The thing that is the biggest difference between Tannehill and Henne is that Tannehill is running the offense, while Henne was just running the coaches offense.

 

yeah, when watching the actual game (not reviewing stats) you can see Tannehill is in command out there. That is a huge difference.

However i do also agree half a season does not a franchise QB make. Only time will tell.

 

Overall talent and innate accuracy...he's has a lot more..

 

What, you mean "vision" and personal opinion aren't sufficient? :headscratch: ;)

Here's an angle. In 2009, not only was Chad Henne a 2nd-year NFL player, but if you check the game log, he had only three games out of 14 (21%) with a QB rating of 90 or higher. He had five games out of 14 (36%) with a QB rating below 70.

Ryan Tannehill, a true rookie this year, has already had four games out of seven (57%) with a QB rating of 90 or higher, and only two games of seven with a QB rating below 70 (29%). I'm not counting the Jets game because Tannehill barely played in it.

So, using this logic, Ryan Tannehill, even as a rookie in comparison to Chad Henne as a 2nd-year player, has given us far more frequent (57% to 21%) an opportunity to win games (QB rating of 90 or above) than Chad Henne did.

Conversely, Chad Henne, even as a 2nd-year player in comparison to Ryan Tannehill as a rookie, made it somewhat more difficult (36% to 29%) for us to win games (QB rating below 70) than Ryan Tannehill has.

So I think the upshot is that both the floor and the ceiling for Ryan Tannehill are higher than for Chad Henne.

 

I do not agree. Henning's offense had some quarterbacks who played well under it. At least better than Henne ever did.

It is my opinion that Henne was more of a coach killer than the other way around. He has all the look of a quarterback who should succeed. However he is missing something that is hard to place exactly what it is.

 

You would actually expect Henne's numbers to be better. The guy was a 4 year starter at Michigan. He should've been more "Pro Ready" than Tannehill. The fact that their numbers are pretty similar in a lot of areas (though Henne's YPA was 6.4 that year, which is pretty poor. Tannehill's is 7.3), says a lot to me.

It's all about consistency and improvement. Tannehill has progressed seemingly every week. Here's a neat little stat: Henne only had 3 games in 2009 where he posted a 90 or higher QB rating. Tannehill already has 4 of those game, and there are still 8 more games left to play.

 

You stole my pointz. Noooo you haz all my pointz.

 

Not to mention you are seeing consistent play from Tannehill. He really hasn't had any bad games.

 

I think decision making and accuracy is what really separates the two. Ryan Tannehill hasn't thrown an interception... since September. That's pretty impressive as a rookie who had little starting (quarterback) experience in college compared to the other top rated quarterbacks such as Luck and RG3.

Tannehill has a lot more leadership qualities than Henne as well... plus you can just tell by his demeanor pn the sidelines that the dude absolutely loves the game.

 

For one, Tannehill started from day one, while Henne got to watch a very efficient Pennington for 20-plus games before starting. Secondly, it's Tannehill's command out there - he runs the offense, seems in charge, and his ball placement is better (though still needs improvement). Tannehill also throws the ball well on the run, keeps his eyes down field to help extend the play - a trait of some of the elite, seasoned QBs in the league.

I'll admit, Henne impressed me a lot in '09, and at the end of the year, I thought we had our QB. It didn't take long in 2010 to realize it wasn't happening. But looking at '09 knowing what I know now, I think Henne benefitted a lot by the threat of the running game too. Not that our running game is bad now, but it was really good in '09, Wildcat or not. Ronnie Brown was having a monster year before he got hurt, and Ricky was an amazing b/u. Henne also had a tough time w/ touch passes looking back too - I always thought he would get better, but never did.

And beyond that - it's jut the "it" factor that you see when you watch the games. It's that thing that you just know when you see it, and you know when you're missing it. Tanny has it, Henne didn't.

 

I do agree that people are jumping the gun. If Tannehill doesn't improve from where he is now, he is not a franchise quarterback. However I can see little about him to prove he won't improve.

 

If you want an intangible i.e "eyeball test" difference between the two; Henne was deathly afraid of making a mistake. He was constantly checking down. Tannehill rarely checks down, hence the difference in YPA.

 

If I remember correct Henne didn't seem like much of a leader starting out and the players didn't all accept him as leading the team the same way Tannehill appears to have stepped in being in charge of the offense and the players seem to accept him as a natural leader.

Still early though.

 

I agree with you that's entirely premature.

As late as March of 2011, following Chad Henne's second year as a starter for us (third year as a pro), the feeling here was almost unanimous that he, too, was indeed our franchise QB of the future.

Our crystal ball here isn't real reliable.

The only way you're going to adjudicate this issue objectively is by comparing Ryan Tannehill on some reliable, objective measure(s) to the rookie seasons of QBs who went on to become franchise QBs.

 

Tannehill is not a robot.

 

:lol:

 

No, his processor is a learning computer built by Cyberdyne Systems.

 

Constraint is one of the best things you can do to a young quarterback. Giving him as little decisions to make as possible, should work out for him. Unfortunately it didn't work out for Chad Henne.

Plus they called long passes and Henne wouldn't pull the trigger. People can blame coaching all they want, however there was nothing that really proved it. Henne was not a gun slinger in college, despite what people try to convince themselves.

 

I've never heard a single coach say this was a good thing, nor does it really make sense. Putting him in the best position to succeed? Yes. Put constraints on him? No.

 

Really? It worked last year with Cam Newton.

