Sherman So Far

Sox-n-Hawks

Active member
Joined
Dec 26, 2014
Messages
3,647
Reaction score
0
adeltaY":qxheuxhg said:
Sox-n-Hawks":qxheuxhg said:
adeltaY":qxheuxhg said:
Thanks for the answer. I think at some point this year someone's gonna test him and I wonder who it will be. Rodgers has been pretty content to avoid him so we probably won't see that this week. Hopefully he can get back on the INT train.

How's he going to hold up when Carson runs him over?

He's one of the best tackling CBs, so I'm sure he'll hold his own.

I agree, but I don't recall seeing him go toe to toe with a big, hard hitting RB.
 

BleuEyedHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
840
Reaction score
479
I miss Sherman too.

He was my favorite among all the other talented players with colorful personalities.

His play spoke for itself but the trash talking and jawing made him seem even more forceful.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,610
chris98251":35hmd4pd said:
Don't listen to the BS, we would love him as a player if he was here, yeah his angst against certain Coaches and the message got old but it had its substance also.


Some time a new view clears every ones air.

No thanks, I love the way our defense is playing without Sherman's pain in the ass negativity. Pete's greatest strength is teaching defensive scheme, especially at the DB position.

So I'm just fine with continuing to draft and assemble the next group of great young positively motivated and hungry for success defenders. The Niners can have Sherman's mouth and 8 games missed per year due to injury.
 

drrew

New member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
1,090
Reaction score
0
Just cost the 49ers the game tonight with an illtimed illegal contact call that kept the defense on the field.
 
OP
OP
A

adeltaY

New member
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
Messages
3,281
Reaction score
0
Location
Portland, OR
drrew":2e6baeri said:
Just cost the 49ers the game tonight with an illtimed illegal contact call that kept the defense on the field.

Yeah it wasn't the fact that the Niners kept punting the ball back to the packers or that CJB threw a disastrous interception just outside of FG range that cost them the game, it was a holding penalty.
 

Milehighhawk

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
928
Reaction score
23
adeltaY":1e5lvw8q said:
drrew":1e5lvw8q said:
Just cost the 49ers the game tonight with an illtimed illegal contact call that kept the defense on the field.

Yeah it wasn't the fact that the Niners kept punting the ball back to the packers or that CJB threw a disastrous interception just outside of FG range that cost them the game, it was a holding penalty.

What are you a Sherman apologist. None of your rant addresses the factual statement that Sherman’s penalty led directly to them losing the game on the last drive.
 
OP
OP
A

adeltaY

New member
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
Messages
3,281
Reaction score
0
Location
Portland, OR
Milehighhawk":2woryg4t said:
adeltaY":2woryg4t said:
drrew":2woryg4t said:
Just cost the 49ers the game tonight with an illtimed illegal contact call that kept the defense on the field.

Yeah it wasn't the fact that the Niners kept punting the ball back to the packers or that CJB threw a disastrous interception just outside of FG range that cost them the game, it was a holding penalty.

What are you a Sherman apologist. None of your rant addresses the factual statement that Sherman’s penalty led directly to them losing the game on the last drive.

I guess you can say I am given many fans here are intent on hating the guy and it doesn't make sense to me. Label me whatever you want.

I guess Russell Wilson cost us SB49 because he threw the INT and not the fact that the D couldn't stop Brady at all during the 4th quarter.

Also Pete Carroll cost us the Rams game by calling timeout because it DIRECTLY led to the Rams running the clock out on us.
 

Milehighhawk

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
928
Reaction score
23
adeltaY":3ncvrmx7 said:
Milehighhawk":3ncvrmx7 said:
adeltaY":3ncvrmx7 said:
drrew":3ncvrmx7 said:
Just cost the 49ers the game tonight with an illtimed illegal contact call that kept the defense on the field.

Yeah it wasn't the fact that the Niners kept punting the ball back to the packers or that CJB threw a disastrous interception just outside of FG range that cost them the game, it was a holding penalty.

What are you a Sherman apologist. None of your rant addresses the factual statement that Sherman’s penalty led directly to them losing the game on the last drive.

I guess you can say I am given many fans here are intent on hating the guy and it doesn't make sense to me. Label me whatever you want.

I guess Russell Wilson cost us SB49 because he threw the INT and not the fact that the D couldn't stop Brady at all during the 4th quarter.

Also Pete Carroll cost us the Rams game by calling timeout because it DIRECTLY led to the Rams running the clock out on us.

Non sequiter much? Again several sentences of unrelated nonsense. The dude made a bad play. It is ok to admit it. Otherwise you seem irrational and all your other arguments get washed away in the BS.
 
OP
OP
A

adeltaY

New member
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
Messages
3,281
Reaction score
0
Location
Portland, OR
You claimed that Sherman directly cost them the game. I'm pointing out that a single play does not make a loss, it's a constellation of plays throughout the game. His penalty (which was ticky-tack, but callable) extended the drive, but that doesn't mean the Niners D couldn't have made a stop. The Packers weren't even in FG range after the penalty so how can you say the penalty directly cost them the game? It was bad and kept the drive alive, but did not cost them the game.

