Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman

Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman (/thread-18814.html)

Pages: 1 2

Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman - GoodGrief - 01-06-2020

After earning a bunch of incentives for All-Pro and Pro Bowl, he spent his bye week calling out everybody who told him that he self-negotiated a bad deal with the Niners
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/richard-sherman-calls-out-contract-critics-after-earning-another-bonus/2209932/

Man, I love that guy, despite and in part because of his mouth. He is our most important recruiting weapon in the NFL.

RE: Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman - BostonCard - 01-06-2020

Love how he crowdsourced the exercise in finding the critics. More respect to Jenna Gray, though, who saved this tweet THREE YEARS:

https://twitter.com/jennagray22/status/1208585185631096835

She should have waited a couple more weeks until she collected the Honda Award.

BC

RE: Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman - FarmBoy - 01-06-2020

(01-06-2020, 05:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Love how he crowdsourced the exercise in finding the critics. More respect to Jenna Gray, though, who saved this tweet THREE YEARS:

https://twitter.com/jennagray22/status/1208585185631096835

She should have waited a couple more weeks until she collected the Honda Award.

BC

Sherman hit all of his incentives, but that doesn't mean he was right to negotiate the contract that way. It's a fascinating discussion, and I followed some of it last week, but it's mostly devoid of fact. I would love to see the contract offers that were on the table that were turned down instead of this incentive laden contract. And if you play out the past two seasons 100 times, how often would Sherman have ended up "winning" with his current structure?

In Managerial Decision Making class we often talked about not being fooled by "Good Process, Bad Outcome" or "Bad Process, Good Outcome" scenarios. You can't always look at the end result to know that the choices made should be relied on for the future. Will Sherman's positive outcome result in more players negotiating their own contracts and relying more on incentives for compensation? Is that a good thing for the players?

I thought this series of tweets from Joe Thomas provided some interesting color: https://twitter.com/joethomas73/status/1213230758195691520

There's also a lot of revisionist history going on in which some critics are pointing to his relative low pay as evidence that he signed a bad deal while forgetting that at the time he was a 30 year old player coming off an Achilles rupture.

Personally, I think it was a smart deal. I mean, he'd already made enough money in his career to set him up for life. Instead of taking the lower, guaranteed money that would certainly build wealth but not really change any outcome, he rolled the die to see if he could really magnify his wealth. If it hadn't worked out, there's nothing lost. But if it worked out, there was some real money to be made but perhaps more important, building on his personal story/brand/self worth.

RE: Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman - 2006alum - 01-06-2020

One thing I think has gotten lost in this process: one reason Sherman negotiated himself was because he feels agents not only don't negotiate in the bests interests of the players, but also that they take a cut. Unless we know what an agent's cut would have been of his Alternate World Agent-Negotiated Contract, it's even harder to assess. In that sense, two contracts with a $ value attached aren't actually apples to apples if one has to include an agent-cut and the other doesn't.

Incidentally, there's a recent episode of the Podcast Planet Money that examined this in the context of Hollywood screenwriters, who felt their agents (who often now own production companies the writers are negotiating with) were screwing them on deals - one day approx. 7,000 writers fired their agents en masse!

Generally, speaking, I'm supportive of Sherman if for no other reason than that highlighting some of these issues is not only good for young players to pay attention to, but for the game and for fans in general. There are an awful lot of middlemen in pro sports (and in all entertainment industries) looking to take their cut.

lex24 - lex24 - 01-06-2020

(01-06-2020, 08:57 PM)FarmBoy Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 05:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Love how he crowdsourced the exercise in finding the critics. More respect to Jenna Gray, though, who saved this tweet THREE YEARS:

https://twitter.com/jennagray22/status/1208585185631096835

She should have waited a couple more weeks until she collected the Honda Award.

BC

Sherman hit all of his incentives, but that doesn't mean he was right to negotiate the contract that way. It's a fascinating discussion, and I followed some of it last week, but it's mostly devoid of fact. I would love to see the contract offers that were on the table that were turned down instead of this incentive laden contract. And if you play out the past two seasons 100 times, how often would Sherman have ended up "winning" with his current structure?

In Managerial Decision Making class we often talked about not being fooled by "Good Process, Bad Outcome" or "Bad Process, Good Outcome" scenarios. You can't always look at the end result to know that the choices made should be relied on for the future. Will Sherman's positive outcome result in more players negotiating their own contracts and relying more on incentives for compensation? Is that a good thing for the players?

