http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/08/29/first-impressions-dolphins-buccaneers/ A good, and pretty fair, read from PFF. This writer was not as favorable as the last but, made good points. In terms of overall ability these two teams are similar; the Buccaneers more set to overcome weaknesses on their offensive line because of their strength at quarterback and halfback while the Dolphins look more solid on defense with very few positions of concern. And so it turned out with the score 10–10 when I gave up grading at the half. . That said, these things are relative and I don’t see either team doing much better than 8-8 when the real action starts. The caveat to that statement is Josh Freeman getting on the sort of tear he did last year (although he looked a long way from it here) and the new players on the Tampa Bay defense maturing faster than expected. . For the Dolphins, with this sort of protection in front of the notoriously inconsistent Chad Henne, it looks like they will do well to get even close to the Jets and patriots.
I take issue with Henne being characterized as inconsistent. As I stated last season, I don't see Henne being markedly less accurate or making more poor decisions in some games than others. Nor did I see his play deteriorate late in games. (That was the most common criticism). What I saw was very predictable play calling that allowed defenders to jump routes late in the game. Henne was making the same reads and throwing the same passes. He wasn't inconsistent. The outcome was different b/c the D knew what was coming.
The fact that he was able to play that well with that sloppy protection should be a positive reinforcement of how far he's come...not a damnation that he'll get worse..
It's the same lazy (and inaccurate) statement you here from many fans. Basically, PFF's commentary often amounts to guys who watch a lot of plays but don't seem to understand anymore about football than your average fan.
So true. I said to myself.... "He watches one half of a preseason game and he knows both teams will be 8-8". Wow. I wish I had that kind of football knowledge.
What is killing me lately is that so many of the talking heads on NFL Network and ESPN spout the same information because they rely solely on box scores and bloggers to provide them with their information, instead of actually watching what is going on with their own eyes.
Viewing from the scope of 2010 (and not this last preseason game), I disagree. As far as the late in games assessment, what kind of play-calling were you expecting to see late in games? I actually saw some of Henning's most inventive/creative play-calling in that quarter. Many screen passes (Fasano in GB off the top of my head), reverses, mis-direction, WildCat (whether it worked or not, or you believe it was good or bad), and PA passes (double moves, etc.) were called built off running of many of the sames plays earlier in the game. Where the play-calling became stagnant and stale was when Miami entered the scoring zone. Late in games, you're running a 4 minute offense, or a 2 minute offense. Many of those plays are called by Chad Henne. If they're not, the plays being called are the ones the guys are probably most confident in executing. My issue with Dan Henning wasn't calling plays they considered their "bread and butter". My issue was with the timing of those plays. Most of my Dan Henning issues were with his ability to develop a player, but I don't want to digress. I can't see how you can not look at Henne's year last year (say in halves, quarters, or just an broad yearly review) and not come out saying there was inconsistency there. If your theory was that the defenses ability to "smarten up" over the haul of the game was the main reasoning for Henne's lack of success is true, than why were Henne's best games against some of the brightest and best defenses in the league. Because again, if Henne's success is in the hands of the defense and their ability to recognize and react better to the same redundant play-calling, than you've got to believe Henne would have had much worse success against the New York Jets (game 1), Green Bay Packers, Pittsburgh Steelers etc., but that wasn't the case.
The example I provided last year was the Detroit game. People cited that game as proof of Henne playing well early and then throwing critical late INTs. Yet Sparano came out after the game and said that Henne only threw a few bad passes/bad decisions and that the INTs weren't among them. It was actually one of Henne's highest rated games using their internal measure. It was clear that Henne was doing exactly what he was told to do. That is what I saw in most every game. People wanted to say that Sanchez played better b/c he had better 4th quarter stats (and worse through the first three quarters). But I watched those games several times and it was clear that Henne was going through the same progressions late as he was early. His decision making wasn't any different. His inaccurate passes weren't anymore frequent late in games than they were early in games. Basically, he was the exact same player. That is not inconsistency.
