camp thoughts

It seems to me that Collin said we didn't usually snap on one ("we did not usually snap on one"). What part of that statement is not crystal clear? Being as he makes such a science of the English language I find it difficult to believe that he didn't say exactly what he meant without the need for your interpretation. But, I thank-you anywho.

Furthermore, although others may have said that we did snap on “every” play I think it safe that it was a mild exaggeration on their parts. Most folks make a statement like that and would mean, as you say, "almost every play" to the extent that it makes us very predictable. Collin, however, would not do so and I can assure you would take to task anyone being so sloppy in what they say. If you need examples, just look at a few of the recent arguments between Mags and Collins.

Collin's original argument was that it was not the team's philosophy to usually snap on one. To which, he immediately extended his argument to say that the snap count does not come from the sideline but is called by the QB. And, therefore, Yaz was a complete fool. It was decent logic except for the odd thing was that not Yaz or anybody else ever argued or insinuated that it did come from the sideline (on a play-by-play basis).

Yet, Collin has hung on to that inconsequential special nugget like one of Vick's dogs would a stinking, nasty bone to delude himself into thinking he has somehow once again proven his intellectual superiority. If he’d let go of it for just a sec maybe he could finally be able to connect the dots that if it were in fact Henning's philosophy to usually go on one then the QB would probably follow his marching orders and usually call the play on one. So yeah, he’s right the snap is called in huddle bu the QB (he wins that point against some imagined opponent) … but the snap count for all intents and purposes came from the sideline if the QB had been schooled to call the snap counts on one. A two-year could grasp this and yet he can’t because he’s wallowing in his narcissism.

As to his argument that it was not the team's philosophy to usually go on one, it seems clear now, if it wasn’t before, that it wasn't by accident, oversight, Jake's stubbornness or Mags having been one of Henning’s biggest haters (or Collin having been Henning's second biggest supporter). Wahle makes it perfectly clear that it was a philosophy for which he couldn’t explain the reasoning and that it stemmed from Henning.

Of course, I have to admit that it could be Wahle is lying and just saying this shit just to mess with Collin so he can watch him squirm. If so, I got to hand it to him because this has been fun. Of course, the fact that they are practicing varying the snap counts and we are having an issue with false-starts and offsides moreso this year than in the past, seems to suggest that Wahle is on the level and this isn't just some hilarious prank.

BTW, I am a bit surprised that Collin would cower behind such a weak defense of us needing to suddenly start interpreting his posts to mean something he didn't say. I know some here do that with regularity when cornered but I would have thought it beneath him. To me it would be better if he just claimed that he posted his argument while he was enveloped in a self-emitted hideous toxic gas that left him in a temporary stupor. Then he'd get not only our forgiveness for his momentary stupidity but our sympathy too.

 

You have a special gift for being wrong. Gantt said that Henning was responsible for the counts, and even Yaz suggested that the situation would change now that Davidson had replaced Henning. Maybe he just meant that Davidson would remind Jake to vary the snap count, but that's not the way it read.

I meant exactly what I said. The problem is that you lack even the most basic reading comprehension skills and apparently couldn't understand what I thought was a fairly straight-forward comment.

Now could you do everyone else a favor and shut up? No one cares that you're bitter at me for years of humiliation and exposing your idiocy all the many times when you try to pretend like you have some insight worth listening to. Get a life, seriously. You whine and obsess about me so much that it's disturbing.

 

regardless of anything else, I don't think Wahle would say "every play" for no reason. If it were every play, I'd put that on the OC. If it was Jake's doing, I'd still put it on the OC for not catching it, or if he caught it, for not fixing it.

 

why would you just accept "every play" and not his pointing his finger directly at Henning? geez, this isn't complex. Henning's philosophy for whatever reasons was to "always" go on one. (obviously it wasn't "every" time as there were a few times where the team tried a hard count and never snapped the ball in a predictable attempt to get the D to jump ... and I'm pretty sure these attempts were directed by Henning or Fox). But otherwise, the team didn't practice varying the snap and Jake wasn't given the latitude to change the count). Plain and simple. That’s what Minter, Ruck, Yaz, Wahle, etc. have said.

No one ever said anything with regards to Henning calling the snap count from the sideline. It was always been about it being a philosophy that stemmed from Henning. (I guess Collin is envisioning that Yaz was implying that it went like this, “Jake the count is on one.” Next play “Jake the count is on one.” Next play “Jake the count is on one.” Next play “Jake the count is on one.” Next play “Jake the count is on one.” Next play “Jake the count is on one.” Next play “Jake the count is on one.” Next play “Jake the count is on one.” And so forth.)



>> I meant exactly what I said.

is that then your confession to being wrong and dumb as a brick? and if so, does that mean we can be spared future bromidic sermons of your infallibleness?



Originally Posted by HeadCase
my impression, if this were true, was that it probably was Henning's philosophy that going on the same snap count eliminated mistakes

Posted by Collin
First, how can you have an impression about something that wasn't actually true? …

For instance, in this thread you've babbled on and on about maybe Henning always snapping on one to reduce mistakes when several people already pointed out that coaches don't call in the snap count. …

That was the problem, because Yasinskas made the ignorant assumption that we usually snapped on one in games and that it was part of Henning's philosophy. Both are errors that should have been easily avoided by someone who had watched some of our games

The Panthers didn't usually snap on one, as anyone can confirm by actually watching the games again

 

.

 

You are comically stupid, like some Grand Emperor of Morons. Didn't you just get through saying that no one was blaming Henning, only for you to agree that they were blaming Henning and now blame him yourself?

In case you wondered, inbred spawn of Rosie O'Donnell and her loathsome life partner, you can actually hear the snap count on the broadcast. I noted in one of my game recaps last year that we snapped on one nine times in a row:

"3-6-CAR24 (13:35) J.Delhomme sacked at CAR 14 for -10 yards (S.Rice). FUMBLES (S.Rice), touched at CAR 14, RECOVERED by TB-D.White at CAR 15. Play Challenged by CAR and Upheld. (Timeout #1 by CAR at 13:25.)

The extent of Jake Delhomme's fumbling problems have become increasingly apparent this season, as he loses the ball on almost half of the occasions when he has been sacked, and this play turned the game completely around. Obviously a blindside hit is less his fault than some other examples, but even Gross isn't entirely to blame. Simeon Rice is simply one of the best pass rushers in the league, and he had a tremendous jump off the snap. Just like a runner stealing second in baseball, the jump a player gets has an enormous impact. Why Rice was able to get such a great jump was only apparently after going back and reviewing snap counts. Jake had actually snapped on one for nine plays in a row, going back to the last part of the first half where the Bucs were already timing the snap very well on blitzes. Repeating the same snap count is just a mental mistake and one that sets up precisely the kind of pressure that allowed Rice to force the fumble. On that last note, however, it does appear that Jake still had the ball in his right hand when his right knee hit."

But while that was one time where we did snap on one far too frequently, it was an aberration, not the norm. At no other point during the season did I ever notice us snapping on one repeatedly for that length of time. We probably could have mixed it up even more, but overall we did not snap on one for the majority of plays. If you weren't such a colossal idiot, you'd realize that anyone who watched the game could have noticed exactly how many times we snapped on one. We don't need you to guess, we can actually count.

The fact that you even suggest that an NFL quarterback wasn't given the choice to change the snap count illustrates how hilariously stupid you are. That is so absurd as to perfectly demonstrate the depths of your idiocy. This isn't pee wee. Jake chose the snap count, as do all NFL quarterbacks, and so if anyone is to blame it was him. But as noted above, we did not snap on one for even half the plays, much less "always."

Except that it isn't, that QBs call the snap count in the huddle, and anyone can physically go review the games to confirm that we didn't just constantly snap on one.

No, it's an acknowledgment that you are a complete idiot who can't understand the most basic of sentences even when someone else explains it to you. Presidence99 was polite in trying to help you understand, but I know that you're a useless waste of oxygen and have no patience for your stupidity. As I said, the Panthers did not "usually snap on one." That's a fact that anyone can confirm by watching the games again. At the same time, I have previously expressed that I didn't feel like Jake changed up the count often enough, as he would occasionally get lazy and go on the same count several times in a row (not just on one either, as sometimes he'd go on two for several consecutive plays).


The sad truth is that you are a bitter fool. Your only purpose in posting these days is to harass me because you are consumed with hatred about the years of abuse you took for being a complete moron with no knowledge to speak of. If you had taken opportunities to learn, perhaps by now you could have overcome your natural mental deficiencies, but instead you've indulged in a bad attitude and bad habits to be just as stupid as you were before, but more belligerent and irritating than ever. You are useless to the world. No one cares that you are bitter towards me, so either get over it and pretend to be a functioning adult or just put everyone else out of your misery.

 

Fan Fest = boring

I'd rather drive an hour to see the real thing.

 

Wahle said ... "We didn't change it. If you always go on one, it isn't hard to figure out," he said.

so are you then calling Wahle a liar?

 

.

 

Call him a liar if you like, but at minimum he was exaggerating because he wasn't telling the truth. As I said, anyone can go back and watch the games to see what the snap count was on any particular play. You can always hear it, and only an idiot like yourself would actually think that we always snapped on one. Do you not even realize what a fool you made of yourself by taking that quote and then running with it to not only say that we do always snap on one, but that it was Henning's philosophy? You're too ignorant and stupid to realize how asinine and ridiculous that sounds.


magnus:
It's one thing to say that the coach should have been on Jake about varying it more often and quite another to say it was the coach's fault. The snap count is called by the QB, so if it was anyone's problem, it was Jake's. Personally I thought he could improve there, but I never considered it to be a big deal.