I thought this series of tweets from Joe Thomas provided some interesting color: https://twitter.com/joethomas73/status/1213230758195691520

There's also a lot of revisionist history going on in which some critics are pointing to his relative low pay as evidence that he signed a bad deal while forgetting that at the time he was a 30 year old player coming off an Achilles rupture.

Personally, I think it was a smart deal. I mean, he'd already made enough money in his career to set him up for life. Instead of taking the lower, guaranteed money that would certainly build wealth but not really change any outcome, he rolled the die to see if he could really magnify his wealth. If it hadn't worked out, there's nothing lost. But if it worked out, there was some real money to be made but perhaps more important, building on his personal story/brand/self worth.

He wanted to step out and show he was capable of doing more than locking down a wide out. Could have failed miserably. Had the guts to take the risk. Used to be people applauded that. Now, conform or else.

RE: Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman - Goose - 01-06-2020

(01-06-2020, 09:14 PM)2006alum Wrote: There are an awful lot of middlemen in pro sports (and in all entertainment industries) looking to take their cut.

Worse still, their "cuts" is often all out of proportion to the services they provide. That is an issue in executive compensation as well. The bang for the buck is often absent.

RE: lex24 - cardcrimson - 01-06-2020

(01-06-2020, 09:38 PM)lex24 Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 08:57 PM)FarmBoy Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 05:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Love how he crowdsourced the exercise in finding the critics. More respect to Jenna Gray, though, who saved this tweet THREE YEARS:

https://twitter.com/jennagray22/status/1208585185631096835

She should have waited a couple more weeks until she collected the Honda Award.

BC

Sherman hit all of his incentives, but that doesn't mean he was right to negotiate the contract that way. It's a fascinating discussion, and I followed some of it last week, but it's mostly devoid of fact. I would love to see the contract offers that were on the table that were turned down instead of this incentive laden contract. And if you play out the past two seasons 100 times, how often would Sherman have ended up "winning" with his current structure?

In Managerial Decision Making class we often talked about not being fooled by "Good Process, Bad Outcome" or "Bad Process, Good Outcome" scenarios. You can't always look at the end result to know that the choices made should be relied on for the future. Will Sherman's positive outcome result in more players negotiating their own contracts and relying more on incentives for compensation? Is that a good thing for the players?

I thought this series of tweets from Joe Thomas provided some interesting color: https://twitter.com/joethomas73/status/1213230758195691520

There's also a lot of revisionist history going on in which some critics are pointing to his relative low pay as evidence that he signed a bad deal while forgetting that at the time he was a 30 year old player coming off an Achilles rupture.

Personally, I think it was a smart deal. I mean, he'd already made enough money in his career to set him up for life. Instead of taking the lower, guaranteed money that would certainly build wealth but not really change any outcome, he rolled the die to see if he could really magnify his wealth. If it hadn't worked out, there's nothing lost. But if it worked out, there was some real money to be made but perhaps more important, building on his personal story/brand/self worth.

He wanted to step out and show he was capable of doing more than locking down a wide out. Could have failed miserably. Had the guts to take the risk. Used to be people applauded that. Now, conform or else.

Don't remember Sherman much, if at all, as a Stanford player. Have always enjoyed him as a pro, even when a Seahawk. Enjoying doesn't mean agreeing with or condoning, but always enjoyed. Would be an interesting guy to spend a day fishing with. . . .

RE: Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman - Beeg_Dawg - 01-06-2020

I was watching from both sides of the Sherman deal as he left Seattle. Living in WA, I'm a Seahawk fan but son and family live within a stones throw of Santa Clara.

Sherman gathered up a number of representative contracts to draw from. He did his homework. He looked at the Niner's, determined his worth to the organization and then loaded up on the incentives. Sherman claimed he wanted to play and wanted a fair contract for both sides. I don't think anyone can argue his base compensation was unreasonably high, especially considering his resume.

He offered the same contract to Seattle before signing with Niner's. He did not want to leave, and gave them one last chance. They declined. Did Sherman get the better end of the deal? Depends on your view, but I will bet John Lynch feels like he is getting more than his money's worth.

RE: Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman - FarmBoy - 01-07-2020

I have read in some twitter discussions that the agent fees are typically 3%. That sounds a lot lower than I would have anticipated, but if so, I would expect a true professional to be able to create 3% in value in a contract. If they are charging 15%+, then it definitely can be questionable whether they provide that value.

Sherman backers have mentioned on social media that supposedly 2-3 other teams passed on the same deal the 9ers struck. If true, then that would indicate that he did get the best deal he could. If this was such a "team friendly" contract, you would have expected other bidders to jump at the chance to have a potential all pro player who could be cut if needed.

