Do Not Sell My Personal Information

In hindsight, should we have resigned Earl and Sherm?

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE: PG-13
  • They are both far and away better than our current replacements (especially Earl) and part of the decision was health. Should we have resigned them? One of them? If one which one?
    andyh64000
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 704
    Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:42 pm


  • Sherm no, Earl maybe before the injury but after that it was to late. They're both still great but it was time for both of them to go.
    getnasty
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4308
    Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:22 pm


  • getnasty wrote:Sherm no, Earl maybe before the injury but after that it was to late. They're both still great but it was time for both of them to go.

    We are starting Tre flowers for geez sake! Sherman is still playing Pro Bowl caliber football. He would have been a difference maker and his presence alone could have resulted in a SB appearance. With Diggs there isn’t as much drop off from ET
    HawkerD
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 960
    Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 11:33 am
    Location: Covington WA


  • HawkerD wrote:
    getnasty wrote:Sherm no, Earl maybe before the injury but after that it was to late. They're both still great but it was time for both of them to go.

    We are starting Tre flowers for geez sake! Sherman is still playing Pro Bowl caliber football. He would have been a difference maker and his presence alone could have resulted in a SB appearance. With Diggs there isn’t as much drop off from ET


    Sherman was a bad apple his last couple of years and became a cancer in my opinion. Still a great player but his time was up here.
    getnasty
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4308
    Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:22 pm


  • HawkerD wrote:
    getnasty wrote:Sherm no, Earl maybe before the injury but after that it was to late. They're both still great but it was time for both of them to go.

    We are starting Tre flowers for geez sake! Sherman is still playing Pro Bowl caliber football. He would have been a difference maker and his presence alone could have resulted in a SB appearance. With Diggs there isn’t as much drop off from ET

    And last year, when he had a total of 4 pass defences and was Mr. Irrelevant out there? What would you have said of him then, if he was with the Seahawks and just collected a massive contract?
    KiwiHawk
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 2498
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:22 pm
    Location: Auckland, New Zealand


  • andyh64000 wrote:They are both far and away better than our current replacements (especially Earl) and part of the decision was health. Should we have resigned them? One of them? If one which one?



    You forget the two year or so learning curve we had with Earl, Kam, and Sherm, the breakdowns, communication issues deep passes completed.

    We get it your all about pushing a App on a phone, but in this game you have to build a team and take repetitions together and learn each other and communicate.

    Griff is a Pro Bowl alternate, Diggs is playin g balls out, Flowers is in his second year playing the position and will improve with a year of working with this group, add a SS that puts fear into receivers and supports the run and a slot guy to step up or be drafted and or signed and the secondary will look better. Add a D line that can pressure and cause havoc and they will look very good.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 30360
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Sherm maybe...Earl no.
    Cyrus12
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 9149
    Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:20 am
    Location: BC Canada


  • Sherm was open to resigning but Earl I think would have rathered quit the game before playing for Pete anymore.
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1386
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 11:19 am


  • They didn't really want to be here when they left.
    sutz
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 18370
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA


  • Earl's departure was partly about money and partly about how personally he took the second extension negotiations and how he reacted to them.

    Sherman would still be here if not for the drama. It's a shame that it took a change of scenery for him to learn that lesson, but by all accounts he's been a good locker room influence with the 49ers. The Seahawks needed the change as well.
    AgentDib
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4088
    Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:08 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • ^^^Alot of the drama was of Sherm's own doing though.
    Seanhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6431
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:04 pm


  • Seanhawk wrote:^^^Alot of the drama was of Sherm's own doing though.


    All of the drama was his own doing. I had know problem with him talking smack to opponents but when you publicly start questioning you own staff you got to go.
    getnasty
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4308
    Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:22 pm


  • getnasty wrote:
    Seanhawk wrote:^^^Alot of the drama was of Sherm's own doing though.


    All of the drama was his own doing. I had know problem with him talking smack to opponents but when you publicly start questioning you own staff you got to go.


    Unfortunately Sherman always thought he was the smartest one in the room. Maybe he was, but when you think it you become conceded. Great player, his head just became too big for our locker room. The injury and scenery change seemed to bring him back to reality a bit.
    kmeleon
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 216
    Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:10 am


  • Capspace results would make Seahawks mediocre for years to come. Better to move-on and develop young players for 20-12 season.
    chrispy
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 305
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 9:50 am


  • Except Sherman was right. He called out our coaches for valid reasons, so getting upset at him for doing so makes little sense. Carroll was both wrong and old, so it wasn't going to end well. But we would have been better in keeping him.

    We should have kept them both. They played positions well in areas that were holes for us almost all year. Sure Diggs filled one hole, but we were a dumpster fire for a while before that trade. And Sherman + Griffin is a damned sight better than Griffin + Flowers.

    Key weaknesses for us all year:
    Cornerback play
    Safety (notably FS)

    I don't care if they were punching Carroll in the face before each game, we would have been better with them. Also, allowing Sherman to go to a rival gave us an extra loss. Corner was one of the big weaknesses we could exploit against SF.

    It was a risk that Sherman would end up healthy, one that SF took. Surprised we did not even try to resign him with the type of contract he offered SF - but we were stupid.

    Regardless, Sherman and Earl were both pissed off at Carroll for being complacent about offense and consistently pushing the defense to save the game with little or no support until the 4th quarter. We now know 2 things:

    1. It was Carroll almost more than Bevell that was keeping us from scoring.
    2. We had the wherewithal to score when we felt it was necessary - we just did not feel it was necessary.

    Sherman is going to a SB as a key contributor to the defense that is the driving force behind SF's success. He had 2 picks in the playoffs. We haven't gone to a SB since he left, and likely won't against under Carroll for the very reasons Sherman was upset in the first place. For all the complaining about Sherman not 'being a team player' and 'calling out his coaches', he was right about everything he was complaining about.



    Ultimately he is in the SB and we are not. So it worked out for him, not so much for us.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3852
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:48 pm


  • It never ends. Someone has success on another team and it somehow was a mistake by the Hawks.
    Glad they are both gone.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15071
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • SoulfishHawk wrote:It never ends. Someone has success on another team and it somehow was a mistake by the Hawks.
    Glad they are both gone.

    Because it was a mistake
    hawksincebirth
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 597
    Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:12 pm
    Location: Marysville


  • TwistedHusky wrote:Except Sherman was right. He called out our coaches for valid reasons, so getting upset at him for doing so makes little sense. Carroll was both wrong and old, so it wasn't going to end well. But we would have been better in keeping him.

    We should have kept them both. They played positions well in areas that were holes for us almost all year. Sure Diggs filled one hole, but we were a dumpster fire for a while before that trade. And Sherman + Griffin is a damned sight better than Griffin + Flowers.

    Key weaknesses for us all year:
    Cornerback play
    Safety (notably FS)

    I don't care if they were punching Carroll in the face before each game, we would have been better with them. Also, allowing Sherman to go to a rival gave us an extra loss. Corner was one of the big weaknesses we could exploit against SF.

    It was a risk that Sherman would end up healthy, one that SF took. Surprised we did not even try to resign him with the type of contract he offered SF - but we were stupid.

    Regardless, Sherman and Earl were both pissed off at Carroll for being complacent about offense and consistently pushing the defense to save the game with little or no support until the 4th quarter. We now know 2 things:

    1. It was Carroll almost more than Bevell that was keeping us from scoring.
    2. We had the wherewithal to score when we felt it was necessary - we just did not feel it was necessary.

    Sherman is going to a SB as a key contributor to the defense that is the driving force behind SF's success. He had 2 picks in the playoffs. We haven't gone to a SB since he left, and likely won't against under Carroll for the very reasons Sherman was upset in the first place. For all the complaining about Sherman not 'being a team player' and 'calling out his coaches', he was right about everything he was complaining about.



    Ultimately he is in the SB and we are not. So it worked out for him, not so much for us.



    THIS> Sherman had the balls to speak truth to power. He basically said the same stuff that most of us on this board were saying. Namely, that Caroll's loyalty to coaches like Cable and Bevell were ruining our chances to get things like home field advantage in the playoffs which diminishes our chances of going to the Super Bowl. The offensive game plan made our defense have to stay on the field way too much, and I would not be surprised if that led to greater chance of injuries. We had and have a HOF QB, and we only gave him the reigns to the offense in the 4th quarter when it is catch up time. I bet in hindsight ....Sherman might now see Wilson in a different light (they exchanged jerseys this year) and realize that Russ wasn't the problem, and it all rests on Pete. As for some of Sherman's rants.......Jim Moore on 710 AM is an idiot who I have no sympathy I bet that Russ is silently seeing the light too. Pete will not change. Watch this> he will stay loyal to Ken Norton, and our defense will continue to flounder. Cable and his inept coaching for me is what cost this team a chance at multiple super bowls. We still have not overcome all the mistakes on O-line and all those wasted draft picks that were Cable's doing.
    vigilantgrrl
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 156
    Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:08 am


  • Nope, was not a mistake at all.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15071
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • The simple answer is no, we needed to move on. The only way to continually compete year in and year out is to systematically replace higher priced players as they age. You just can't have too many older players on one team. If you do, you risk having to need multiple tough seasons to try to become competitive again. If you let a few go each year, you can continue to bring in fresh talent and turnover the team while remaining competitive.

    With that said, even if we had kept them, there's no saying they'd have had the successes they are having now. Different teams, different situations will often have different outcomes.
    kidhawk
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 20307
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • The only way you can evaluate this is to look at the situation AT THE TIME the decision needed to made. Both were getting old and coming off of serious injuries. Signing them at the money it would've taken was a bad move unless you could guarantee their health going forward, which is impossible. It turned out both got back to good health, but you can't evaluate the moves on anything that happens after the decision. The correct decision was made for this franchise at the time.
    OrangeGravy
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 345
    Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:47 pm


  • I love both those guys. Both are Seahawk icons. But we couldn't afford one, let alone both. With regard to way this year turned out for us I would say keeping Sherm might have been what could have put us over the hump that kept us from advancing in the playoffs to the SB.
    Take Sherm from SF and add another corner to us and I see us winning Div crown and top seed for Conf, and solid shot at being NFC rep in SB.
    I don't think you could say that about Earl. Diggs is too close to same level, but we have no one even close to Sherm's level.
    Appyhawk
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 711
    Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:43 pm
    Location: Ranch in Flint Hills of Kansas, formerly NW Montana.


  • This question is only looking at production and not thinking about the intangibles of locker room and players defying coaches in front of new players who need to buy into the system. Truthfully, as soon as Bevell was kept, and no accountability was taken after SB 49, they should have let them all go. Everyone seems to forget these professional athletes are 23-25 year olds. How logical would you have been at 23-25 after a SB defeat the way it went and would have returned back to the system and coaching staff who in your opinion took no accountability and put the QB on the pedestal.
    ZagHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1513
    Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:42 pm


  • Well, it was stupid to release Sherman. We got nothing for him that way. We didn't have to resign him as he was already under contract.

    Basically, we used his cap relief to sign Ed Dickson. So I'd consider it trading Sherman and a 4th round pick for Dickson. Since he would have netted a 4th in compensation. And that's being conservative because he would have demonstrated he had overcome his Achilles injury by the end of 2018.

    Letting Earl go is a bit of a mixed bag. How many losses could we pin on Tedric being our FS instead of Earl? We did net a 3rd round comp for him, so we will know what the 'trade' was. We did have to trade both Vannett and a 7th round pick in order to acquire Diggs as a result of the loss of Earl. So basically, we traded Earl, Vannett and a 7th round pick for whomever we select at 96ish overall and Diggs. The jury is still out.

    It's worth noting though, that Earl this year for Baltimore isn't the same Earl that played for us. He's still very good. But not EARL that we remember. Played a lot less hair on fire, but definitely savvy and shut down the deep/middle. Something we struggled mightily for most of this past season.

    In hindsight, I think it was a mistake to let Sherman go for nothing. Earl's leaving probably nets a positive. If we don't suffer the pain of having TT at FS, and were toting Earl's salary -- we don't make the deal for Diggs. We got younger, cheaper and not significantly worse at FS as a result.
    Attyla the Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2407
    Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:38 pm


  • I'm looking forward to a time when we can appreciate and/or concentrate on the players that actually are ON THE TEAM. Instead of dwelling on the past.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15071
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • SoulfishHawk wrote:I'm looking forward to a time when we can appreciate and/or concentrate on the players that actually are ON THE TEAM. Instead of dwelling on the past.


    There are plenty of threads that do just that. It's not like this one was a bait and switch.
    Attyla the Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2407
    Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:38 pm


  • Unlike what is considered to be common wisdom, hindsight is not necessarily 20/20. ;)
    sutz
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 18370
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA


  • yes to both if they would have agreed to just shut and play or even just keep their chip on the shoulder and point it at opposing teams instead of the front office. but I don't think either one of them would have done that so no we shouldn't have kept either.

    I don't think we can just translate their current play and say they would have done the same here because I don't think either one of them would have been as productive here as they are on their current team.
    classicaaron
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 175
    Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 2:20 pm


  • classicaaron wrote:yes to both if they would have agreed to just shut and play or even just keep their chip on the shoulder and point it at opposing teams instead of the front office. but I don't think either one of them would have done that so no we shouldn't have kept either.

    I don't think we can just translate their current play and say they would have done the same here because I don't think either one of them would have been as productive here as they are on their current team.


    But they wouldn't have shut up, both would have continued to act out and be locker room cancers..........even if they did get paid.

    Sure, in a perfect world where we all see that both Earl and Sherm are still good maybe we should have kept them.

    But the reality is we not only desperately needed the cap room of getting off their monster salaries, but we needed to clean house of all the negativity that was going on.

    It's not a coincidence that Russell had his best year ever this year and was the front runner for MVP for over half the season once Pete and John cleaned house of all the Russell haters in the locker room undermining his leadership.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 16633
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • If you don't acknowledge your mistakes, you will keep making them.

    Sherman is on record as stating he made a similar offer to the Seahawks and they turned him down. So clearly someone did not want him on the team. Did they let him go because he was a PIA?

    The thing is, if you want to win - you sometimes need to deal with it. You will have people you don't like, if not cannot stand, because they produce on the field.

    (Talk to the 49ers about Charles Haley, the stories of all the horrible things he did almost stretch belief - stories of him jerking off in front of players' wives and gfs, peeing on the desks/lockers, etc. Most are probably more legend than truth, but they apparently shipped him off because he was a PIA.

    Interestingly enough, he ended up in Dallas...SF's rival. And Dallas won multiple SBs, instead of SF - because Dallas edged out SF repeatedly. Haley was a big part of that. SF did not get to another SB, until much later. Haley wasn't the whole reason, but SF took a while to live down letting go of Haley until the 49ers built what was pretty much an All-Star team back in 95.)

    Now we released Sherman, let him go to our rival, he immediately shores up one of the bigger weaknesses for the 49ers (secondary) and they end up in the SB instead of us.

    Our coaches should have put winning ahead of their personal preferences.

    We had nobody to even replace him. Keeping Sherman was risky, but not nearly at the #s he was offering since most would be production-based. It didn't need to be 20-20 hindsight because there was plenty of upside in keeping him and not a ton of downside, other than some people on our coaching staff getting their feelings hurt. Again, with nobody to replace him - we left ourselves with a big hole.

    Our coaches' likely worry about their feelings strengthened a rival and contributed to that rival making a SB vs us even finally being effective in a divisional playoff game in almost half a decade. Can you call that anything BUT a yawning mistake?
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3852
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:48 pm


  • Some are saying we had to release Sherman to 'clean house'.

    And did all that 'cleaning house' accomplish anything? Russell Wilson had the best season he has ever had in the regular season. So that was fun.

    But have we done any better in the playoffs? Nope. Same story of getting blown out in the divisional playoffs by halftime. No improvement at all. Even with all the 'house cleaning'.

    If anything, it looked for all the world like we could have really used a good corner or safety in the playoffs.

    Sure, we have a slightly better regular-season record (which is likely the product of playing 1/4 of the season against backup QBs instead of all this 'housecleaning'). But other than that, we didn't get any better in the playoffs even with Wilson playing out of his mind all year.

    Weird.
    Last edited by TwistedHusky on Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3852
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:48 pm


  • TwistedHusky wrote:
    Now we released Sherman, let him go to our rival, he immediately shores up one of the bigger weaknesses for the 49ers (secondary) and they end up in the SB instead of us.


    Immediately shores up one of their biggest weaknesses?

    PFF graded the Niners secondary last year as the worst in the entire league. So he shored up nothing other than his own position.

    https://www.ninersnation.com/2019/1/9/1 ... iski-tartt

    So knock off the revisionist history of how things went down. Because the reality of how it went down is that for the entire 2016 and 2017 season Sherman fought with his teammates, coaches and the local press. Then he got hurt, and Pete and John used it as an excuse to jettison an injured player that was set to make 14M a year AND was a royal pain in the ass.

    Maybe if we had the cap space we do now Pete might have fought harder to mend the fences with both Sherman and Earl. But we didn't, we literally had no cap space, and if you want blame the FO for that? Sure, maybe they mismanaged the cap for a 2-3 year period putting us in a situation where we had no choice but to not offer Sherman and Earl a 3rd contract.

    But with no cap space and having JUST gotten burned with Kam's 3rd contract that was going to haunt us for another two years? Hard to blame Pete and John for not wanting to give monster contracts to two aging DB's that were also pains in the ass.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 16633
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • On that front, you are correct Largent.

    But Sherman gave interviews saying he offered to restructure and give a similar contract to the Seahawks. It isn't out of bounds to suggest he could have been embellishing.

    Are you saying the only way we could have kept him was at that high price? He seemed to imply, in multiple interviews, otherwise.

    Earl, I agree, Earl wanted the Brinks truck. But Sherman I don't know if that was the only option for the FO.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3852
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:48 pm


  • TwistedHusky wrote:On that front, you are correct Largent.

    But Sherman gave interviews saying he offered to restructure and give a similar contract to the Seahawks. It isn't out of bounds to suggest he could have been embellishing.

    Are you saying the only way we could have kept him was at that high price? He seemed to imply, in multiple interviews, otherwise.

    Earl, I agree, Earl wanted the Brinks truck. But Sherman I don't know if that was the only option for the FO.


    I love Richard the player, he's one of my all time favorites. But the dude's a liar, he just is. He lied about what went down with Jim Moore, he lied about the hand shaking thing with Baker Mayfield, so who knows how truthful he was about offering his amazing incentive laden deal to the Hawks.

    After all that went down and us cutting him after getting injured? I doubt it.

    Even if he did, I doubt Pete and John would accept it, the entire organization was ready to move on. So let's stop being hindsight GM's and projecting what's happening now with Earl and Sherm and creating scenarios where we should have kept them.

    No we shouldn't of, and more importantly no we couldn't have afforded them or their disruption. Good for them, I wish them both the best, but I'm also glad we moved on, and the players agree because guys like Russell, KJ and Bobby said this is the best locker room they've ever been a part of.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 16633
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • Good point Largent.

    Nobody could have swallowed the 14M per if that was really what we were stuck with.

    Sherman having a history of altering the truth a bit does have to play into this. If we really had no other options but full price, we couldn't have resigned him. I would like to think if the FO had keeping him a priority we could have found a way, but it is difficult to point to something obvious that would have worked.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3852
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:48 pm


  • Well said. And BOTH of these guys contributed to their departure in their own way. To act and/or ignore how they were acting and thinking that magically everyone would have been just fine? Wishful thinking to say the least. Missing what they brought as football players? Absolutely, that's natural. But some fairy tail that things would have worked out had they stayed? No real way to prove that at all.
    Shoot, IF the team had the same 50-60 mil in cap that they have coming up? Totally different scenario on if they keep them around.
    Last edited by SoulfishHawk on Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15071
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • For those who think we needed to ditch Sherm for Cap Space> Cap Space for what???? Luke freaking Joeckel? Ed Dickson who spent most of his time here injured. My God,,,,we are talking about a HOF, probably top cornerback of our era in Sherm. And while he was at odds with Carroll.....he was not a locker room cancer. Sherm was well respected. Sherm always took the younger DB's under his wing and helped them get better.
    vigilantgrrl
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 156
    Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:08 am


  • All in how you look at it. This whole thing is a matter of opinion. How they play somewhere else doesn't just magically equate to how they would have played here. Plus, this team didn't have the $ to pay Earl and Sherm.
    Last edited by SoulfishHawk on Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15071
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • vigilantgrrl wrote:For those who think we needed to ditch Sherm for Cap Space> Cap Space for what???? Luke freaking Joeckel? Ed Dickson who spent most of his time here injured. My God,,,,we are talking about a HOF, probably top cornerback of our era in Sherm. And while he was at odds with Carroll.....he was not a locker room cancer. Sherm was well respected. Sherm always took the younger DB's under his wing and helped them get better.


    You can't put "he was at odds with Carroll" and "he was not a locker room cancer" in the same sentence. You just can't.

    Either you buy into what your coach is preaching and selling, or you don't...........and all the great coaches do one thing and one thing only with the players that don't buy in. Gone.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 16633
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • Shoot, Earl was my 2nd favorite Hawks player. LOVED what Sherm brought on the field as a player.
    But just because people like a player, doesn't mean they should ignore that they were both part of their own departure. They started making it about THEM, period. And I'm not buying the "it's a business" crap. They CHOSE to act the way they did.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15071
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • vigilantgrrl wrote:For those who think we needed to ditch Sherm for Cap Space> Cap Space for what???? Luke freaking Joeckel? Ed Dickson who spent most of his time here injured. My God,,,,we are talking about a HOF, probably top cornerback of our era in Sherm. And while he was at odds with Carroll.....he was not a locker room cancer. Sherm was well respected. Sherm always took the younger DB's under his wing and helped them get better.


    Sherman wasn't let go over 14 million, an injury, or decline of play. He was let go because he was a cancer. Like said before when you have an influential guy like him turn sour it can ruin a lockeroom. The fact that we went 9-7 in his last year was proof of that.
    getnasty
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4308
    Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:22 pm


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    TwistedHusky wrote:
    Now we released Sherman, let him go to our rival, he immediately shores up one of the bigger weaknesses for the 49ers (secondary) and they end up in the SB instead of us.


    Immediately shores up one of their biggest weaknesses?

    PFF graded the Niners secondary last year as the worst in the entire league. So he shored up nothing other than his own position.

    https://www.ninersnation.com/2019/1/9/1 ... iski-tartt

    So knock off the revisionist history of how things went down. Because the reality of how it went down is that for the entire 2016 and 2017 season Sherman fought with his teammates, coaches and the local press. Then he got hurt, and Pete and John used it as an excuse to jettison an injured player that was set to make 14M a year AND was a royal pain in the ass.

    Maybe if we had the cap space we do now Pete might have fought harder to mend the fences with both Sherman and Earl. But we didn't, we literally had no cap space, and if you want blame the FO for that? Sure, maybe they mismanaged the cap for a 2-3 year period putting us in a situation where we had no choice but to not offer Sherman and Earl a 3rd contract.

    But with no cap space and having JUST gotten burned with Kam's 3rd contract that was going to haunt us for another two years? Hard to blame Pete and John for not wanting to give monster contracts to two aging DB's that were also pains in the ass.


    He also was just coming back from an Achilles tear so there’s that tidbit
    hawksincebirth
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 597
    Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:12 pm
    Location: Marysville


  • After watching Baltimore play Titans I would say that Earl is at the end of his career. He has lost a step and was man handled all game. In hindsight not signing him was smart.

    I love Sherm but he was to big for his bridges and for the sake of the team it was time to move on.
    gabel
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 100
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 4:24 pm


  • gabel wrote:After watching Baltimore play Titans I would say that Earl is at the end of his career. He has lost a step and was man handled all game. In hindsight not signing him was smart..


    Idk, Earl was a hell of a lead blocker for Henry on this play.

    Image
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 16633
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • Talk is cheap Earl. Same guy who said that whatever team they play in the Super Bowl is gonna' be in trouble. Oops
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15071
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • Not resigning Sherman was a mistake. He was coming off injury and they could have gotten him for fairly cheap . CB is a need there's no other way to look at it. Flowers is not good they need to draft a CB . There will be a lot of talk about a pass rusher but lets be real there won't be much of anything left where Seattle is picking. They would be better served to take a CB or a Center with our first pick . I'd be fine with a LB with our first pick as well.

    KJ and Wagner are not getting any younger . Barton has a long way to go to prove to me that he's got the chops to start on this defense. So to me it's CB , Center and LB that should be the priority. Britt if they can get him on the cheap he's adequate and you can take Center off the list this year anyway and concentrate on CB LB and an Edge rusher. I would not resign Reed i'd resign Jefferson and Clowney if possible. If we can't get Clowney then i'd sign Reed and Jefferson.
    Northwest Seahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1554
    Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:10 pm


  • Northwest Seahawk wrote:Not resigning Sherman was a mistake. He was coming off injury and they could have gotten him for fairly cheap .


    You guys are amazing hindsight GM's.

    Really? We should have resigned a disgruntled CB that was undermining and questioning Pete's decisionmaking and Russell's leadership that was coming off a major achilles injury in a year we had no salary cap because of bad trades and giving an enormous 3rd contract to Kam?

    Is Sherman good now? Yep...........and believe me he's going to be asking the Niners to renegotiate his contract in a couple months. Highly doubt now that he has some leverage back he's going to be cool with playing 2020 for only 10M without an extension.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 16633
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • The after the fact, Hawks should have crap is so funny. Because he was so good in the locker room and never called anyone out. Plus he was coming off a torn Achilles. Had they signed him to a big extension, many people would have been calling the FO stupid, period. But he plays well after leaving, and that somehow means it was a mistake.
    Then Frank Clark has a few good games....."It was a mistake to let him go"
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15071
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • Frank Clark, Go Chiefs!!
    If he gets a key sack in the Owl for the Chiefs, their investment will have been worthwhile.
    Clark was an awesome draft pick for us and got us a nice payback in that trade.
    We need more Frank Clark's and fewer Malcom McDowells and Percy Harvins.
    olyfan63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2897
    Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:03 am


  • I would have been fine keeping both Sherm and Thomas. But i don't think it was a mistake to let them go. Production aside, they seemed unhappy with management.

    It has worked out fine for everyone involved. All 3 (4 if you count Clark) teams/players made it to the postseason, with two in the Super Bowl.

    Over time, Sherman and Thomas will look more fondly on their time in Seattle.
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 17307
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


Next


It is currently Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:52 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ SEATTLE SEAHAWKS FOOTBALL ]




Information
  • Who is online