HawkShack.com

There has been talk of RS coming back. Believe it or not I would not be opposed to it. I just dont see the Cap allowing that to happen. It would be a good fit because our new Corner is a year a way. I was never really into Sherman's personality however.

Why not, if nothing else he'd be fun to listen to again on press conferences and would probably help the younger CB's on how the coach likes them to play.

Would probably sell some tickets and jerseys to the selfie crowd thinking they’re “OG”. Beyond that, meh.......

I’m not sure if he could last the season considering his injury history the last few years, but we could
use his leadership and be another coach on the field in the secondary.

I’m torn on this.

A. Can he play now? Play well? Can he take a lesser role?
B. Can he stay reasonably healthy?
C. Can he “play” at a reasonable salary?
D. I LOVE what he did for the Hawks and later loathed that he was too immature to see what the Hawks organization did for him. It was 100% mutually beneficial. His departure, blasting PC RW, & others was soooooo not good.
E. The Jim More interview was mind-boggling. It could have been chalked up to a “heat of the moment” moment had he not lied/sworn he didn’t say what we all heard him say...on tape.
F. I can forgive his heat of the moment bs.

Again. There is so much to love a out him and i dig a feel good reunion possibility. Yet so much immature selfishness paired with age/injury/what salary he’d settle for are important factors to the equation.

I can forgive a legend his competitive immaturity. T’would be great were he able to chomp a bit of crow. & he should.

HS, I agree! and one more, G: will he train the younger guys?

I gotta trust Pete on this one. If he's comfortable bringing Sherman back onto a team after all the mess he created just prior to his departure, then I'm good with it. Nearly the entire roster, including all but 2 players on defense (Bobby and KJ, if he comes back) weren't on the roster when Sherman played his last down, so it's really Pete's comfort level as to whether or not he'd fit in with what we're trying to do.

I like Richard Sherman a lot and would welcome a return, however I just don't see it. Pete said recently he will let the CBs compete and see how it shakes out. Unless there is a significant injury, looks like no reunion.

Financially it doesn't make sense for us, anyway. I don't think Sherm would take a vet minimum deal, I'm guessing he will want 7 mil or so. 4-5 mil feels about right to me. I would rather:
1. Bring KJ wright back
2. Sign another DT. Sheldon Richardson, please.
3. Sign a veteran center to compete with Pocic. Maybe this happens after cut down day.

FWIW, Sherm said he has been in contact with Seattle, SF, LVR and New Orleans.

I expect it would work out about as good as the Mariners' reunions with Junior and Ichiro. It feels good but void of production. Time for Sherm to focus on making beef jerky commercials.

I think Sherman very well knows his best playing days are long gone and are limited to relief on the field, but maybe he sees what Deion Sanders is doing and has some aspirations to coach. Our current CB's are young and not very good. In other words, If he comes back it wouldn't be for the $$$.

jshawaii22 wrote:I think Sherman very well knows his best playing days are long gone and are limited to relief on the field, but maybe he sees what Deion Sanders is doing and has some aspirations to coach. Our current CB's are young and not very good. In other words, If he comes back it wouldn't be for the $$$.

Great players don't always make great coaches. Peyton Manning would have been a horrible coach, and I suspect that Tom Brady would be, too. Sherman is definitely smart enough but whether or not he has the intangibles, such as patience, that make a good coach isn't anything any of us can speculate on with any degree of credibility.

I'd take Sherm back for a few years of intensity. See if Sherm can get some of the old magic back and we can make a real run. I think Sherm is starting to see how short a time the fire of greatness burns. He can come back with one last burst of what made him such an intense force in one of the best secondaries in history. He's one of the smartest players at the CB position. He can teach the younguns how to read and play the ball. He was very into the mental aspect of the game.

Great players don't always make great coaches. Peyton Manning would have been a horrible coach, and I suspect that Tom Brady would be, too. Sherman is definitely smart enough but whether or not he has the intangibles, such as patience, that make a good coach isn't anything any of us can speculate on with any degree of credibility.

In fact River most times they dont. Look at Bill Russell with the Sonics

It seems to me that great players who have been great all their careers and had a natural affinity to playing (it seemed to come easily for them) don't coach as
well as others that had to learn the position through either trial and error or hard work. It seems to me the under appreciated player who learns the minutiae
of the position or game has a greater appreciation of the struggles of others and knows how to relate to those who have to work hard and study, not to mention
giving tips and encouragement to younger players. I think Sherm falls into the latter category for the most part as he had to learn the position and take advantage
of anything he could to make himself the player he was and is.

However, I think he re-signs in SF this year.

Old but Slow wrote:This is sliding the topic a bit, but it got me thinking. In MLB there seems a leaning to former catchers as managers, is there a similar observation for the NFL? Definitely not quarterbacks (Van Bronklin comes to mind), defensive backs, maybe?

