NFL.com's Bucky Brooks: Change in offensive philosophy could be difference for Henne

And Joey Haynos is some great talent?

 

Disagree. The following is pretty clearly an attack. Not sure how you can deny that.

 

Well, the issue to me is Daboll may be a pretty good OC but that is when he has a mobile Qb to work with, when forced to go with Delhomme, the Browns offense was just brutal, and this with Hillis in the backfield.

This is one of the reasons why I bang the drum for Vince Young, what he does well, and what Daboll does well, mesh, with Henne the only real veiwpoint is Tom Brady and Henne isn't Tom Brady, I watched a Browns highlight film in their win over the patriots and what jumped out at me is I can easily see Young doing what McCoy was doing, lots of naked boot legs, lots of rollouts in general.

 

I think you bring up a valid point but on the other hand the Patriots didn't get Colt McCoy'd and they didn't get Brian Daboll'd. They got Peyton Hillis'd. The guy ran wild all over them. McCoy played just passably well, and nobody else who ran the ball gained any significant yardage on average, but Hillis was all over the Patriots.

 

He at least looked like he could run a route on more than a couple occasions. There's a reason why they're considering bringing him back.

 

True, but McCoy did enough of the things the patriots have trouble dealing with to help Hillis out, not sure of rushing yds etc, did see him score a TD, and that is the way you can beat a well disciplined and coached Defense, make the match up Athlete vs Scheme.

Think about this proposition, "we can out discipline and outcoach the patriots"

How about "our athletes are better then your scheme"

The situation really does remind of the NFCE in the mid to late 80's, the Pats are Gibbs redskins, the jets Ryan's eagles and we are the Parcells giants.

 

"Logic"? This isn't a classical debate. What happens in football isn't necessarily logical, but it happens. And nothing that Brooks describes has happened. If he put Henne in a vertical offense as he claims to want, it would be a disaster based on what we've seen of Henne so far.

 

Yeah, fail forward fast.

 

I think this is hysterical. When I saw this response, it reminded me of the Greg Cosell thread started a few months ago. I said to myself, "there has to be some gold in there." And whaddaya know...there was.

That was posted in this tread in response to Greg Cosell's views on Chad Henne.
http://www.thephins.com/forums/show...ne-Pouncey-and-other-tidbits&highlight=cosell

So, let me follow this priceless logic. You get upset at Desides for disagreeing with Bucky Brooks and use the whole, he's a scout, what do you know, tried and true line. Yet, just a few months ago, you basically crap on a scout that had a disagreeing opinion of yours. Sounds a little hypocritical to me.

I think you should call as it is. Bucky Brooks has an opinion that favors your own, thus you agree with it. Nothing wrong with it. I think you'll find better debate stating your opinions along those lines rather than trashing a guy along the same lines that you have a past history of doing.

God speed.

 

Does that mean you "stopped reading right there" like he did? I don't at all mean to discount the possibility that we have members who are vastly more informed on Chad Henne than the professional analysts and coaches who are paid to critique him. But, IMVHO, we'd have a better chance of developing a good conversation on the merits of the article if members took the time to actually read the article before they responded.

 

Let's take a look at an actual game for protection and rushers.

I go with game #1.

Marshall, Hartline, Bess, or Moore were never kept in to block. Fasano was kept in 6 times, Polite 4 times, Ronnie 8 times, and Ricky 8 times. There was a total of 75 plays on O.

For Buff, here's a list of guys on the pass rush in this game.

Stroud -25, Williams -36, Edwards - 30, Ellis -12, Poe - 4, Davis -4, Kelsay -21, McGhee -1, Whitney -3, Florence-2, Johnson - 12, Troup - 2, Maybin -12, Ellison - 3, and Scott -7.

As near as I can figure, we kept extra blockers in on 26 of 75 plays, and it may have been more than one on some plays.

 

Your implication that I haven't read the article is silly. You're of course free to disagree with my opinion, but it would be nice if you could come up with more than "he didn't read the article." For someone who hasn't read the article and/or doesn't know as much as Brooks does about Henne, I notice that no one's really explaining why my post is wrong. That's pretty damn telling.

