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!
I don't think there is a hit if a guy retires.
Donatell's defensive playcalling was wretched that season. The 4th-and-26 was just the final nail in the coffin. Was Donatell better than Slowik? Absolutely. But that only means Sherman made the poor move in terms of hiring a new DC. It doesn't mean the decision to fire Donatell was the wrong one. It wasn't. He deserved to go. His work in 2003 was absolutely awful and that Eagles' choke job was the last straw.
Joe,Just like I was eluding to in the Tice thread, the Packer have also been SERIOUS under-achievers over the past few years under Sherman. Personally, I was hoping that they'd keep Sherman AND Favre for one more season (Vikings fan). As it is, with a regime change in Green Bay, I'll be
on draft day after they DON'T take a punter or back-up nickel DB at #5 overall now that Sherman is gone...... 
Even for the signing bonus? Farve currently has a very sweet contract with the Packers.
Hi Datonn,I think it's question of definitions. Four straight years of double digit wins is not SERIOUS underacheiving in my book.Joe,Just like I was eluding to in the Tice thread, the Packer have also been SERIOUS under-achievers over the past few years under Sherman. Personally, I was hoping that they'd keep Sherman AND Favre for one more season (Vikings fan). As it is, with a regime change in Green Bay, I'll be
Joe. Understood.I guess to me though when you: - end up with 10 wins but coach yourself out of 12-13 - you win a division but drop playoff games that you are favored to win (at HOME) - you have a history of essentially wasting picks on draft day....THAT is the definition of under-achieving. Some teams play over their heads. The Packers and Vikings have played well-beneath their "ceilings" over the past several seasons. To me, that is a symbol of problems with management. If they (management) cannot get your team motivated and/or get them to perform at/above their ability level, it might be time to replace them. Mooch was fired in Detroit for essentially the same reason....though I STILL contend that the problem in Detroit was a combination of both Mooch's "over-coaching" (getting cute with personnel, rather than trotting the best players on to the field at all times) and the "leadership" of Millen.How Millen still has a job in Detroit is beyond me! However, if Tice and Sherman had not BOTH been fired this off-season, then it would have been a shame for all us fans of football up in the Upper Midwest.I guess it is a question about being "competitive" and being/doing your best. If it is my team and my employees who are consistently under-performing their potential, then I'm not going to wait too long to find someone to get us out of our rut and take us up to the next plateau as an organization. I commend the Vikings and Packers for making a decision that HAD to be made....and can only hope that my Vikings choose wisely over the next few months during their interview and hiring process.Hi Datonn,I think it's question of definitions. Four straight years of double digit wins is not SERIOUS underacheiving in my book. I understand the feeling. Just don't agree with it.I see it in other places as well. University of Tennessee Football is seeing the same thing as they've had a terrible season after years of great success and the short term memory people are screaming for a housecleaning. JJoe,Just like I was eluding to in the Tice thread, the Packer have also been SERIOUS under-achievers over the past few years under Sherman. Personally, I was hoping that they'd keep Sherman AND Favre for one more season (Vikings fan). As it is, with a regime change in Green Bay, I'll be
Agreed on all counts. Sherman obviously wasn't going to fire himself and you knew he wouldn't fire his buddy Rossley. I would have had issues with Donatell being fired if what we saw on 4th-and-26 wasn't the same stuff we saw from him the entire season. I was glad to see him go.
It's about expectations. If your expectations are to be decent and just good enough to get to the playoffs then Sherman's your guy. If your expectations are to win it all and have a team that others will fear year in and year out then you want someone else.
Why do you hate Thompson for doing the right thing?
Packers.....Vikings.....and just about any other team in the NFL needing a new head coach right now. Ferentz has been talked about here in Minnesota for 18+ months as well! We always keep hearing "he isn't leaving Iowa", but we'll see. Maybe the Packers job or new ownership and a BIG pay-day would be enough to get him to change his mind?!
