First Impressions - Jagodzinski

[Patler]

I really hesitate to start this thread, because I have continually argued against pre-judging anyone. GMs, coaches, players all have to be given sufficient time to show what they are or are not capable of. But, the more I hear from him, the less excited I am about Jagodzinski as the OC. My reasons:

1. Yes, the U71 may have been overused at times, but his comments about it have been condescending at best. Like it or not, the formation was responsible for a large perentage of long plays and TDs, both running and passing. For a while it was extremely effective, game in and game out, even when opponents knew it was coming. Some of Jagodzinski's comments come off sounding like it was an ineffective gimmick formation.

2. His comments about certain players have been less than diplomatic for so early in the year and in view of the fact that he hasn't even had more than a few minicamp days experience with them. Whittiker for example. Several comments have sounded like he has already written the guy off. It's a little early for that.

3. His remarks about "the scheme" sound as if he thinks it doesn't matter who the lineman are, as long as the aren't over about 310 lbs and have body fat within his prescribed limits. He does not seem receptive to the idea that there can be very nimble and quick bigger men too, even if not as common. I would like to hear him emphasize the desirable qualities of his linemen more than their desirable size.

4. Does he have an offensive philosophy? I've heard MM's comments about the offense as a whole, but not much from Jagodzinski. He sounds more like the line coach, not the OC.

I know it is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH too soon to reach any conclusion about Jagodzinski as the OC, but so far he has given me nothing to be excited about, or even interested in.

Does anyone else feel the same? The exact opposite? Even care at this point?

[Rastak]

I really hesitate to start this thread, because I have continually argued against pre-judging anyone. GMs, coaches, players all have to be given sufficient time to show what they are or are not capable of. But, the more I hear from him, the less excited I am about Jagodzinski as the OC. My reasons:

1. Yes, the U71 may have been overused at times, but his comments about it have been condescending at best. Like it or not, the formation was responsible for a large perentage of long plays and TDs, both running and passing. For a while it was extremely effective, game in and game out, even when opponents knew it was coming. Some of Jagodzinski's comments come off sounding like it was an ineffective gimmick formation.

2. His comments about certain players have been less than diplomatic for so early in the year and in view of the fact that he hasn't even had more than a few minicamp days experience with them. Whittiker for example. Several comments have sounded like he has already written the guy off. It's a little early for that.

3. His remarks about "the scheme" sound as if he thinks it doesn't matter who the lineman are, as long as the aren't over about 310 lbs and have body fat within his prescribed limits. He does not seem receptive to the idea that there can be very nimble and quick bigger men too, even if not as common. I would like to hear him emphasize the desirable qualities of his linemen more than their desirable size.

4. Does he have an offensive philosophy? I've heard MM's comments about the offense as a whole, but not much from Jagodzinski. He sounds more like the line coach, not the OC.

I know it is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH too soon to reach any conclusion about Jagodzinski as the OC, but so far he has given me nothing to be excited about, or even interested in.

Does anyone else feel the same? The exact opposite? Even care at this point?


He does seem like an outspoken fellow. I agree with #3, as for #4..isn't McCarthy calling the plays? I think it's similar in Minnesota with Childress running the offense more or less and McCarthy doing the same. The OC is more of a game planner with HC actually implementing it. I don't like that approach much but that what both teams seem to have at this point.

[HarveyWallbangers]

1. Yes, the U71 may have been overused at times, but his comments about it have been condescending at best. Like it or not, the formation was responsible for a large perentage of long plays and TDs, both running and passing. For a while it was extremely effective, game in and game out, even when opponents knew it was coming. Some of Jagodzinski's comments come off sounding like it was an ineffective gimmick formation.

U-71 was a gimmick play. Gimmick plays rarely sustain in the NFL. It had lost it's effectiveness. Mostly due to the deterioration in the OL. You could throw out almost any running play with the OL we had, and it would have worked. Look at Lombardi and the Packers Sweep. That wouldn't work without guys like Forrest Gregg running it.


2. His comments about certain players have been less than diplomatic for so early in the year and in view of the fact that he hasn't even had more than a few minicamp days experience with them. Whittiker for example. Several comments have sounded like he has already written the guy off. It's a little early for that.

I don't get this sense. Maybe he's trying to light a fire under the big guy's ass.


3. His remarks about "the scheme" sound as if he thinks it doesn't matter who the lineman are, as long as the aren't over about 310 lbs and have body fat within his prescribed limits. He does not seem receptive to the idea that there can be very nimble and quick bigger men too, even if not as common. I would like to hear him emphasize the desirable qualities of his linemen more than their desirable size.

All coaches have a tendency to show this face in public. What is he supposed to say "the GM has left me with horrible personnel, but I'll try my best to make it work?"


4. Does he have an offensive philosophy? I've heard MM's comments about the offense as a whole, but not much from Jagodzinski. He sounds more like the line coach, not the OC.

That tends to happen when you have an offensive minded coach. I doubt Holmgren had much of a philosophy when he first become offensive coordinator under Bill Walsh. Mostly, he's going to do what that offensive minded coach wants him to do. I'm excited about the zone blocking scheme though, and not just because of the success in Atlanta and Denver. Mainly because it seems that not many teams will be looking for the same type of OL, and it seems that it's been easier for those teams to find OL without having to sign big name FAs or draft guys high.

[cpk1994]

Remember, Jags is the one guy who had the guts to stand up and tell Mike Sherman he was getting too predictable in his playcalling. Of course, Mike fired him for it.

[Patler]

Harvey, my point on the U-71 is that for several years it was much more effective than other formations. In 2004, while being used less than 20% of the time, it accounted for a much higher percentage of both TDs and long plays (over 20 yds). The average per play, both running and passing was higher than in non-U71 formations. Yes, their offense was good regardless, but it was even better in the U71.

The U-71 is no more of a gimmick than a 4 WR formation or any other non-standard formation. A gimmick is based on trickery or confusion. The U71 was exactly the opposite. Teams knew what was coming when Barry came on to the field, they just couldn't stop it.

[Patler]

Remember, Jags is the one guy who had the guts to stand up and tell Mike Sherman he was getting too predictable in his playcalling. Of course, Mike fired him for it.

If the story is true, I give him credit for it. But he is also starting to come across like a bit of a "know it all". I know, I know, you don't have to tell me. ALL coaches are to some extent. ButJagodzinski is starting to rub me the wrong way, and I am very unaccustomed to that because I normally give people too much time before holding them accountable.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The U-71 is no more of a gimmick than a 4 WR formation or any other non-standard formation. A gimmick is based on trickery or confusion. The U71 was exactly the opposite. Teams knew what was coming when Barry came on to the field, they just couldn't stop it.

