- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2,207
- Reaction score
- 0
Anusbis, net..et..al...
I love the quotes and statistics that are posted by all of the Sherman sycophants....
One..because they are such a REACH...trying to justify this man's collosal follies...
and Two, because they ALWAYS leave out the most IMPORTANT stats, in my book.,...and that's PLAYOFF WINS..and wins of HOME GAMES....
also..coaching decisions made at crunch time never seem to make it into any "statistics"...
(and look at Sherman's % of wins against teams with a winning % in the league...and you start to get a different picture....one that is alot closer to the truth....)
(net...what's ol' Mikey boys % stats look like when you look at the playoffs?)
this was posted on Packer Chatters..and it says it all....almost...(but there IS more)
(from PackerChatters...)
LA.....Your post makes it sound like any and all criticism of MS is unfair and that it is destroying his authority--and, therefore, his ability to coach this year. If I'am misunderstanding your post, then I'am sorry.
But, honestly, does he not deserve serious criticism? Was he really replaced as GM because he could'nt handle "the good cop, bad cop role?" I think he was removed, because he was a total disaster at the job. Likewise, I think he will be replaced as HC, probably before the end of the season. Why? Because he is not a competent coach. If, however, by some miracle (and I don't believe in coaching miracles) he wins the Super Bowl, then it will be impossible for TT to replace him. But the chances of that happening are slim and none.
I'am sure you find my views outrageous, but I would like to defend them by citing your Disraeli quote at the bottom of each of your posts, i.e., "lies, damn lies and statistics." (By the way, I always heard this quote attributed to Mark Twain.) In any event, the only real arguement that is mounted to defend his coaching career at GB is the fact that he has a better won-loss record than Holmgren and that he won three straight divisional titles. To me, this is a perfect example of misusing statistics to create a lie greater than a damn lie. What, for example, did he ever do to improve the team he inherited?
Was it the quality of his new coaching staff? Did they ever coach up any player? Was it his astute drafts or even the strategy of always trading up? Was it his ability to find and bring in affordable free agents or was it his ability to manage the cap? Did he rely on a pretty good in-place scouting staff or did he go around it to make his great selections? Did he basically change the WCO into a long ball, vertical passing attack when he never had adequate receivers to pull off such a major change. Was it his assistant, and dear friend, coach's new DC schemes put into play without adequate personal to execute them? Was it the loss of good players (like Rossum and Bidwell for example) to be replaced by Chattman and Sander? Was it playing Steele last year on the grounds that Bubba and Martin could not go deep? Was it his astute management of the the whole MM affair? Or perhaps believing that two rookies could really replace him? While any one of these facts is subject to a different viewpoint than mine, in total, I don't think they can all be denied and for me they point to a deficiency in MS's coaching ability. (Perhaps PN will side with those of you who think MS is a pretty good coach, because all of GB's problems are Brett Farve's fault (i.e., his 55% pass rating, or 6 interceptions, in playoff games). If this is't lunacy, plus an even better example of the misuse of statistics to create a huge lie, then I don't know what is. It should be noted here that even MS would not agree with PN on this point.
The point of this reply is that we don't have to rely on cold, meaningless statistics (or maudlin sentiment) to determine if MS is a good coach or not. The truth is that he is in so far over his head that I still cannot phathom how he got both jobs in the first place. However, what's done is done. The object should now be to back TT and all current coaches, and see if we can win the Super Bowl this year. That should always be GB'S goal. We are not the most successful franchise in the NFL (12 championships) by hiring HC's like MS who believe winning divisional championships are just great or not winning Super Bowls is a matter of bad luck. Just once I want to hear him say that some mistake, any mistake, was his own fault. Does he really believe that by working too hard causes him to be less effective? Please tell me of any success story in America that did not invole somebody working their *** off. Come on Mike, get off that nonsense. If your not prepared to pay the price, then give it up. Finally, once again I want to say that I believe that MS is a good, decent, God fearing and church going man; but I also ask, again, what has that got to do with being a winning coach? Facts are facts, evidence is evidence, results are results; besides some meaningless statistic or some uninformed opinion, will somebody please tell me why MS should be retained beyond this year?
you can also add....
(No challange in the Falcon game..or Jet game. . . . 4th and 1 and the Packers denied . . . 4th and 1 and the Packers punt . . . 4th and 26 and the Packers . . . oops . . . 4th and Oh my god we're already behind the Vikings 14 - 0...etc)
(THAT is why many people have serious questions about Mike Sherman, my uninformed Bill's fan....not because of one scrimmage....and your right...making a Game Plan is a large part of a HC's job...unfortunately..Sherman is not too good at that either...and he's even worse at making adjustments...)
If it wasn't for Favre...Sherman's W/L record would be WAY different, and he would have been out of GB by now...i almost want to see TT retain Sherman after Favre retires so that all of you Sherman apologists could see how TERRIBLE a HC Mike Sherman really is.....but remember...i said "almost"....
i care about the Pack too much to see this BOOB coach another year...(and he can take his hump Rossely with him too!)
