Flashback: Richard Sherman NFL Draft Scouting Report

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
  • I never heard of the guy until I saw him get roasted at the end of the first half in the senior bowl. Just a terrible play, that might have done more to hurt him than anything. At the time, all I knew is he was tall, and Pete wanted tall, and I couldn't figure out why.

    Which is why Pete coaches and I watch.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11996
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • Hasselbeck wrote:
    "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."

    - NFL.com



    The only thing in this entire paragraph thats even somewhat accurate is the bolded.
    Image

    .NET Pick The Score - 1st Season

    "Somehow a second year quarterback was more ready for this game, than a first ballot hall of famer!?"
    -DMac 104.3 Denver The Fan
    User avatar
    NFSeahawks628
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2528
    Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:33 pm
    Location: Born: Tacoma, WA Current Location: Augusta, GA (Road Hawk)


  • seahawkfreak wrote:
    kearly wrote:Two things.

    One, Sherman really wasn't a very good corner at Stanford. He got beat. A lot. When Sherman talks about being mad that he's a 5th rounder, honestly I think he should be thankful instead. Because if not for Pete Carroll, Sherman might not be in the NFL at all. Even his college coach didn't draft him. There's been no shortage of guys on this team the last few years who either bombed in the NFL elsewhere or were not viewed as useful assets by the league, and Pete not only made them NFL players- he made them great ones. Sherman is the ultimate example of that.

    Two, any scouting report that says a player can never be a starter is silly. How can anyone ever know that? The list of terrible NFL prospects who morphed into great NFL players is a long one.


    Spot on. I think many, including myself, forget that these are young guys who have not matured mentally yet. Many in the first couple rounds are there because of size and talent alone. Intelligent draft analysts now are starting to view intelligence and football knowledge as very important. Not just an extra.

    I believe Sherman had above average talent and great size when he came out of Stanford, then added extraordinary intelligence and knowledge of the game within, what, 3/4ths of the beginning of his rookie year.

    Tom Brady comes to mind. Matt Hasselbeck as well, although Matt did have a stellar career at B.C. And many argue now Brady could have had a good college career.

    As for speed, He runs a 4.5 forty, and a 10.77 100meter dash. That is pretty freaking fast!


    Matt has a pretty poor college career actually.
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1646
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


  • RolandDeschain wrote:I wonder if perhaps due to the intelligence also required to get into Stanford, perhaps mid-round picks have a noticeably higher chance to succeed that came from Stanford compared to the "mean", or all other mid-round picks?

    You have to think that Stanford graduates have less of a problem adjusting to the pro game on a mental level, no?


    I assume there's some correlation between general intelligence and so-called "football intelligence", but I don't know how strong the correlation is. But I suspect that Stanford grads might be more studious in general, which would translate to spending more time studying film and the playbook than other players do. So maybe there's something to that.
    Escamillo
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 266
    Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:54 pm


  • I remember being excited, but because I thought that a CB with WR skills would be a good ball hawk, and because Stanford played a lot of rough, mean football and I just considered kids from Stanford tough (if you work with Stanford grads you know how funny that statement is).

    I thought he would be very good, but I never thought he would blossom/blow up like he has. I saw him as a physical corner with ball hawking skills, not a shutdown corner at all.

    The guy I completely missed the boat on was in the draft the year earlier, Earl Thomas, who is probably a very significant reason that Sherman is so comfortable and thus so good. Sherman can take risks because Earl can erase mistakes. I still feel dumb about more excited about Kam in 2010 than Earl (not that Kam is not an absolute stud).

    I know we all love our GM but it cannot be emphasized just how difficult it is to not only get starters out of the later rounds but to do so consistently. 3 years in a row we got a better than 50% hit rate on the draft. In fact, for the past 3 years (not including the last draft which is skewed by team depth and the lack of a 1st rd pick) we have had hits on 6 out of the first 8 picks and averaged at least one contributor in the rounds below that. That isn't just good, it is insane. If you score those picks, based on how those players grade against the average player in their position (league wide) the score is even higher.

    Go look at the hit rate for the average GM and then you will realize that Sherman was no fluke. These guys seem to see everything, or near everything.

    Not only did our FO identify Sherman, but they put him into a system surrounded by players that literally could not be more tailored to his style and skillset. Earl is the Eraser, removing any mistakes. Browner takes the role of the physical corner and additional run support and Sherman is given perfect situation to freelance in. Kam just roams as our enforcer, covering the middle. All Sherman has to do is cover his man and jump routes/steal the ball occasionally. He can take those risks here. Sherman would probably excel anywhere but I don't see him being able to play anywhere else where he would make a bigger impact than he has here.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 860
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


  • kearly wrote:Two things.

    One, Sherman really wasn't a very good corner at Stanford. He got beat. A lot. When Sherman talks about being mad that he's a 5th rounder, honestly I think he should be thankful instead. Because if not for Pete Carroll, Sherman might not be in the NFL at all. Even his college coach didn't draft him. There's been no shortage of guys on this team the last few years who either bombed in the NFL elsewhere or were not viewed as useful assets by the league, and Pete not only made them NFL players- he made them great ones. Sherman is the ultimate example of that.

    Two, any scouting report that says a player can never be a starter is silly. How can anyone ever know that? The list of terrible NFL prospects who morphed into great NFL players is a long one.


    Beat me to it. Sherman wasn't the best prospect coming out of college. The thing is, you can't really project a career arc, like Kearly said. You can't tell how fast a guy will digest stuff, be able to used it out on the field, and progress. You can only try to gauge work ethic and character. Intangibles are the hardest thing to gauge; it's why people value physical measurables so much because they're well...measurable.

    Russell Wilson lacked the physical prototype to be an NFL QB, but he has loads of intangibles. There have been a lot of college QBs that washed out yet still had intangibles. Look at Tebow: he has prototypcial size and great intangibles, but terrible technique and doesn't seem to be able to overcome that. People knocking WIlson's size were right. Historically, it's very difficult for QBs to make it in the NFL that are under 6'. You're playing the odds, and 9 times out of 10, you're right.

    Both things go together. People act like Sherman was a bad ass right out of college and everyone else was a dumbass. Thing is, Sherman is special because you won't see this progression out of a guy like that maybe but once every 5 years or so. Don't expect the same thing from Tharold Simon, and when/if he doesn't progress, don't go calling him a bust. It's not expected from 5th rounders. It's rare. Enjoy it.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4062
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm




It is currently Sat Dec 20, 2014 6:27 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information