Who is better, Lamb or Sherman?
Richard Sherman leads with a GOAT score of 81.6 against 81.5 for CeeDee Lamb — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Richard Sherman above CeeDee Lamb: 81.6 vs 81.5. Richard Sherman leads on Longevity, Honours. CeeDee Lamb leads on Statistics, Dominance, Peak.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Sherman wins: Longevity, Honours
Lamb wins: Dominance, Peak, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/ceedee-lamb-vs-richard-sherman
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Sherman leads in 2 of 5 weighted categories.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Lamb | 0 | 0 | 935 | 2,037 | 5,145 | 7,389 |
| 🇺🇸 Sherman | 0 | 0 | 4 | 12 | 26 | 36 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | LambActive · Dallas Cowboys | ShermanRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Pro Bowls | 4 | — |
| Reception titles | 1 | — |
| Career receiving yards | 7,000 | — |
| 1,000-yard seasons | 4 | — |
| Receiving touchdowns | 45 | — |
| Super Bowl titles | — | 1 |
| Pro Bowl selections | — | 5 |
| All-Pro first teams | — | 3 |
| Career interceptions | — | 37 |
| Interception title | — | 1 |
| Dominance w25% | 80 | 78 |
| Peak w20% | 92 | 90 |
| Longevity w20% | 70 | 76 |
| Honours w20% | 78 | 80 |
| Statistics w15% | 90 | 86 |
Richard Sherman leads with a GOAT score of 81.6 against 81.5 for CeeDee Lamb — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Lamb scores higher on peak, dominance, statistics. Sherman leads on honours, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Lamb: 81.5, Sherman: 81.6.
Make your case for Lamb vs Sherman. The scoring is published in full — if you can point at the pillar or the weight you disagree with, we read it. Read the methodology paper.