Henne and the myth of zone coverage

[dolphone]

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.

Hmmm.

1. Are you telling me that LBs in zone coverage are Henne's main problem? That's what's meant by "he can't play zone, he can only play man"? You say in another reply, you can't speak for the rest of the forum... but why reply to this thread then? I specifically asked about THAT particular topic. And again, if you're trying to make a case for this argument, at least present some evidence. How many of his INTs/incompletions went to zone LBs? What's his completion percentage otherwise?

2. Nice diversion, but I'm not arguing about Miami's offense. I'm arguing about Henne's (supossed) inability against the zone. It's in the thread title. If you want to argue that Miami's struggle in general is a sign of Henne's struggle, please post some numbers proving that we struggle against C2.

As a small sidebar on this point: when did having talent at the TE position automatically solved all your C2 (I'm guessing you mean Tampa-2, because - once again - C2 is a safety alignment) woes? Alternatively, does missing a "seam busting" TE (whatever that is) automatically disqualifies you attacking T2 teams? I seem to recall teams defeating the T2 with power running, more than these mythical TEs of yore.

3. This takes the cake for me. I'll post your reply again (post 31 in the thread):

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.

WHERE are you saying that Miami's offense (within the short routes that we are arguing about, remember?) wasn't succesful?

4. I'll make this very clear:

I'm not the one with the burden of proof here. If I start saying that you live in Rome, and every time I talk about you I mention that you live in Rome, then people (you, someone who knows you, curious bystanders) might start asking 'hey, why do you say he lives in Rome?' And the burden of proof is mine - I'm the one saying this over and over again. I don't get to say "well just look at him, it's obvious by his writing he lives in Rome". I understand it might not be your battle, but if so... why bother replying? And I don't mean 'shut up and leave' -at all- but if you yourself say that you're not the one saying this stuff... why argue for it?

BTW, I have watched Miami play. And I don't see any noticeable difference between Henne against the zone (or zone LBs) than against any other defense.

PD I don't have anything against Romans, nor do I have any clue where you live

 

[Nappy Roots]

I'm trying to wrap my head around this one, but I simply can't. It's the latest meme against Henne, but it simply makes no sense. Greyboy (IIRC) is the main proponent of this theory, I saw a couple other posters making reference to it, so I'd love some input on this...

WTH are you guys talking about? Henne can exploit man but not zone? And *umbrella*, of all things, causes him problems? When did this myth took hold? Why are people taking it as gospel?

It is not a myth. Hence can't handle zone as well because one of his biggest weaknesses is anticipattion. He can not anticipate throws, which is one reason he holds on to the ball sometimes, waiting for someone to come open rather then anticipating them getting open.

 

[dolphone]

It is not a myth. Hence can't handle zone as well because one of his biggest weaknesses is anticipattion. He can not anticipate throws, which is one reason he holds on to the ball sometimes, waiting for someone to come open rather then anticipating them getting open.

His holding on to the ball has more to do with him locking on his #1 than about anticipation.

But - as I've asked anyone else in this thread - I'm open to the idea. Where's the proof? At this point I'll settle for a (significant) sample of plays, but statistical splits are welcome too.

 

[Nappy Roots]

His holding on to the ball has more to do with him locking on his #1 than about anticipation.

But - as I've asked anyone else in this thread - I'm open to the idea. Where's the proof? At this point I'll settle for a (significant) sample of plays, but statistical splits are welcome too.

Well I believe he locks on because he waits for his guys to get open. Again, because he lacks anticipation.

Also, someone else can pull up the stats, I'm posting from my phone. But from watching every game Henne has played with us, him against zone is no myth.

 

[dolpns13]

Fine. Show me the evidence.

Watch the games. Theres your evidence.

 

[flynryan15]

This thread should be titled no matter what you tell me I refuse to believe Henne struggles with zone/umbrella coverage. Watch the games he consistently fails to account for LBs dropping in to coverage and safeties.

 

[dolphone]

This thread should be titled no matter what you tell me I refuse to believe Henne struggles with zone/umbrella coverage. Watch the games he consistently fails to account for LBs dropping in to coverage and safeties.

You're providing empty arguments. There's no reason to believe empty arguments, unless you're willing to accept whatever is thrown at you at face value.

Say, now that I think about it, the Dolphins offense was superb last year! Really! Take my word for it!

 

[dolphone]

Watch the games. Theres your evidence.

I did. You're still not proving *anything*.

Notice how when I present a point I try to provide some sort of support for it. You know, the way arguments use to work. "X happens because of Y, here's some evidence to support it."

