Henne has improved..but

True or not Ego can cause people to do crazy things. His own comment about trusting his WRs and his O-line, I might add, (he doesn't yet) to extend plays and catch sight of the open man is very telling in just how he thinks, don't you think?

 

And if Norwood hits a fieldgoal Bills are Superbowl champs.

Guess that's why we play the games and keep the stats based on what the athlete does and doesn;t manage to do.

Sorry to jab ya over it, I just don;t agree with any argument based on "but if..." stat changes.

If I ran faster I'd be an Olympian. But I don't. Soooo.... I'm not.


I do agree that our expectations are to ohigh for him. I guess I hoped he could be the next Marino but that's unfair of me as a fan. If he can become a career mid-80's QBR guy in today's NFL I'll be okay with that.

 

Because you're certainly right about this?

 

I think a lot of these Henne arguments just come down to each of us having different hopes/expectations of how good we want to see Henne become. Some people compare him to what a top 5 QB should do, other compare him to what a guy like Matt Schaub or Matt Ryan could do, and other people are okay with him being around average (15th-17th rated QB in the league).

Just depends what you're hoping for from the young man.

I WAS hoping he could (not would be, but could be, depending on what we saw) be a top 5 QB before this year. Now I have adjusted my hopes to him being an above-average guy who may have a couple Pro Bowl years here and there. Solid starter who wins you a few games a year on his arm and tenacity under pressure.

 

Yup. lol.

What concerns me is, if he is more 'see it and chuck it', and less cerebral, he's a bad fit for this organization's philosophy henning and sparano need a cerebral QB who excels at always making the 'right' reads, progressions and throws.

A bit of a mismatch, imo.

He'll still do well, but I think Henne would do better in a more open-attack that embraced more risk and gave the QB more freedom. One that depended less on pre-snap and more on 'finding someone open' then gunning it in.

 

Well that pass did hit BM right in the hands...... it's not like he threw up a wounded duck, jump ball....like we've become accustomed to seeing. It just kinda died in the wind....... and we know arm strength is not a problem.

Point is that it was one try, in the first game and he almost hit on it........ is it unreasonable to look at that as a positive step forward, something that can be worked on and improved upon?

Is it unreasonable to think that the kid might get better at recognizing the open man, making his reads and progressions? And doesn't one need experience to improve?

Because to me, that's what this kid lacks most of all, experience.....it's not like he hasn't made some elite throws and showed some promise

As you said, our expectations are a bit high for him........ especially after 14 games as a starter.

 

Agreed...... hopefully they'll pull the reins off at some point and let him sling it. And if they want to compete against these high powered teams, sooner rather than later.

 

That one was thrown into a very heavy wind. I know the forecast said 8 mph or something similar but it was obviously stronger than that when all the punts in that direction died and going the other way even Carpenter sent two kick-offs into or through the end zone.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head...inexperience. That is what is ailing our passing game now and Henne will acquire that as time goes on. I didn't expect him to become Marino this week as some do. Has he improved ?? After one game, we can't say one way or the other for sure. We don't know how much of the game plan is the 'chuck and duck' and how much is Hennes' inexperience that he doesn't look down the field...There's been some pretty compelling arguments since the game ended that perhaps the short passing game was planned for the jills, beings they have a pretty good secondary.

Off topic: The missed ball by Marshall....ok, it would have been a pretty good catch had he made it as the pass was errant and he probably will make those more often than dropping them but if that were Ted Ginn, what would the reaction of the boards have been ??? LOL

 

Worked wonders for Bob Griese didn't it?

 

hopefully Henne gets the ball far enough and this shouldnt be a problem. boy has some power in it!

 

this is what we look for;

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQOMCnKQ_x0&p=4DA1D54ED7E96DD4&playnext=1&index=1"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQOMCnKQ_x0&p=4DA1D54ED7E96DD4&playnext=1&index=1[/ame]

will he become this we all hope. but the kid is far from aweful.

Lets give him time! Hope he can drop a pass over the top like this guy. someday

I always forget how mush time Marino created in the pocket by stepping up unreal.

 

I see. So, you're sitting there watching the game with a stopwatch then.

As I said, you cannot with any real accuracy, watch a game on TV, and tell me the QB is holding the ball a half second too long. The reason is simple, there are too many variables you don't know.

You don't know the play called, you can't see a majority of the field, you don't know what his checkdowns are, and you aren't timing the play. It is impossible to have that many variables and perceive a half second too long or too little.

Your comparisons to Penny are irrelevant without hard data. You want to prove what your saying is true, then time Penny with the same players and against the same players in the same environment and compare that to Henne. You haven't done that. You can't do that.

Now, you can believe as you wish. You can believe Henne is a short Hungarian woman if you want. What you shouldn't do, is tell everyone that Henne holds the ball a 1/2 second too long, when you really and honestly have no accurate way of determining that. If you can prove it with hard numbers than great, but until you do, you're simply tilting at windmills.

