Man in the yellow hat
Footballguy
Just curious. There was a lot of Sherman love on this board after the Packers let him go, yet his interviews have all ended with him not getting a job.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
If Mike Sherman is a great coach, (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Man in the yellow hat
- Start date
BlueDredSo
Footballguy
I never thought he was that great of a coach. I honestly would rather have Jauron coach the Bills: run first O + defensive minded.
Illegal Pants Downfield
Footballguy
He's still great....just not AS great as **** Jauron :X 
CanadianNFLJunkie
Footballguy
I think his asking price was too high (my speculation). Same thing could be said for Fassel when he left the Giants. Also, the theme this year seems to be go with the young mind instead of retreads.Too bad Jauron gets the job. I don't see him taking a Bills team to many playoffs wins. I hope he brings in good assistants this time and that he's learned a lot from his precious coaching experience.
T
trader jake
Guest
sherman gets a $6 million payment for sitting on his ###. that's what i would do if i were in his position right nowand you left out "pear-shaped" 
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
Excellent question!
Here's another: Link to anyone calling him a "great coach"?underdogx3
Footballguy
My opinion (Packer fan):Mike Sherman is hard working, extremely organized, and a good Xs and Os guy. He is probably a very good OC but not a great HC. His record during the "good years" was largely attributed to the stellar cast on offense put together mostly by coaches preceding him. EVERY player on Green Bay's offense was a Pro Bowl player at some point. Add the rest of the NFC North in the picture and how do you lose? Too many people associate his winning to great coaching. He had a rediculously talented offense for years. When we lost, he had no problem puting the onus on the players...not cool with me.I like Sherman personally but I'm glad he's not the HC of the Packers. He pissed off a lot of other coaches (many made lateral changes to get out of GB). He fired good coaches and hired friends who didn't work out. He never fired those friends either which is why HE got fired. A large part of his demise was due to his failures as GM. He dug his own hole. Is **** Jauron any better? Who knows. I think it could be a close match for the battle of NO PERSONALITY!
Man in the yellow hat
Footballguy
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=2&t=221018&st=So it was "Sherman did great things" and was a "good coach." Close enough.Excellent question!
And the fact that **** Jauron beat him out for a job is pretty telling.
Last edited by a moderator:
Killerclown
Footballguy
But Levy knew Jauron prior to this, I bet that had no factor in the decision.
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=2&t=221018&st=So it was "Sherman did great things" and was a "good coach." Close enough.Excellent question!
And the fact that **** Jauron beat him out for a job is pretty telling.
at "good coach" and "great coach" being "close enough".He had a very solid record in Green Bay with a nice streak of double digit wins. He lost his job after a new GM cleaned house after a terrible season where injury ravaged the team. Lots of people thought he didn't get a fair shake there.And considering his price tag, not getting a job over the 2001 Coach of Year is telling? How so?
J
Last edited by a moderator:
packersfan
Footballguy
It is very revealing that in a year where there are so many vacancies Sherman hasn't gotten one of them. As I and other Packer fans have said numerous times, the record hides Sherman's numerous flaws as a head coach. Perhaps the decision makers in the league looked beyond the record when evaluating Sherman and if they did that's likely one of the main reasons why he hasn't gotten another head coaching job.
Autumn Wind
Footballguy
No one knows. Right now the fans (or at least the subset on the boards I frequent) are high on Whisenhunt. As for what Al wants, we'll find out on press conference day.
Aaronstory
Footballguy
Yeah, it's telling that Levy worked in Chicago when Jauron coached there.http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=2&t=221018&st=So it was "Sherman did great things" and was a "good coach." Close enough.Excellent question!
And the fact that **** Jauron beat him out for a job is pretty telling.
January 24, 2006 12:26 PM ETRaiders: Whisenhunt, Sherman drawing interestThe NewsAccording to the San Francisco Chronicle, the newest candidate atop the Raiders' wish list for a new head coach is Steelers offensive coordinator Ken Whisenhunt. "He's at the top of their list,'' a person familiar with Whisenhunt and the Raiders' search told the Chronicle. "They'll be patient on this.'' Oakland may also interview former Packers coach Mike Sherman while they wait for Whisenhunt until after the Super Bowl.Our ViewAt this point, the Raiders can afford to wait, as every other head coaching vacancy has been filled. Oakland has ranked near the bottom of the rushing statistics in each of the past two seasons, so Whisenhunt's commitment to the run game is obviously compelling
Kleck.