 

I understand that he made poor protection calls in keeping unneeded blockers in. My question is was that on him or the game plan? Did he read it and call it the way he was coached to, or did he make bad reads? My first thought is both. However, when I hear that we want an athlete at qb, some one that can create with their feet, it says to me that we want someone that can overcome a bad game plan.




Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk

 

There were 39 pass plays on that game. Run plays are irrelevant to extra protections. Dolphins kept 26 defenders in to block on 39 pass plays. What you CAN'T do is say that this means they kept extra defenders in on 26 PLAYS. You don't know that. You just know that 26 defenders were kept in to block. Two or even three could have been kept in to block on one play.

In this particular game the Bills had 174 players rush the passer. That's 4 on each PASS PLAY, plus an extra 18 blitzers. So the Dolphins kept in 26 extra defenders versus 18 extra blitzers.

This was not a bad game, from that standpoint. Not bad at all. Very normal.

Now look if you will at the Week 9 game against the Ravens. In that game, there were 41 pass plays. The Dolphins kept 48 extra blockers in to block on pass plays in that game. The Ravens sent 168 defenders at the quarterback in pass rush on those 41 pass plays. That's only 4 extra blitzers in the whole game. Only 4 extra blitzers, and yet we kept 48 extra players in to block them. This is a monumental waste of players out running routes. I don't give a rats @ss if it's only Mickey Shuler or Jeron Mastrud or Lousaka Polite or Ronnie Brown or Ricky Williams, having those guys out on patterns keeps the defense honest and helps prevent the total butt-******* that the Miami offense took in that game, which involved 3 interceptions thrown by Chad Henne.

And notice who was staying in to block. It wasn't Jeron Mastrud, or Mickey Shuler. It wasn't even Lousaka Polite. Shuler didn't play and Mastrud and Polite combined for only 10 of the pass blocking reps. It was Anthony Fasano, Ronnie Brown and Ricky Williams that were asked to stay in to block 38 times in that game, even though Baltimore only sent 4 extra blitzers at the offense.

Who asked them? We'll never truly know, but I submit that either answer means bad things for both Chad Henne and the coaching staff.

 

IF Henne was calling bad protections, the coaches should've seen it and corrected it. If Henne was changing the protections the coaches should've corrected that as well. Or are we to believe that for an entire season, Henne consistently defied his coaches and refused to stop calling for extra protection. And that the coaches continued to put him into the game despite his insubordination. And after the season the team team brings in a new offensive staff, not replacing the insubordinate, max pro crazed 3rd year QB, but replacing the long tenured OC who was trying to reign Henne instead. That story is way too expensive for me.

 

That's a ridiculous statement. It's like saying Mark Sanchez is running the same offense in NY that Brett Favre ran the year before. One guys is a 10+ year vet and the other is a first or 2nd year starter. Obviously, any coach is going to call games differently. There are SEVERAL reason's why DAN HENNING would want to call for extra protection. Miami called for max pro at the highest rate in the league in 2008, when Pennington was the QB. If the offense used max pro extensively even w/ a 20 yr vet, it's logical to expect that w/ a first time starter in the game, the amount of protection may increase. You're breaking in a QB, you want to make it as simple as possible for him. You have a lot of new guys on the OL and the inside protection is a little shaky. Do you throw your QB to the wolves, leaving him susceptible to the blitz? Or do you protect the QB first and foremost so that he can learn to read and react to coverages w/o fear that he's going to get his head taken off? I can definitely see the logic in not allowing Henne to be battered, when the tradeoff involves no better payoff than a chance to get Polite, Williams, Cobbs, Shuler etc into the pattern. I don't know why the protection numbers were the way they were, but I strongly doubt it was Henne's doing.

 

But but but, that would go against the prevailing opinion around here, that it's all Henne's fault. How can that be? If I can get the zipper on this pup tent to work, and get Henne and Todd to stop hitting fungos with beer cans long enough, I'll just ask him.