Sherman was NOT the problem in Green Bay. Poor player personnel decisions on the O-Line and injuries to Javon Walker and ALL their RBs were the problem.
He won't get any of them.
He may have retired anyway. And he never said his future was contingent on Sherman returning.
Sherman or Favre? The fact the Packers are rebuilding is due almost entirely on Sherman.
Further proof of why he deserved to be fired.D) Unless he ends up in Detroit or Minnesota he won't be humiliated by the Bears for any more consecutive games.
Who put the Packers in a bad situation in terms of personnel? That would be Mike Sherman. I'm not thrilled with the job Thompson did but in many ways his hands were tied because of the inept work Sherman had done previously. If you don't think Sherman was the problem in Green Bay, you weren't paying attention.
HAPPY is an understatement. I'm ELATED.
No they did not. They were in most of their games. As I said, they played just good enough to lose. And I believe much of that is a reflection of their head coach. And while Sherman's winning percentage may be solid, I ask what is his winning percentage in the playoffs? How has he fared in home playoff games against teams he was favored to beat? And how has he fared at home as his tenure has gone on? I don't think Sherman is a terrible head coach. I think he is a decent head coach. But he is limited and he lacks the ability to make sharp in-game adjustments and his playcalling is often questionable (to put it kindly). I think he can get you to a certain point but he can't get where you really need to go.
That may be the second-most aspect of note this off-season -- other than who is the next head coach and even ahead of who is taken with the fifth pick. I'm not saying Thompson has to go out and spend like a madman and overpay for players. But with all that money and all of the holes this team has Thompson would be a fool to not use it. He NEEDS depth and talent and he has a way to go out and get it. He needs to utilize it.
I'll be very interested in how soon they can reel off four consecutive seasons of 10+ wins.
I'll be interested to see if they can find a head coach who can win consistently at home and when he gets them to the playoffs, doesn't lose to inferior teams frequently. That'd be a nice change-of-pace.Of course, it may be awhile before the Packers get back to the playoffs if Favre retires. However, keeping Sherman as the head coach wasn't going to change that.
J
I think that's probably the difference. I'd be more concerned with wins.JI'll be interested to see if they can find a head coach who can win consistently at home and when he gets them to the playoffs, doesn't lose to inferior teams frequently. That'd be a nice change-of-pace.Of course, it may be awhile before the Packers get back to the playoffs if Favre retires. However, keeping Sherman as the head coach wasn't going to change that.
J
I thought former Bears Sid Luckman was in the team picture. Apparently not:42 George Blanda Houston 1962George Blanda threw 42 in a 14 game season.
So am I Joe and while you continue to look at regular-season numbers, I'm looking deeper. Consider:Sherman was 2-4 in the playoffs. Of those 4 defeats, two were embarrassing home defeats against underdogs and another was a game the Packers had won and would have very possibly propelled them to the Super Bowl. Also, of his final 25 games at Lambeau, Sherman lost 13 of them. I'm concerned about wins too and Sherman wasn't getting them where it mattered most -- in the playoffs and at home.I think that's probably the difference. I'd be more concerned with wins.JI'll be interested to see if they can find a head coach who can win consistently at home and when he gets them to the playoffs, doesn't lose to inferior teams frequently. That'd be a nice change-of-pace.Of course, it may be awhile before the Packers get back to the playoffs if Favre retires. However, keeping Sherman as the head coach wasn't going to change that.
J
How good of a coach punts the ball from the 41 yard line on 4th & inches with and 1800 yard rusher who is gouging the oppenent for over 5 yards a clip, and an offensive line that was considered the best in the league? I'll tell you what kind. The same kind the gets down to the goalline in a playoff game and goes for it on 4th and 1 with the same team instead of kicking the easy 3. And then instead of just running right at the defensive line that has been owned all game, decides to run a trap play and allows the defense to penetrate untouched.
