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

There was a report on ESPN this morning...

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by P@ck66, Dec 22, 2005.

  1. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    that said Favre was going to base his decision on retirement depending on how he "felt"..and not necessarily who the HC was going to be in GB next year....

    then they suggested that Mike Sherman is on the hot seat in GB...

    Did anyone else see this?
     
  2. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    I prayed last night....perhaps they DO come true!!
     
  3. JbShell

    JbShell Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    796
    Ratings:
    +0
    He has always said that He maintained that a new HC would enter the equation but would not be a end all for him. It is not new news. Sherman will be back next year.
     
  4. yooperfan

    yooperfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,900
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes I saw it too. Seems he is backing off his earlier remark about retiring if Sherman is gone.
    That might be good news.
     
  5. retiredgrampa

    retiredgrampa Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    804
    Ratings:
    +0
    Maybe Brett is finally seeing the handwriting on the wall. If he made it too plain that he wanted MS back, and TT fired Ms, Favre would be backed into a corner with all bad options. Could be embarrassing. No QB should be in the position of affecting HCing decisions.
     
  6. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    I saw it too and he may be backtracking a little but he never said he wasn't coming back if Sherman is gone. He said it would be more difficult to come back if Sherman was gone. It still may be but it is not a dealbreaker in and by itself. I'm actually glad to hear this. With Mike or without, I want Brett back for a couple more years.
     
  7. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    I just have a sneaking suspicion that under the radar he is as frustrated with this bland, passive and predictable offensive scheme as the rest of us...or at least some of us.
     
  8. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    After Monday night.......the rest of us! I think it is clear that something has to change offensively. Our receivers can't possibly be so bad that they never get open 10 yards past the line of scrimmage. Injuries hurt but I've complained about this for a few years. It seems like the DB's know where the receivers are going. I commented on an earlier thread that it looked like Ferguson was following the cornerback to a spot. As if the corner knew where he was supposed to be before Ferguson did.

    I am positive that Favre is frustrated with the offense but I'm not sure he wants to get rid of Sherman. They need to change up the playbook.
     
  9. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    The reason our receivers never get open is because we never challenge d-backs. Our routes/schemes seem to be predicated, for the most part, on responding to what the WRs see and finding a "soft spot" in the defense (a passive attack). Well, we have been doing the same thing for so long that opponents have figured it all out. The only one's still in the dark to this fact is MS/TR.

    What I would like to see is our passing game ATTACK weaknesses, and forcing defenses to respond to our dictating the issue (an aggressive attack).

    Remember in the infamous 4th and 26 game, our passing game not once challenged rookie d-back Sheldon Brown, who was essentially playing on one leg. MOST coaches would kill for that knowledge and would take advantage of it accordingly to EXPLOIT THE WEAKNESS....but not our coaches.

    The only way I will tolerate MS coming back is if he is forced to shitcan Rossley and is then told to keep out of the offense. Run and manage the team, but let the new OC call their ****.

    Dear God......I do not know if I can witness another year of that Harry High School offense SheRossley calls.
     
  10. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    I like your passion digs but I don't think TT cares what digs or DePack will "tolerate". We have no say. Apparently TT is "still in the dark to this fact" he extended Sherman's contract for two more years.
     
  11. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    He really had no choice in the matter.....he was either gonna run a team with a lame duck coach(which never goes well) or offer an extension of modest duration to see what he had....or did not have. Now, had he signed him to a 4 or 5 year extension, I think it would be safe to say he has no clue.

    Sherman's contract is disposable in the grand scheme of things...not like it is 4 years and $15 million.
     
  12. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Well.......extending a contract in the NFL doesn't mean anything anymore. It's like the "vote of confidence".........which has come to mean......"Pack your bags, you're OUTTA here!" LOLOL!!!
    Sherman is a nice guy.......maybe TOO nice. I'd like to see the coach come on TV for his post game interview and say "You know what? We just plain SUCKED today! We stunk up the place, and if these guys play out the last 2 games like they did today, they won't BE here next season!" Maybe that would light a fire under their butts. Listening to Sherman after a game is like taking a Valium for me.......it about puts me to sleep. Of course, I don't know how he is behind closed doors, maybe he tears them a new one there.......i hope. There was NO passion from the team last week. To let a crummy team like the Ravens beat the SNOT out of you is just plain embarassing.
     
  13. rabidgopher04

    rabidgopher04 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,467
    Ratings:
    +0
    We all know he does if a cell phone goes off! :D
     
  14. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    Good point, rabid. The guy shows more passion and piss & vinegar when a cell phone goes off than he does during or after a game, win or lose. I do not want some volcanic blow-hard as a coach, but, hey, show us and the team you have a pulse and are involved.
     
