Sherman coming back for interview number 2

[Totally_Red]

All this focus on a supposedly dismal and falling record. Is it just possible that Sherman was fired because Thompson wanted his own guy?

Is it possible that part of the decline in the Packers in 2005 was injuries and a depleted offensive line?

And is just remotely possible that Sherman, like Bill Belichick, learned something in his first go-round, and might be a better coach this time, especially with reduced responsibilities and the benefit of previous experience? Reduced responsiblities mean he focuses on coaching not personnel issues. Experience means he has confronted situations that any rookie head coach has not and will not go thru any growing pains in the job.

He's not my first choice, but IMO he's a significant upgrade from the aloofness and general non-attention to detail displayed by Dennis Green.

 

[MadCardDisease]

Of all the candidates, Sherman would be my last choice. This sucks.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Scott MS]

Sherman seems like the mostly unlikely choice, based on salary requirements. This is the Cardinals we are talking about.

Sherman was making $3.2 million a year while in Green Bay.

The Cards are going to offer him no where near that amount of money. Maybe $2.0-$2.5M/year.

 

[Russ Smith]

2002 Falcons that was a game GB should have won, lost at home.

Russ, Why should they have won this game? I know your not a Packer fan but why would you give them carte blanche at home? Should they expect to win? maybe. But maybe Sherman didn't have them prepared for Atlanta?

I mean they had the better record, and on paper were the better team playing at home. I read something that said that game showed the Packers they had no speed on defense so they went out the next 2 drafts trying to rectify that(Nick Barnett for example).

At that time nobody ever won in Lambeau in the playoffs so it was a big surprise they lost that game.

 

[Pariah]

Sherman seems like the mostly unlikely choice, based on salary requirements. This is the Cardinals we are talking about.

Sherman was making $3.2 million a year while in Green Bay.

The Cards are going to offer him no where near that amount of money. Maybe $2.0-$2.5M/year.

What he made in GB is irrellevent. I'd guess that $2M is a significant bump in salary to what he was making in Houston.

 

[az1965]

The logic used against Sherman that he took the team assembled by previous HC / GM and ran with it winning four consecutive years works perfectly for us. Isn't that the scenario we are in now? We have a very talented team assembled waiting to be led to winning records...

Again, I don't have any preference, but I still haven't seen any significant and solid reasons to bash Sherman. Just fluff, observations from far distance.

 

[arthurracoon]

I mean they had the better record, and on paper were the better team playing at home. I read something that said that game showed the Packers they had no speed on defense so they went out the next 2 drafts trying to rectify that(Nick Barnett for example).

At that time nobody ever won in Lambeau in the playoffs so it was a big surprise they lost that game.

didnt they also have some injuries?

 

[Scott MS]

What he made in GB is irrellevent. I'd guess that $2M is a significant bump in salary to what he was making in Houston.

Yeah, but with increased responsibility should be increased compensation. I don't thiink Sherman takes the risk unless there is some reward there.

 

[Totally_Red]

Sherman seems like the mostly unlikely choice, based on salary requirements. This is the Cardinals we are talking about.

Sherman was making $3.2 million a year while in Green Bay.

The Cards are going to offer him no where near that amount of money. Maybe $2.0-$2.5M/year.

But wasn't he also handling GM duties in Green Bay?

 

[Pariah]

Yeah, but with increased responsibility should be increased compensation. I don't thiink Sherman takes the risk unless there is some reward there.

My point is that it IS increased compensation.

 

[football karma]

For what its worth -- I believe that GB will be on the hook for any difference between what the Cards would give him and the $3.2 mm.

Its fairly standard in any employment deal -- you wouldnt want it all or nothing as the employee then has no incentive to get any job that would provide at least a partial offset to you.

 

[Scott MS]

For what its worth -- I believe that GB will be on the hook for any difference between what the Cards would give him and the $3.2 mm.

Its fairly standard in any employment deal -- you wouldnt want it all or nothing as the employee then has no incentive to get any job that would provide at least a partial offset to you.

You are right. Green Bay paid the excess from what he was making with the Texans up to the $3.2M. I don't know how many years he has left, but probably not more than one or two.

 

[Scott MS]

Regardless of the $$, all I'm saying is that Sherman will demand the most money out of the group. Given it's the Cardinals, that may be a stumbling block.

 

[Pariah]

all I'm saying is that Sherman will demand the most money out of the group.