I remember Sherman distinctly at Stanford. I remember the anxiety I felt every time I saw him isolated out on the corner against the other team's top passing target. I would turn to my seat mate and predict a chunk play to that receiver and was often "rewarded" for my prescience. As a non-expert, his switch from WR to CB felt like a disastrous mistake from the sideline. Clearly he was just getting up the learning curve, but it was a painful curve to watch as a fan. I was shocked he was drafted as high as he was (5th round, 154th overall), but shows that the talent evaluators at least saw the potential there.

Here's his profile from NFL.com: http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/richard-sherman?id=2495507

Quote:OVERVIEW
Sherman is a size prospect with some good intangibles that will help him mold into a contributing backup corner for a press-heavy team. However, he does not possess the natural coverage instincts, fluidity or burst to be considered a future starter. Is comfortable and capable in press man, using his size to disrupt receivers' releases off the line, but doesn't show enough make up speed to consistently recover when beaten. Awareness in zone and off-man are only adequate. Has average ball skills but some upside as a playmaker. Tough against the run but still developing from a technical standpoint. Sherman is a Day 3 prospect.

ANALYSIS
STRENGTHS Sherman possesses rare height for a corner with enough bulk and speed. Effective when lined up at the line in press man coverage. Uses length well and established sound initial positioning. Flashes the ability to turn and run. Flashes the ability to high-point the football. Willing to help out in run support.
WEAKNESSES Can be baited out of position when in zone and a tick late to diagnose underneath routes. Tall, high-cut prospect who displays some hip-stiffness. Not explosive when transitioning or when changing direction. Lacks great recovery skills when beaten off the line. Can struggle tacking in the open field at times.

RE: Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman - murky - 01-07-2020

(01-07-2020, 08:50 AM)FarmBoy Wrote: I have read in some twitter discussions that the agent fees are typically 3%. That sounds a lot lower than I would have anticipated, but if so, I would expect a true professional to be able to create 3% in value in a contract. If they are charging 15%+, then it definitely can be questionable whether they provide that value.

Sherman backers have mentioned on social media that supposedly 2-3 other teams passed on the same deal the 9ers struck. If true, then that would indicate that he did get the best deal he could. If this was such a "team friendly" contract, you would have expected other bidders to jump at the chance to have a potential all pro player who could be cut if needed.

I remember Sherman distinctly at Stanford. I remember the anxiety I felt every time I saw him isolated out on the corner against the other team's top passing target. I would turn to my seat mate and predict a chunk play to that receiver and was often "rewarded" for my prescience. As a non-expert, his switch from WR to CB felt like a disastrous mistake from the sideline. Clearly he was just getting up the learning curve, but it was a painful curve to watch as a fan. I was shocked he was drafted as high as he was (5th round, 154th overall), but shows that the talent evaluators at least saw the potential there.

Here's his profile from NFL.com: http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/richard-sherman?id=2495507

Quote:OVERVIEW
Sherman is a size prospect with some good intangibles that will help him mold into a contributing backup corner for a press-heavy team. However, he does not possess the natural coverage instincts, fluidity or burst to be considered a future starter. Is comfortable and capable in press man, using his size to disrupt receivers' releases off the line, but doesn't show enough make up speed to consistently recover when beaten. Awareness in zone and off-man are only adequate. Has average ball skills but some upside as a playmaker. Tough against the run but still developing from a technical standpoint. Sherman is a Day 3 prospect.

ANALYSIS
STRENGTHS Sherman possesses rare height for a corner with enough bulk and speed. Effective when lined up at the line in press man coverage. Uses length well and established sound initial positioning. Flashes the ability to turn and run. Flashes the ability to high-point the football. Willing to help out in run support.
WEAKNESSES Can be baited out of position when in zone and a tick late to diagnose underneath routes. Tall, high-cut prospect who displays some hip-stiffness. Not explosive when transitioning or when changing direction. Lacks great recovery skills when beaten off the line. Can struggle tacking in the open field at times.

I remember him better as a receiver than CB in college. Like you, I didn't remember him as a star on defense and I didn't understand the reasoning behind switching him to D when he was one of our best options at receiver.

RE: Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman - baymeadows3408 - 01-07-2020

(01-07-2020, 10:00 AM)murky Wrote:
(01-07-2020, 08:50 AM)FarmBoy Wrote: I have read in some twitter discussions that the agent fees are typically 3%. That sounds a lot lower than I would have anticipated, but if so, I would expect a true professional to be able to create 3% in value in a contract. If they are charging 15%+, then it definitely can be questionable whether they provide that value.

