Chad Henne vs. Ryan Tannehill: A Scary Thought?

[Shouright]

While I agree with all of this, and recognize you added the caveat of winning, your original statement, simply asked, "Then why isn't that reflected statistically, if the difference is so obvious to the naked eye?", so that is what I was addressing, being able to see the difference.

Going back to what you said, your angle on this would have tremendous value if we were able to quantify something we're seeing that isn't typically quantified, compare it to that of other QBs at similar stages of development and experience, and find that Ryan Tannehill is exhibiting that kind of play much more consistently with future franchise QBs than with future failures.

What we're left with in the absence of that is a global objective measure (QB rating), on which Ryan Tannehill is indistinguishable from Chad Henne at similar points in their careers, despite the fact that many of us thought we "saw" something "franchise" in Chad Henne at the same point in his career.

 

[Icvnll]

Why don't y'all look at every dolphin qb in 2nd season and compare it.

 

[CaneHammer]

you'd think we were 0-4 or 1-3 with some of the stuff you get on here...we are 3-1 got a damn good shot to go into the bye at 4-1 with a buffalo team decimated by injuries and a conservative offense coming to miami after the bye...

not many teams will be able to expose our d like the saints did either...and frankly if we just rally to the football and tackle on 3rd and forevers in that game we get off the field...not to mention no cam wake...

well on our way to a winning season and gonna be if not in the playoffs in the hunt the rest of the way if we can keep our qb healthy...

i'll take it...

I swear there is so much female shoulders in this forum. Hoops I quoted you cause I wanted to add on to what you were saying above. Without the two turnovers before half the ballgame finishes completely different. You guys have to understand that when you face good teams, you cannot give the ball away. Even if your defense is prone to getting it back, it is completely puts you in bad situations. Good teams are going to put points on the board and stop you on offense. It is a fact of life. I swear it is like no one has watched any football before.

 

[Elle Clouds]

One thing about Finheaven which reminds me of Theganggreen is the lack of opposing perspectives when it comes to our quarterback. Reminds me of how Jet fans would conjure any reason to say Mark Sanchez was their future QB. I really wish people wouldn't just attack the OP, but try and understand the process behind his post. Personally I feel there are blatant similarities between Henne and Tannehill. Both struggle with pocket awareness, pedestrian TD/Int ratio, takes too many sacks instead of getting rid of the ball and turns the ball over too much. I'm cautiously optimistic about Tannehill and want him to succeed, but I feel like a lot of posters on here are too sensitive when Tannehill's ability is questioned.

 

[CaneHammer]

Enjoy.

Henne's problem is he is the same **** bird QB as a pro as he was in college. He made no progression in college or the pro game.

 

[enigmatics]

I have lots of trouble believing that the "eyeball test," when administered by a group of people who want to see one thing (their favorite football team's quarterback's success) and don't want to see another thing (his failure), is as good as objective data.

Do you really think our "eyeball tests," as we apply them to the Miami Dolphins, are free from bias?

Bingo was his name-o.

Btw, just for fun I'm gonna go dig up some old Henne threads to call out the ironic posters in here.

 

[Shouright]

One thing about Finheaven which reminds me of Theganggreen is the lack of opposing perspectives when it comes to our quarterback. Reminds me of how Jet fans would conjure any reason to say Mark Sanchez was their future QB. I really wish people wouldn't just attack the OP, but try and understand the process behind his post. Personally I feel there are blatant similarities between Henne and Tannehill. Both struggle with pocket awareness, pedestrian TD/Int ratio, takes too many sacks instead of getting rid of the ball and turns the ball over too much. I'm cautiously optimistic about Tannehill and wants him to succeed, but I feel like a lot of posters on here are too sensitive when Tannehill's ability is questioned.

Well essentially we've gone from Marino, who was HoF caliber, to Fielder, who could never get a good supporting cast over the hump and deep into the playoffs, to Beck who many pinned their hopes on as a 2nd-round pick, to Henne (see Beck), and now to Tannehill, who's shouldering the dashed hopes of the past decade and a half of inadequacy.

To question his ability is to suggest that the nightmare isn't yet over, which many don't want to consider. It's much less threatening to think we've arrived at the promised land without question.

 

[enigmatics]

All of us no, some of us yes.

