Chad Henne vs. Ryan Tannehill: A Scary Thought?

[Icvnll]

I'll just leave it at this and open it up for comment:

	ATT	COMP	YARDS	COMP%	YPA	TDs	INTs	QBR
Chad Henne 2009	451	274	2878	60.8	6.38	12	14	75.2
Ryan Tannehill 2012	484	282	3294	58.3	6.81	12	13	76.1
Chad Henne 2010 (First 4 Games)	131	84	964	64.1	7.36	5	4	86.2
Ryan Tannehill 2013 (First 4 Games)	142	93	1076	65.5	7.58	5	5	85.3

heres something to keep in mind my friend, Chad Henne was a four year starter in college. You keep forgetting that thill only had 1 and half seasons as a QB in college. He is learning. Wait until end of season to see where they are at in comparison.
Chad henne in those four games
Yds td int rat

1	1	2010-09-12	25-072	MIA	@	BUF	W 15-10	*	21	34	61.76%	182	0	0	75.9	5.35	5.35	2	-1	-0.50	0
2	2	2010-09-19	25-079	MIA	@	MIN	W 14-10	*	9	15	60.00%	114	1	0	106.0	7.60	8.93	2	0	0.00	0
3	3	2010-09-26	25-086	MIA		NYJ	L 23-31	*	26	44	59.09%	363	2	1	91.4	8.25	8.14	1	1	1.00	0
4	4	2010-10-04	25-094	MIA		NWE	L 14-41	*	28	38	73.68%	305	2	3	81.6	8.03	5.53	0	0		0

T-Hill

Rk	G#	Date	Age	Tm		Opp	Result	GS	Cmp	Att	Cmp%	Yds	TD	Int	Rate	Y/A	AY/A	Att	Yds	Y/A	TD
1	1	2013-09-08	25-043	MIA	@	CLE	W 23-10		24	38	63.16%	272	1	1	82.3	7.16	6.50	5	3	0.60	0
2	2	2013-09-15	25-050	MIA	@	IND	W 24-20		23	34	67.65%	319	1	0	107.4	9.38	9.97	4	1	0.25	0
3	3	2013-09-22	25-057	MIA		ATL	W 27-23		24	35	68.57%	236	2	1	94.5	6.74	6.60	2	7	3.50	0
4	4	2013-09-30	25-065	MIA	@	NOR	L 17-38		22	35	62.86%	249	1	3	57.9	7.11	3.83	4	48	12.00	0
		4 Games							93	142	65.49%	1076	5	5	85.3	7.58	6.70	15	59	3.93	0

As you can see henne put up big numbers in blowouts.

 

[Shouright]

That is the problem shour, while I give it to you that your data is sound and well presented, data is used to prove or disprove a theory and a theory is formed from observation or thought. The conditions of the data have to be bounded.

Actually the data could say that we can't say anything either way, which would mean we could neither prove nor disprove the theory at the present time.

Henne might have similar numbers over a similar stretch but if you watch the games you see two completely different QB's. Henne has zero potential to become a franchise QB while Tannehill has that potential:

How do we know that for certain?

Pick a franchise QB from my below list with a sample size of 4 games this season.

Comp	Att	Pct	Yards	TD	Int	Rate
103	162	63.6	1,231	5	5	84.2
116	177	65.5	1,193	8	6	85.7
85	151	56.3	1,148	6	9	69.1
97	169	57.4	1,091	5	7	69.4
93	142	65.5	1,076	5	5	85.3
68	117	58.1	856	5	4	81.0

Keep in mind the results are only on a sample size of four games this season.

I don't think we could do that with a great deal of accuracy, which is precisely the point: we can't say anything right now about Ryan Tannehill's likelihood of becoming a franchise QB with a great deal of accuracy, either.

 

[CalDolFan10x14]

Actually the data could say that we can't say anything either way, which would mean we could neither prove nor disprove the theory at the present time.

So spare us of your WPA arguments if that's the case.

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

heres something to keep in mind my friend, Chad Henne was a four year starter in college. You keep forgetting that thill only had 1 and half seasons as a QB in college. He is learning. Wait until end of season to see where they are at in comparison.
Chad henne in those four games

What soured me on Chad Henne was that I saw no progression from him at all until his last year here, and the only 'progress' I saw from him was that he started scrambling when there was nothing open.

