my views on Sherman. Yes he has his faults but I think his pros definitely out weigh his cons.

Later
Leopardmech

 

[PackerTraxx]

We will have to live with Sherman for a least this year. So even though I have lost a lot of faith in him for a number of reasons I wish him the best. This is his chance this year since he can concentrate on coaching. TT will be watching closely. I would like nothing more than for him to make me eat crow by winning the SB this year. Crow and SB go well together so I won't mind.
:rubeyes: