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.