I guess I'd challenge that notion. I think he has the bleakest future of all the candidates beyond maybe Chow--Grimm, Whiz, Cameron and Cladwell will all be in HC discussions for years to come. I don't think Sherman will. I think because of that, he'll be willing to take far less than he made in GB, and be right in line with those other guys.

Chow would have come even cheaper, I bet.

 

[kerouac9]

Russ -

Sherman didn't go 0-4 in the playoffs. He beat Mariucci once and the other game was the "We're want the ball, and we're gonna score" game at Seattle, where the only reason that the Packers won the game was because Matt Hasselback threw the ball directly at Mike MacKenzie, whom Sherman promptly traded to New Orleans a year or two later.

 

[Pariah]

Sherman promptly traded to New Orleans a year or two later.

lol.

"promptly" ..."a year or two later?"

 

[SunCityCarl]

I mean they had the better record, and on paper were the better team playing at home. I read something that said that game showed the Packers they had no speed on defense so they went out the next 2 drafts trying to rectify that(Nick Barnett for example).

At that time nobody ever won in Lambeau in the playoffs so it was a big surprise they lost that game.

Yeah I remember that now too - they (Packers) didn't play well at all that game. I just feel some of that responsibility falls on Sherman also.

 

[Scott MS]

Wow, I'm absolutely surprised that nobody has posted Sherman's record against Dennis Green. I don't know what it is, but they had to play twice a season for a couple of seasons -- 2000 and 2001.

 

[Totally_Red]

Russ -

Sherman didn't go 0-4 in the playoffs. He beat Mariucci once and the other game was the "We're want the ball, and we're gonna score" game at Seattle, where the only reason that the Packers won the game was because Matt Hasselback threw the ball directly at Mike MacKenzie, whom Sherman promptly traded to New Orleans a year or two later.

In all fairness, MacKenzie forced that trade by demanding more money. The Packers rarely, if ever, tear up existing contracts. Sherman did well to get a second round pick for MacKenzie IMO.

 

[Skkorpion]

Sherman went 9-7, 12-4, 12-4, 10-6, 10-6 before going 4-12. I think those first five years are doing "something".

I was going to defend Sherman for his 4-12 season but unfortunately I can't because of the below...

(2001) 12-4 Reg Season lose to Rams in Div. playoff 45-17
(2002) 12-4 Reg Season lose to Falcons 27-7 (1st ever Lambeau Field Playoff Game Loss)
(2003) 10-6 Reg Season lose to Eagles in Div. playoff 20-17 in overtime.
(2004) 10-6 Reg Season lose to Vikes in NFC wildcard game 31-17.

Aha. More relevant data. Thanks, Carl.

 

[Scott MS]

Wow, I'm absolutely surprised that nobody has posted Sherman's record against Dennis Green. I don't know what it is, but they had to play twice a season for a couple of seasons -- 2000 and 2001.

Oh wait, it's 3-1.

 

[Russ Smith]

Russ -

Sherman didn't go 0-4 in the playoffs. He beat Mariucci once and the other game was the "We're want the ball, and we're gonna score" game at Seattle, where the only reason that the Packers won the game was because Matt Hasselback threw the ball directly at Mike MacKenzie, whom Sherman promptly traded to New Orleans a year or two later.

I know, like I said he won 2 games and lost the 4 listed.

Sherman didn't trade McKenzie willingly by the way, he was holding out demanding a trade, Sherman wasn't the GM, Thompson was.

 

[TheCardFan]

Yeah I just don't get it do people bashing Sherman have a "tangible" reason?

I'm not seeing what it is people hate about the guy?

Stop with the facts Russ...oh wait, he is a "retread".

He has 1 more head coaching job than Grimm and Chow...and that makes him a retread....a retread with 3 division championships and 2 playoff wins(how many have we had in the last 30 years?).

 

[Russ Smith]

Stop with the facts Russ...oh wait, he is a "retread".

He has 1 more head coaching job than Grimm and Chow...and that makes him a retread....a retread with 3 division championships and 2 playoff wins(how many have we had in the last 30 years?).

I just read on JS online that when Sherman got the GM job after Wolf retired in 2001 the biggest complaint was "he's only been in the NFL for 4 years."

6 years later he's a retread?

 

[TheCardFan]

lol.

"promptly" ..."a year or two later?"

And he was involved in a very ugly holdout.