Tannehill has already addressed my biggest complaint about his play (spotty ball placement). He told Alex Marvez in an interview that he went back over all of his game film from 2012 in the off-season and determined that the problem was with his footwork, and has been working to correct it.

I think people freaking out over the Saints game need to let 2013 play out and see what happens. This kid isn't going anywhere.

 

[NY8123]

Actually the data could say that we can't say anything either way, which would mean we could neither prove nor disprove the theory at the present time.

How do we know that for certain?

I don't think we could do that with a great deal of accuracy, which is precisely the point: we can't say anything right now about Ryan Tannehill's likelihood of becoming a franchise QB with a great deal of accuracy, either.

and your post above is exactly why you also cannot compare him to Henne, see on that list I provided 4 of those QB's played and/or won the Super Bowl.

In order they were Roethlisberger, Schaub, E.Manning, Flacco, Tannehill and Kaepernick.

So your comparison to Henne is just as unfounded as my comparison to the QB's listed above at this point in time. By years end, sure maybe but through four games of the second season, no way.

 

[Shouright]

As you can see henne put up big numbers in blowouts.

Correct, which is another thing WPA controls for ("garbage time" numbers), and it's true that Ryan Tannehill's WPA so far this year is better than Chad Henne's was overall in 2010. That is one area where they can be distinguished statistically, even at the present time.

 

[Shouright]

and your post above is exactly why you also cannot compare him to Henne, see on that list I provided 4 of those QB's played and/or won the Super Bowl.

In order they were Roethlisberger, Schaub, E.Manning, Flacco, Tannehill and Kaepernick.

So your comparison to Henne is just as unfunded as my comparison to the QB's listed above at this point in time. By years end, sure maybe but through four games of the second season, no way.

I'm perfectly fine saying we can make no conclusions about him right now. What I'm not fine with is saying his future franchise QB status is a done deal, and we know that for certain based on present "eyesight" alone.

 

[Jimi]

Eye test folks. Sometimes it doesnt work, but when its this ridiculously glaring, it does.

 

[Zounds]

It's relevant to determining the board's ability to accurately assess the likelihood of the long-term success of a Dolphins QB based on its members' "vision" alone.

So there was a faction of this board who though Henne might be a good QB one day, but I still don't see how that makes this whole board wrong about Tannehill. You can't say that Tannehill will be a bust just because Chad Henne was. This board was split on Henne but I've seen very few Tannehill dissenters.

 

[Locke]

There is only one reason to compare Tannehill to Henne and everyone here knows exactly why you do it. Stop trying to act all innocent and pretend like you're being scientific or whatever it is you think you're conveying. It's pathetic...

 

[Shouright]

Eye test folks. Sometimes it doesnt work, but when its this ridiculously glaring, it does.

How do we know when it's "glaring" and when it isn't?

People said the same thing here about Chad Henne in 2010. "He's our future franchise QB. It's glaringly obvious."

 

[AphexPhin]

this place is unbearable after a loss haha

 

[Zounds]

I'm perfectly fine saying we can make no conclusions about him right now.

But you made a conclusion when you dubbed the comparison "scary". And why would you post a bunch of stats if you weren't making a conclusion of some kind?

 

[Shouright]

So there was a faction of this board who though Henne might be a good QB one day, but I still don't see how that makes this whole board wrong about Tannehill. You can't say that Tannehill will be a bust just because Chad Henne was. This board was split on Henne but I've seen very few Tannehill dissenters.

Where have you seen me say Tannehill will be a bust?

---------- Post added at 10:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 AM ----------

But you made a conclusion when you dubbed the comparison "scary". And why would you post a bunch of stats if you weren't making a conclusion of some kind?

There's a possibility that it's a scary thought, hence the question mark.

---------- Post added at 10:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 AM ----------

There is only one reason to compare Tannehill to Henne and everyone here knows exactly why you do it. Stop trying to act all innocent and pretend like you're being scientific or whatever it is you think you're conveying. It's pathetic...

Ah, so now we have a board of mind-readers as well.

We're awfully talented here! :)

 

[greasyObnoxious]

Ah, so now we have a board of mind-readers as well.

We're awfully talented here! :)

yeah, WE are