1. Part of the problem was the reporter.
From my perspective, I had to view the interview several times to realize what was being said and not said. At first I thought Sherman was nutty.
Instead, he was simply answering the question like a good defensive back views the endzone.
He considered that territory as his. It is. The line of scrimage defines who owns which part of the ball field. He’s playing defense, defending his endzone.
He was pumped up and influenced by glandular emotion, but his thinking on the defense made good sense in a physical struggle.
The reporter didn’t understand that. She thinks the offense owns whatever they want as equally as the defense. To her, its just a challenge of throwing the ball into the endzone. The players are just jocks, and the pageantry is just salesmanship and revenue streams.
With all of that said, old school football also had players with virtue, where courage isn’t associated with glands, or being “in your face”, but is instead a simple response with natural force in the face of any adversity.
IMHO, if Aherman was weak, it was for speaking with his glands more than a simple dogmatic response.
Absolutely. Let him who has never, ever said something he wishes he hadn't cast the first stone.