Also, the same type of coach who, in this same game, calls off a blitz on a 4th and 26 play and doesn't use a timeout when the entire game is on the line to make sure that his team is all on the same page. This after the DC called a blitz. Then of course he blames the DC on the play after the game and quickly supplants him with a yes-man type in Bob Slowik.
:X :(
And when coaches leave they often do not have very favorable things to say about Mike Sherman. Again, you can't just look at Wins and Losses in the regular season; there's been so much more going on with this team the past few seasons and so much of it has not been good.
Fair enough. We just disagree. I do look at the bottom line wins and losses though. Thanks for the discussion even if we don't agree.JSo am I Joe and while you continue to look at regular-season numbers, I'm looking deeper. Consider:Sherman was 2-4 in the playoffs. Of those 4 defeats, two were embarrassing home defeats against underdogs and another was a game the Packers had won and would have very possibly propelled them to the Super Bowl. Also, of his final 25 games at Lambeau, Sherman lost 13 of them. I'm concerned about wins too and Sherman wasn't getting them where it mattered most -- in the playoffs and at home.I think that's probably the difference. I'd be more concerned with wins.JI'll be interested to see if they can find a head coach who can win consistently at home and when he gets them to the playoffs, doesn't lose to inferior teams frequently. That'd be a nice change-of-pace.Of course, it may be awhile before the Packers get back to the playoffs if Favre retires. However, keeping Sherman as the head coach wasn't going to change that.
J
Joe, unless you had watched the Packers week-in and week-out every year of Sherman's tenure you can't be aware of the decline of this team and Sherman's role in that decline both as GM (where his impact was felt more profoundly) and as the head coach. It's easy to look at the numbers and think one thing; it's something else if you've watched the situation up close and seen what's really going on.
Not kidding.. Bevell is the QB coach.
You're welcome.
I definitely think there's been a little too much deference to Favre since Holmgren's left. He's obviously a star and obviously a Hall of Famer, but no player -- no matter how great he has been or still is -- should be exempt from criticism. Neither Rhodes in his only season nor Sherman throughout his tenure used a strong hand with Favre when it was needed. That was one of Holmgren's many strengths during his tenure with the Packers. And I think Favre has missed that quite a bit.
Agree on the accountability. I know it is a tough thing to do to hold a 3-time MVP superstar accountable, but it must be done. So many folks have signed off on, "well with Brett Favre, you live by the sword and die by the sword" mentality (including Brett in my opinion), that the idea of coaching Brett or letting him know when he's making bad choices has not even been an option. Even something as simple as telling him to settle down and not to try to win the game on a single play would be a huge help. I just don't see it. I have seen a number of Favre debates on this board, and I am of the opinion that he has not lost a step at all, but only needs to be coached...
Believe me when I say I've been so frustrated at Sherman's lack of gameday emotion. Sooo tired watching him look at his clipboard while major events just happened. The thing is that it's been his sideline mode throughout his tenure. Good or bad. There have been successful coaches both ways, so that doesn't really play into it as much as a casual fan would like.We don't know how Favre was treated behind closed doors, though. There was a radio interview with, I think Tauscher, (not completely sure) where he stated (paraphrase) that the biggest misconception the media and fans had was that Sherman treated Favre with kid gloves.
As a fan I'd love to see Bates stay.There has been speculation that Beightol is in trouble after not being able to solidify the line this year, even after turning some low round marginal types into players in the past. Interesting schemes, too.
Bevell was mainly brought in to help Nall and now has Rodgers to work with. He was there to aid Favre, but what could any coach really do to try and tell Favre how to play. It's not like past years when Favre was younger and had Mooch and Reid. I think Bevell's a good QB coach and maybe even more impressive with what he did to assist Tom Rossley with the offense and game planning. He is a smart guy and knows the game. If Green Bay does not keep him, someone will pick him up quickly. I tuely believe Bevell will be a future OC in the NFL.
Dude Farve is gone. The Packers loss will be the Jets gain.