And it wasn't effective any more. Mostly due to the fact Wahle was in Carolina and Rivera was in Dallas. Yet, we still used it.

[Patler]

2. His comments about certain players have been less than diplomatic for so early in the year and in view of the fact that he hasn't even had more than a few minicamp days experience with them. Whittiker for example. Several comments have sounded like he has already written the guy off. It's a little early for that.

I don't get this sense. Maybe he's trying to light a fire under the big guy's ass.



I see his comments as anything and everything except the "light his fire" type. Most have not been challenging, have not been encouraging, have not even been confrontational. When asked about Whittiker's performance, position or opportunities, Jagodzinski's comments have come across to me like "who cares, I sure don't".

[Patler]

The U-71 is no more of a gimmick than a 4 WR formation or any other non-standard formation. A gimmick is based on trickery or confusion. The U71 was exactly the opposite. Teams knew what was coming when Barry came on to the field, they just couldn't stop it.

And it wasn't effective any more. Mostly due to the fact Wahle was in Carolina and Rivera was in Dallas. Yet, we still used it.

Actually, I don't think it was any less effective than other formation in 2005, basically for a long time they all sucked. But when the running game started to come around at the end of the season, many of Gado's better runs were in the U71 formation.

I'm not saying he has to use it, but belittling it as he has done several times is unprofessional.

[Rastak]

I'm excited about the zone blocking scheme though, and not just because of the success in Atlanta and Denver. Mainly because it seems that not many teams will be looking for the same type of OL, and it seems that it's been easier for those teams to find OL without having to sign big name FAs or draft guys high.


That's a very good point. Well see if it all works but that's a definate plus I hadn't thought of.

[Sparkey]

Remember, Jags is the one guy who had the guts to stand up and tell Mike Sherman he was getting too predictable in his playcalling. Of course, Mike fired him for it.

If the story is true, I give him credit for it. But he is also starting to come across like a bit of a "know it all". I know, I know, you don't have to tell me. ALL coaches are to some extent. ButJagodzinski is starting to rub me the wrong way, and I am very unaccustomed to that because I normally give people too much time before holding them accountable.

So far, all I have noticed is a Line/OC Coach getting on his lineman that are fat and out of shape. I don't see anything wrong with that.

As far as the scheme..I sure hope to hell that he is confident that the scheme will work. Otherwise what is the point in running it. I mean, why should the players believe in a scheme if the coach doesn't.

What would you want too hear:

A. Give me 5 quick, nimble and athletic linemen and I'll make the blocking scheme work

or

B. Unless we get some more nimble, quick linemen in camp, we'll never run this scheme successfully ? ?

I'd rather hear A every time.....

[MJZiggy]

Remember, Jags is the one guy who had the guts to stand up and tell Mike Sherman he was getting too predictable in his playcalling. Of course, Mike fired him for it.

If the story is true, I give him credit for it. But he is also starting to come across like a bit of a "know it all". I know, I know, you don't have to tell me. ALL coaches are to some extent. ButJagodzinski is starting to rub me the wrong way, and I am very unaccustomed to that because I normally give people too much time before holding them accountable.

First off, welcome CPK. Secondly, Shamler, it's ok that he rubs you the wrong way right now. First impressions are first impressions and sometimes they're negative. You didn't like him disregarding a formation that you knew to be effective. It's continued effectiveness is debatable as teams eventually figured out a way to counter it, but we couldn't run it right now if we wanted to anyway with Barry out. You can have a negative first impression and have reasons for it and still be open to the idea that the guy might turn out alright. Or he might not. You were quite right when you said it's too early to make judgments. I'm sure you see more of his comments than I do, but he did have a palpable enthusiasm for what he was doing when he was hired for this job. It will be interesting to see how the offense reacts to him.

[The Leaper]

Jags needs to be strongly in favor of HIS SCHEME...and that is mostly what I get from his comments. Ultimately, the approach of the zone blocking system is a 180 degree turn from the power edge run attack employed by Green Bay for most of the last 4 years. The old scheme was clearly successful...but to make the transition, you have to eliminate the old mentality and approach in the heads of the players. I'd be far more worried if Jags sat around waxing poetic about Sherman's scheme.

[Patler]

What would you want too hear:

A. Give me 5 quick, nimble and athletic linemen and I'll make the blocking scheme work
or

B. Unless we get some more nimble, quick linemen in camp, we'll never run this scheme successfully ? ?

I'd rather hear A every time.....

You missed my point, "A" is exactly what I want to hear him say. Instead he has said, "Give me 5 linemen less than 310 pounds with body fat under x% and the scheme will work."

I have nothing against confidence in a scheme, but we saw the results last year when Sherman tried to run his "scheme" when he no longer had the right players for it. Ideally you want the right players for the scheme the coach prefers, but absent that ideal combination, the coach has to find the parts of his scheme or variations of it that the players he has can be most effective with.

I almost feel like Jagodzinski would prefer a small lineman with no ability over a heavier lineman even if the heavier one is a better player. I know that is probaly extreme, but in the end you have keep and play with the better players even if they don't fit your "ideal" of what you want.

[packerpete]

I really hesitate to start this thread, because I have continually argued against pre-judging anyone. GMs, coaches, players all have to be given sufficient time to show what they are or are not capable of. But, the more I hear from him, the less excited I am about Jagodzinski as the OC. My reasons:

1. Yes, the U71 may have been overused at times, but his comments about it have been condescending at best. Like it or not, the formation was responsible for a large perentage of long plays and TDs, both running and passing. For a while it was extremely effective, game in and game out, even when opponents knew it was coming. Some of Jagodzinski's comments come off sounding like it was an ineffective gimmick formation.

OK Mike Sherman, quit being so defensive, personnel changes. That formation was schemed for a certain personnel grouping, NOT only Barry. Barry needed the group as a whole for him to be seen as a difference maker in that formation, and an awful lot of guys that were around making that work are now gonzo.

2. His comments about certain players have been less than diplomatic for so early in the year and in view of the fact that he hasn't even had more than a few minicamp days experience with them. Whittiker for example. Several comments have sounded like he has already written the guy off. It's a little early for that.

There is absolutely nothing I dislike more than a mealy mouthed, PC, sneaky, say-one-thing-with-soft-centrist-words and another behind your back, moraly bankrupt, liberal... Ok, Im getting on a rant. You get the picture, I LOVE it when people simply say a fat guy is FAT. There is nothing wrong with that. We all need more of that. I am tired of the fat, lazy guys faults being covered by not hurting his self-esteem. This is football, these are professionals, thier physical performance determines thier success or failure, as a coach, you better point it out.

