Chad Henne Really Isn't Any Better So Far

[DDTDON]

Pathetic. Henne is playing better, and is a different player out there!!! He will continue to improve. So stop with these moronic threads about Henne.

 

[ChrisHanson]

Sure he had a great game against New England, and sure there have been only two games this year, but I'm afraid the (unrealistic) perception right now may be that Chad Henne has significantly improved, whereas he really hasn't.

As you can see below, his QB rating is only marginally better than his 2010 and career numbers, whereas his completion percentage is down a good bit and really below the level you want in your starting QB. His YPA is up significantly, however.

I'd say it's too early to tell whether Chad Henne has improved significantly. Surely we shouldn't be making the conclusion already that we have a much-improved quarterback on our hands.

YEAR	ATT	COMP	COMP %	YARDS	YPA	TDs	INTs	QB RATING
2010	490​	301​	61.4​	3301​	6.7​	15​	19​	75.4​
Career	1,032​	624​	60.5​	6,832​	6.6​	30​	35​	75.6​
2011	79​	42​	53.2​	586​	7.4​	3​	2​	79.4​

I like stats too. But if a person looks only at stats and not the context in which those stats were obtained they will get only half the picture.

For example, what if you were watching NFL Network and it showed that Darren Sproles had 48 yds rushing and 1TD. You may look at that and think he just played OK. Well, if you looked into that stat even more what if you see that Sproles was hurt in pregame warm-ups. He came into the game at 1:30 of the 4th quarter, Saints down by 6. The first time he touched the ball he takes it to the house on a 48yd run.

The same with Henne and this years stats. Has Henne made some bad decisions? Yes, but so has every other QB in the league. Are you really going to count those two INT's? One was a last second desperation throw and the other he had his arm hit. Change that stat and he's up to an 85 QBR. Now, what about the Marshall drop in the endzone? Add that TD and he's now up to a 90 QBR.

And yes, I realize that all QB's get hit and have WR's drop the ball. However, I watch a lot of football and Henne has a lot...A LOT of his balls dropped.

Anyhow, stats are great, as long as they're used in the right context.

 

[Sarnics13]

In the Houston game he played terribly.

My friend, that was just plain stupid. He did have some bad throws no doubt, but "terribly"???? ......Agenda much?

Henne absolutely played well enough to win the game, as did Thomas......just nobody else did.

 

[Sarnics13]

there is no magic number that guarantees success.
Phillip Rivers compiled a rating of 101.8 last year but his team finished 9-7 and he sat home watching watching the playoffs. he got see Mark Sanchez with a qbr of 75.3 go to the AFC championship game
you could say Henne's numbers aren't any better, but he is better and I don't need a box score to tell me.

Booyah! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!! :hump:

 

[Mac]

Chad is throwing lower percentage passes this years than previous years, Its a new offense. The cuffs are off and he is throwing down the feild rather than to the flats or the short dump pass. Chad isn't my favorite and I've called for his head a number of times, Dabol is doing a good job with him IMHO he certainly warrents this year and a good evaluation to be the starter next year. You could say the NE game was a fluke, I want to see how he does in a new offense with protection which he hasn't really had this year. Red zone needs tons of work BUT that is just as much play calling as it is Chad's fault.

 

[finsfanjay13]

Looks like this thread has rolled straight into "Captain Obvious" mode.

There will always be anomalies. QBR is typically a good indicator of QB performance and does provide some proportionality to a win-loss record. However, as with anything in statistics, the result becomes more clear with a larger sample size. As of right now, Chad Henne's QBR isn't high. It's a shame QBR doesn't have a 'weight' scale, as Marc Columbo would definitely provide a handicap there.

I'll have a more clear picture of Chad Henne's improvement/non-improvement throughout the next 3-4 games. I can tell you this: he hasn't done enough to be considered a franchise QB, and he probably won't. But he may be able to do enough to be a decent stop-gap until the QB in waiting is ready.

 

[rent this space]

Ryan's rating was 80.9 (i.e., above 80).

The Jets and Sanchez were 9-7 and therefore a "winning" team by only one game. Kellen Clemens started and played the full game in one of those wins.