I also don't have a problem being proven wrong. Earlier in the thread someone argued that Miami's inside game was crap, I argued differently, but checking the stats he turned out to be right. He didn't even have to present evidence, I went and looked for myself and admitted to it. But you guys are not providing anything but "watch the games and you'll see". See *what*? Tell me a specific play, give me enough examples to make a case for it. Or show me the stats. Your choice.

 

[dolpns13]

I did. You're still not proving *anything*.

Notice how when I present a point I try to provide some sort of support for it. You know, the way arguments use to work. "X happens because of Y, here's some evidence to support it."

I also don't have a problem being proven wrong. Earlier in the thread someone argued that Miami's inside game was crap, I argued differently, but checking the stats he turned out to be right. He didn't even have to present evidence, I went and looked for myself and admitted to it. But you guys are not providing anything but "watch the games and you'll see". See *what*? Tell me a specific play, give me enough examples to make a case for it. Or show me the stats. Your choice.

Where is your support? I dont need to show you support as it is right in just about every defense he sees because coaches know he blows against any type of zone defense. Go rewatch the games.. Its obvious you; a) completely missed the defenses which are thrown at him, b) do not understand what zone coverage is..

 

[Tunaphish429]

I have felt that henne has been better against the blitz and or attacking type defenses. That's not to say he has not had bad games against attacking style ones tho. One of hennes problems is that he stairs down targets and zone coverages that read the qb thrive on it. With one on one type man coverage its not a big deal if you stare down coverage because often the dbs backs are to the qb. Shell type coverages have given henne his biggest problems that's just my opinion. Wheather its cover two man or cover two zone to me. Henne has struggle against it.

 

[dolphone]

Where is your support? I dont need to show you support as it is right in just about every defense he sees because coaches know he blows against any type of zone defense. Go rewatch the games.. Its obvious you; a) completely missed the defenses which are thrown at him, b) do not understand what zone coverage is..

I'll paint the scenario again.

Some people in the forum are saying "Henne can't play against zone coverages. Umbrella coverages vex him. He can only play against man defense". Where obviously, "play" is a shorthand for "play well".

I'm asking - why do you say that? I've seen many zone plays where he thrives, throws with good anticipation, right into the steam. I've also seen him struggle against simple man. The dichotomy these people are talking about, so far as I can see, doesn't exist.

Yet you say things like "go watch the games, there's proof". Alright, if it's so obvious, you can surely name some plays in which this happened, right? And to convince me he consistently (ironic, considering we're talking about Henne here) struggles against zone, you'd probably have to give me a healthy list of plays in which there is zone coverage and he struggles. If you had a statistical split showing this, I'd accept that too. Sourced, of course. And verifiable.

From my point of view, you're talking your preconception - that Henne consistently struggles against zone - and you attemtp to support it with some nebulous "games". Give me specifics. Prove me wrong.

I'll repeat it: if you're saying that this is so blatantly obvious that *anyone* with the basic concepts of football can grasp it, it would be trivial to show some evidence. Yet no one - not ONE PERSON - has come forth and said "here, look at these plays in this game".

FWIW, I pretty much know where this argument will end up. It's mighty hard to tell coverages from the broadcast feed. Unless you have access to the all-22, you're going to have a hard time looking at the defense unless it's a replayed down (which usually happens after an important play, for either the defense or the offense). The people claiming that Henne sucks against zone coverages particularly (which in itself is an specious argument; they seem to think all zones are created equal) simply have no reliable way to tell this.

Well, one: they would have to attend every game. And they'd have to have a pretty good view of the whole field (probably sitting in the upper bowl) and even then, it's anecdotal unless you chart the number of plays, type of coverage in every single play, and proof that he does struggle more, percentage-wise, against the zone than against man.

And you're probably run into problems even then. Quick, 4-deep man underneath: how do you classify it? Is it dependant on the length of the attempted pass? Or the place where he threw it? What if he threw it right into the seam of a zone, but to a man-covered receiver? Does it matter if the D is playing prevent (because of game situation), do you disqualify those? How about bracket coverage? Man cloud, deep pass?

So yeah, (a) is probably right, for some of the time. But so it is for *everybody* else.

And (b)? Once again, no evidence to support it, and an ad-hominem to boot.

 

[flynryan15]

You're providing empty arguments. There's no reason to believe empty arguments, unless you're willing to accept whatever is thrown at you at face value.

Say, now that I think about it, the Dolphins offense was superb last year! Really! Take my word for it!

No you are providing bull**** spin and come to think of it you remind me of a member here that has vanished Hugo Guzman. He used to troll the boards with these theories of well I have enough proof. Or Henne hasn't hit the magical 30 starts. Bla bla bla go watch the game tape from last year and Henne was terrible in zone coverage and the umbrella. To often he doesn't find the Lb dropping back or the safety baiting him. So it is either the stats are lying 19 ints and several other dropped ints 5 in the Detroit game alone. Or nothing no amount of evidence, film or fact will sway your opinion. Why? Because you are a Henne supporter and what you want people to say is it is all.Dan Hennings fault! As if Henning was playing Madden real life and had a remote control on Henne making those crap throws.