I love the quotes and statistics that are posted by all of the Sherman sycophants....
One..because they are such a REACH...trying to justify this man's collosal follies...
and Two, because they ALWAYS leave out the most IMPORTANT stats, in my book.,...and that's PLAYOFF WINS..and wins of HOME GAMES....
also..coaching decisions made at crunch time never seem to make it into any "statistics"...
(and look at Sherman's % of wins against teams with a winning % in the league...and you start to get a different picture....one that is alot closer to the truth....)
(net...what's ol' Mikey boys % stats look like when you look at the playoffs?)
this was posted on Packer Chatters..and it says it all....almost...(but there IS more)
(from PackerChatters...)
LA.....Your post makes it sound like any and all criticism of MS is unfair and that it is destroying his authority--and, therefore, his ability to coach this year. If I'am misunderstanding your post, then I'am sorry.
But, honestly, does he not deserve serious criticism? Was he really replaced as GM because he could'nt handle "the good cop, bad cop role?" I think he was removed, because he was a total disaster at the job. Likewise, I think he will be replaced as HC, probably before the end of the season. Why? Because he is not a competent coach. If, however, by some miracle (and I don't believe in coaching miracles) he wins the Super Bowl, then it will be impossible for TT to replace him. But the chances of that happening are slim and none.
I'am sure you find my views outrageous, but I would like to defend them by citing your Disraeli quote at the bottom of each of your posts, i.e., "lies, damn lies and statistics." (By the way, I always heard this quote attributed to Mark Twain.) In any event, the only real arguement that is mounted to defend his coaching career at GB is the fact that he has a better won-loss record than Holmgren and that he won three straight divisional titles. To me, this is a perfect example of misusing statistics to create a lie greater than a damn lie. What, for example, did he ever do to improve the team he inherited?
Was it the quality of his new coaching staff? Did they ever coach up any player? Was it his astute drafts or even the strategy of always trading up? Was it his ability to find and bring in affordable free agents or was it his ability to manage the cap? Did he rely on a pretty good in-place scouting staff or did he go around it to make his great selections? Did he basically change the WCO into a long ball, vertical passing attack when he never had adequate receivers to pull off such a major change. Was it his assistant, and dear friend, coach's new DC schemes put into play without adequate personal to execute them? Was it the loss of good players (like Rossum and Bidwell for example) to be replaced by Chattman and Sander? Was it playing Steele last year on the grounds that Bubba and Martin could not go deep? Was it his astute management of the the whole MM affair? Or perhaps believing that two rookies could really replace him? While any one of these facts is subject to a different viewpoint than mine, in total, I don't think they can all be denied and for me they point to a deficiency in MS's coaching ability. (Perhaps PN will side with those of you who think MS is a pretty good coach, because all of GB's problems are Brett Farve's fault (i.e., his 55% pass rating, or 6 interceptions, in playoff games). If this is't lunacy, plus an even better example of the misuse of statistics to create a huge lie, then I don't know what is. It should be noted here that even MS would not agree with PN on this point.
The point of this reply is that we don't have to rely on cold, meaningless statistics (or maudlin sentiment) to determine if MS is a good coach or not. The truth is that he is in so far over his head that I still cannot phathom how he got both jobs in the first place. However, what's done is done. The object should now be to back TT and all current coaches, and see if we can win the Super Bowl this year. That should always be GB'S goal. We are not the most successful franchise in the NFL (12 championships) by hiring HC's like MS who believe winning divisional championships are just great or not winning Super Bowls is a matter of bad luck. Just once I want to hear him say that some mistake, any mistake, was his own fault. Does he really believe that by working too hard causes him to be less effective? Please tell me of any success story in America that did not invole somebody working their *** off. Come on Mike, get off that nonsense. If your not prepared to pay the price, then give it up. Finally, once again I want to say that I believe that MS is a good, decent, God fearing and church going man; but I also ask, again, what has that got to do with being a winning coach? Facts are facts, evidence is evidence, results are results; besides some meaningless statistic or some uninformed opinion, will somebody please tell me why MS should be retained beyond this year?
you can also add....
(No challange in the Falcon game..or Jet game. . . . 4th and 1 and the Packers denied . . . 4th and 1 and the Packers punt . . . 4th and 26 and the Packers . . . oops . . . 4th and Oh my god we're already behind the Vikings 14 - 0...etc)
(THAT is why many people have serious questions about Mike Sherman, my uninformed Bill's fan....not because of one scrimmage....and your right...making a Game Plan is a large part of a HC's job...unfortunately..Sherman is not too good at that either...and he's even worse at making adjustments...)
If it wasn't for Favre...Sherman's W/L record would be WAY different, and he would have been out of GB by now...i almost want to see TT retain Sherman after Favre retires so that all of you Sherman apologists could see how TERRIBLE a HC Mike Sherman really is.....but remember...i said "almost"....
i care about the Pack too much to see this BOOB coach another year...(and he can take his hump Rossely with him too!)