3. His remarks about "the scheme" sound as if he thinks it doesn't matter who the lineman are, as long as the aren't over about 310 lbs and have body fat within his prescribed limits. He does not seem receptive to the idea that there can be very nimble and quick bigger men too, even if not as common. I would like to hear him emphasize the desirable qualities of his linemen more than their desirable size.

Again, your comment is not about what he says, but rather about HOW he says it. I am beginning to truly bellieve you are really MIKE SHERMAN posting under Shamrock name.

4. Does he have an offensive philosophy? I've heard MM's comments about the offense as a whole, but not much from Jagodzinski. He sounds more like the line coach, not the OC.

Does TT have an organizational philosophy? Of course. Do you know it? NO! Why should JJ lay out his philosophy to you or me or do it at all publicly? So defenses can more easily prepare? That would be stupid. He was hired to work exactly as he is, concentrating on the line within an offensive philosophy. McCarthy is the one with the offensive vision, he hired his staff to enable him (McCarthy) to fulfill that vision. Harp on McCarthy about philosophy, not JJ.

I know it is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH too soon to reach any conclusion about Jagodzinski as the OC, but so far he has given me nothing to be excited about, or even interested in.

Im sorry, but are you NUTZ? After seemingly 3 decades of Tom Rossley, JJ seems like the second coming to me. I appreciate his candor, and I like his enthusiasm. That is a football attitude.

Does anyone else feel the same? The exact opposite? Even care at this point?


I guess it looks like I certainly feel the exact opposite.

Well, it is way too early to assess performance, but I cannot help but feel some anticipation about our changes. I certainly hope they are for the better.

It is never too early to care, just too early too judge new coaches performances.

[The Leaper]

I almost feel like Jagodzinski would prefer a small lineman with no ability over a heavier lineman even if the heavier one is a better player. I know that is probaly extreme, but in the end you have keep and play with the better players even if they don't fit your "ideal" of what you want.

I don't know how you can automatically equate his comments to this. Personally, I think his comments on specific weights are more directed at several of the fat asses on this team who need to lose weight and gain mobility. By telling them what he wants, he is making it clear where they need to be by August.

Until he pulls a Sherman and actually plays someone inferior (Whitticker) rather than adjust his scheme, I wouldn't be too quick to judge.

[Patler]

I'm beginning to wonder if some of you have actually read or heard his comments, or are reacting to what you hope he said, or what you wanted him to say.

That is why I hesitated to bring up this topic. Jagodzinski has not taken a "tough guy" or "tell it like it is" approach. I only wish that that were true. For example, its not that he told Whittiker he was overweight, he has as much as said it didn't matter, the guy is useless. Maybe he is, but at least let him show that he is rather than pre-judge him based on a stupid minicamp.

You can't ever make me believe that 5 pounds make a huge performance difference on players that weigh 300+ pounds. Yet Jagodzinski has made it sound like the difference between success and failure.

As I said, I am not making a judgment about whether he will or will not succeed. But I have usually been over tolerant of GMs, coaches and players, giving them plenty of time to prove themselves (see, for example, my comments on Ahmad Carroll!). It is unusual for me to react negatively to a coach this early, and I don't understand why I have with Jagodzinski, especially when I first gave him a "plus" simply for having been fired by Sherman!.

[Deputy Nutz]

Here is a quote from JS about Jags opinion on Whitticker,

"Asked about Whitticker Friday night, offensive coordinator Jeff Jagodzinski's initial reply was, "Let's move on." When pressed, Jagodzinski said, "He needs to fit in with what we're doing. And he is. He's giving good effort."

But is Whitticker a tackle?

"That's where he's playing right now. We're short some guys," Jagodzinski said. "He's a smart kid. We're just trying to get different combinations in there and see who the best fit is where. What you're seeing out there isn't what you're going to see in the fall."


So to me he is trying to find the best place for each player, and right now he is trying to fill some holes.

[Patler]

Here is a quote from JS about Jags opinion on Whitticker,

"Asked about Whitticker Friday night, offensive coordinator Jeff Jagodzinski's initial reply was, "Let's move on." When pressed, Jagodzinski said, "He needs to fit in with what we're doing. And he is. He's giving good effort."

But is Whitticker a tackle?

"That's where he's playing right now. We're short some guys," Jagodzinski said. "He's a smart kid. We're just trying to get different combinations in there and see who the best fit is where. What you're seeing out there isn't what you're going to see in the fall."

So to me he is trying to find the best place for each player, and right now he is trying to fill some holes.

You might be right, and of course one of the problems is we all mostly see and hear brief snipits of comments. I just struggle with why I have been growing increasingly uncomfortable with him over the last month or so. I was NOT that way initially when he was hired.

Restore my faith and optimism, PLEASE!!!

[pbmax]

Actually, I don't think it was any less effective than other formation in 2005, basically for a long time they all sucked. But when the running game started to come around at the end of the season, many of Gado's better runs were in the U71 formation.
This is a question I still have about the 2005 season, did the running game pick up because of the change in lineup (Wells/Reug vs. Klemm/Whittaker), or healthy Gado versus bad wheel Green or did they change their play selection?

McGinn claims Green wasn't the same back after the leg inury he sustained against New Orleans in 2003. If a hobbled Green is even paritally the answer, I am worried about him for this season as well, no matter how the thigh heals, unless it was the end result of the original injury.

[Patler]

McGinn claims Green wasn't the same back after the leg inury he sustained against New Orleans in 2003. If a hobbled Green is even paritally the answer, I am worried about him for this season as well, no matter how the thigh heals, unless it was the end result of the original injury.

Green's injury last year was the climax of an injury he first sustained in college. It had grown progressively worse since 2003, and especially since mid 2004. There was an article last year that summarized all the different incidents of it recurring since the initial injury in college, and mentioned both the team and Green knew that a complete tear might result. Thay had been advised that the corrective surgery had the same risks as the surgery to fix a complete tear, and agreed that as long as he could continue to play reasonably well the surgery was too risky.

[RashanGary]

I would rather have a coach that says "If you don't fit in to what we're doing and don't make an effort to be in the physical condition you need to be in to be most successful then we will move forward without you"

As opposed to "We'll just let you become a fat ass and keep playing you."

[pbmax]

Here is a quote from JS about Jags opinion on Whitticker,

"Asked about Whitticker Friday night, offensive coordinator Jeff Jagodzinski's initial reply was, "Let's move on." When pressed, Jagodzinski said, "He needs to fit in with what we're doing. And he is. He's giving good effort."

But is Whitticker a tackle?

"That's where he's playing right now. We're short some guys," Jagodzinski said. "He's a smart kid. We're just trying to get different combinations in there and see who the best fit is where. What you're seeing out there isn't what you're going to see in the fall."


So to me he is trying to find the best place for each player, and right now he is trying to fill some holes.
Actually Nutz, when I read that quote, that he is out at tackle because they are short of people, I took it to mean Witticker doesn't have a home yet at guard and right now his best use is to fill in until the guys we want come back. Colledge, Coston, Spitz, White etc. haven't been asked to switch around. If you had asked me prior to this thread, I would have said Jags sees him being cut, unless injuries or development don't allow them to proceed normally.

As for Jags seeing these guys in minicamp, he has Philbin there who has run the zone scheme at Iowa, between the two I think they have a decent idea of who will be able to handle the assignments, and if the requirments are agility, speed and conditioning, they might be able to tell more from a minicamp than we might think.

I know a former D1 O-lineman who said the zone concept (meaning zone blocking assignments and zone running plays, the stretch etc.) requires people who can move and get to an edge on their guys rather than great technique or brute strength, which are diminished requirments. It might be easier to judge the former than the latter in a minicamp.

As he dismissively puts it, its all angles, edges and pushing, no one needs to beat anyone physically. And as you might surmise, he played in a power running game. He also said the defense hated facing these teams.

[Patler]

I would rather have a coach that says "If you don't fit in to what we're doing and don't make an effort to be in the physical condition you need to be in to be most successful then we will move forward without you"

As opposed to "We'll just let you become a fat ass and keep playing you."

He never said the first, and it has not been suggested by me or anyone else that he should say anything even remotely close to the second.

[RashanGary]

I would rather have a coach that says "If you don't fit in to what we're doing and don't make an effort to be in the physical condition you need to be in to be most successful then we will move forward without you"

As opposed to "We'll just let you become a fat ass and keep playing you."

He never said the first, and it has not been suggested by me or anyone else that he should say anything even remotely close to the second.

He never said anything you where paraphrasing either so whats your point sir know it all?

[pbmax]

Green's injury last year was the climax of an injury he first sustained in college. It had grown progressively worse since 2003, and especially since mid 2004. There was an article last year that summarized all the different incidents of it recurring since the initial injury in college, and mentioned both the team and Green knew that a complete tear might result. Thay had been advised that the corrective surgery had the same risks as the surgery to fix a complete tear, and agreed that as long as he could continue to play reasonably well the surgery was too risky.
Do you remember the article? I remember McGinn surmising that it had affected his play since the, apparent, re-injury against N.O., but I don't recall reading it first occuring in college.

This is something of a relief, as I thought Green was becoming far less effective with time, even in 2004 with the O-Line intact. I could never decide whether U-71 and the Power-O game had been out schemed/scouted, or if the RB ws just not plowing through smaller holes and arm tackles.

[Patler]

If you had asked me prior to this thread, I would have said Jags sees him being cut, unless injuries or development don't allow them to proceed normally.


That is the impression I have gotten. I can understand that Jagodzinski might feel that way, but to let us know it already is wrong.

I want players to have to compete for their positions. I want coaches to be open-minded enough to allow the players to compete for their positions and pick the best one, regardless of whether or not the player fits in a nice, neat little picture the coaches have of what a player should look like.

[RashanGary]

I get your point that he should concentrate on what they are able to do as opposed to their body fat percentage and weight. Has it ever occured to you though that maybe they think that moving an extra 20 LBS hinders the linemans ability to get where they need to be?

Has it ever occured to you that maybe they think that those extra 20 LBS are useless becuase lineman aren't being asked to push and power holes open. So he's asking his lineman to get rid of what is now useless weight which also allows them to be quicker and more agile which is the quality required to play OG in this scheme.

What is your point. I can see how you feel body fat isn't as relevant as the acctual ability to play but have you ever considered that he is demanding the best the players have and in this case body fat is useless so he's demanding them to lose it or risk being cut.

[Patler]

Green's injury last year was the climax of an injury he first sustained in college. It had grown progressively worse since 2003, and especially since mid 2004. There was an article last year that summarized all the different incidents of it recurring since the initial injury in college, and mentioned both the team and Green knew that a complete tear might result. Thay had been advised that the corrective surgery had the same risks as the surgery to fix a complete tear, and agreed that as long as he could continue to play reasonably well the surgery was too risky.
Do you remember the article? I remember McGinn surmising that it had affected his play since the, apparent, re-injury against N.O., but I don't recall reading it first occuring in college.

This is something of a relief, as I thought Green was becoming far less effective with time, even in 2004 with the O-Line intact. I could never decide whether U-71 and the Power-O game had been out schemed/scouted, or if the RB ws just not plowing through smaller holes and arm tackles.

It was a JSO article, probably right after the injury that put him out for the year. It might actually have been in two different articels, one chronicaling the history, and the other discussing what the team and Green knew the possibilities to be.

[Noodle]

I'm jumping in with Shamler on this one.

Jags bugs me. I thought his trashing of Sherman was increbily bush league. I can understand returning fire, but I've never read anything where Shermy was derogatory about Jags, and Shermy certainly didn't do anything to trip up Jags' opportunity with Atlanta. So it's not like Shermy laid a label on the guy

And no, Jags wasn't fired over Shermy's play calling, as Shermy didn't call the plays that year, Rossley did. But cpk, you're right that Shermy did can Jags because, at least according to the reports, they had a philosophical difference. My sense was that Jags was one of those guys who wouldn't STFU. But again, Shermy never trashed the guy.

In addition to my being ticked about his classless trashing of Shermy, my impression, early as it is, is that Jags likes to hear himself talk. A lot. His man crush for M3 is nothing short of disturbing, and I think he's going to wear thin quickly if his vaunted zone scheme doesn't work. And I'll bet this too -- I've posted before that zone is fine, but I don't want us to get a rep for being punk ass knee diving cut blockers like those mopes in Denver. Jags strikes me as the kind of guy who'll encourage his guys to blast knees.

Maybe I'm wrong. But I don't like the cut of this guy's jib, skippy.

[RashanGary]

I think it's more of Jags trying to get each player to understand what they need to do to be most successfull. He's stressing the importance of quickness and agility and explaining that high body fat hinders that. He's setting a black and white line so the players know what to focus on and where they need to be. I'm sure 19% or 21% don't make a big difference but it's probably a tactic to give players a direct border or guidline to shoot for and maintain.

I can see how you feel it isn't the most accurate number when gauging performance but to say his words or motivation tactic has no place or is not usefull for what he is trying to do is kind of under-thought IMO. How do you even know what he's trying to say or do? Do you?

Or maybe you're just giving premature judgements.

[RashanGary]

And I'll bet this too -- I've posted before that zone is fine, but I don't want us to get a rep for being punk ass knee diving cut blockers like those mopes in Denver. Jags strikes me as the kind of guy who'll encourage his guys to blast knees.

Maybe I'm wrong. But I don't like the cut of this guy's jib, skippy.

Maybe the D-lineman should be aware of the blocking scheme and not come so hard if they don't want to get cut. Ever think of that.

Maybe a WR should value his body when a saftey is comeing over the middle. Have you considered that?

How about when those dirty DE's rip a defensless QB to the ground. Those devils. Everyone has a personal responsibility to protect their bodies and if sliding or curling up and going down protects a QB or WR from shortening his career he should do it. Like-wise, when a DT or DE is playing against a zone team, they should probably be aware that when a OG cut-blocks they should go down as opposed to trying to run through it.

P.S. I hope they cut block becuase it's effective and it slows the D-lineman down from going 120% forward. It gives them soemthing to think about ;)

[Patler]

Has it ever occured to you that maybe they think that those extra 20 LBS are useless becuase lineman aren't being asked to push and power holes open. So he's asking his lineman to get rid of what is now useless weight which also allows them to be quicker and more agile which is the quality required to play OG in this scheme.

What is your point. I can see how you feel body fat isn't as relevant as the acctual ability to play but have you ever considered that he is demanding the best the players have and in this case body fat is useless so he's demanding them to lose it or risk being cut.

You and I are not communicating well. 20 pounds, sure. But many coaches are overly fascinated with physical measurements. They tell a 330 pounder to lose 5 pouinds, like its going to make a huge difference. A guy 6'2" is considered ideal, a guy 6'1" is labeled "too short"and a guy 6'3" is "maybe too tall"

I want to hear what their qualities should be, not their size. For example, both Tauscher and Clifton are probably bigger than what the arbitrary "ideal" is for the infamous zone blocking. However, both are quick-footed, relatively nimble athletes who should do OK. That is what is important, not whether they fit someones ideal..

[RashanGary]

I was wathcing a Carolina game last year. Steve Smith was about the round the edge and he got tackled from behind very similar to the way Barnett tackled him. He immediately fell to the side instead of trying to power through it like he did in GB.

The point is, that players are put in positions to get hurt. It is not golf or hop scotch. Smith knew the danger when being tackled from behind and took steps necessary to protect his body. Should the LB's just stop tackling from behind? Or should the WR value his body?

Cut blocking is effective to slow down penetration and IMO it is a very valuable tool for an undersized lineman to use when being bull rushed or mismatched against a powerfull DL. It's like asking a Boxer to go out and get in a match of only uppercuts with Mike Tyson. One shot for you, and one shot for me. Why do that when you can mix it up and counter his power by making him pay when he uses it.

I don't know if you noticed or not, but our lineman are all about 300 LBS. That is pretty small. Do you really think they are going ot beable to stop 340 freaks from penetrating without using thier own power and aggressiveness against them. It's a battle of wits out there and hopefully the opposition has enough wit and self preservation to do what it takes to not get injured. It's their choice. They odn't need ot come 110 mph. They can slow down or they will get cut. Easy as that.

[Patler]

I'm jumping in with Shamler on this one.

Jags bugs me. I thought his trashing of Sherman was increbily bush league. I can understand returning fire, but I've never read anything where Shermy was derogatory about Jags, and Shermy certainly didn't do anything to trip up Jags' opportunity with Atlanta. So it's not like Shermy laid a label on the guy

And no, Jags wasn't fired over Shermy's play calling, as Shermy didn't call the plays that year, Rossley did. But cpk, you're right that Shermy did can Jags because, at least according to the reports, they had a philosophical difference. My sense was that Jags was one of those guys who wouldn't STFU. But again, Shermy never trashed the guy.

In addition to my being ticked about his classless trashing of Shermy, my impression, early as it is, is that Jags likes to hear himself talk. A lot. His man crush for M3 is nothing short of disturbing, and I think he's going to wear thin quickly if his vaunted zone scheme doesn't work. And I'll bet this too -- I've posted before that zone is fine, but I don't want us to get a rep for being punk ass knee diving cut blockers like those mopes in Denver. Jags strikes me as the kind of guy who'll encourage his guys to blast knees.

Maybe I'm wrong. But I don't like the cut of this guy's jib, skippy.

Well, at least I am not totally alone in my thinking! I was getting pretty lonely here Noodle until you came along!

[RashanGary]

You and I are not communicating well. 20 pounds, sure. But many coaches are overly fascinated with physical measurements. They tell a 330 pounder to lose 5 pouinds, like its going to make a huge difference. A guy 6'2" is considered ideal, a guy 6'1" is labeled "too short"and a guy 6'3" is "maybe too tall"

I want to hear what their qualities should be, not their size. For example, both Tauscher and Clifton are probably bigger than what the arbitrary "ideal" is for the infamous zone blocking. However, both are quick-footed, relatively nimble athletes who should do OK. That is what is important, not whether they fit someones ideal..

Read my next post. I explained on reason he may be giving set numbers as a goal or an expectation for players. I explained how he may believe it is not a set number but a pretty good one for players to meet. I think McCarthy and Jags are trying to let players know what they expect and holding guys accountable when it's not met.

I'm sure they would rather have 10% but it might be a good thing that they give a set expectation so all the players strive to meet it. Again, I don't think you know everything that is running through Jags mind when you make these accusations. I'm just throwing out one possible reason for the #.

I don't really like his personality either. I think he's cocky and wrong for critisizing U-71. That was a great formation IMO before Rivera/Wahle/Walker left. I think Walker made it better by streching the field. I don't think your critisizm is either accurate or warrented at this point because I don't think your taking into consideration the motivational tactic he may be using by giving a goal to all lineman. Maybe I'm wrong, but what I'm saying is maybe you're wrong too.

[Noodle]

Nick, I'll mark you down in the "I want to be a punk ass knee diver" camp.

I'm just funking with you, and I wasn't clear enough. You can cut block by rolling in to the thighs, as ND has explained, or you can cut by going for the knees. I've got no problem with the former, but knee diving is punk ass.

Football's a brutal game, to be sure. But I wasn't a big fan of Sapp's hit on Cliffton, were you? It was legal, but it was punk ass. And I'm not going to be a fan of GB linemen diving at knees like a bunch of Denver pieces of crap.

