Hiestand on Whitehair snapping issues and James Daniels

[Bear Pride]

The issue is the stated reasons for his doing so. I already gave you 3 examples in this thread of people trying to blame Whitehair for Trubisky's performance.







Like come on Briggs, you can't tell me you can't see the implications of the above. There is no proof that there is any causation between Whitehair and Trubs. People just assuming or hoping there is one because they don't want to face the possibility that Trubs simply sucked of his own accord.

Please don't group me in with your "excuse makers"! I, for one, am very happy with the Bears performance. I see the potential for a lot of improvement. And if you go back and watch the replays, they are not that bad.

But to try to say that a bad snap does not help Trubs is dumb. Just look at the high snap at the end of the game that led to a sack. How can anyone in their right mind say that snap didn't affect Trubs on that play?

 

[Briggs is GOAT]

The issue is the stated reasons for his doing so. I already gave you 3 examples in this thread of people trying to blame Whitehair for Trubisky's performance.







Like come on Briggs, you can't tell me you can't see the implications of the above. There is no proof that there is any causation between Whitehair and Trubs. People just assuming or hoping there is one because they don't want to face the possibility that Trubs simply sucked of his own accord.

Well yes I am willing to grant you that people are blaming Whitehair for some of Trubisky's bad play, but no one is saying that Whitehair was the reason Trubisky missed Robinson, or that Whitehair was the reason Trubisky played bad on the final drive.

I would be with you if people were saying, "Well if Whitehair snapped the ball better then the Bears woud've won," but nobody's saying that right now. The bad snaps from Whitehair blew one play and probably had some negative impact on a few other plays. I think that's fair to say. I don't see anybody going past that.

 

[remydat]

Do you think that a poor snap has not effect on the QB?

Having to move your eyes to track the ball and move your hands throws off timing and your ability to keep your eyes on the defense. A high shotgun snap makes the RPO hand off more difficult as the QB must get the ball down in the RBs first step to have it in the right place.

I do not know how much of an effect it had on Trubisky, probably not huge, but it is a factor.

That being said I am not sure that Daniels will be better or that he should be playing, but the snap issue is one that needs to be sorted out one way or the other in a shotgun, timing based offense.

I think the effect is being overblown by the posts in question as a means to excuse poor play by the QB. Every QB has to deal with poor snaps and they somehow find ways to still perform to expectations.

Please don't group me in with your "excuse makers"! I, for one, am very happy with the Bears performance. I see the potential for a lot of improvement. And if you go back and watch the replays, they are not that bad.

But to try to say that a bad snap does not help Trubs is dumb. Just look at the high snap at the end of the game that led to a sack. How can anyone in their right mind say that snap didn't affect Trubs on that play?

You are happy with the offense scoring at John Fox levels despite having better players at just about every position on the field?

If there was a high snap that led to a sack then that is a clear cause and effect. However, your claim wasn't about that specific play. It was suggesting that each bad snap directly affected Trubisky's performance which is bullshit.

 

[remydat]

Well yes I am willing to grant you that people are blaming Whitehair for some of Trubisky's bad play, but no one is saying that Whitehair was the reason Trubisky missed Robinson, or that Whitehair was the reason Trubisky played bad on the final drive.

I would be with you if people were saying, "Well if Whitehair snapped the ball better then the Bears woud've won," but nobody's saying that right now. The bad snaps from Whitehair blew one play and probably had some negative impact on a few other plays. I think that's fair to say. I don't see anybody going past that.

It is being insinuated. Here let's go through each post.

I don't think some are taking into account that Whitehair's bad snaps directly affect Trubisky's performance.

This is bullshit. There was the one play that the snap clearly blew the play. All the other snaps, there is zero proof they directly affected his performance. There is no evidence presented for this statement and it is just presented as fact.

I remember every shotgun snap being right in Trub's face mask. That's simply too high of a snap and that split second of losing track of the field will kill a QB.

Again, more bullshit. Most WRs are not out of there breaks by the time a QB receives the ball so the idea that a split second prior to the WR even breaking KILLS A QB is exaggerated bullshit. Again, it is statement with no support. If Trubs is so mentally challenged that a high snap before a WR breaks means he can no longer go through progressions then he is destined to be a bust. That simply makes no sense.

I did not watch close enough, but would you say a high percentage of Trubs bad throws were after bad snaps?

Again, poster didn't watch close enough but in their heart of hearts, they just know Trubs bad throws were after bad snaps. Again pure bullshit. If a QB can't throw an accurate pass simply because of a high snap then I am sorry they suck.

People are free to come up with whatever speculation they want. But I am free to call bullshit when that speculation is always aimed at excusing Trubs. At the end of the day, the only thing we know for sure is he didn't deliver. I hope he does so in the future but this constant need to try and find other people to blame is coddling.

 

[Briggs is GOAT]

It is being insinuated. Here let's go through each post.



This is bullshit. There was the one play that the snap clearly blew the play. All the other snaps, there is zero proof they directly affected his performance. There is no evidence presented for this statement and it is just presented as fact.



Again, more bullshit. Most WRs are not out of there breaks by the time a QB receives the ball so the idea that a split second prior to the WR even breaking KILLS A QB is exaggerated bullshit. Again, it is statement with no support. If Trubs is so mentally challenged that a high snap before a WR breaks means he can no longer go through progressions then he is destined to be a bust. That simply makes no sense.



Again, poster didn't watch close enough but in their heart of hearts, they just know Trubs bad throws were after bad snaps. Again pure bullshit. If a QB can't throw an accurate pass simply because of a high snap then I am sorry they suck.

People are free to come up with whatever speculation they want. But I am free to call bullshit when that speculation is always aimed at excusing Trubs. At the end of the day, the only thing we know for sure is he didn't deliver. I hope he does so in the future but this constant need to try and find other people to blame is coddling.

1) I think bad snaps do make it more likely that the outcome of the play is a negative one. I'll say that Whitehair's bad snaps that made Trubisky go "oh fuck this one's hard to handle" did negatively impact his performance on those plays. Only a little though, so I'm willing to say that the poster who said that was probably reaching a bit, but we'd need a post from him explaining what he means by that.

2) Ok good point. I agree that this one is well exaggerated.

3) The poster here is simply asking. He didn't say or even imply that Trubisky's bad throws were after bad snaps. The only thing this post implies is that if his bad throws were after bad snaps then it excuses the bad throw (to some degree), which I disagree with.

So other than the one post I don't think anyone is saying anything too crazy. I agree that people have a tendency to put everything on everyone else when the QB plays poorly (see Cutler era) but the other players/coaches who could be partially responsible for a QB's bad play shouldn't be dismissed either. The person who had the biggest negative impact on Trubisky's play other than Trubisky himself was Nagy.

 

[gwharris2254]

You all are forgetting that Whitehair was a rookie when he started playing center. So, possibly Daniels can handle it also with Whitehair next to him ??? OF COURSE HE COULD

 

[remydat]

1) I think bad snaps do make it more likely that the outcome of the play is a negative one. I'll say that Whitehair's bad snaps that made Trubisky go "oh fuck this one's hard to handle" did negatively impact his performance on those plays. Only a little though, so I'm willing to say that the poster who said that was probably reaching a bit, but we'd need a post from him explaining what he means by that.

2) Ok good point. I agree that this one is well exaggerated.

3) The poster here is simply asking. He didn't say or even imply that Trubisky's bad throws were after bad snaps. The only thing this post implies is that if his bad throws were after bad snaps then it excuses the bad throw (to some degree), which I disagree with.

So other than the one post I don't think anyone is saying anything too crazy. I agree that people have a tendency to put everything on everyone else when the QB plays poorly (see Cutler era) but the other players/coaches who could be partially responsible for a QB's bad play shouldn't be dismissed either. The person who had the biggest negative impact on Trubisky's play other than Trubisky himself was Nagy.

It is a tenuous connection at best as it relates to actual passes thrown. If Whitehair had that big of an impact, they would bench him already.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

And I commented on the harshness of the criticism here compared to the kid gloves I am seeing in these other threads by the same people. So the point still stands. I don't care if you want to be harsh or if you want to use kid gloves. Just be consistent and evaluate people the same way. Both of these guys are professionals and they are paid a lot of money to produce.

Fans have a tendency to coddle QBs in a way they don't do with anyone else. Even coaches do and we already saw one example of it allegedly ruining a team in Seattle. So yes when I see people coddling Trubs while at the same time taking every other player to task for their shitty performance, I am going to point it out. You aren't going to change my view on the matter but hey if you want to keep arguing about it then I am down.

Let´s use your business example:

you go from a business that was in the stone age to one that is much more complex. This complexity affects all levels of your business.

You went out and got one of the top young executives the year before but the president of the company forced the old business model on him and, at the same time, tried to strangle any imaginative things that this executive tried to do to change the course of the business. The young executive became just a yes-man (perhaps he was just a weak individual to begin with).

Due to your crappy results in 2017, you sacked the president and you hired an up and coming innovative president which would bring the company into the modern era. Part of what got him the job was his belief that the young executive would be a vital part of the company´s growth.

The president knew that it would be a rough ride because he was going from a local company to an international corporation and a lot of the pressure would fall on this young executive. He knew that the executive would not be up to speed in 2018, yet he expected positive growth from his young executive as the year continued.

At the same time, the company decided to augment their shipping department because of their expected growth. They went out and got the top shipping hire available. He had shown impressive results, but at a small business. However; he had no international shipping experience.

Then came the first attempt at landing the first big international contract.

The president watched as the young executive expertly navigated the meeting and, with the help of the engineering department, the contract was all but ensured.

However; after a lunch break, everything started going wrong.

The engineering department was unable to answer the customer´s questions and, moreover, started supplying answers that were terribly wrong.

The pressure augmented as the young executive started answering with one word answers instead of attempting to providing good answers to the questions.

Instead of helping the young executive by using his most charismatic executive to run the meeting for a bit to diffuse the tension, he instead called for the young executive to pass the meeting off to an old worthless executive (why the hell does he even have a job?) who proceeded to immediately drop the ball or come up short with his lame jokes.

Add to the madness that was happening, the old shipping department manager started making basic mistakes because he was so worried about international shipping procedures and international laws. He was sending packages without invoices, or with missing parts, or in one instance an empty box. 15 mistakes all dealing with the attempted new business.

Had the president used the new shipping department hire to deal with the basic requirements while leaving the old shipping department manager to deal with the new complexities of international business, it would have been likely that the new shipping department hire would have erred at most 2 times because he had shown that he was amazing at that specific function at his old job.

At this point, the young executive completely lost it as the tension had gotten too much for him and the company lost the international contract that they had basically won before the lunch break.


Question: would all of your employees have the same blame in your eyes?

From the president on down to the shipping department made mistakes. However; the young executive made mistakes on a new system while the engineering department erred in a system that had been in place for several years. The shipping department erred a lot on the most basic function of his job.

 

[Briggs is GOAT]

It is a tenuous connection at best as it relates to actual passes thrown. If Whitehair had that big of an impact, they would bench him already.

I'm not saying you're wrong there. I'm with you on that. I just think basically everyone else is too (outside of maybe a few).

 

[remydat]

Let´s use your business example:

you go from a business that was in the stone age to one that is much more complex. This complexity affects all levels of your business.

You went out and got one of the top young executives the year before but the president of the company forced the old business model on him and, at the same time, tried to strangle any imaginative things that this executive tried to do to change the course of the business. The young executive became just a yes-man (perhaps he was just a weak individual to begin with).

Due to your crappy results in 2017, you sacked the president and you hired an up and coming innovative president which would bring the company into the modern era. Part of what got him the job was his belief that the young executive would be a vital part of the company´s growth.

The president knew that it would be a rough ride because he was going from a local company to an international corporation and a lot of the pressure would fall on this young executive. He knew that the executive would not be up to speed in 2018, yet he expected positive growth from his young executive as the year continued.

At the same time, the company decided to augment their shipping department because of their expected growth. They went out and got the top shipping hire available. He had shown impressive results, but at a small business. However; he had no international shipping experience.

Then came the first attempt at landing the first big international contract.

The president watched as the young executive expertly navigated the meeting and, with the help of the engineering department, the contract was all but ensured.

However; after a lunch break, everything started going wrong.

The engineering department was unable to answer the customer´s questions and, moreover, started supplying answers that were terribly wrong.

The pressure augmented as the young executive started answering with one word answers instead of attempting to providing good answers to the questions.

Instead of helping the young executive by using his most charismatic executive to run the meeting for a bit to diffuse the tension, he instead called for the young executive to pass the meeting off to an old worthless executive (why the hell does he even have a job?) who proceeded to immediately drop the ball or come up short with his lame jokes.

Add to the madness that was happening, the old shipping department manager started making basic mistakes because he was so worried about international shipping procedures and international laws. He was sending packages without invoices, or with missing parts, or in one instance an empty box. 15 mistakes all dealing with the attempted new business.

Had the president used the new shipping department hire to deal with the basic requirements while leaving the old shipping department manager to deal with the new complexities of international business, it would have been likely that the new shipping department hire would have erred at most 2 times because he had shown that he was amazing at that specific function at his old job.

At this point, the young executive completely lost it as the tension had gotten too much for him and the company lost the international contract that they had basically won before the lunch break.


Question: would all of your employees have the same blame in your eyes?

From the president on down to the shipping department made mistakes. However; the young executive made mistakes on a new system while the engineering department erred in a system that had been in place for several years. The shipping department erred a lot on the most basic function of his job.

I will give you kudos on the inventiveness of your example.

To answer your question, I am not suggesting everyone gets equal blame. I am blaming people for their respective parts in the collective failure.

1. If Whitehair is the shipping department in your example then the issue I would have is while I agree it is basic, it also had the least impact in the debacle. The snaps are the least likely have caused the loss so while he fucked up on basic shit, trying to pretend it is as significant a fuck up as the others is odd.

2. At this stage, it is hard to say whether the President is really up and coming or whether he is simply a bad hire. In any event, his orchestration of the meeting was terrible and I have said as much in several threads here.

3. It remains to be seen if the top young executive is really a top young executive or whether again he was simply a bad hire. You are attributing the previous regime with strangling him but the reality is some of his bad habits date back to his college days if you look at his resume. So it is not a given that his issues are tied to the old regime or learning a new system rather than simply being traits he always had. In any event, those traits certainly contributed to the loss much more than what shipping did.

So if I had to rank the severity of the fucks then I would say they go, Nagy, Trubs, Defense, Whitehair. The issue is everyone is trying to blame everyone else except the young executive.

3.

 

[Myk]

A few bad snaps during camp??? It was all last year of bad snaps during games!!! Bad snaps during camp after that should've lost him the job, he hasn't learned anything.
Then we used a 2nd round pick on a center we weren't planning on making a guard after Whitehair's 2017 season at center, and we got a 2nd round olineman who can't start???
So far I'm not too impressed with these coaches.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

I will give you kudos on the inventiveness of your example.

To answer your question, I am not suggesting everyone gets equal blame. I am blaming people for their respective parts in the collective failure.

1. If Whitehair is the shipping department in your example then the issue I would have is while I agree it is basic, it also had the least impact in the debacle. The snaps are the least likely have caused the loss so while he fucked up on basic shit, trying to pretend it is as significant a fuck up as the others is odd.

2. At this stage, it is hard to say whether the President is really up and coming or whether he is simply a bad hire. In any event, his orchestration of the meeting was terrible and I have said as much in several threads here.

3. It remains to be seen if the top young executive is really a top young executive or whether again he was simply a bad hire. You are attributing the previous regime with strangling him but the reality is some of his bad habits date back to his college days if you look at his resume. So it is not a given that his issues are tied to the old regime or learning a new system rather than simply being traits he always had. In any event, those traits certainly contributed to the loss much more than what shipping did.

So if I had to rank the severity of the fucks then I would say they go, Nagy, Trubs, Defense, Whitehair. The issue is everyone is trying to blame everyone else except the young executive.
.

My memory may be off, but I believe that the bad snap happened on a 1st down, causing the Bears to lose around 4 yards. 2nd down was a run by Howard that made it 3rd and 1. Then came Sims running a super shallow route.

If the bad snap had not happened, Howard would have gotten a 1st down with his run on 2nd down and the Bears would have then run out the clock. So the bad snap was pretty damn important.

And, no, I don´t think Trubs should get a free pass.

 

[LiverpoolBearsFAn]

I think his bad snaps tend to come at pressure points in the game - probably adrenaline combined with a bit of uncertainty about his own technique. I think those bad snaps have a very unsettling effect - on Trubisky mostly but everyone feels it. If he doesn’t stop doing it very soon a change is needed.

 

[remydat]

My memory may be off, but I believe that the bad snap happened on a 1st down, causing the Bears to lose around 4 yards. 2nd down was a run by Howard that made it 3rd and 1. Then came Sims running a super shallow route.

If the bad snap had not happened, Howard would have gotten a 1st down with his run on 2nd down and the Bears would have then run out the clock. So the bad snap was pretty damn important.

And, no, I don´t think Trubs should get a free pass.

You can't assume that Howard gets the same yards on 2nd down if distance changes. And they had every opportunity to convert a 3rd and 1 which most terms do the vast majority of times.

 

[Mdbearz]

I think his bad snaps tend to come at pressure points in the game - probably adrenaline combined with a bit of uncertainty about his own technique. I think those bad snaps have a very unsettling effect - on Trubisky mostly but everyone feels it. If he doesn’t stop doing it very soon a change is needed.

I agree with you on the cause, and I have never played Offensive lineman in the NFL, but he needs to be able to disconnect that moment when he snaps the frikin ball. He is a damn good Center in all other aspects and he understands the position, but he need to calm the fuck down... this is pee wee shit that he is messing up.

Maybe Trubisky is not yet good enough to overcome a bad snap and get back into the play at hand. I don't give a shit who you are though, if you have 2.5 seconds with a clean pocket and you have to take your eyes off the field and your feet come off the ground, even in the slightest, it will effect the timing of the play and the amount of time you have to digest the defense.

Trubisky may have an internal clock that is telling him to get the ball out of his hands before he is ready to throw, so fuck yeah it is having a damn effect, on Trubisky, who is not yet good enough to over come.

 

[WindyCity]

From another site, but I thought it was interesting

Team % of plays
TM - Under Center | Shotgun
1st Half
PHI- 7% | 93% <-------------This team won
KC - 12%| 88%<-------------This team won
CHI- 25%| 75%<-------------This team lost

2nd Half
PHI- 21%| 79%<-------------This team ran 14% less plays from shotgun in the 2nd half than they did in the 1st.
KC - 31%| 69%<-------------This team ran 19% less plays from shotgun in the 2nd half than they did in the 1st.
CHI- 18%| 82%<-------------This team ran 7% MORE plays from shotgun in the 2nd half than they did in the 1st.

^Whats wrong with this picture here.

Nagy made it easier for the defense to identify what he was doing on offense going into the 2nd half and could have killed two birds with one stone. Make the half-time adjustments to keep the offense unpredictable by running less plays from the shotgun formation while also masking Whitehair's snap issues. Just my opinion.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

You can't assume that Howard gets the same yards on 2nd down if distance changes. And they had every opportunity to convert a 3rd and 1 which most terms do the vast majority of times.

Funny how you are doing the same thing but in reverse.

Just like I cannot assume that Howard would have gotten the same results if the distance changes, you cannot assume the same results if the snap were good (funny how the 1st down play magically disappeared).

Using this season´s average yards per offensive play, the Bears would have gotten around 4.5 yards on 1st down instead of losing 4 yards. Are you going to try to sell that, in that high pressure situation, the Bears would not have been in a much better situation of getting a game-ending first down by gaining 5.5 yards on 2 plays when they were averaging 5.1 yards per rush during the game instead of getting 14 yards on two plays?

 

[Bear Pride]

I think the effect is being overblown by the posts in question as a means to excuse poor play by the QB. Every QB has to deal with poor snaps and they somehow find ways to still perform to expectations.



You are happy with the offense scoring at John Fox levels despite having better players at just about every position on the field?

If there was a high snap that led to a sack then that is a clear cause and effect. However, your claim wasn't about that specific play. It was suggesting that each bad snap directly affected Trubisky's performance which is bullshit.

I didn't see anything resembling a Fox offense. Not sure what you are watching. "My Claim"? WTF are you talking about Remy?

 

[remydat]

Funny how you are doing the same thing but in reverse.

Just like I cannot assume that Howard would have gotten the same results if the distance changes, you cannot assume the same results if the snap were good (funny how the 1st down play magically disappeared).

Using this season´s average yards per offensive play, the Bears would have gotten around 4.5 yards on 1st down instead of losing 4 yards. Are you going to try to sell that, in that high pressure situation, the Bears would not have been in a much better situation of getting a game-ending first down by gaining 5.5 yards on 2 plays when they were averaging 5.1 yards per rush during the game instead of getting 14 yards on two plays?

No I am saying the failure on 1st down doesn't change the fact Trubs failed on 3rd and 1.

Teams convert 3rd and 1 over 60% of the time and Trubs failing to do so has nothing to do with the first down play. Both he and Whitehair failed but their failures really are independent of each other.

All one can do is judge people based on what they can control. Trubs controlled his own destiny on 3rd and 1 and he failed. Just like Fuller can't blame his failure to catch an Int on the failure of the O.

 

[remydat]

I didn't see anything resembling a Fox offense. Not sure what you are watching. "My Claim"? WTF are you talking about Remy?

171 yards passing and 16 points are below the Fox averages from last year despite their being better talent at WR.