Sherman backers have mentioned on social media that supposedly 2-3 other teams passed on the same deal the 9ers struck. If true, then that would indicate that he did get the best deal he could. If this was such a "team friendly" contract, you would have expected other bidders to jump at the chance to have a potential all pro player who could be cut if needed.

I remember Sherman distinctly at Stanford. I remember the anxiety I felt every time I saw him isolated out on the corner against the other team's top passing target. I would turn to my seat mate and predict a chunk play to that receiver and was often "rewarded" for my prescience. As a non-expert, his switch from WR to CB felt like a disastrous mistake from the sideline. Clearly he was just getting up the learning curve, but it was a painful curve to watch as a fan. I was shocked he was drafted as high as he was (5th round, 154th overall), but shows that the talent evaluators at least saw the potential there.

Here's his profile from NFL.com: http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/richard-sherman?id=2495507

Quote:OVERVIEW
Sherman is a size prospect with some good intangibles that will help him mold into a contributing backup corner for a press-heavy team. However, he does not possess the natural coverage instincts, fluidity or burst to be considered a future starter. Is comfortable and capable in press man, using his size to disrupt receivers' releases off the line, but doesn't show enough make up speed to consistently recover when beaten. Awareness in zone and off-man are only adequate. Has average ball skills but some upside as a playmaker. Tough against the run but still developing from a technical standpoint. Sherman is a Day 3 prospect.

ANALYSIS
STRENGTHS Sherman possesses rare height for a corner with enough bulk and speed. Effective when lined up at the line in press man coverage. Uses length well and established sound initial positioning. Flashes the ability to turn and run. Flashes the ability to high-point the football. Willing to help out in run support.
WEAKNESSES Can be baited out of position when in zone and a tick late to diagnose underneath routes. Tall, high-cut prospect who displays some hip-stiffness. Not explosive when transitioning or when changing direction. Lacks great recovery skills when beaten off the line. Can struggle tacking in the open field at times.

I remember him better as a receiver than CB in college. Like you, I didn't remember him as a star on defense and I didn't understand the reasoning behind switching him to D when he was one of our best options at receiver.

I remember Sherman having rough games vs. Cal and Notre Dame in 2009. He had the pick 6 vs. USC but was still super raw. Golden Tate made him look silly. I think by midway through the 2010 season he had made a lot of improvement, but I wasn't really paying attention to him and common fans like myself tend to not notice cornerbacks unless they are doing something wrong. I would love to see some sort of metric comparing 2009 Richard Sherman to 2010 Richard Sherman.

RE: Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman - BostonCard - 01-07-2020

Sherman was on the Pac-10 HM team in 2010. He had 4 interceptions (tied for 5th in the conference), and was tied for third in passes defended with 13. He also had 50 tackles, 1 TFL, 2 fumbles forced, and 1 fumble recovery.

BC

RE: Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman - 76lsjumb - 01-07-2020

(01-07-2020, 08:50 AM)FarmBoy Wrote: Here's his profile from NFL.com: http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/richard-sherman?id=2495507

Quote:OVERVIEW
Sherman is a size prospect with some good intangibles that will help him mold into a contributing backup corner for a press-heavy team. However, he does not possess the natural coverage instincts, fluidity or burst to be considered a future starter. Is comfortable and capable in press man, using his size to disrupt receivers' releases off the line, but doesn't show enough make up speed to consistently recover when beaten. Awareness in zone and off-man are only adequate. Has average ball skills but some upside as a playmaker. Tough against the run but still developing from a technical standpoint. Sherman is a Day 3 prospect.

ANALYSIS
STRENGTHS Sherman possesses rare height for a corner with enough bulk and speed. Effective when lined up at the line in press man coverage. Uses length well and established sound initial positioning. Flashes the ability to turn and run. Flashes the ability to high-point the football. Willing to help out in run support.
WEAKNESSES Can be baited out of position when in zone and a tick late to diagnose underneath routes. Tall, high-cut prospect who displays some hip-stiffness. Not explosive when transitioning or when changing direction. Lacks great recovery skills when beaten off the line. Can struggle tacking in the open field at times.

If you google "don't believe everything you read on the internet," that link should come up as the top search result...

RE: Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman - teejers1 - 01-07-2020

(01-07-2020, 10:00 AM)murky Wrote: I remember him better as a receiver than CB in college. Like you, I didn't remember him as a star on defense and I didn't understand the reasoning behind switching him to D when he was one of our best options at receiver.