Nope, they got that one wrong, Cam Wake blew the coverage on Blount's long run, I ran across that PFF article earlier and decided not to post it because it was inaccuate. The bucs game was the first time I've seen Nolan drop wake back into coverage a whole lot, and he struggled tbh about it.
I disagree and Tony Sparano and Chad Henne may as well. Chad Henne and Tony Sparano have said all offseason and Training Camp that Chad Henne needed to improve his consistency. The only thing Chad Henne was consistent in last year was being, well, inconsistent.
Wake came out and said he screwed up by following the Te and leaving the running back, but either way PFF is talking about Burnett, which was incorrect, and their stuff about the Bucs I did not think was particularly accurate.
Misleading article...named "First Impressions"...if that were true then Henne would be touted as HOF QB from watching that game. Freeman, not so much. Article would have been better titled "Lingering Impressions Carried Over From Last Year." Obviously, Neil Hornsby had his mind made up before ever watching the game...assuming he actually watched it.
Might I add: it's about Clutch and having It. The Fire in your Belly to win in crunch time. It's about championship Meddle and Swagger. Fire in the Eyes and Ice Water in the Veins. Desire and Moxy. Of course, none of this crap can be quantified, so you'll just have to trust me as I subjectively slap these terms onto players week to week.
I actually don't believe in clutch behavior for professional athletes. The studies I've seen concluded that professional athletes have muscle memory so engrained that performance in pressure situations just about equals performance in non-pressure situations given enough opportunities. It's real obvious in baseball where you see hitters considered "clutch" b/c they did well in their playoff games early in their career, but if they have more opportunities their averages come down to whatever they were in non-playoff games. The reverse was also shown to be true. "Clutch" or "non-clutch" behavior is a fan and media creation that doesn't withstand objective analysis.
In baseball, how do you explain guys who have a higher batting average with runners on base or in scoring position, compared to bases empty?
I disagree with Raphael on clutch, but we've had those discussions before. But, to answer your question MrC, those numbers are generally higher because of the situation. Sacrifice Flies don't count as Plate Appearances and aren't a negative outcome on your average. We could have a REALLY fun discussion about batting average and lack of relevance in today's game if you'd like?? hahaha.
Sac flies only help if it is runner on 3rd less than 2 out. Many situations are also 2 out, or man on 2nd. It seems to me that sac flies would not be a high enough pct of the total to account for the difference in batting avg for the guys who have higher avgs with runners on base. I also theorized that perhaps those hitters pick up the ball better when a pitcher is pitching from the stretch. Also, some starters, who are used to throwing from the windup more, may lose a little off their fastball from the stretch. I may be all wet on this, just some things that crossed my mind.
Henne was good when he started out; bad last year; bad in the first game of the preseason; good in the last two games of preseason. Isn't that a fair statement? I don't see why we have to get all het up every time someone says anything about a Dolphins' player, but especially about Henne, who really has been inconsistent throughout his career; I'm satisfied to be energized and encouraged by Henne's improved performance in these last two games. I don't need to have the media validate my outlook, nor do I need them to disingenuously stroke my fan ego by refraining from criticizing the team I love.
They said he looked lost in coverage and was responsible for a lot of the things that went wrong and that he is not good in coverage overall.
So could it be both Burnett and Wake made some errors in coverage? Your reason for not posting the article was because it was inaccurate in that Wake was responsible for Blount's long run. They never mentioned the Blount play one way or the other. Maybe they should have. It was the biggest offensive play for the Bucs. I'd have been interested in their breakdown. Instead they discussed Burnett in somewhat more general terms.
Hmm, I'd thought they had, but generally disagreed with the assessment of Burnett enough, after all he did cover20 yds downfield vs the Panthers, that I found the article not credible.
I don't follow baseball but I would guess that his career batting average is roughly within 10% of his post-season batting average.