 

I definitely agree that some people can watch a QB and tell if he's getting the ball out faster. When I was scouting that was mostly what we did. You didn't pull out a stop watch for every drop back. You relied on your impression of how fast the QB was going through his progressions and whether the ball was coming out on time. Obviously, some viewers are better at it than others, but the claim that it can't be done without hard data is absolutely false.

 

When you were a scout watching broadcast footage and comparing it to a player from a year prior...and to the degree you could say it was 1/2 a second too long? I bet not.

Also, we aren't talking about a player who has a subpar completion percentage, like Sanchez. Henne was completing passes. If he was holding on too long, how does he still make the completions?

 

Its a timing thing. There's a rhythm to every play and being off by a half second can seem huge and destroy the timing. A good example of that was Tebow. Tebow very rarely passed the ball on time and as a result many scouts and fans claimed he would never succeed in the pros. Yet he was somebody with avery high completion percentage. They just felt that his passes came out so slow. If you actually put him on a stop watch the difference between a typical Tebow pass and a pass on time was under a 1/4 of a second. Now in Tebow's case I think the critics were wrong b/c I have seen him get passes out on time, but I also am someone who has seen every college pass he's thrown. But the point is that people can develop a sensitivity to the timing and rhythm of a play that is far more accurate than a half of a second.

 

You most certainly can. Sorry

 

Prove it then.

Please explain how watching broadcast film allows for you to know the answers to all the variables that you can without a doubt say he held the ball for half second too long on a non sack.

 

Without a doubt now? I'll tell you what. I cannot say I am a master nor will I believe you are so theory is all either of us have. I say I can and you cannot prove me wrong.


What you're trying to prove is what the problem is with your theory. You do not have to know what play was called, and what the routes are for each reciever.

If you can count, and especially if there is a replay showing the intended targets route, all you have to do is COUNT each and see where the cut was made. There are also times when camara angles show the Qb and the routes ran.

For example. On the pass that Marshall dropped, he was trying to get inbetween two defenders and Henne held the ball to see if he could. He was clearly staring him down which was fine. He clutched the ball and released it when he saw Marshall splitting the two defenders. There were no defenders behind the two covering him so IMO he should have just thrown it the second he saw him about to cut between them instead of waiting until he was. The ball would not have had to travel as far and with a little air under it, moreso under normal wind conditions, that would have increased the chances of a much easier completion. Or it would have simply been incomplete had Marshalls route been legally cutoff. Chad Pennington has the perfect knack to throw the ball ahead of the route and I'm glad he is out there practicing with Henne because if Henne can aquire that same feel for it, he can be really good if his accuracy is on...

A Qb has between 3 to 3.5 seconds to release most passes. That is the norm under 3 to 5 step drops so unless he is running around buying time you can also get a good idea by seeing how close the lineman are coming to him when he releases the ball. Under normal pass rush, pass protect scenarios. No blitzes or breakdowns.

 

I have watched the game five times. He is missing open receivers and he is holding the ball for too long. It may be just a timing issue but the only thing that left me impressed was the fact that he didn't turn the ball over. Otherwise, his play was only marginally better than Trent Edwards - who is not an NFL quarterback.

 

If the play doesn't matter, why are most passes in a 3-3.5 sec range and not all? If he holds the ball for 4 sec and still makes a completion that gains 4 yards, did he hold it too long? If he throws the ball in 2 sec, and the pass is completed, did he throw it too soon?

 

If a Qb can throw the ball within 2 seconds, you can bet the route will be somewhere between 1 and 7 yards from the LOS and in that case you can still see the routes being run on plenty of those without a replay. Or he can just throw it a mile high deep and hope his target gets under it. So?

Most plays are timed bro and it's not impossible to develop a knack to see and get a feel for when the ball should come out (SOME OF THE TIME) and in some cases if he held the ball for 4 seconds, he might have still held onto too long....absolutely.

 

Looks to me like Henne is struggling with his drop.
Slow getting out of there.
A little more shotgun would give him at least another second or two and better looks.
Occasionally but not necessarily often.

 

I say you can't really tell from broadcast footage if the QB is holding on to the ball for 1/2 a second too long, because we don't see enough of the play. You say no, that's not true, and too prove it you point out you could definitely call a 1/2 second too fast.............because you can see more of the play.

Do you see how that proves my point?

So the end result doesn't matter then? As long as he holds on to the ball for 3-3.5 secs, he's doing it right? Because that's the part you guys are leaving out. This part of the discussion started with an accusation that he holds the ball too long. That would imply, even though he was sacked once that was his fault, had a high completion %, and no turnovers for three (really 4 but the kick missed) scoring drives, this 3-3.5 sec window is all that matters.