And, now back to our regular programming.

You can toss in Bart Starr as a QB that was a disaster as a HC. Steve Spurrier, also a QB, was a good college coach but a complete bust in a short stint in the NFL. It seems that most former QB's enter the TV business, usually as pitch men or color commentators (Aikman, Young, Manning, Fouts, Simms, Bradshaw, et al). Mike Singletary, a HOF LB, was a total abortion in a short tour of duty as an HC.

There really aren't all that many former players that played at a high level, ie an NFL starter, that I can think of. Tony Dungy was a DB that was an excellent HC. Mike Vrabel, a LB, is the only current HC that was also a starter in the league. Ron Rivera might have played, but I don't have any recollection of him as a player.

Interesting question. If you look at a lot of coaches, they have playing backgrounds in college and some may have had short stints in the NFL, but most HC's don't seem to have made much of an impact
on the playing field in the NFL. Position coaches are sometimes a different matter with some good coaches on the LoS and some have become Coordinators like Ken Norton Jr. Mike Singletary was another
disaster as HC. It seems to me he had far more intensity than the rest of his team and couldn't get that from his players. Maybe that's a part of the insight of great players not becoming good HC's. They
have focus and intensity that others don't have but expect them to have like they did. I would think that would be a big gulf to cross on an inspirational/motivational basis.

NorthHawk wrote:Interesting question. If you look at a lot of coaches, they have playing backgrounds in college and some may have had short stints in the NFL, but most HC's don't seem to have made much of an impact
on the playing field in the NFL. Position coaches are sometimes a different matter with some good coaches on the LoS and some have become Coordinators like Ken Norton Jr. Mike Singletary was another
disaster as HC. It seems to me he had far more intensity than the rest of his team and couldn't get that from his players. Maybe that's a part of the insight of great players not becoming good HC's. They
have focus and intensity that others don't have but expect them to have like they did. I would think that would be a big gulf to cross on an inspirational/motivational basis.

The theory is that outstanding athletes are by definition perfectionists and are less tolerant of good but not great performances. Singletary seems to be one of the better examples. His intensity and swagger made him a HOF'er, but it didn't serve him very well as a HC. I also think that he had a difficult time articulating his thoughts, which would frustrate him and cause him to lose his temper. He'd be in a post game conference, get asked a tough question, couldn't come up with a rational answer, and you could see the anger swelling up in him. Pete Carroll, on the other hand, is like a slick lawyer or politician when he needs to wiggle his way out of a tough situation.

As well, how does a person explain how to do something that comes naturally and didn’t require thought to do
it for the great players? I would think that would be the hardest and maybe most frustrating thing about being a coach.

It will be interesting to see how well Deon Sanders does coaching at the College level. Eddie George as well for
that matter. Maybe they can change the narrative.

NorthHawk wrote:As well, how does a person explain how to do something that comes naturally and didn’t require thought to do
it for the great players? I would think that would be the hardest and maybe most frustrating thing about being a coach.

Good point. A great player's success may be the result of a physical attribute that can't be taught. For example, Bret Favre thrived on his rocket arm, could complete passes that no one else could duplicate due to their lack of arm strength. Would he be able to coach up a player that did not have similar arm strength? Could a wide receiver, say DK Metcalf, that relies on size and speed, coach wide receivers that depend more on different attributes, like route running, coach players like Tyler Lockett or Julian Edelman?

NorthHawk wrote:It will be interesting to see how well Deon Sanders does coaching at the College level. Eddie George as well for that matter. Maybe they can change the narrative.

Colleges seem to be a different monster altogether as far as being a head coach goes. Not many have been able to make the transition. There's been many more failures than there have successes, the result of which has led to the current trend in the NFL to stay in house when filling head coaching vacancies. Even if Sanders and George were to succeed, I don't think it would change the narrative, at least as it applies to the NFL.

Old but Slow wrote: defensive backs, maybe?

I heard there is an undersized DB from Pacific who turned out to be a pretty good coach. Can't think of his name...

Colleges seem to be a different monster altogether as far as being a head coach goes. Not many have been able to make the transition. There's been many more failures than there have successes, the result of which has led to the current trend in the NFL to stay in house when filling head coaching vacancies. Even if Sanders and George were to succeed, I don't think it would change the narrative, at least as it applies to the NFL.

But they still need to teach what made them successful, so in that manner it might be telling.

Colleges seem to be a different monster altogether as far as being a head coach goes. Not many have been able to make the transition. There's been many more failures than there have successes, the result of which has led to the current trend in the NFL to stay in house when filling head coaching vacancies. Even if Sanders and George were to succeed, I don't think it would change the narrative, at least as it applies to the NFL.

NorthHawk wrote:But they still need to teach what made them successful, so in that manner it might be telling.

Maybe, but I still wouldn't want to bet on an NFL coaches' chance of success based on his performance in college.