 

And Henne still does it. Last night against the Colts, he had a 3rd and long with the game for all intents and purposes out of reach and he checked down to a RB pass for a short gain well short of the 1st down marker, a penalty on the play was the only thing that saved it being a drive killer. As soon as I saw it, I thought "yes, you're still doing the same annoying s**t you did in Miami and never learnt from".

Tannehill's never made me (yet) pound my head against the wall in frustration in the same way Henne did practically every game.

 

if you can’t just see it when he is on the field, then you are blind!

 

All good and valid questions. I think Tannehill will prove to find long-term success where Henne couldn't. At least I hope so.

The number one thing Tannehill has to do if he wants to succeed where Henne failed: Have a TD/INT ratio > 1. After a rough start, he's heading in the right direction in that department. A good game this Sunday and he might get there.

 

You just compared Chad Henne to Ryan Tannehill? Are you blind?

 

I think that is very untrue. There have been many great QBs who were simply horrible through their rookie season, or even through their first several seasons. There have been very few that have shown the ability to put their team on their back as a rookie. Below are some HOF QBs with their rookie passer rating and record as a starter:


Steve Young -- 56.9 (1-4) (after playing in the USFL for a while)
Troy Aikman -- 55.7 (0-11)
John Elway -- 54.9 (4-6)
Terry Bradshaw -- 30.4 (3-5)
Dan Fouts -- 46.0 (0-5-1)

And some current All Pro QBs:

Eli Manning -- 55.4 (1-6)
Matthew Stafford -- 61.0 (2-8)
Peyton Manning -- 71.2 (3-13)

I don't think there has ever been a rookie QB who EARNED the label of franchise QB in his first 8 starts. I think Tannehill has shown the qualities necessary to be able to become one though.

 

I think Luck has, and to me is a sure thing, unless injured.

Tannehill playing near that level coming off an injury gave me some clarity as to a Ryan ceiling.

 

Tannehill probably a little better than Henne.

 

Luck has been very good, as he was expected to be. But I don't see how one can say that he has "earned" the label of franchise QB yet. I'm sure he'll get there, but right now he still has a passer rating under 80. Tannehill is pretty much right there with him. Luck had a great game on Sunday, but he's had several lousy ones too. And that is for the guy who was probably the most "can't miss" QB prospect of all time.

 

From what i've seen so far Tannehill has the makings of a franchise QB. However....I think he needs to have a strong season next year before he can be annoited such a praise. Too many QB' have bad sophmore seasons in the NFL. Even Matt Ryan had an off year his second season. Cam is struggling this year and Andy Dalton has simmered down a bit too. It's important that we continue to see growth in Tannehill these next few years. A player can flash as Henne did and give hope to a fan base but if they can't follow it up in the oncoming seasons they never make it.
I do think Chad Henne can still be a good QB and I also think he's the best option for Jacksonville going forward. It's possible that we gave up on Henne too soon but i'll still take the upside of Tannehill over Henne any day of the week. Thing is in my opinion if Chad Henne is Ryan Tannehills floor then we are doing ok.
In conclusion I think Ryan Tannehills ceiling is that of Matt Ryan. That is the QB who he reminds me of the most where Chad Henne at best could end up being Matt Shaub. It's just way to early to call Ryan Tannehill anything right now. I'm just hoping he continues to have good games and if he can get through year 2 unscathed without injury and without folding under the over bearing expectations (there will be some) he is going to be our franchise QB.
I think he is deserving of the same chances that Henne got though, and that is providing him with a viable number 1 option at receiver to see how he does.

 

he's on pace to having the best rookie performance for a season in history, one more win and he'll tie the record for most wins in a season for a rookie Qb, this was a team that was worst in the league last year, he's going to crush that record with a head coaching change at the beginning if the season..I just don't see the need to wait on a projection because of a stat..his ability to deal with chaos around him and stay completely focused in his reads and receivers is already franchise caliber good..

He's an absolute eye test player when it comes to his ceiling, Meaning, I'm sure you see things that a stat cannot measure.

 

Tannehill has had four games out of seven (57%) with a QB rating above 90, and Luck has had only two of nine (22%).

IMO Luck has played in a way that's far less "special" as a rookie than many QBs who were considered to have nowhere near the potential.

I think you have to consider that the good ol' "eyeball test" may be influenced by whom you're watching. If you were watching "John Doe" do the same things Andrew Luck has (the game against us notwithstanding), you may have a different impression.

 

Luck and the Colts are media darlings now so everything he accomplishes is going to be blown up X10 by the media. He's doing good but he's about to become the sports media's new Tom Brady.

 

for me it's about knowing what he was coming out of college, and seeing how it translated at this tempo..

At some point in evaluation, once you see what it is your looking for, you don't need to see anymore,you just let it evolve, and surround.

He has a very legitimate chance of having the best rookie Qb season ever..I think that's franchise caliber..

I'm very excited about Tannehill because of how he looked and competed side by side with a player that I believe is already elite.

 

luck wants nothing to do with the media...The man is leading a ball club to the playoffs.

 

What?

He's got seven games left. He better turn on the juice.

 

No doubt Luck is gonna be hyped up but his team is winning and the coach going through what he's going through is no doubt some heralded drama that the media tends to blow up. In all reality though Andrew Luck is kind of what Lebron James was in terms of the chosen one. Forget that Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade, and Carmelo Anthony were in the same draft as Lebron. Any one of them would have been number 1 overall picks any other year in the draft. As far as Tannehill goes...So maybe Luck is Lebron but hopefully Tannehill is D Wade (assuming RG3 is Melo) and if thats the case we still have ourselves one hell of a franchise player. What am I really saying though??? It's early as hell.