  15. yooperfan

    yooperfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,900
    Ratings:
    +0
    Excellant, we plant a cell phone in Fergys jockstrap (there should be room since he has no balls anymore) and give him a call at halftime. :lol:
     
  16. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    nice one yooper. Hey you guys are giving TT a Mulligan on his first hire. TT was hired in February, I believe. If it was just a formality he would have extended Sherman's contract then. He evaluated him for 6 months....and then gave him the extension based on what he saw. I'm not saying he was wrong to do it but those of you that think Sherman sucks should be concerned. Who will be his next hire? Rossley?

    I said it before... if he made that big a mistake evaluating Sherman, I don't want him evaluating our next coach. Seems TT hitched his wagon to Sherman. If Sherman goes, TT should also go. Can't have it both ways gentlemen. What do we want...another Matt Millen here?
     
  17. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    DePack...the long season has begun to take a toll on you. There were a certain amount of politics attached to any decision that TT made with regard to Sherman, and in the end anything he did was going to have significant detractors.

    You are going to tell me that evaluating Sherman for 6 months during the off-season carries the same weight as how the guy actually coaches during the season? From his perspective, I am sure he had to give fair creedence to Sherman's prior accomplishments in GB...which are not insignificant. I will say it again....2 years at $6 million is a very disposable contract in this league for a coach. Had it been 5 years and $15 - 20 million, I would have concerns.

    Hey....look at the draft we just had. Personally, I think it is one of the better ones the Pack have had in the last 10 years...starters, depth and development type players in proper balance.

    Geez...give the guy a chance to prove himself. I took MS 4 years to make this mess, give TT more than a year to make it all better.
     
  18. Bruce

    Bruce Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,078
    Ratings:
    +0
     
  19. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    Wait a minute digs I am having trouble with consistency issues here. On one hand you say TT "has to give fair credence to Sherman's prior accomplishments in GB....WHICH ARE NOT INSIGNIFICANT" yet you believe those same four years of SIGNIFICANT accomplishments shouldn't be considered when deciding this offseason? After one losing season with an incredible amount of injuries. Like I said you can't have it both ways. He hitched his wagon to Sherman. Can't fire him now without recognizing that he phucked up real bad 4 months ago. Bad enough for he himself to get fired.

    Now digs, I'm not advocating firing TT. I'm saying that those of you that think Sherman sucks and has sucked for the past 5 years should be advocating it or are being hypocritical. You yourself has said Favre hasn't gotten any coaching for 5 years.....why would TT stick with Sherm then. Don't give me politics....Harlan gave him full authority. I don't want a GM that is concerned with politics. I want a GM with a backbone.
     
  20. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well, one cannot argue that Sherman's accomplishments in GB are not insignificant...his record is pretty impressive. But like many of us who have gotten past the record and stats (which are the holy grail for some but can be very misleading) to accomplishments when it matters, it is clear that Sherman is probably a good coach to restore order to a wayward organization, but probably not the guy to take you to the top.

    Different leaders have different skillsets that may make then the right or wrong candidate given the circumstances at the time. For that reason, I think TT wanted to take a year to get a handle on Sherman's strengths and weaknesses to help make a better informed decision.

    And for the record, I defended MS up until 2 years ago. He was definitely on the ascent those first 3 years, but has since squandered any goodwill he possessed with me in the last 2 years. Kinda goes back to my assertion that MS is a good coach to restore order to a team, but lacks the attributes necessary to bring a team beyond being average to above-average.
     
  21. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    Fair enough.
     
  22. net

    net Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    980
    Ratings:
    +86
    Don't bet on either Favre or Sherman leaving. I'm posting an article from the Press Gazette on another thread.
     
  23. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    I simply meant that extending a contract does not mean they will still be here. It's true the MONEY will be gone out of the Packer's pocket because of the extension, buy Sherman may not be here. I don't think you can blame Sherman for the duct tape held together mess that the team is this year. But when he DID have a full, healthy team, he couldn't make the decisions to take them deep into the playoffs. His coaching gaffs in Philly a few years ago cost the Pack a serious shot at the Super Bowl. When you make those kinds of mistakes in a regular season game, it only costs you one game. When you do it in the playoffs, your DONE for the season, and everything you woked so hard for all year now means squat. I don't think he's a lousy coach, but I don't think he's one of the best either.
    Of course, i'm just a fan, and don't know all that goes on behind the scenes in the Packer offices.
     
  24. CalifPacker

    CalifPacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    757
    Ratings:
    +1
    So, with the possibility of Brett staying if Sherman is axed, does that open the door for Mooch ( a past offensive coach) or another coach familier with the WC O to come in? I am not sure if he is the right coach for the re-building job but, they could keep the same offensive nomenclature and the HC, whoever is choosen could learn rather than the whole team. Kind of what GB did in the past.
     

Share This Page