Those other examples I brought up are to demonstrate how fallacious your line of thinking is for assigning blame for a loss. Russell Wilson is not the reason we lost 49 just because he threw the INT at the end of the game. Pete Carroll is not the reason we lost the Rams game despite his decision allowing the rams to change their minds and run out the clock. Those were basically the final plays in their respective games and this wasn't and they still weren't the main reasons we lost those games.

An accurate statement would be that Sherman's penalty extended the Packers final drive and gave them a higher chance of winning. It didn't DIRECTLY cost the Niners the game.

Another example is Fluker's holding penalty against the Rams. It was a ticky-tack call, but still callable and made our final offensive drive much more difficult. it did not directly cost us the game.
 

Milehighhawk

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
928
Reaction score
23
adeltaY":1m3ju50i said:
You claimed that Sherman directly cost them the game. I'm pointing out that a single play does not make a loss, it's a constellation of plays throughout the game. His penalty (which was ticky-tack, but callable) extended the drive, but that doesn't mean the Niners D couldn't have made a stop. The Packers weren't even in FG range after the penalty so how can you say the penalty directly cost them the game? It was bad and kept the drive alive, but did not cost them the game.

Those other examples I brought up are to demonstrate how fallacious your line of thinking is for assigning blame for a loss. Russell Wilson is not the reason we lost 49 just because he threw the INT at the end of the game. Pete Carroll is not the reason we lost the Rams game despite his decision allowing the rams to change their minds and run out the clock. Those were basically the final plays in their respective games and this wasn't and they still weren't the main reasons we lost those games.

An accurate statement would be that Sherman's penalty extended the Packers final drive and gave them a higher chance of winning. It didn't DIRECTLY cost the Niners the game.

Another example is Fluker's holding penalty against the Rams. It was a ticky-tack call, but still callable and made our final offensive drive much more difficult. it did not directly cost us the game.

Give it a rest man. If you are going to quote someone, especially when the words are directly above, it is best to do so accurately, otherwise one might think you are twisting words. In the most plane definition of the word it cannot be denied that the penalty led directly to the loss. All your other diarrhea of words is meaningless and at best tangential to the point. The more you deny, the weaker and less salient your crusade to prop up an aging star becomes.
 
OP
OP
A

adeltaY

New member
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
Messages
3,281
Reaction score
0
Location
Portland, OR
Aight dawg if you're gonna dismiss what I was saying out of hand and not even attempt to engage that's cool.
 

IndyHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
7,943
Reaction score
1,577
adeltaY":3ooh869q said:
Milehighhawk":3ooh869q said:
adeltaY":3ooh869q said:
drrew":3ooh869q said:
Just cost the 49ers the game tonight with an illtimed illegal contact call that kept the defense on the field.

Yeah it wasn't the fact that the Niners kept punting the ball back to the packers or that CJB threw a disastrous interception just outside of FG range that cost them the game, it was a holding penalty.

What are you a Sherman apologist. None of your rant addresses the factual statement that Sherman’s penalty led directly to them losing the game on the last drive.

I guess you can say I am given many fans here are intent on hating the guy and it doesn't make sense to me. Label me whatever you want.

I guess Russell Wilson cost us SB49 because he threw the INT and not the fact that the D couldn't stop Brady at all during the 4th quarter.

Also Pete Carroll cost us the Rams game by calling timeout because it DIRECTLY led to the Rams running the clock out on us.
Since you bring this up..Yeah he did no matter how much you try to use that D that was destroyed
by injuries prior to and during the game..He could have sand lot(ran) into the EZ or simply thrown the damn
ball away..
 

Popeyejones

Active member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
5,525
Reaction score
0
Sherman allowed one catch for 10 yards and had an illegal contact penalty called against him.

If he's the reason the 9ers D gave up 33 points I dont understand football.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,610
Popeyejones":14enbrxo said:
Sherman allowed one catch for 10 yards and had an illegal contact penalty called against him.

If he's the reason the 9ers D gave up 33 points I dont understand football.

Sherman's played well this year when he's played, so no none of the Niner issues are on him, including last night. Beathard and the offense had two chances to drive the ball and get a couple first downs to kick a game winning FG, and couldn't do it. That's not on Sherman.

But do I want him back here? Hell no. Pete's turning the defensive roster over injecting youth and getting back to a positive locker room full of young hungry players............we don't need Sherman undermining that.
 

Uncle Si

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
20,596
Reaction score
3
Popeyejones":23lct51y said:
Sherman allowed one catch for 10 yards and had an illegal contact penalty called against him.

If he's the reason the 9ers D gave up 33 points I dont understand football.


This has always been the debate with Sherman.