Oh, and Shamler, you were right, I remember the story about Green first sustaining the quad strain while at Nebraska, and the decision being made to keep playing because an operation was too risky.

[wist43]

I have concerns about the whole staff... especially on offense.

OL and RB are very unsettled, and we have absolutely no idea what to expect from Jags and M3. What kind of game are they going to call??? Situational substitution???

As for his comments on Whitticker... I don't like Whitticker either - at all. Regardless of what type of blocking scheme they're running - I don't like Whitticker.

Even in a best case scenario, I think the offense is going to struggle mightily for at least half of the season... Hopefully they can start to gel by midseason, but even that is being pretty optimistic I fear.

[Patler]

Read my next post. I explained on reason he may be giving set numbers as a goal or an expectation for players. I explained how he may believe it is not a set number but a pretty good one for players to meet. I think McCarthy and Jags are trying to let players know what they expect and holding guys accountable when it's not met.

I'm sure they would rather have 10% but it might be a good thing that they give a set expectation so all the players strive to meet it. Again, I don't think you know everything that is running through Jags mind when you make these accusations. I'm just throwing out one possible reason for the #.

I don't really like his personality either. I think he's cocky and wrong for critisizing U-71. That was a great formation IMO before Rivera/Wahle/Walker left. I think Walker made it better by streching the field. I don't think your critisizm is either accurate or warrented at this point because I don't think your taking into consideration the motivational tactic he may be using by giving a goal to all lineman. Maybe I'm wrong, but what I'm saying is maybe you're wrong too.

I really don't care what is running through his mind, what his intentions are or anything of that sort. All I have stated is the impression that he has made on me. His motives are irrelevent to that, just like my feelings about him are irrelevent to the Packers.

I have said over an over, I'm not judging him, therefore I am not really criticizing, just stating how he comes across to me. Obviously you have a different impression of him.

Your "reasons" why he might be doing what he is doing are just as speculative as anything I have said. He might also have said some of the things he has said because he just flat out dislikes the guy. Neither you nor I know for sure.

My intention behind this thread was not so much to debate what he is doing, since as I have said it is way too early to judge him. I wanted to determine how others felt about him, if anyone had growing reservations as I have. That was the reason for my questions at the end of my first post, to determine how other felt about him. .

[Deputy Nutz]

Here is a quote from JS about Jags opinion on Whitticker,

"Asked about Whitticker Friday night, offensive coordinator Jeff Jagodzinski's initial reply was, "Let's move on." When pressed, Jagodzinski said, "He needs to fit in with what we're doing. And he is. He's giving good effort."

But is Whitticker a tackle?

"That's where he's playing right now. We're short some guys," Jagodzinski said. "He's a smart kid. We're just trying to get different combinations in there and see who the best fit is where. What you're seeing out there isn't what you're going to see in the fall."


So to me he is trying to find the best place for each player, and right now he is trying to fill some holes.
Actually Nutz, when I read that quote, that he is out at tackle because they are short of people, I took it to mean Witticker doesn't have a home yet at guard and right now his best use is to fill in until the guys we want come back. Colledge, Coston, Spitz, White etc. haven't been asked to switch around. If you had asked me prior to this thread, I would have said Jags sees him being cut, unless injuries or development don't allow them to proceed normally.

As for Jags seeing these guys in minicamp, he has Philbin there who has run the zone scheme at Iowa, between the two I think they have a decent idea of who will be able to handle the assignments, and if the requirments are agility, speed and conditioning, they might be able to tell more from a minicamp than we might think.

I know a former D1 O-lineman who said the zone concept (meaning zone blocking assignments and zone running plays, the stretch etc.) requires people who can move and get to an edge on their guys rather than great technique or brute strength, which are diminished requirments. It might be easier to judge the former than the latter in a minicamp.

As he dismissively puts it, its all angles, edges and pushing, no one needs to beat anyone physically. And as you might surmise, he played in a power running game. He also said the defense hated facing these teams.

I ain't gonna disagree that Whitticker's use on this team is most likely going to be as a back up tackle. He was a mistake last year at guard. His mobility is closer to a brick wall than a volkswagon. Bottom line is Whitticker is slow footed and most likely doesn't fit this scheme all that well, hell I knew that in Febuary. If Whitticker could even be a road grader, or a mauler in the run game I would see a spot for him on this roster, he doesn't even do that. He plays patty cake and has very little attitude while playing. Maybe that will change, but not while he is whinning about not playing guard, and complaining about his future in Green Bay.

[pbmax]

I was wathcing a Carolina game last year. Steve Smith was about the round the edge and he got tackled from behind very similar to the way Barnett tackled him. He immediately fell to the side instead of trying to power through it like he did in GB.

The point is, that players are put in positions to get hurt. It is not golf or hop scotch. Smith knew the danger when being tackled from behind and took steps necessary to protect his body. Should the LB's just stop tackling from behind? Or should the WR value his body?

Cut blocking is effective to slow down penetration and IMO it is a very valuable tool for an undersized lineman to use when being bull rushed or mismatched against a powerfull DL. It's like asking a Boxer to go out and get in a match of only uppercuts with Mike Tyson. One shot for you, and one shot for me. Why do that when you can mix it up and counter his power by making him pay when he uses it.

I don't know if you noticed or not, but our lineman are all about 300 LBS. That is pretty small. Do you really think they are going ot beable to stop 340 freaks from penetrating without using thier own power and aggressiveness against them. It's a battle of wits out there and hopefully the opposition has enough wit and self preservation to do what it takes to not get injured. It's their choice. They odn't need ot come 110 mph. They can slow down or they will get cut. Easy as that.
Nick, you are barking up the wrong tree on this one. I have not read complaints about cut-blocking in line, especially in pass defense, tackles do it all the time for a screen pass. This isn't the source of contention about this scheme.

The lousy rep for cut blocking comes from mostly guards who are not engaged with a defender. During run blocking, they dive at legs/knees of defenders in motion in pursuit of the ball away from line play but along the line of scrimmage. So the defender is not bull rushing anyone and isn't engaged with a defender at all.

This block is illegal everywhere on the football field except for 3 yards on either side of the line of scrimmage. In fact, its the penalty the refs called on Hasselback in the Super Bowl for his tackle of the interception. That was a bogus call because it was a tackle not a block, but that was the rule enforced.

Paul Zimmerman has encouraged the NFL to further tighten tighten the rule to make it illegal unless you are engaged with the defender.