Footballguy
I'd guess that the percentage of non-Packer fans who believe that is greater than the percentage of Packer fans who do.http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=2&t=221018&st=So it was "Sherman did great things" and was a "good coach." Close enough.Excellent question!
And the fact that **** Jauron beat him out for a job is pretty telling.
J
Last edited by a moderator:
Sherman is an egomaniac like Al. He would want complete control, and no way in hell does all give him complete control.
packersfan
Footballguy
And it probably wouldn't even be close.I'd guess that the percentage of non-Packer fans who believe that is greater than the percentage of Packer fans who do.http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=2&t=221018&st=So it was "Sherman did great things" and was a "good coach." Close enough.Excellent question!
And the fact that **** Jauron beat him out for a job is pretty telling.
J
I'd guess that the percentage of non-Packer fans who believe that is greater than the percentage of Packer fans who do.http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=2&t=221018&st=So it was "Sherman did great things" and was a "good coach." Close enough.Excellent question!
And the fact that **** Jauron beat him out for a job is pretty telling.
J
coolnerd
Footballguy
Whether Sherman is really a "good" or "great" coach is probably questionable, but I am in the camp that Packers were waiting for an excuse to get rid of him. IMO, there is pleanty of logic taking a chance on Sherman with his one losing season (no matter the reason) in what 6 over betting that I pick one of the 2 maybe 3 coordinators hired this off-season who will be good enough head coaches to have a job in 5 years.
Bears_Man2
Footballguy
Because he's not a minority.
KingPrawn
Footballguy
BINGO! Anybody that has followed the Packers closely knows that there were problems with the coaching that was hidden by there winning record.I'd guess that the percentage of non-Packer fans who believe that is greater than the percentage of Packer fans who do.http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=2&t=221018&st=So it was "Sherman did great things" and was a "good coach." Close enough.Excellent question!
And the fact that **** Jauron beat him out for a job is pretty telling.
J
Michael Fox Fan
Footballguy
Yeah, it's $3.2M this year, but he's signed for 2 more years....so if he sits out in '07 too, then he gets $6M total. I think thats what Law meant.I'm pretty sure it's $3.2 Million, not $6 Million.Either way, he gets to sit on his ### and collect a nice paycheck.sherman gets a $6 million payment for sitting on his ###. that's what i would do if i were in his position right now
and you left out "pear-shaped"
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
GRIDIRON ASSASSIN
Footballguy
EXACTLY. Why only make the Packers pay the difference between his 'new salary' and the $6Million they owe him.sherman gets a $6 million payment for sitting on his ###. that's what i would do if i were in his position right now
and you left out "pear-shaped"
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
Looking forward to a half dozen years of Packers losing records and hearing homers say that the coach is better than his record. 
Man in the yellow hat
Footballguy
OK. I guess they could've brought Sherman back and gone 4-12 again. Would he still be a great coach?This team, talent wise, is a long way away. Sherman or no Sherman, they weren't going to turn this around over night.Looking forward to a half dozen years of Packers losing records and hearing homers say that the coach is better than his record.
Fla\/\/ed
Footballguy
Here is an interesting article about Sherman from todays Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
http://www.jsonline.com/packer/news/jan06/387425.asp
Sherman stuck behind the 4-ball
Posted: Jan. 24, 2006
Bob Wolfley
You're sure former Green Bay Packers coach Mike Sherman will get serious consideration for another head-coaching job in the National Football League, even though he missed out in the latest round of hirings.
Sherman's .594 winning percentage in Green Bay is just too good to ignore.
But during a news conference this week in Buffalo to introduce **** Jauron as the Bills' new coach, you were reminded of what might be an obstacle for Sherman, who also interviewed in New Orleans, as he tries to land another job.
Sherman's problem: Brett Favre.
You have the notion that many league observers think the success Sherman enjoyed in Green Bay is viewed as having everything to do with Favre and little to do with the head coach.
How much of the Mike Sherman's .594 winning percentage in Green Bay was based on having Brett Favre at quarterback rather than Sherman's coaching?