When Peyton Manning holds onto the ball more than 3.5 seconds, avoids the rush, gets high completions, leads scoring drives and has no turnovers...its called buying time for your receivers to get open. Chad Henne does that, and he's flawed by half a second.

 

without excuse the guy has got to step up his game
as far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on this one
we go nowhere w/o the Franchise QB. time to get it done

Minnesota would be the perfect game for Chad Henne to come out:
1) the run game will be difficult, we'll have to pass the ball to win the game
2) no wind or weather conditions to contend with in the dome. no excuse not to throw the ball
Minnesota could be Henne's 'Perfect Storm' sinking the Viking ship & launching Miami as a contender

 

Henne is bad, and he should feel bad.

 

I hear he smells like cheese.

 

I mostly agree with your post except the bolded line....If that were Ted Ginn instead of Brandon Marshall, nearly everyone on this board would be lambasting Ginn for an obvious 'miss'. I give Marshall the same evaluation...he missed that one....Now, would it have been a very good catch...yes. Was the ball off target...most definitely. Should Marshall have caught it....yes. We've all seen Marshall miss his fair share of passes thrown his way this PS and first game, but the blame on that pass does not go directly on Henne....at the very least, it's a 50-50 deal...

That said, and back OT, it's way too early to be throwing Henne under the bus. Has he improved from last year...yes. Was the game plan in Barfalo to avoid the secondary and utilize the dink and dunk...apparently so and you can't necessarily criticize him for that. As to the misses that Henne had, they were mostly plausible....either the result of having to or getting itchy feet and throwing the ball too soon, where you do not want to over-throw the ball or miss judging where the receiver should be at the top of his route. These are all things that Henne and his WRs need to improve on, not just Henne. If there is a criticism of Henne in that game, to me, it was that he hurried some throws when he didn't have to, causing some of those incompletions and miss fires...

EDIT: Lets not forget there were several drops as well by all the receivers that attributed to the lackluster performance of the passing offense.

 

I don't know what you mean by "without a doubt", but I can tell you that coaches and scouts are asked to do exactly what you're saying is impossible everyday. When you're coaching or scouting the QBs you only occasionally look at the receiver and half the drills don't include real receivers. Basically you focus on the drop and how fast the ball comes out after his plant.

 

Okay, so it's settled... Henne needs to step up! And in a hurry! Nuff said?

The guy came out this week and stated that we need to score more this week, and I'm sure he's aware of his mistakes.

We win this week and next week we'll be the talk of the town! Minny went undefeated in the dome last year. Luckily each game is a blank slate on which he can paint a beautiful picture or use crayons... It's up to Henne! And by the way, I believe he shall overcome his problems!

 

Thanks Hulk.

It's time to start thinking positively with only two days til gametime.

Let's win this one and shock ourselves. lol.

 

I thought that too, until I read an interview with a head coach (can;t recall who) about his rookie QB's chances at a transition and they mentioned that shotgun makes it HARDER for a young QB to read the defense. Here's why.

When you take the snap from under center, your eyes are on the defense pre-snap, during the snap, and as you drop back, giving you maximum time to see the field and diagnose.

In a shotgun, according to the coach, you have to take your eyes off the defense for a second to watch for the ball coming to you, then you look back up and have to re-establish what you're seeing. So you get less time to see the D and it interrupts you reading which ways defenders drop at the snap, making it harder to figure out what you're looking at once you have the ball.

By being under center, the theory goes, Henne can watch the defnese the whole time.

 

THank you. I agree.


ANd I respect you for watching the game FIVE TIMES!!!

Now that's a man with a basis for his observations and opinions!

 

Obviously we are filling in a lot of blanks with our 'knowledge' of the game and assumptions as to what coverages they are in etc.

There will always be room for error there, but we can;t just give up watching sports because we can't get into the coaches actual head and know his calls.

Good fans (and scouts as Raf points out) can extrapolate what's going on off camera to a degree based on what they CAN see (e.g., the D has played cover two all day, last year that D played a lot of cover two, this snaps the LB drops looked like cover two. the replay shows cover two where the receiver made their catch. etc.) You add it all up to a reasonable conclusion that it was cover two.

Can we prove the coach didn't have a 'cover two look' with ONE defender in a different responsibility than usual? No, but I'm not about to give up watching sports or thinking I know what I'm seeing because of the occasional, small, acceptable amount of error in our 'guesses'.

It would be fun to do a fan contest where fans had to read 100 coverages (or WR routes or something) from the TV broadcast, then compare their asnwers to the coaches actual calls. lol. I'd love that. If I got somewhere around 75% I'd be very happy.

Anyways, I digressed.

It'd be better to have full field views, but you can put together an idea of what's going on from other evidence.

 

You should go to the game and if they close the roof just hotbox them out with weed, bro.

The Vikes would all be sluggish and Ricky would run effortlessly around them for 400 yards.