 

[dolpns13]

I'll paint the scenario again.

Some people in the forum are saying "Henne can't play against zone coverages. Umbrella coverages vex him. He can only play against man defense". Where obviously, "play" is a shorthand for "play well".

I'm asking - why do you say that? I've seen many zone plays where he thrives, throws with good anticipation, right into the steam. I've also seen him struggle against simple man. The dichotomy these people are talking about, so far as I can see, doesn't exist.

Yet you say things like "go watch the games, there's proof". Alright, if it's so obvious, you can surely name some plays in which this happened, right? And to convince me he consistently (ironic, considering we're talking about Henne here) struggles against zone, you'd probably have to give me a healthy list of plays in which there is zone coverage and he struggles. If you had a statistical split showing this, I'd accept that too. Sourced, of course. And verifiable.

From my point of view, you're talking your preconception - that Henne consistently struggles against zone - and you attemtp to support it with some nebulous "games". Give me specifics. Prove me wrong.

I'll repeat it: if you're saying that this is so blatantly obvious that *anyone* with the basic concepts of football can grasp it, it would be trivial to show some evidence. Yet no one - not ONE PERSON - has come forth and said "here, look at these plays in this game".

FWIW, I pretty much know where this argument will end up. It's mighty hard to tell coverages from the broadcast feed. Unless you have access to the all-22, you're going to have a hard time looking at the defense unless it's a replayed down (which usually happens after an important play, for either the defense or the offense). The people claiming that Henne sucks against zone coverages particularly (which in itself is an specious argument; they seem to think all zones are created equal) simply have no reliable way to tell this.

Well, one: they would have to attend every game. And they'd have to have a pretty good view of the whole field (probably sitting in the upper bowl) and even then, it's anecdotal unless you chart the number of plays, type of coverage in every single play, and proof that he does struggle more, percentage-wise, against the zone than against man.

And you're probably run into problems even then. Quick, 4-deep man underneath: how do you classify it? Is it dependant on the length of the attempted pass? Or the place where he threw it? What if he threw it right into the seam of a zone, but to a man-covered receiver? Does it matter if the D is playing prevent (because of game situation), do you disqualify those? How about bracket coverage? Man cloud, deep pass?

So yeah, (a) is probably right, for some of the time. But so it is for *everybody* else.

And (b)? Once again, no evidence to support it, and an ad-hominem to boot.

So what you are saying is you have no basis for your argument as well. Eh, I really could care less. I know Henne sucks against zone coverages from what I have seen with my own two eyes - that being said, he really isnt that much better against man coverages either.

 

[Lord Of Miami]

Henne is a one read QB, if his 1st WR isn't open or covered one on one he's looking to check it down.

He also stares down WR's and he does that because he still can't tell when a team is playing a zone or not.So he keeps looking at the WR until he figures it out if their really one on one or not.That's part of why people say he can't read the field........the other part is he doesn't go from his 1st to 2nd to 3rd read like a starting QB should "or even a backup" and that's the other part about reading the field he's just not good at.

He seemed to play better his 1st year because being a " One Read QB " we really didn't have a #1 WR but last year we did and now teams know where his 1st read is going to be 70% of the time, and his 1st year they didn't.

He also played like an old Vet who doesn't want to get hit and that's why he stops looking down field and try's to run when he's getting rushed....that's also a huge NO, NO.....and it's something he didn't do his 1st year starting.He also held the TE's in and the FB in a lot to help block and he only did that because he doesn't want to get hit.

If all he does is stand in the pocket like a MAN, we'll have a some kind of chance this year.......but this team won't really have much of a chance at winning until we find a QB that can read the field and stand in the pocket like a man.

I hope he can change but i wouldn't bet on it.

 

[dolpns13]

No you are providing bull**** spin and come to think of it you remind me of a member here that has vanished Hugo Guzman. He used to troll the boards with these theories of well I have enough proof. Or Henne hasn't hit the magical 30 starts. Bla bla bla go watch the game tape from last year and Henne was terrible in zone coverage and the umbrella. To often he doesn't find the Lb dropping back or the safety baiting him. So it is either the stats are lying 19 ints and several other dropped ints 5 in the Detroit game alone. Or nothing no amount of evidence, film or fact will sway your opinion. Why? Because you are a Henne supporter and what you want people to say is it is all.Dan Hennings fault! As if Henning was playing Madden real life and had a remote control on Henne making those crap throws.

At least the Henne lovers cant use Henning as an excuse for 19 INT's. Henne is too easy for DC's to gameplan against.