Is he "playing well" by not giving up catches but not matching himself with the opponent's best WRs? His limitations allow teams to scheme against him, and the 9ers are suffering, quite clearly, by how many points they are giving up with him on the field.

His stats are misleading. He's not giving up any yards per attempt because noone feels the need to challenge him when the other side of the field is basically wide open.

I having nothing against Sherman, but this has always been part of the debate of his greatness.
 

chris98251

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
39,479
Reaction score
1,462
Location
Roy Wa.
Uncle Si":347x39e7 said:
Popeyejones":347x39e7 said:
Sherman allowed one catch for 10 yards and had an illegal contact penalty called against him.

If he's the reason the 9ers D gave up 33 points I dont understand football.


This has always been the debate with Sherman.

Is he "playing well" by not giving up catches but not matching himself with the opponent's best WRs? His limitations allow teams to scheme against him, and the 9ers are suffering, quite clearly, by how many points they are giving up with him on the field.

His stats are misleading. He's not giving up any yards per attempt because noone feels the need to challenge him when the other side of the field is basically wide open.

I having nothing against Sherman, but this has always been part of the debate of his greatness.

Could be why we always looked for a RCB that had something to bring to the table and shaded Earl behind him to balance the scales. They don't challenge Sherman because most times he will make you pay by baiting you or just making a great play.
 

Popeyejones

Active member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
5,525
Reaction score
0
Uncle Si":5ff8bwex said:
Popeyejones":5ff8bwex said:
Sherman allowed one catch for 10 yards and had an illegal contact penalty called against him.

If he's the reason the 9ers D gave up 33 points I dont understand football.


This has always been the debate with Sherman.

Is he "playing well" by not giving up catches but not matching himself with the opponent's best WRs? His limitations allow teams to scheme against him, and the 9ers are suffering, quite clearly, by how many points they are giving up with him on the field.

His stats are misleading. He's not giving up any yards per attempt because noone feels the need to challenge him when the other side of the field is basically wide open.

I having nothing against Sherman, but this has always been part of the debate of his greatness.

Oh, I'm with you.

I used to get a ton of crap here for saying I thought Pat Peterson was better than Sherman even though his stats were worse because what Peterson was asked to do was much harder than what Sherman is asked to do.

That's a "who's the best of the best?" debate, though.

Sherman doesn't move around, but he also controls his side of the field. And quite frankly, if you have a player that can take a side of the field away entirely and the other side gets picked on, that's not an argument against the controlled side of the field, it's an argument against the disastrous play on the other side.

Having a guy like Sherman locking down one side of the field exposes the other side for who they are.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,610
Popeyejones":li5awz69 said:
Having a guy like Sherman locking down one side of the field exposes the other side for who they are.

Sherman's smart. He knows that most pass plays last 3-4 seconds, so all he has to do is use his length to jam WR's at the line, and turn his hips into the route for a short amount of time.

If Sherman has to follow WR's across the middle of the field for longer routes? That's where you can get him, but that's also why McDaniels and his D-Coordinators play the exact defense the Hawk's ran with Sherman........high safety cover zones passing off WR's through their routes. So Sherman doesn't have to follow speedy WR's too long.
 

Uncle Si

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
20,596
Reaction score
3
Popeyejones":3tv0zdx6 said:
Uncle Si":3tv0zdx6 said:
Popeyejones":3tv0zdx6 said:
Sherman allowed one catch for 10 yards and had an illegal contact penalty called against him.

If he's the reason the 9ers D gave up 33 points I dont understand football.


This has always been the debate with Sherman.

Is he "playing well" by not giving up catches but not matching himself with the opponent's best WRs? His limitations allow teams to scheme against him, and the 9ers are suffering, quite clearly, by how many points they are giving up with him on the field.

His stats are misleading. He's not giving up any yards per attempt because noone feels the need to challenge him when the other side of the field is basically wide open.

I having nothing against Sherman, but this has always been part of the debate of his greatness.

Oh, I'm with you.

I used to get a ton of crap here for saying I thought Pat Peterson was better than Sherman even though his stats were worse because what Peterson was asked to do was much harder than what Sherman is asked to do.

That's a "who's the best of the best?" debate, though.

Sherman doesn't move around, but he also controls his side of the field. And quite frankly, if you have a player that can take a side of the field away entirely and the other side gets picked on, that's not an argument against the controlled side of the field, it's an argument against the disastrous play on the other side.

Having a guy like Sherman locking down one side of the field exposes the other side for who they are.


What I'm saying is on a very poor defense like the 9ers have, is he having that much of a good impact? How many times was a CB with half the physicality, technical skill and experience find himself matched up with the Packers best WR last night while Sherman got the 3rd/4th WR because he was on his side?

Do you think the 9ers wouldve been better last night if Adams (Packers clear #1) was matched up with Sherman?

Folks are pointing to stats that basically say Sherman isnt getting challenged. But the most important stat is the overall play of the defense, of which it's difficult to say he's helping.
 

Latest posts

Top