Are owners and general managers going to think the reason the Packers were so successful was a result of Favre's presence and not so much Sherman's coaching? How can Sherman demonstrate or prove his coaching had a significant bearing on the Packers' success, when they had success, during his time there?
In other words, the good news is that Brett Favre is your starting quarterback. But the bad news is Brett Favre is your starting quarterback.
This applies to any player who is viewed as a difference-maker on a team.
Sherman was interviewed for the job to replace Mike Mularkey as coach of the Bills. Owner Ralph Wilson and general manager Marv Levy picked Jauron, who has head coaching experience in Chicago and Detroit. Jauron's record is 36-49. Sherman's record is 57-39.
A reporter asked Levy an obvious question during the news conference to introduce Jauron.
In a league where the bottom line is only about winning, why pick the guy with the poorer record?
"First of all, it wasn't just **** Jauron rather than Mike Sherman," Levy said. "The other candidates were all very much involved in it. Nevertheless, the difference in records between the two men you just talked about . . . I came here with a losing record. Bill Belichick went to New England with a losing record. Mike Shanahan went to Denver off of a losing record in Oakland. So record alone doesn't tell it."
Think about that.
Levy is saying Bears observers were getting a false negative read on Jauron and the team in part because they were displaced for a season.
"They never really did have an impact quarterback, among other people," Levy said, referring to Jauron's tenure in Chicago. "His last year there, OK, they come back up to 7-9. When he had most of the pieces there, it was a 13-3 season."
If there are false negatives, there can be false positives.
"You need good personnel. Mike's good years came before he lost a lot of good players," Levy said, referring to Sherman. "His two starting guards. Before Brett Favre went into a year where maybe he wasn't quite what he had been before. So records mean something, certainly, in the evaluation process, but I look far beyond the won-loss record. There are other reasons."
That's the challenge Sherman faces as he tries to locate his next head coaching job in the league.
Thanks to Favre and other good Packers players, and strange as it might be in a league that's only about winning, Sherman is going to have to convince another team there's more to him than winning.
http://www.jsonline.com/packer/news/jan06/387425.asp
Sherman stuck behind the 4-ball
Posted: Jan. 24, 2006
Bob Wolfley
You're sure former Green Bay Packers coach Mike Sherman will get serious consideration for another head-coaching job in the National Football League, even though he missed out in the latest round of hirings.
Sherman's .594 winning percentage in Green Bay is just too good to ignore.
But during a news conference this week in Buffalo to introduce **** Jauron as the Bills' new coach, you were reminded of what might be an obstacle for Sherman, who also interviewed in New Orleans, as he tries to land another job.
Sherman's problem: Brett Favre.
You have the notion that many league observers think the success Sherman enjoyed in Green Bay is viewed as having everything to do with Favre and little to do with the head coach.
How much of the Mike Sherman's .594 winning percentage in Green Bay was based on having Brett Favre at quarterback rather than Sherman's coaching?
Are owners and general managers going to think the reason the Packers were so successful was a result of Favre's presence and not so much Sherman's coaching? How can Sherman demonstrate or prove his coaching had a significant bearing on the Packers' success, when they had success, during his time there?
In other words, the good news is that Brett Favre is your starting quarterback. But the bad news is Brett Favre is your starting quarterback.
This applies to any player who is viewed as a difference-maker on a team.
Sherman was interviewed for the job to replace Mike Mularkey as coach of the Bills. Owner Ralph Wilson and general manager Marv Levy picked Jauron, who has head coaching experience in Chicago and Detroit. Jauron's record is 36-49. Sherman's record is 57-39.
A reporter asked Levy an obvious question during the news conference to introduce Jauron.
In a league where the bottom line is only about winning, why pick the guy with the poorer record?
"First of all, it wasn't just **** Jauron rather than Mike Sherman," Levy said. "The other candidates were all very much involved in it. Nevertheless, the difference in records between the two men you just talked about . . . I came here with a losing record. Bill Belichick went to New England with a losing record. Mike Shanahan went to Denver off of a losing record in Oakland. So record alone doesn't tell it."
Think about that.
Levy is saying Bears observers were getting a false negative read on Jauron and the team in part because they were displaced for a season.
"They never really did have an impact quarterback, among other people," Levy said, referring to Jauron's tenure in Chicago. "His last year there, OK, they come back up to 7-9. When he had most of the pieces there, it was a 13-3 season."
If there are false negatives, there can be false positives.
"You need good personnel. Mike's good years came before he lost a lot of good players," Levy said, referring to Sherman. "His two starting guards. Before Brett Favre went into a year where maybe he wasn't quite what he had been before. So records mean something, certainly, in the evaluation process, but I look far beyond the won-loss record. There are other reasons."
That's the challenge Sherman faces as he tries to locate his next head coaching job in the league.
Thanks to Favre and other good Packers players, and strange as it might be in a league that's only about winning, Sherman is going to have to convince another team there's more to him than winning.
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
Well that was quick.OK. I guess they could've brought Sherman back and gone 4-12 again. Would he still be a great coach?This team, talent wise, is a long way away. Sherman or no Sherman, they weren't going to turn this around over night.Looking forward to a half dozen years of Packers losing records and hearing homers say that the coach is better than his record.
T
trader jake
Guest
his greatest asset is now his greatest anchor
An interesting article, yes. The premise is the coach of the Packers can't win without Favre. What does Mike Holmgren have to say about that?Overall I'd say the article was just idle banter and didn't make much sense. EVERY single successful coach needs talent, right?
Sherman had very little talent this year and still they were only blown out of 1 game. That said, I still agree with his firing, why? Because when it came down to winning big games, he was a horrible big game coach, and seemed to choke when it came to the wire and "game on the line" decisions.
To the article.
T
trader jake
Guest
mr. pack - the point of the article isn't that coaches can't win without brett favre (as your holmgren example notes). the point of the article is that people question MIKE SHERMAN'S ability to win as a head coach without brett favre/great team talentAn interesting article, yes. The premise is the coach of the Packers can't win without Favre. What does Mike Holmgren have to say about that?Overall I'd say the article was just idle banter and didn't make much sense. EVERY single successful coach needs talent, right?Sherman had very little talent this year and still they were only blown out of 1 game. That said, I still agree with his firing, why? Because when it came down to winning big games, he was a horrible big game coach, and seemed to choke when it came to the wire and "game on the line" decisions.
T
trader jake
Guest
maybe so, but who would you hire? mike sherman or an unknown assistant coach that you interviewed and feel strongly about?
Kleck.
Footballguy
You must look beyond the winning % to see why Sherman was fired. McCarthy may not be the answer, but neither was Sherman and that is a proven. It was time for both sides to go different ways. That simple.Looking forward to a half dozen years of Packers losing records and hearing homers say that the coach is better than his record.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Kleck, I'd absolutely agree. That's the case for just about every city where the coach is fired with more locals glad he's gone than people nationally. It's why you have guys like Mike Greenberg giddy over Mangini. He has no idea if Mangini will be any better and he said so. He just wants a new guy. "Give me the devil I don't know over the devil I know" is the typical attitude of most fans.I'd guess that the percentage of non-Packer fans who believe that is greater than the percentage of Packer fans who do.http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=2&t=221018&st=So it was "Sherman did great things" and was a "good coach." Close enough.Excellent question!
And the fact that **** Jauron beat him out for a job is pretty telling.
J
I've found the more success the team has had in the past, the more intense this reaction is.
J
Last edited by a moderator:
I understand this, but that's really what makes this article ridiculous. How does Wolfley know this? He hasn't had an opportunity to win without Favre. He didn't lose Favre this year, he lost everyone else. The article really makes very little sense. There is nothing else to base Shermans coaching ability on, other than having Favre as a QB.I don't like sticking up for Sherman for the reasons I stated above. But I will say this article is pointless.mr. pack - the point of the article isn't that coaches can't win without brett favre (as your holmgren example notes). the point of the article is that people question MIKE SHERMAN'S ability to win as a head coach without brett favre/great team talentAn interesting article, yes. The premise is the coach of the Packers can't win without Favre. What does Mike Holmgren have to say about that?
Overall I'd say the article was just idle banter and didn't make much sense. EVERY single successful coach needs talent, right?
Sherman had very little talent this year and still they were only blown out of 1 game. That said, I still agree with his firing, why? Because when it came down to winning big games, he was a horrible big game coach, and seemed to choke when it came to the wire and "game on the line" decisions.
