Flashback: Richard Sherman NFL Draft Scouting Report

Hasselbeck · Oct 19, 2013

"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

"Athletic defensive back with terrific size who is still learning the position. Shows an aggressive streak, works hard to get involved in the action and voluntarily defends the run."

- Sports Illustrated

"A former receiver who led the Cardinal in receiving yards in 2007-08, Sherman made the switch to cornerback in 2009 and has quietly developed into a legitimate NFL prospect.

Sherman is still prone to mental lapses. He stunned television analysts and scouts by biting on a double-move in the closing seconds of the first half of the Senior Bowl, but Sherman's size, physicality and steady improvement since making the switch is sure to intrigue teams on the draft's third day.

Positives: Possesses excellent size for the position. Has a lanky, evenly proportioned build with room for additional muscle mass. Good ball skills due to his experience at receiver. Physical. Doesn't back down from the challenge of bigger receivers. May be just scratching the surface of his potential.

Negatives: Questionable speed overall. Has a high backpedal and loses a step in his transition, allowing receivers to separate when he misjudges their route, leading to being beaten over the top. Is especially susceptible to smaller, quicker receivers. Was a late injury replacement at the Senior Bowl and while he helped his cause with a solid performance there, pessimists will argue that he had the freshest legs."

- Rob Rang, NFLDraftScout.com

SalishHawkFan · Oct 19, 2013

You can tell Rob Rang took a look at his size and then stereotyped him without really watching the guy. "Big = gets beat by smaller, quicker receivers." No need to actually find out that he's really freaking fast, not just for his size, but really freaking fast.

If Rang were a reporter, he'd have gotten fired for not getting confirmation.

Sports Hernia · Oct 19, 2013

NFL.com really crapped the bed with that scouting report.

Mtjhoyas · Oct 19, 2013

Not to crap on Rob Rang (though I am), he's pretty brutal with the scouting stuff. Got his notoriety accurately guessing Ruskell's terrible picks. I've heard him numerous times call Kasen Williams a 1st round talent, which I find rather laughable (as a UW fan).

I love the draft, but these Draftniks get their favorite mid-late round guys, play them up and simply ignore the other non-first round types. I clearly remember a Bleacher Report "draft expert" proclaiming the Seahawks having by far the worst draft. That very draft netted RW, Wagner, Irvin, Sweazy, Turbin, Lane...not too shabby.

hgwellz12 · Oct 19, 2013

Is there any question as to why Sherm lugs around a Mt. Shasta sized chip on his shoulder?
Please, please, PLEASE world keep doubting him. I BEG you!

kearly · Oct 19, 2013

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.

TestMo1337 · Oct 20, 2013

Dave Wyman pretty much agrees with your post Kearly. He said that he was a guy that he kept an eye on since he was a Stanford grad and watched him transition from WR to CB. He does nothing but praise Sherman for his work ethic and amazing transition to a top-CB in the league.

Pandion Haliaetus · Oct 20, 2013

How was anything Rob Rang said wrong?

Even Sherm himself when comparing his self to Patrick Peterson... he said something like... that their games are different, Peterson is more athletic and faster, and Sherman isn't which forces him to be perfect technique wise and consistent play to play.

If anything Rang's report gave those most compliments to Sherman while identifying his faults coming out of Standford as a player who was still growing into his position.

No one here at the time, not even the coaches thought Sherman would have the dedication, drive, commitment, and ability to transform himself into one of the leagues best corner.

You guys are posting what other people said... but what about you... did any of you exclaim that the Seahawks took the next best up and coming defensive back. Probably not... most of you likely glanced at his 40 time and thought... this dude is too slow for the league to ever be a premium starter.

And then you probably bagged on Sherman like every does after a JS/PC draft that didn't net Okung/Thomas plus Tate, Thurmond, Chanchellor, and McCoy.

-The Glove- · Oct 20, 2013

Pandion Haliaetus":3c80641l said:
How was anything Rob Rang said wrong?

Even Sherm himself when comparing his self to Patrick Peterson... he said something like... that their games are different, Peterson is more athletic and faster, and Sherman isn't which forces him to be perfect technique wise and consistent play to play.

If anything Rang's report gave those most compliments to Sherman while identifying his faults coming out of Standford as a player who was still growing into his position.

No one here at the time, not even the coaches thought Sherman would have the dedication, drive, commitment, and ability to transform himself into one of the leagues best corner.

You guys are posting what other people said... but what about you... did any of you exclaim that the Seahawks took the next best up and coming defensive back. Probably not... most of you likely glanced at his 40 time and thought... this dude is too slow for the league to ever be a premium starter.

And then you probably bagged on Sherman like every does after a JS/PC draft that didn't net Okung/Thomas plus Tate, Thurmond, Chanchellor, and McCoy.

I knew nothing of Sherman as a cardinal.but as soon as he stepped on the field as a Seahawk I told everybody within earshot how talented he was

Recon_Hawk · Oct 20, 2013

Rob Rang's report is dead on, IMO. The problem is simply pointing out positives and negatives isn't a good scouting report if it doesn't weigh each skill/flaw against the other.

Yet, that part is what makes things so hard scout. You can generalize a players strengths and weakness across the league, but it's difficult to predict that a player with a specific skill will get drafted by a team that especially utilizes those skills and can cover the bad parts of their game.

Mtjhoyas · Oct 20, 2013

I made a generality that I think Rob Rang is pretty brutal (as I know many others who follow the draft think as well) as a "draftnik." No one is 100% with the draft, but me (personally), I find myself seeing things very differently than Rang and it's obnoxious how much KJR takes his word as gospel.

What did I think/proclaim when Sherman was drafted? Nothing. I don't get paid to "scout," nor do I have a blog that addresses the topic, and quite frankly, nobody cares about my opinion on the draft. So, I'm not going to make proclamations as if my word truly means something. If I have an opinion, then I will share it on boards like this (as my opinion, not inevitable truth).

I do apologize if you have a personal relationship with Rang and this offended you. It's my opinion of him as a "draftnik," not as a person.

Pandion Haliaetus":3aowxfdh said:
How was anything Rob Rang said wrong?

Even Sherm himself when comparing his self to Patrick Peterson... he said something like... that their games are different, Peterson is more athletic and faster, and Sherman isn't which forces him to be perfect technique wise and consistent play to play.

If anything Rang's report gave those most compliments to Sherman while identifying his faults coming out of Standford as a player who was still growing into his position.

No one here at the time, not even the coaches thought Sherman would have the dedication, drive, commitment, and ability to transform himself into one of the leagues best corner.

You guys are posting what other people said... but what about you... did any of you exclaim that the Seahawks took the next best up and coming defensive back. Probably not... most of you likely glanced at his 40 time and thought... this dude is too slow for the league to ever be a premium starter.

And then you probably bagged on Sherman like every does after a JS/PC draft that didn't net Okung/Thomas plus Tate, Thurmond, Chanchellor, and McCoy.

seahawkfreak · Oct 20, 2013

kearly":2z8wp1hd said:
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!

SeaTown81 · Oct 20, 2013

kearly":3rm4u4v8 said:
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.

Exactly. Always baffles me when scouts or analysts definitively write off prospects or draft picks. So arrogant and obnoxious. How the hell do you know that there's no way a guy will ever do something? All you're doing is setting yourself up to look foolish (HUGE MILLEN ANYBODY?).

With all of the guys on the record for saying Russell Wilson will never accomplish anything beyond being a nice backup, I wonder if we'll begin to hear less of these pompous proclamations. Nah, doubt it. People never learn.

chris98251 · Oct 20, 2013

SeaTown81":3909i0hp said:
kearly":3909i0hp said:

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.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Always baffles me when scouts or analysts definitively write off prospects or draft picks. So arrogant and obnoxious. How the hell do you know that there's no way a guy will ever do something? All you're doing is setting yourself up to look foolish (HUGE MILLEN ANYBODY?).

With all of the guys on the record for saying Russell Wilson will never accomplish anything beyond being a nice backup, I wonder if we'll begin to hear less of these pompous proclamations. Nah, doubt it. People never learn.

How long has Kiper been doing his thing, there's your answer

chris98251 · Oct 20, 2013

Pandion Haliaetus":1ut2kzk0 said:
How was anything Rob Rang said wrong?

Even Sherm himself when comparing his self to Patrick Peterson... he said something like... that their games are different, Peterson is more athletic and faster, and Sherman isn't which forces him to be perfect technique wise and consistent play to play.

If anything Rang's report gave those most compliments to Sherman while identifying his faults coming out of Standford as a player who was still growing into his position.

No one here at the time, not even the coaches thought Sherman would have the dedication, drive, commitment, and ability to transform himself into one of the leagues best corner.

You guys are posting what other people said... but what about you... did any of you exclaim that the Seahawks took the next best up and coming defensive back. Probably not... most of you likely glanced at his 40 time and thought... this dude is too slow for the league to ever be a premium starter.

And then you probably bagged on Sherman like every does after a JS/PC draft that didn't net Okung/Thomas plus Tate, Thurmond, Chanchellor, and McCoy.

Lots of assumptions here about all us fans and our ability to see or agree and disagree with talent aquired.

Also 32 teams passed on Sherman 4 times, Pete took a chance on a player that he knew and recruited. He was still raw but Pete knew his personality a lot better then others and his drive etc. Thats what brought him to Seattle, Pete gave Sherman a chance, Sherman took the opportunity and ran with it. Sherman I think appreciates the fact that Pete and John beleived in him and that he could excel. We will see how much come contract time.

MontanaHawk05 · Oct 20, 2013

That last one sounds more like Browner than Sherman.

Sarlacc83 · Oct 20, 2013

I think kearly and Pandion nailed it. I like to think I follow Seattle pretty closely, but in the 2011 draft, he was an afterthought and I forgot he was on the team until he started after Thurmond got hurt. He's extremely smart, but you have to give a lot of credit to PC's ability to develop CBs.

lukerguy · Oct 20, 2013

Sports Hernia":2qmulutw said:
NFL.com really crapped the bed with that scouting report.

You can't really blame them, can you? So did 32 teams, including the Hawks who drafted him in the 5th and didn't give him a starting role.

Escamillo · Oct 21, 2013

kearly":y09yh696 said:
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.

I disagree. Sherman was great at corner his last year at Stanford (which was only his second year at the position). He didn't get beat "a lot". Stanford pretty much blew out everyone they played except Oregon, including blowing out VT in the Orange Bowl, so how did he "get beat a lot"? Stanford had three shut outs that year. I don't recall these "beats a lot" you're referring to. His first year at the position, yes he had ups and downs (one of the ups being a pick-6 vs USC in the "What's your deal" game), but he was solid his last year. Just as Baldwin was great that same year at Stanford.

RolandDeschain · Oct 21, 2013

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?

Flashback: Richard Sherman NFL Draft Scouting Report

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Similar threads