No, it isn't a fair statement. It's an inaccurate statement, that's the point. People who have a very base understanding of football tend to just blame the QB for most everything. But if you actually look at Henne's play, he was anything but inconsistent. He was almost robotic in his consistency. His reads rarely varied. His decisions rarely varied. His accuracy rarely varied. The results were inconsistent, but his play wasn't. The difference in the results was the predictable and/or poor play calling. I'm not complaining b/c the report is unfavorable. There are many times when I'm posting unfavorable things about this team or it's decisions. I'm complaining b/c the report is inaccurate.
Regular season batting avg: .262, post season: .278, Regular season slugging pct: .490, post season: .527 Post season would include LCS and WS games, but when we look at just the World Series: In 27 World Series games, he amassed 10 home runs, including a record five during the 1977 Series (the last three on first pitches), 24 RBI and a .357 batting average.
Also credit him with most everything, when it goes good. Like the old adage: When a team wins, the QB gets too much of the credit, and when they lose he gets too much of the blame.
You have to watch the QB's play. How many passes were off-target? Was his decision-making different? The accuracy part was easier. I would look at how many inaccurate passes he had in different games or at different times in games. Everybody's definition of "inaccurate" will vary, but if my definition is constant then the counts will determine consistency. Henne's number of inconsistent passes didn't vary much from his "good" games and his "bad" games (rating wise) or early in games/late in games. Decision-making was more difficult, but if it's something you've been doing for years, it's not that bad. The play-calling last year was incredibly predictable and the route combinations were fairly simple as well. It got to the point where I could recognize plays from earlier in the game or from past games. Once you do that you can usually figure what the QB's read is. Then you can look at the INTs and incompletes and see if the QB's reads were different. For example, I went through every game last year and found that about half of the INTs were Henne doing exactly what he was doing early in the game or in other games successfully. The difference was the defenses reactions. They knew what was coming. Henning was basically setting up the team for failure. Fans look at how Henne is playing now and think he's greatly improved. I don't think he has as much as they think. He has improved his pocket awareness/mobility in the pocket a bit and he has better timing on his deep passes (although that's probably a combination of reps and getting rid of Henning's "no mistakes" mentality). That's about it. The big change is that the routes and route combinations are making the reads easier and that when the primary targets are covered, there are outlets available. Too many times last year I saw limited receiver options where the D knew what was coming. That left Henne with the option of forcing it in (and probably throwing a pick), throwing it away or taking a sack. Too often Henning left Henne with no good options. This is just one example, but the point is that last year the biggest problem, by far, was the OC. Most fans can't see it so they just point at the QB and say silly things like "Henne is locking on to his receivers" when there are only two or three targets all in the same area and it's a three step drop where you're not supposed look elsewhere.
Conversely, you could argue that most fans can't see the reasons why the play calling changed. With all due respect, there were plenty of opportunities for Henne IMO, he just didn't have the eye-control or confidence in his accuracy to make them. Off the top of my head, there were 3-4 TDs left on the board in the Cincinnati game alone that I've posted here (and I used CIN as an example because it was a 2nd string secondary). Could the OC have developed a different plan to help him? Of course, hence my point. I'm also not sure where you reached the conclusion that Henning's mentality was "no mistakes", considering he ran one of the most aggressive offenses in the NFL when in Carolina. I do agree though, fans do think Henne has improved. But does that mean the effectiveness of the offense has changed? Is a QB having a 110 QBR, yet taking 5 sacks better than a QB having a 90 QBR and taking 0 sacks? You're shifting around the results, but that doesn't mean the totality is any different. But again, I was asking what evidence is there to support the statement that fans with only a rudimentary knowledge of the game will blame only the QB, as opposed to fans with only a rudimentary knowledge of the game blaming only the head coach or coordinator or GM.
That's should be fairly obvious. People always blame what they can see over what they don't understand. To argue that just sounds like arguing for the sake of arguing. And no, Henne didn't have many opportunities, that's where your point is wrong. Fans will see a guy open deep and think it was a QB mistake when it was actually the design of the play. If the QB is following his progressions he'll never get to the route that was just a decoy. Now a good OC would have set that up to capitalize on later, but that didn't happen. That's a big part of why you're seeing more deep passes now. These are deep routes that are part of the QB's progression. They're realistic options.