The Dolphins were 7-9 that year -- not a winning team.

So in 2009, you barely had one (Sanchez).



Roethlisberger's rating was 80.1 (i.e., above 80).

Collins's was 80.2 (i.e., above 80).

Flacco's was 80.3 (i.e., above 80).

So in 2008, you had two (Frerotte and Orton), and Orton's rating was 79.6, just a shade under 80.



The Giants were 9-7, one game away from not being a winning team.

In the games Campbell played in (all of which he started), the Redskins were 6-7.

So in 2007, you had two, Young and Manning (barely).

Barely, and rarely.

Again, this is a rare occurrence. There have been six over the past four years, or 1.5 per year on average, and those teams were barely winning teams. It's not like they were 11-5 or better. They were barely above .500.

Now, if you would, tell me the number of losing teams there were over the same four seasons we've covered (2007-2010), and how many of them had QB ratings below 80.

What you'll find supports my point: a QB rating under 80 is rarely associated with a winning team, and almost always associated with a losing team.

It would be far easier for you to simply acknowledge that Chad Henne's current QB rating of 79 isn't what we want from our starting QB, because it is almost never associated with winning.

Oh and look! We're 0-2! We're not winning! What a coincidence!

you cling to your numbers like an accountant lol

bottom line: there are guys on winning teams with QBRs right around 80 every single year

infact, one of them won the Superbowl just 4 years ago

 

[Finlawyer]

He's better but Marshall is not. The red zone attack is garbage. We need a second TE who can get open and catch. So far, Daboll has earned his money but the lack of off season time has not helped. Our week 1 performance against NE shows that preseason games are a joke by the owners to make money. Teams show very little in preseason.

 

[Shouright]

bottom line: there are guys on winning teams with QBRs right around 80 every single year

No, the bottom line is that if you have a QB with a rating below 80, you're much, much, much more likely to be a losing team than a winning one.

Therefore, if your quarterback's rating is below 80, surely you shouldn't be completely satisfied with his "improvement" at this point.

Thanks for the discussion. :up:

 

[Shouright]

Looks like this thread has rolled straight into "Captain Obvious" mode.

There will always be anomalies. QBR is typically a good indicator of QB performance and does provide some proportionality to a win-loss record. However, as with anything in statistics, the result becomes more clear with a larger sample size. As of right now, Chad Henne's QBR isn't high. It's a shame QBR doesn't have a 'weight' scale, as Marc Columbo would definitely provide a handicap there.

I'll have a more clear picture of Chad Henne's improvement/non-improvement throughout the next 3-4 games. I can tell you this: he hasn't done enough to be considered a franchise QB, and he probably won't. But he may be able to do enough to be a decent stop-gap until the QB in waiting is ready.

Precisely. And that's the main point of the thread, in contrast to the thoughts of the folks who seem to be sold already on the idea that he's much improved.

 

[dlockz]

No, the bottom line is that if you have a QB with a rating below 80, you're much, much, much more likely to be a losing team than a winning one.

Thanks for the discussion. :up:

on average u are right most winning teams have qb with good ratings most poor teams just the opposite. I dont need to even look at stats to know week 1 chad played good amd week 2 he played bad.

 

[finsfanjay13]

Precisely. And that's the main point of the thread, in contrast to the thoughts of the folks who seem to be sold already on the idea that he's much improved.

I'm one that will say that he has improved from last year (so far at least). He played two tougher teams already than the first two games last year. If it's binary, then true. It's much larger than that, though.

He has improved, but he hasn't improved enough.

 

[Shouright]

I'm one that will say that he has improved from last year (so far at least). He played two tougher teams already than the first two games last year. If it's binary, then true. It's much larger than that, though.

He has improved, but he hasn't improved enough.

A game with a 56 QB rating within the first two is very troubling IMO.

 

[finsfanjay13]

A game with a 56 QB rating within the first two is very troubling IMO.

In that case, QBR doesn't tell you everything. I said it earlier and I'll say it again: his protection was absolute garbage. I'm actually surprised he only threw one INT. I was expecting like three. :)

 

[rent this space]

if you can't see he has improved, you don't understand what you are seeing