Sherman says some things he shouldn't, and often sounds to me like he is very insecure. But he is highly intelligent and articulate, and has the capacity to admit mistakes and apologize. I'd say there are far worse characters in the league, like Richie Incognito.
Not going to comment on how much more holding Sherman does than other DBs. But Foxxy, don’t forget that he is unusually tall for a CB, 6’3”, I think. Remember, Bolt is the exception—generally, taller men don’t make good sprinters. But at his position, his height helps compensate for lack of all-world speed. The typical DB is significantly shorter than the WRs, not to mention TEs, that he’s guarding (again, I’d say that’s because speed and quickness are inversely correlated with height), so he has to be right on top of one to make a play. Sherman can use his height to advantage when he’s not right with the receiver, as he did tipping that pass vs. Crabtree.
For me, the kind of ultra-physical play SE is known for is not the same as, say, doping, or stealing another team’s signals, because it’s right out there on the field, for everyone to see. It’s up to the officials to call it. Athletes always try to push the envelope, it’s up to the sport to determine when they overdo it. If what Sherman is doing is within the rules as they are presently interpreted, can’t blame him for doing it. If it isn’t, then the officials should be blamed.
OTOH, I agree with you somewhat about Carroll. I do like the guy in some respects. I think he’s really good at relating to his players, and getting the best performance out of them. He seems the antithesis of the old-school dictator coach, and very much open to thinking outside of the box. Who would have predicted that Russell Wilson would become a starter, let alone such a successful one? With his New Agey views, Carroll kind of reminds me of another coach who was very successful in SoCal, Phil Jackson.
But there have been a disturbing number of positives on that team (and we Clinicians all know that for every positive there are many more who get away with it). And then there is USC, where he’s now getting the benefit of
revisionist history:
How times and perceptions change. Carroll already has assured himself a spot in at least the College Football Hall of Fame, if not the pro football version. The penalties that some blamed on him have largely been criticized as an overreach by the NCAA.
Some writers have criticized them as an overreach. But then, you can find some sportswriters who will criticize anything (cold weather SBs; eliminating extra points; a player with no connection to PEDs except the era he played in being in the HOF). You can argue that the NCAA rules are ridiculous, but they are rules that coaches supposedly agree to follow. Maybe the penalties were too harsh, but that shouldn’t obscure that rules were broken, and Carroll conveniently left USC before the storm broke, leaving his successors to deal with a handicapped program. Whatever the reasons Carroll had for leaving then, it doesn’t look good when you get out just in time to avoid the storm that began while you are in charge.
The Heisman took back Bush's trophy. The BCS took away a championship. But Carroll can take his accomplishments to this grave. Nowhere in the NCAA record is he blamed. His name does not appear in the public report.
So the HC has no responsibility for what happens under his watch? And how can he take his accomplishments to his grave if they aren’t officially recognized?
The man who built the foundation is destined to go down as one of the greatest coaches ever. It's just a question to what degree.
His only peers in the college/Super Bowl championship category are Barry Switzer and Jimmy Johnson. Those back-to-back national championships (2003-04) were the first at USC since 1978-79.
Switzer and Johnson are the only coaches to win both a national championship and a SB. Carroll supposedly would be the third. But officially, he never won the national championship. The 2004 title was vacated by the sanctions. USC finished no. 1 in some polls in 2003, but did not play in the game that officially determines the champion. And that talent-loaded team blew the championship in 2005 against Vince Young and Texas.
"Coach is probably one of the most conscientious, cleanest coaches I've ever worked for," [OL coach Pat] Ruel said
I imagine a lot of Bellichick's assistants or former assistants would say the same (not Mangini, though).
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
The greatest teams ever built early leads, sit on them, and more often than not just demolished opponents. No need for comebacks...
The 49ers of the ‘80s were often criticized as a finesse team. Which is kind of funny, because Ronnie Lott and co. were some of the hardest hitters in the game.
I agree with you that if you win, the way you do it shouldn't matter. You can argue, I guess, that if a team is used to having it's way in that manner, it may be less able to deal with being behind late in the game. But really, whatever it is that allows a team to build a big lead is still there if the game is close.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram