Henne and the myth of zone coverage

[Pachyderm_Wave]

From the Mr. Magoo post I quoted (and the one you're replying to):



Now, regarding your other points:

- If short routes are the most easily defended routes in a zone (which zone coverage? All of them?) then why were we so successful with them? So far it's been postulated that a) Henne struggles against zone and b) we faced a lot of it. So how come we were succesful with the easiest to defend routes?

- You say "Miami didn't attack the field vertically". Yet umbrella is quoted as a particularly hard coverage for Henne. How can he face 4-deep if we don't attack vertically?

The thing you need to focus on here is that Miami's offense as a whole struggled against Cover-2, not just Chad Henne. Meaning, the offense couldn't take advantage of the weak points in a Cover-2... which is the seam up the middle of the field between the safeties - the "honey hole" between the CB's and the safeties - and the line of scrimmage.

Secondly, Miami's offense WASN'T successful.... that's why Dan Carpenter is a pro-bowler, Sparano's shoulder is in a sling, and the offensive coordinator was let go.

When you're talking about "4 deep", what you're talking about is really "quarters" coverage. Most 3-4 defenses run a lot of that as a standard bend-don't-break defense... the just keep everything in front of them. When you're controlling the line of scrimmage defensively, there's no point in taking the risk to get beat on the the big play. You've got the offense by the balls...

Short routes are more easily covered by any type of zone coverage you choose to run. Linebackers are allowed to get involved covering those shorter routes, and the defensive backs are virtually just clicking and closing on the football when the quarterback hits his 5th/7th step at the top of his drop.

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

Hard to do when you live in Mexico. But I watch the game and see little evidence of this.

Again: I see plays where Henne struggle against man too. And I see plays where Henne succeed against zone. No dichotomy.



Fine. Show me the evidence.

I think the point is that Chad Henne is MUCH more subject to throw the boneheaded pick or commit the backbreaking turnover against zone coverage.... he's proven that over and over again. Whereas he's also more subject to screw up and hit a big play in 1-on-1 situations...

That's not to say that he's never completed a single pass against zone coverage, or completed every pass he's attempted vs. man...

Information is gathered and processed much more quickly and easily against man coverage, even for quarterbacks who may be a bit slow from the neck up.

 

[dolphone]

The thing you need to focus on here is that Miami's offense as a whole struggled against Cover-2, not just Chad Henne. Meaning, the offense couldn't take advantage of the weak points in a Cover-2... which is the seam up the middle of the field between the safeties - the "honey hole" between the CB's and the safeties - and the line of scrimmage.

Secondly, Miami's offense WASN'T successful.... that's why Dan Carpenter is a pro-bowler, Sparano's shoulder is in a sling, and the offensive coordinator was let go.

When you're talking about "4 deep", what you're talking about is really "quarters" coverage. Most 3-4 defenses run a lot of that as a standard bend-don't-break defense... the just keep everything in front of them. When you're controlling the line of scrimmage defensively, there's no point in taking the risk to get beat on the the big play. You've got the offense by the balls...

Short routes are more easily covered by any type of zone coverage you choose to run. Linebackers are allowed to get involved covering those shorter routes, and the defensive backs are virtually just clicking and closing on the football when the quarterback hits his 5th/7th step at the top of his drop.

But you said:

Henne struggles against zone coverage, not Cover-2.

So Henne doesn't struggle against Cover-2, but then he does (as well as the rest of the offense)?

As to the rest of your points:

- Miami's offense wasn't succesful: true. What does that have to do with the point at hand (namely, that Henne succeeds exclusively against man, but not against zone)?

- I know the definition of 'umbrella', '4-deep', 'quarters', whatever you want to call it. Again, what does that have to do with the point at hand? It has specifically been mentioned as a coverage Henne struggles with. I'm asking for EVIDENCE.

- If short routes are the most easily defended routes in a zone (which zone coverage? All of them?) then why were we so successful with them? So far it's been postulated that a) Henne struggles against zone and b) we faced a lot of it. So how come we were succesful with the easiest to defend routes? (Notice this is a repeat from my previous post, and you haven't answered the question).

 

[dolphone]

I think the point is that Chad Henne is MUCH more subject to throw the boneheaded pick or commit the backbreaking turnover against zone coverage.... he's proven that over and over again. Whereas he's also more subject to screw up and hit a big play in 1-on-1 situations...

That's not to say that he's never completed a single pass against zone coverage, or completed every pass he's attempted vs. man...

Information is gathered and processed much more quickly and easily against man coverage, even for quarterbacks who may be a bit slow from the neck up.

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere.

Given the theory that he's more prone to fail against zone than man, can I see some splits of the zone coverage versus the man? Numbers should be able to bear this out (completion percentage, INTs thrown, etc).

Also, and more to the point, you're argument is not what's being presented in the forum in general. I've seen posts (I can quote them for you if you like) that say "Henne can't succeed/play/pass against zone, he can only play against man" (I'm paraphrasing, but the idea is the same).

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

But you said:



So Henne doesn't struggle against Cover-2, but then he does (as well as the rest of the offense)?

As to the rest of your points:

- Miami's offense wasn't succesful: true. What does that have to do with the point at hand (namely, that Henne succeeds exclusively against man, but not against zone)?

- I know the definition of 'umbrella', '4-deep', 'quarters', whatever you want to call it. Again, what does that have to do with the point at hand? It has specifically been mentioned as a coverage Henne struggles with. I'm asking for EVIDENCE.

- If short routes are the most easily defended routes in a zone (which zone coverage? All of them?) then why were we so successful with them? So far it's been postulated that a) Henne struggles against zone and b) we faced a lot of it. So how come we were succesful with the easiest to defend routes? (Notice this is a repeat from my previous post, and you haven't answered the question).

Let's try it this way....


1. Chad Henne struggles against zone coverage, specifically the linebackers.

2. Miami's offense struggles against Cover-2 because they lack adequate talent at the TE position to attack the weakness (up the seam). Lacked the consistency along the offensive line to control the line of scrimmage (which is the bread and butter of Henning's offense). Lacked the speed at receiver, and route combinations to attack zone coverage.

3. You specifically asked the question in the post I quoted "If short routes are the most easily defended routes in a zone, (which zone coverage? All of them?) then why were we so successful with them?". So my reply to that was "Miami's offense WASN'T successful"....

4. The evidence you're looking for is already there if you've watched Miami play.

 

[Mr. Magoo]

Let's try it this way....


1. Chad Henne struggles against zone coverage, specifically the linebackers.

2. Miami's offense struggles against Cover-2 because they lack adequate talent at the TE position to attack the weakness (up the seam). Lacked the consistency along the offensive line to control the line of scrimmage (which is the bread and butter of Henning's offense). Lacked the speed at receiver, and route combinations to attack zone coverage.

3. You specifically asked the question in the post I quoted "If short routes are the most easily defended routes in a zone, (which zone coverage? All of them?) then why were we so successful with them?". So my reply to that was "Miami's offense WASN'T successful"....

4. The evidence you're looking for is already there if you've watched Miami play.

Exactly. The offense had certain weaknesses from a schematic perspective, and Henne has certain weaknesses from a personal perspective. In some cases these lined up, in others they didn't.

 

[hoops]

somebody get some sheers for this sheep...

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere.

Given the theory that he's more prone to fail against zone than man, can I see some splits of the zone coverage versus the man? Numbers should be able to bear this out (completion percentage, INTs thrown, etc).

Also, and more to the point, you're argument is not what's being presented in the forum in general. I've seen posts (I can quote them for you if you like) that say "Henne can't succeed/play/pass against zone, he can only play against man" (I'm paraphrasing, but the idea is the same).

I can't speak on behalf of the forum in general, or what arguments have been made in the past by posters around here. I disagree with somewhere between 80-90% of everything that I've ever read around here...

 

[hoops]

there's no doubt the inability to run the ball on first down the lack of intuitiveness in the playcalling and route combinations the fact that we didn't have a seam busting te to keep the safeties honest all did henne no favors in 2010

not to mention the play action calls on 3rd and the football field pretty much where the lbs just dropped right back into our stale route throwing lanes...like the lbs and safeties were gonna come up on 3rd and forever anticipating/worried about the run...jeesh horrid

forgot about the approaching the red zone drive killing wildcat on 1st and 2nd downs...god help me...awful

 

[RobertHorry]

Also, one of the biggest failures by Henning was to create spacing on the field in his route designs. Something Henne needs. Pennington, not so much, but Henne needs a spacing offense.

 

[thefranchisedef]

did anyone see the offense we ran last year? seriously, we had the most predictable offense in the league. When we were trying to be unpredictable it was just ugly.. like 2nd and 4 and we run the wildcat for a 5 yard loss. thats the kind of things that hurt this team. We were a team that played to not make a mistake, and when we did it burned us. With a solid run game, henne has proven he can successful. Bad quarterbacks go to the playoffs often. Alot of you think rex grossman is garbage and he went to a superbowl. So, whats your basis? Henne is not as bad as we make him out to be but he isnt that good either. Lets just agree that with a new offense, we might possibly see more production..

oh and quick tid bit.... drew brees didnt take that next step until he got reggie bush :O who would of thought! lol

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

drew brees didnt take that next step until he got reggie bush

That's a good point, and one that I've touched on before.... I think it gets overlooked in regards to Reggie Bush.


I also don't think it's coincidence that Brees threw 22 INT's last year when he didn't have Bush for half the season to check it down to. Look at a lot of those picks Brees threw last year because he was trying to force it.. I mean a lot of 'em were bad... Brett Favre on steriods bad...

 

[hoops]

personally by the end of 2010 i had pretty much decided that the problems on offense were a combo of dan henning/personnel and chad henne's shortcomings...i just think you have to anticipate and throw guys open to be consistently successful in this league and i don't see that in henne...he has to see the play develop before he pulls the trigger...

 

[hoops]

and i'm baffled by the fact that these guys STILL don't see the value in a seam busting te...dumbfounded even...but whatever...hopefully the next regime understands it

 

[madmic21]

was it henne struggling with the coverage? or was it the coverage was designed to contain that piece of **** offensive scheme we used?

Total combination. Henne wasn't good enough for the scheme. A guy like Brees would have done fine. Probably not as good as the scheme he is in, but fine. The problem with our scheme is it seemed to be dumbed down for an inexpierenced QB (or maybe the guy managing it was just an idiot), but that simple scheme made it easier for defenses in turn. So what should we do? Our O last year was so conservative that we had to be perfect to reach the endzone. More complex offenses allow for big plays by creating defensive confusion. Our big play output last year was not only due to lack of playmakers and a QB to create those plays, but more releated to the fact that we didn't do anything to confuse or pressure a opposing Defense.