I re-watch all of Tannehills passes, there are two glaring differences between the passer that he is and the passer that Henne was:

1) Reading the defense, Tannehill is masterful at knowing what defense is in front of him and where he should go with the ball, Henne did not do that well at all, Henne was told what to do.

I'm sorry ...... but a master? Really? That's an awful lot of hyperbole. LOL

 

[Shouright]

I swear there is so much female shoulders in this forum. Hoops I quoted you cause I wanted to add on to what you were saying above. Without the two turnovers before half the ballgame finishes completely different. You guys have to understand that when you face good teams, you cannot give the ball away. Even if your defense is prone to getting it back, it is completely puts you in bad situations. Good teams are going to put points on the board and stop you on offense. It is a fact of life. I swear it is like no one has watched any football before.

For the life of me I'll never understand how disagreement in this forum is explained by believing that the person disagreeing doesn't "watch" the games.

Does anyone here really believe that anyone else here doesn't watch the games? :confused:

And if everyone indeed does watch the games, how can "not watching the games" possibly be an explanation for disagreement?

 

[DolfanISS]

The evolution of a young QB per Finheaven threads:

1. He looks good and is the QB of the future.
2. The team lost and we turned the ball over 6 times but I still think the young QB played well (This stage lasts awhile)
3. The coordinator sucks and is holding the young QB back
4. Finally after 3 years and a journey comes in and improves the team, the journey sucks, we'd be better with the young QB.
5. We need to draft a QB.

I still believe in Tannehill one game isn't changing my opinion but I've been here a long time and if he happens to fail this IS the thread evolution. The coordinator sucks argument is already starting for some.

 

[Shouright]

The evolution of a young QB per Finheaven threads:

1. He looks good and is the QB of the future.
2. The team lost and we turned the ball over 6 times but I still think the young QB played well (This stage lasts awhile)
3. The coordinator sucks and is holding the young QB back
4. Finally after 3 years and a journey comes in and improves the team, the journey sucks, we'd be better with the young QB.
5. We need to draft a QB.

I still believe in Tannehill one game isn't changing my opinion but I've been here a long time and if he happens to fail this IS the thread evolution. The coordinator sucks argument is already starting for some.

You forgot the "the surrounding cast sucks" stage, inserted between numbers two and three above.

Right now we're there with regard to the offensive line.

 

[shoveyjoe2442]

You forgot the "the surrounding cast sucks" stage, inserted between numbers two and three above.

Right now we're there with regard to the offensive line.

No the oline is great. It's Tannehill who gets rid of the ball faster than anyone else in the game. He climbs into the pocket and has John Jerry guy knock him. I like you little passive aggressive swipes better than most though.

 

[Canadi-Phin]

What I'm assuming with those questions is that we don't know any of that. It's a statement of uncertainty, not a statement of certainty.

I watch all the games. If it's all there plain to see, why isn't it reflected statistically, and why doesn't everyone who watches agree on it?

16 575 326 56.7 35.9 3,739 6.5 233.7 26 4.5 28 4.9 78T 42 8 22 109 71.2
Do these stats suck for a year? Or do you think people could see a great player? Using the eyeball test

16 601 373 62.1 37.6 3,764 6.3 235.2 28 4.7 14 2.3 49T 37 3 31 190 85.7

How about these? Or did these players both suck? Or using the eyeball test people could see they had the goods?

Stats are great except when judging talent. Sometimes stats lie about a player. It's not the full story. It's like looking at a cover of a book and saying that sucks based on the cover. So many other things come into the story of a QB. We're they behind. Did someone get hurt? How was his offensive line?

16 558 306 54.8 34.9 4,065 7.3 254.1 27 4.8 17 3.0 95 55 16 26 161 81.6

How about this guy? Was he good?

 

[Canadi-Phin]

For the life of me I'll never understand how disagreement in this forum is explained by believing that the person disagreeing doesn't "watch" the games.

Does anyone here really believe that anyone else here doesn't watch the games? :confused:

And if everyone indeed does watch the games, how can "not watching the games" possibly be an explanation for disagreement?

You may watch but do you understand what your watching?

 

[Shouright]

You may watch but do you understand what your watching?

What could I tell you that would convince you I had the understanding to determine at the present time whether Ryan Tannehill is going to end up being a better QB than Chad Henne long-term?