 

That's easy. Start w/ Buffalo. Watch how many times the Bills get free runners into Henne's face even though we have 1 or even 2 more guys in pass pro than they do rushing. The last sack before the 2 min warning was a perfect example. We have 7 guys in and so what? Free runner right thru the B Gap. Henne takes a couple hitches, thinking he's protected and then WALLOP!!! 4th down. It was the strong safety coming thru, BTW. Not sure what the protection was so I cant lay blame, but if I had to guess I'd say Incognito, w/ Fasano also a possibility.

 

Could've just been a sophomore slump.

 

LOL you're out in the cheap seats somewhere man. You said yourself that you stopped reading the article, then you went on your normal Henne bashing tirade, which coincidentally, I didn't bother to read, because it had nothing to do w/ the topic. So I confess, I haven't made, nor will I attempt to make, any attempt to explain why you're wrong. But if you like to make a new Henne bashing thread outside of this one, I'd he happy to oblige you.

 

I get it. You'd rather perform a drive by posting than bother to engage the topic of Chad Henne's production, which by the way is the topic of this thread.

My post disagrees with Brooks. You are free to refute it using evidence, or you're free to snipe at it with spitballs. Just note that the latter is less respectable than the former, a path you've already declined.

In order to stop reading something, one must first actually begin to read. This is why I'm baffled; your implication is that I simply went off on a tangent without bothering to actually refer to the link. Not true.

No, this is what GMJohnson is doing by his own admission. I actually countered a selected excerpt from the article that serves as a fair approximation of its main point, and it's utterly bizarre how people are pretending that post doesn't actually have information in it. I can understand wanting to defend Henne. I can't understand the belligerence.

I'm asking myself this question right now.

 

What does it say about Henne if it was the staff?

 

Your original post speaks for itself. It's really not worth responding to IMO.

 

Running. Game.

 

Perhaps we are too hard on Henning, but he was immediately replaced after the season which suggests that his superiors felt he wasn't getting it done. Same for the QB coach and a few others. I was hoping that instead of dredging up the old Henne debates, we could talk about how to attack defenses w/ the players we have now and what Daboll can do to squeeze the most out of Henne's skill set and the offense as a whole. That's what the point of the article and thread were, IMO. Not speaking to you specifically, but it seems as though some peeps would rather talk about why the team will fail b/c of Henne rather than how the can succeed w/ him. Given that this is a Fins board, I wonder thy that's the case.

 

Sure, and if it plays out like that all the better, my point is that from my observation Daboll had more success with a mobile Qb then with a pocket Qb.

 

The title was NFL.com's Bucky Brooks: Change in offensive philosophy could be difference for Henne, it wasn't NFL.com's Bucky Brooks: Change in offensive philosophy could be difference for the Dolphins

 

I would imagine that the defense could have influence on that more than anything. By faking blitzes, using stunts, and getting consistant pressure

 

Not so surprisingly, you managed to address neither.

 

Ugh. If the lockout goes on any further I'm going to be forced to watch some Cleveland games. For now I'll just ask, what kind of success are we talking? Defense letting down or not knowing what to expect, McCoy making plays, or Daboll calling good games and outsmarting the defense?

 

Still, most of his success was due to a very good running game w/Hillis. Solid OL also.

Wasn't like that mobile QB was winning games by himself. Hillis was.

 

I would say that there is probably some happy, or unhappy medium with this somewhere.

I think the best way to correct him is to show him what the defense did to him with some arial shots during the game and with film afterwards. I mean, I don't want to force my Qb to not call for protections because that might put him on the IR after a while.

We also saw how stubborn the offensive coordinator could be and especially last season. I think there was a lack of trust in his players as well.

I'd say that the offense will need to have some trust in each other and with Henne being the one who runs it, I would hope he's taking a long hard look at the tape to learn when to and when not to keep someone in to cover his butt...

 

If the change is a difference for Henne, it is also a difference for the Dolphins, as long as he is part of the team.

 

I agree the coaches screwed up. However, I think they tried making a statement and correcting the problem when he was benches.

 

How true Mr G.