[The Leaper]

Way too many people have become grandpas after the Sherman era...where a player was first asked whether or not he wanted to do something because the last thing we ever wanted to do was impose the will of the coaching staff on the players.

I love the fire and venom Jags brings to the table. I've grown tired of the patsy approach to coddle these players. I firmly believe much of the injury and penalty issues that have cropped up in recent years is due to the "country club" mentality of Sherman and friends. It is about time we have a coach who tells a player he isn't cutting the mustard, and better shape up or fear being shipped out. Sherman just left guys sitting on the roster for 3 years, hoping they might magically find their potential someday. The Lucky Charms approach isn't a good way to build a football team.

As far as being a "knee-diver"...I didn't hear a whole lot of that kind of talk regarding his OL in Atlanta, despite TWO SEASONS of leading the league in rushing yardage. I don't know why you would possibly assume that would suddenly appear in Green Bay. Legal cut blocks are a necessary part any good OL scheme, especially the zone blocking system that relies on smaller, more mobile linemen. Unless someone has credible evidence to suggest Jags teaches illegal blocks, I'd drop the "knee-diver" comments.

[Sparkey]

I don't remember Jags ever outright dissing Sherman. What I remember is calling the U71 package a gimmick. Which it was by proof that other teams did not emulate the formation or package. The NFL is a copycat league and anything that works and works well is emulated by other teams.

The fact that the U71 package was only used by GB and never ran by other teams, reinforces that it was a short term gimmick formation.

[Deputy Nutz]

I love the Cut block!!! At the same time, I think the area which a cut block is allowed should be narrowed, and in that area cut blocks from behind should be deemed illegal. I don't have a problem with cut blocks coming from straight on, or even from the side, but when a guy catches one in the back of the knees and doesn't see it coming, that just isn't right.

[Noodle]

Let's see, first, on the cut blocking hunch -- how about this from a Falcon's site:

"Blocking scheme under fire again
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The cut-blocking techniques used by the Falcons have come under fire again. Tennessee Titans coach Jeff Fisher said some of the Falcons’ blocking in the Titan’s 24-21 victory Friday crossed the line in regards to player safety and that he would alert the NFL about it."

I also found this snippet from on Pro Football Weekly from when Jags was at Atlanta:

"Don’t think for a second that the Falcons’ offensive line is bothered by all the talk that it has become a dirty unit."

At bottom, Jags just strikes me as a guy who'd encourage his guys to do this. Look, I hope I'm wrong. I like what I've seen from M3, but this thread asked for impressions about Jags, and my impression is that Jags is a rock-headed blowhard who is big time kissing M3's arse.

[Noodle]

I don't remember Jags ever outright dissing Sherman.

You've gotta read more. Check out these articles:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20050317/ai_n13243697

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=304547

[pbmax]

I love the Cut block!!! At the same time, I think the area which a cut block is allowed should be narrowed, and in that area cut blocks from behind should be deemed illegal. I don't have a problem with cut blocks coming from straight on, or even from the side, but when a guy catches one in the back of the knees and doesn't see it coming, that just isn't right.
Nutz, that's the point Zimmerman makes. All over the field, you need to be man up (straight up, one on one) on the defender to use the block. Or at least that is the suggestion he is making for a rule change.

I can think of two instances where this occurs in the Denver offense. One is the reach block by the center or off guard where they must lunge to reach the man and by the time they get there they are at knee level. The second is the run side guard who is looking for a LB or an escaped D-Lineman, the block is used to ensure there is a cut back lane even if the guard isn't in position to drive block.

As for the idea that Atlanta didn't have this rep, Alex Gibbs was their line coach (Jags was his assistant) and the rep followed him there immediately. While I can't name you a knee that was ruined, there have been complaints lodged for the past two seasons.

And Minnesota in the Big Ten has this rep (their center was drafted by Denver) as Mason runs this scheme as well. Its one of the reasons the Badgers dislike playing the Gophers.

[The Leaper]

Opposing teams ALWAYS whine about the zone blocking scheme...because it is difficult to face. The proof is in the pudding...there is a reason the Denver and Atlanta running games have been among the best in the NFL while utilizing those schemes.

Personally, I find nothing wrong with taking advantage of every legal option available. Is it someone's fault that the NFL rulebook allows cut blocks? I see no reason to not take advantage of a very successful scheme simply because it might give your team a bad reputation. The WCO is constantly berated by opposing defenses for setting illegal screens and the like. Granted, that doesn't concern the safety of the players as much...but it is the same commonplace blabber you associate with head coaches or players, especially after a tough loss...and isn't what I'm referring to. Denver's OL has been fined numerous time by the league for illegal hits...I don't remember many fines levied to Falcon players. That is what I'm referring to. There is a difference between typical banter and actual dirty play.

The idea that the NFL is filled with a bunch of classy guys who aren't biting, clawing, and scratching for any inch...and pushing as close as possible to the line of rulebook, and even surpassing it...is ridiculous. If you don't exhaust every available means for finding an advantage...then you aren't doing your job.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't remember Jags ever outright dissing Sherman.

You've gotta read more. Check out these articles:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20050317/ai_n13243697

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=304547


Pretty underwhelming comments. What's the big deal?

[mraynrand]

One obvious advantage of the zone blocking scheme is it's reputation. If you're a D-lineman and you know you're gonna get cut-blocked, you can't help but think about it and be a little nervous about getting hurt. It's got to take away your edge if you let it get into you head.

Get ready for the criticism, for it will come to GB, just as soon as a D-lineman gets hurt - or sooner. I bet the Bears will be crying like little girls about it after they get spanked on opening day! (a little optimism there)

[Noodle]

Look, we can all beat our chests and say, tough, it's a brutal game. Also, I didn't play at college, let alone professionally, so my perspective is limited.

But even a tough guy like Cowher recognizes the distinction between what's legal and what's right (he's commenting below on an injury suffered by a Cincy guy at the hands of the Denver O-lineman George Foster):

"Steelers coach Bill Cowher told Pittsburgh media there are unwritten rules of engagement.

"A lot of it comes down to, in my mind, respect for the game and respect for the players," Cowher said. "Do unto others as you want others to do unto you. It's a physical game that we play. It's a very competitive game that we play, but within that there are certain lines that you don't go over."

That's all I'm saying. You can cut block clean, or you can cut block dirty, and clean cutting is still part of the game. But it is an inherently dangerous technique that, even if you're trying to do it right, you can end up lunging at a guy trying to make a play and crashing him from the side instead of up front.

You can call me a pussy, but if we're going to make back-side cut blocking a regular part of the scheme, then I would hope the staff stresses doing it the right way.