Had similar thoughts at the time re: Sherman's position arc at Stanford and going forward. But in the category of "crazy what sticks out in memory banks" is this: there was a video Stanford put out of Sherman and another player (either a CB or a WR) where they were jogging in place in front of the camera and revealed great hip flexibility (and I think they commented on that during the video). Anyway, I distinctly remember thinking at that time "Sherman may make it as a CB in the NFL after all . . ."

RE: Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman - FarmBoy - 01-07-2020

(01-07-2020, 11:10 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Sherman was on the Pac-10 HM team in 2010. He had 4 interceptions (tied for 5th in the conference), and was tied for third in passes defended with 13. He also had 50 tackles, 1 TFL, 2 fumbles forced, and 1 fumble recovery.

BC

Interesting. I totally forgot that. Of course, the 2010 offense had so many weapons and I think we were probably drawn more to that side of the ball than defense so we casual fans were missing the development, like baymeadows3408 said. The defense was also headlined by Shayne Skove, Chase Thomas, Delano Howell and Michael Thomas who probably got most of the popular press and attention. (I loved watching DH and MT in particular). It's easy to see how many of us missed the development of Sherman from being a brobdingnagian liability to very solid contributor and on a clear upward trajectory.

RE: Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman - French Rage - 01-07-2020

(01-07-2020, 12:57 PM)FarmBoy Wrote:
(01-07-2020, 11:10 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Sherman was on the Pac-10 HM team in 2010. He had 4 interceptions (tied for 5th in the conference), and was tied for third in passes defended with 13. He also had 50 tackles, 1 TFL, 2 fumbles forced, and 1 fumble recovery.

BC

Interesting. I totally forgot that. Of course, the 2010 offense had so many weapons and I think we were probably drawn more to that side of the ball than defense so we casual fans were missing the development, like baymeadows3408 said. The defense was also headlined by Shayne Skove, Chase Thomas, Delano Howell and Michael Thomas who probably got most of the popular press and attention. (I loved watching DH and MT in particular). It's easy to see how many of us missed the development of Sherman from being a of immense proportions liability to very solid contributor and on a clear upward trajectory.

Lest we forget, that defense had 3 shutouts of Pac-12 opponents that year!

Honestly, I don't remember any specific play from Sherman that year, but I remember a couple times he missed an INT and was really pissed at himself.

RE: Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman - FarmBoy - 01-07-2020

(01-07-2020, 01:21 PM)French Rage Wrote:
(01-07-2020, 12:57 PM)FarmBoy Wrote:
(01-07-2020, 11:10 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Sherman was on the Pac-10 HM team in 2010. He had 4 interceptions (tied for 5th in the conference), and was tied for third in passes defended with 13. He also had 50 tackles, 1 TFL, 2 fumbles forced, and 1 fumble recovery.

BC

Interesting. I totally forgot that. Of course, the 2010 offense had so many weapons and I think we were probably drawn more to that side of the ball than defense so we casual fans were missing the development, like baymeadows3408 said. The defense was also headlined by Shayne Skove, Chase Thomas, Delano Howell and Michael Thomas who probably got most of the popular press and attention. (I loved watching DH and MT in particular). It's easy to see how many of us missed the development of Sherman from being a of immense proportions liability to very solid contributor and on a clear upward trajectory.

Lest we forget, that defense had 3 shutouts of Pac-12 opponents that year!

Honestly, I don't remember any specific play from Sherman that year, but I remember a couple times he missed an INT and was really pissed at himself.

Sadly, I'm one of "those" fans who is more enamored by the offensive side of the field.

RE: Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman - BostonCard - 01-07-2020

RE: Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman - CardinalSagehen - 01-07-2020

Here’s a story that I wouldn’t have believed if I didn’t hear it first-hand, face to face a few years ago, from one of the people directly involved. The common narrative is that Sherman switched to defense to get away from Harbaugh, and that’s partly true. The full story is that upon his return from injury, Sherman was actually beaten out for the starting WR job by Chris Owusu. Rather than continue to compete from behind at WR, he decided to switch to CB. I guess Owusu might have been responsible, indirectly and in a very small way, for propelling Sherman toward a HOF career at CB.

RE: Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman - French Rage - 06-05-2023

No idea where the best thread for this is, but Richard Sherman is on something called "Stars on Mars" on FOX, along with Marshawn Lynch among a dozen or so other celebrities (or what passes for a celebrity nowadays).