1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

From Havel's PG column

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by net, Sep 21, 2006.

  1. net

    net Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    979
    Ratings:
    +86
    There is no secret to success in the National Football League.


    The good teams have a quarterback that can make plays and execute the offense. They have a running game, or at least a semblance of a running game, to keep opposing defenses honest. They have a defense that can neutralize, if not dominate, the opposition.


    The great teams have all of that in addition to top-notch special teams play.


    Now, the Packers have one of the above: The quarterback. And guess who is taking a majority of the heat for the Packers' 0-2 start? That's right. It's the quarterback.
    -----------------------

    Not from me. If the Packers had a semblence of a defense they would have at least been in the Bear game, and probably won the Saints game.

    But he's hit on the magic formula. I don't know how many of you saw the Jags-Steelers game Sunday night. To the younger crowd, it was a throwback to my youth...the 1960's...when an NFL game was fought that way. Two rock-solid defenses which are unbendable. The modern fan thinks football is throw the ball 50 times and try to outscore the opponent.

    Here's a good analogy: who won the Super Bowl last year? Bill Cowher or Tony Dungy? One had just enough offense, while the other had an incredible offense. But in the end, it was the team with the best defense, a solid running game and just enough of a passer to keep the opponent honest.

    And as Havel points out, special teams are a plus.

    This is the model...I think...McCarthy would like to implement here. I'm not so sure about the zone-blocking thing, but to run the ball is very important.

    But the reason the Packers have lost the first two games is putrid defense and a lack of running the ball against the Saints.
     
  2. Timmons

    Timmons Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Messages:
    623
    Ratings:
    +1
    good points and great post, Net. I wil however point out that the Raven's won a Superbowl with a QB that most don't even remember. I great QB is not required. One that takes care of the ball is. That being said, you're right. Our defense (pass defense specifically) is what is killing us.

    What is Schottenheimers role again and why is he here?

    "All I want for Christmas is Jim Bates back..."
     
  3. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    17,836
    Ratings:
    +3,483
    This is also from that article..

    The Pack are in decline because of poor drafts in the early 2000s (coupled with the "keep your own at any cost" mentality - Cletidus Hunt was the best example). These picks should be the core of the team right now...players in their primes. Instead, we have to start 30-somethings and 1st/2nd year players. Unless TT was supposed to have been drafting FOR Sherman, I think the blame lies elsewhere. Everyone complains because we're starting all these young TT draft picks...but don't want to acknowledge that MS's picks (Joey Thomas, Donnell Washington, Kenny Peterson, James Lee, Brennan Curtin, Marquez Anderson, Bahwoh Jue) aren't even on the team anymore. These players should be the heart and sole of the Packers team right now! There's nothing that TT could do to make these guys players...some people just don't have it (even Vince Lombardi cut players). You judge a GM by what happens 3 years afterwards, and these failures lie solely on the record of Mike Sherman.

    Breakdown of Mike Sherman's Drafts:

    2002 - 1 Player of 6 drafted is still on the team. Kampman is a starter
    2003 - 1 Player of 9 drafted is still on the team. Barnett is a starter
    2004 - 3 players of 6 drafted are still on the team. Wells is only starter.

    To summarize:
    5 players out of 21 draft picks (many were traded up for, with multiple picks being invested in each player) are still on the team. Only 3 are starters.

    If you'd like, we can include 2001 (where Ron Wolf deferred to Sherman, offering advice but letting Sherman make the final say)

    2 players on team out of 6 picks. No starters.

    4 years of drafting, only 3 starters. This team was broken before Ted Thompson ever walked into 1265.

    Oh, and about the 0-2 start. Everyone is yearning for the days of Mike Sherman? Sherman AND Holmgren started their GB careers with 2 straight losses (check it out online). Let's not jump ship or mutiny just yet.
     
  4. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
  5. net

    net Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    979
    Ratings:
    +86
    One of the knocks on Sherman was poor drafting. The players mentioned in the article were accurate. But always forgotten in the analysis are the players Sherman signed, and re-signed, who have done quite well, like Driver, Al Harris.

    Keep in mind the personnel department now used by TT is virtually the same personnel department Sherman had.

    Mike didn't like rookies. He liked to pay veterans.

    When you bash Mike Sherman, please include the players Sherman SIGNED, and PLAYED WELL.
     
  6. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    That's a good point plus please realize that when a new GM (TT) comes in he typically replaces players with his people. This happens everywhere, not just Green Bay. So yea alot of Sherman's 12-4 and 10-6 players are gone, only to be replaced with 4-12 and 0-2 players so far. Be careful what you wish for. The grass is not always greener on the other side.
     
  7. TOPackerFan

    TOPackerFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,084
    Ratings:
    +0
    Of course lost in all that is that the only superstar drafted by the Packers since the Super Bowl years was Javon Walker, who was drafted by Mike Sherman and traded by someone else.

    Sherman's drafts weren't as poor as the prevailing wisdom seems to suggest. He drafted at the end of the first round and found one All Pro among his 4 first round picks (pretty good percentage if you ask me especially when you consider that there are teams that have been drafting in the top 5 forever and still haven't managed to find an All Pro). The problem with Sherman was trading too many picks away in later rounds, but again, it's understandable as he was hoping to find that one Terrell Davis like player who could put his team over the top for one final Super Bowl run. His problem was that he never found that player and it ended up all going for naught.
     
  8. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    17,836
    Ratings:
    +3,483
    TT re-signed Driver and Kampman..
     
  9. Packnic

    Packnic Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,454
    Ratings:
    +6
    agreed Depack the grass is not always greener. We are just saying that Shermans grass was dark brown, and it seems to me so far that TTs grass is a light shade of green.


    and great great post longtimefan. a good statistical look at what the packers are dealing with right now.
     