[Noodle]

Pretty underwhelming comments. What's the big deal?

Maybe, but then why did Jags feel the need to apologize for the "underwhelming comments" at his first press conference:
"Jagodzinski was fired following the 2003 season for what Sherman called "philosophical differences." The decision stung Jagodzinski deeply and he ripped Sherman at last year's NFL scouting combine for his communication skills and not listening to the opinions of his staff members.

Jagodzinski apologized for the remarks Sunday.

"I wanted to just mention, there was a statement made in the paper, and I wanted to formally apologize for a statement I might have made about the past," Jagodzinski said of the statements he made to Packer Plus last February. "It was made at an emotional time, they caught me at an emotional time and I do apologize for that."

If anything is underwhelming, it's the sincerety of that apology. "There was a statement made"? "[A] statement I might have made"? How hard is it to say -- "I made some comments that I want to apologize for"? And he was going through "an emotional time"? At the Combine? Fourteen months or so after he was fired? What kind of emotional trainwreck is this guy?

But I'll give him credit for making the effort.

Though I bet M3 made him do it!

[Scott Campbell]

I hear he jaywalks too. Let's string him up.

[Rastak]

I hear he jaywalks too. Let's string him up.


Link?


:razz:

[Noodle]

Sorry Rastak, my link was too big and threw off the look of the board. I took it off.

And I'd never want to string a guy up for jay walking. But if I were to hear that Jags was late with his library books, well then, get a rope.

[BlueBrewer]

Sorry Rastak, my link was too big and threw off the look of the board. I took it off.

And I'd never want to string a guy up for jay walking. But if I were to hear that Jags was late with his library books, well then, get a rope.

We do still have Leo Bookman on the roster, he should take care of the overdue books.

[Rastak]

Sorry Rastak, my link was too big and threw off the look of the board. I took it off.

And I'd never want to string a guy up for jay walking. But if I were to hear that Jags was late with his library books, well then, get a rope.

We do still have Leo Bookman on the roster, he should take care of the overdue books.


That's not the same Bookman from the old 70's show Good Times is it? He'd be more only the lines of Grady Jackson.

[Noodle]

I remember Bookman -- played the super, or something, didn't he? I always thought Good Times was a solid show, notwithstanding the unfortunate "fonzification" of JJ in the show's last seasons.

Sometimes a little preachy, but man there was a lot going on in that show.

[Patler]

I once heard an NHL player say that in almost every game you are presented with a situation that you could make a totally legal hit that has a high probability of hurting someone. He said the true professional backs off making the hit to some degree, or avoids it all together. He said the "cheap players" make the hit with full force, and are then paid back in kind when the situation presents itself. As he said, with "skates, speed and boards" they are all dependent on each other for their well-being.

Thats the type of thing Cowher is talking about. Its what gives cutblocks as practiced by some a bad reputation. Its what made Sapp's hit on Clifton wrong. It wasn't illegal, but it served no purpose and was completely unnecessary.

[BlueBrewer]

I once heard an NHL player say that in almost every game you are presented with a situation that you could make a totally legal hit that has a high probability of hurting someone. He said the true professional backs off making the hit to some degree, or avoids it all together. He said the "cheap players" make the hit with full force, and are then paid back in kind when the situation presents itself. As he said, with "skates, speed and boards" they are all dependent on each other for their well-being.

Thats the type of thing Cowher is talking about. Its what gives cutblocks as practiced by some a bad reputation. Its what made Sapp's hit on Clifton wrong. It wasn't illegal, but it served no purpose and was completely unnecessary.
Huh :?: Did you mean to reply to another thread.

[Patler]

I once heard an NHL player say that in almost every game you are presented with a situation that you could make a totally legal hit that has a high probability of hurting someone. He said the true professional backs off making the hit to some degree, or avoids it all together. He said the "cheap players" make the hit with full force, and are then paid back in kind when the situation presents itself. As he said, with "skates, speed and boards" they are all dependent on each other for their well-being.

Thats the type of thing Cowher is talking about. Its what gives cutblocks as practiced by some a bad reputation. Its what made Sapp's hit on Clifton wrong. It wasn't illegal, but it served no purpose and was completely unnecessary.
Huh :?: Did you mean to reply to another thread.

Nope, this one. See Noodle's post above with comments from Cowher about cutblucks, and the discussion above about whether cutblocks are "cheap" or not. Just becasue they are legal doesn't mean they are right, as practiced by some.

[Rastak]

I remember Bookman -- played the super, or something, didn't he? I always thought Good Times was a solid show, notwithstanding the unfortunate "fonzification" of JJ in the show's last seasons.

Sometimes a little preachy, but man there was a lot going on in that show.

First two seasons were excellent but then they ran out of tragedies to befall the Evans family. I always liked John Amos and Jimmy Walker was a funny guy. Thelma had a great rack too.

[Rastak]

Sorry to hijack the thread Shamrock.....Good times and jaywalking are diluting the real discussion....

[BlueBrewer]

I remember Bookman -- played the super, or something, didn't he? I always thought Good Times was a solid show, notwithstanding the unfortunate "fonzification" of JJ in the show's last seasons.

Sometimes a little preachy, but man there was a lot going on in that show.

First two seasons were excellent but then they ran out of tragedies to befall the Evans family. I always liked John Amos and Jimmy Walker was a funny guy. Thelma had a great rack too.
I was refering to the Library cop on Seinfeld named Bookman

[Patler]

Sorry to hijack the thread Shamrock.....Good times and jaywalking are diluting the real discussion....

Never watched Good Times myself! I have jaywalked though. :mrgreen:

[cpk1994]

I don't remember Jags ever outright dissing Sherman. What I remember is calling the U71 package a gimmick. Which it was by proof that other teams did not emulate the formation or package. The NFL is a copycat league and anything that works and works well is emulated by other teams.

The fact that the U71 package was only used by GB and never ran by other teams, reinforces that it was a short term gimmick formation.

Jags didn't outight diss Sherman but was very critical of Shermans gameplans during meetings which is believed to be what got Jags fired.

[cpk1994]

I don't remember Jags ever outright dissing Sherman.

You've gotta read more. Check out these articles:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20050317/ai_n13243697

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=304547

The jsonline was the info that I was referring to when I brought up Jags questioning Sherman. Glad you found it because I couldn't.

[Scott Campbell]

First two seasons were excellent but then they ran out of tragedies to befall the Evans family. I always liked John Amos and Jimmy Walker was a funny guy. Thelma had a great rack too.

http://www.tvacres.com/images/hats_jimmywalker.jpg


DYNOMITE!!!