  10. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +0

    I disagree, if our grass was dark brown with Sherman, then we have a dirt yard with TT.


    Alot of Shermans guys were let go by TT so stating that "since they are no longer on the Packers that they were busts" is just not true. Maybe if we had a few more MS guys and not a bunch of rookies starting everywhere we wouldn't be 0-2
     
  11. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    TO, would you be of the opinion that if Sherman had found one player like Davis, he would have been able to curb the desire to trade up and go for it all?

    IMHO, I don't think it would have happened. Perhaps to an extent, but I think Sherman's temptation to hit a homerun would have been too much.
     
  12. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    Well apparently the grass you're smoking is better than both. If you think 4-14 is better than whatever Sherman's record is then we really don't need to continue. The name of the game is winning, not how many rookies can you sign.

    Why some people would come on this board and make such wacked-out statements without even coming close to backing them up, is beyond me
     
  13. Cdnfavrefan

    Cdnfavrefan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,624
    Ratings:
    +0
    With all the moves made now each year you could take any GM and name his good moves to make him look good or list his bad moves to make him look dumb cause they all make both. All I know is during the Sherman era we may not of been the best but at least each year brought hope of possibilities. This is the first season I've ever entered knowing we had no shot in reality so I have a hard time seeing green grass right now but maybe that's just cause winters coming. lol
     
  14. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +0

    Well said!
     
  15. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    9 of 27 of Sherman's Draft picks are in the NFL. So not only were they let go by Ted Thompson, they weren't picked up anywhere else.
     
  16. Cdnfavrefan

    Cdnfavrefan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,624
    Ratings:
    +0
    While I will admit Sherman as a GM wasn't a great success but how many GM/coaches have been. Off hand I just think of Ratface. Even Holmgren was a bust trying to run both jobs. I know as a coach I have a hard time hating on MS. Would of been interesting how much -if any-better Sherman could of done as GM if he focused solely on it
     
  17. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +0
    So a third of Shermans picks are still around. To bad a 3rd of TT's 2005 draft class isn't helping this team. Actually we have a total of 1-2 player contributing anything. Poppinga is killing us. Coston is wothless.

    So we have 2 great players from the 11 drafted contributing. Hmmmm.....odd stat
     
  18. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Why are you expecting all these guys to come in and "contribute" a vast amount?

    Currently the players are still on our roster. Shermans aren't in the NFL. The reason why their on the roster is pretty simple. The core of this team was broken down by poor drafting the past 5 years. You can even include last years if you want. If your going to knock last years draft by Ted Thompson then look at the reality that none of Sherman's were any better and that is why this team is set back.

    Out of the good players we lost. Only really one was drafted by Mike Sherman the GM. The rest were all discovered by Ron Wolf.

    Hency why Wolf's greatness is vastly overlooked in current Packer history.
     
  19. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    Well, If we had two great players from each of the 4 years MS had the show we would probably be a whole lot better right now don't you think? I mean that would be eight great players from previous drafts to '05 vs. how many we actually have? Two.

    How can you degrade 2 of 11 without huffing and puffing about 2 in four years?
     
  20. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    lol, i see i dont have to even say anything in this thread. good.
     
  21. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    I will add that HAD WE HAD two players a year from MS's crop we wouldn't have had to throw so many young guys that WILL be better as they get some PT in there this year.

    We may have actually been able to GROOM a few. You are already GRADING students of the game that have barely been able to sit in the classroom yet.

    The only grade a rookie can be given is how far they progressed from game one to game sixteen. We got fourteen to go.
     
  22. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    I just quoted myself since it was such a remarkable post and only Packnic, I believe read it!
     
  23. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    I'm glad I asked for Sherman gone, but I didn't ask for Mike McCarthy.
     
  24. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'll dispute this easily. Majority of Shermans draft picks aren't in the NFL right now. Now I'm not saying anything about Ted Thompson and his players. So far not so good in my opinion but I'm willing to wait and give him the amount of time Sherman received. I'm not talking Ted Thompson up in this post so let’s leave him out of this and just analyze Mike Sherman quick.

    I'm looking at Sherman's players and trying to think how you can give all that credit to his poor drafting, poor management of salary, and poor job of signing quality free agents (much like Ted Thompson as of now)

    With Sherman, I'm sorry but he was a poor GM. Thank Ron Wolf for the past 5 years as it was the talent he discovered that got the job done and has last since he's retired.

    When it came time for those picks by Ron Wolf to cash in, Green Bay just didn't pay them. They couldn't afford all those guys and they probably didn't want to bring some back.

    Chad Clifton, Mark Tauscher, Nail Diggs, KGB, Mike Wahle, Mike Flannigan, Marco Rivera, Bubba Franks, Darren Shaper, Mike McKenzie, William Henderson, Donald Driver.

    All of the above were drafted by Ron Wolf and made up the core of the team we've had prior to really last season. I may of missed some but those were your "key" guys and all started. Wolf also traded for our 2 best players throughout the Sherman era. Ahman Green and Brett Favre. So again Ron Wolf’s moves in the past is what made that era as successful it was. Not Sherman’s drafting for ability to find quality free agents. In fact unless you want to count Hannibal Navies and Mark Roman as “qualityâ€
     
  25. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    I'm sorry porky that was too long for my attention span.

    Just kidding.... thanks for replying and you made some valid points but I will continue to blindly support Mike Sherman as a GM. Hell...it works with the TT supporters! And Sherman's teams actually won.


    Most of this is obviously, tongue in cheek but it is hard to listen about what a sh1t job Sherman did and what a super job TT is doing when you look at the records.

    BTW....I haven't given up on TT yet. I just thought last years draft class set us back a couple years. This years class has alot of potential.
     

Share This Page