Passing statistics vs. man and zone are not currently kept by any bureau that I'm currently aware of. So what dolphone is asking for -- that I keep my own stats and track the results -- is frankly unrealistic. I don't care enough about convincing him to go through all that work. But one of those things you can take to the bank with football is that any analysis that relies purely on statistical breakdowns -- which is what he seems to be after -- is an analysis that is incomplete and more than likely wrong. There are simply too many variables to take into account to point to two numbers as being proof of anything. It's why scouting has always been more of an art than a science.
Chad Henne is a tick slow in his decision making, tends to stare down his receivers a bit too much and has a hitch in his release (though his release does vary). Once you accept that these are parts of his game (and I don't know any credible observer who would disagree with them), it should be fairly simple to conclude that ANY quarterback that has those traits is going to struggle vs. zone relative to how he plays vs. man. Is it not obvious that the more you give zone defenders reading the eyes of the quarterback time to read your eyes and break on the ball, the more they're going to react and be in position to break up the play? To anyone who watches a lot of football, this logical progression should be a fairly easy thing to digest.
But this sort of weakness is not a death sentence, at least in my view. There are quarterbacks who play better against zone than against man, with no less a quarterback than Tom Brady being one. He's freely admitted in interviews that cover 2 man under is the coverage he struggles against more than any other. It's where he placed the blame on his struggles against the Dolphins early in his career (when we played that coverage almost exclusively) and it's also -- not coincidentally -- the coverage the Giants ran against the Patriots in their upset Super Bowl win.
And this makes sense when you look at Brady's game. He's one of the absolutely best pre-snap readers in the NFL. I remember reading somewhere that he decides where he's going to throw the ball before the snap better than 80% of the time. It's relatively simple for him. He comes up the line, reads the coverage. He sees it clearly and knows who's going to be open based on that coverage. Then the ball is snapped, he looks off the coverage, turns back and boom -- a completion, to exactly who he knew was going to be there.
Man coverage is better at defending this kind of skill because it's less susceptible to the quarterback looking off the coverage and there's also the possibiity that when Brady looks back at the receiver he's intended to throw to that the guy is going to be covered. In other words, Brady's chief asset is his brain. His arm is stronger than people give him credit for but his overall arm talent is not the chief weapon in his arsenal, not are his receivers man to man dynamos who can make plays against tight coverage. This is not to say he plays poorly against man coverage teams, only that he plays better against zone because of his overall skill set. Consider Ben Roethlisberger as a counter example. Ben is not a great pre-snap reader but his arm talent is better than Brady's and his ability to improvise helps him find guys open who would otherwise be covered. Both are great players but for entirely different reasons.
The key to getting the most out of Henne -- as RobertHorry said -- is to create more of a spacing offense. The farther apart the routes, the bigger the holes in the zone, therefore the more you mitigate Henne's decision making issues, as now you're relying on his arm strength to make up the difference over those long distances. A constraint based system played in tight spaces -- which is what we had last year -- is perfect for a great decision maker and pinpoint accurate quarterback like Pennington, but exactly the wrong kind of system for Henne. You need to stretch the field and let him use that bazooka's he's got, otherwise you won't get the most out of him. Also, he's got to become more aggressive in taking those shots and his deep accuracy must improve, but those are other discussions.
Hopefully this clears some things up, and you'll stop with replies that basically boil down to "yeah, but show me numbers." It's more complicated than that.
Numbers *support* the case, they don't make it.
I've never said numbers are the be-all, end-all of scouting. What I AM saying is that is virtually impossible to make judgements with the tools at our disposal. I'm asking for numbers to support YOUR case of him sucking against the zone, and you're unable to produce them because - by your own admission - no one tracks them. Which makes any argument about such splits doubtful, at best. Yeah, it's unrealistic to suppose you keep your own stats. But if you don't have them, how on earth can you support your argument?
The bolded paragraph is a prime example of how you can make flawed arguments superficially sustainable. You take three premises, assume them as true, and then decide that by inference, premise 4 is true as well. But you're not really looking at each one of them, and worst of all, you're making the inference without supporting evidence.
To make it brief, I'll give you everything you said about Henne. His decision making can be slow (at times), he stares down at his receivers (at times), and he has a hitch in his release (at times). I'll even discard the inconsistency with which these things happen. Let's pretend these happen continually and without deviation. Now... how is it fairly simple to conclude that this leads to bad performances against zone coverages?
Again, you're not specifying *which* zone coverages, and it's crucial in achieving your point (zones vary wildly in area covered, number of players in pressure, deep/intermediate/short coverages, etc). You say it's fairly simple to conclude the inference, yet you point to a QB that has none of the traits that define Henne as an example of zone struggles. You say anyone that watches a lot of football should easily digest the logical progression, but that just means anyone with exposure to football will understand what you're saying. It doesn't justify what you're saying as right.
Forget the numbers. Give me scout opinions. Show me reports that say "this QB will struggle in zone coverages because of X, Y and Z". If you're mentioning QBs, pick better examples than Tom Brady. He simply doesn't fit - at all - with what you're trying to say. Show a coach's interview where this is discussed. I mean... show me *something*.
Your last sentence sums it all perfectly. It's more complicated than what you're trying to paint. It's an analysis that's probably limited to someone that has access to game film, or a very exhaustive independent tracker. It requires understanding of football concepts trivial to mention but hard to master. Yet it's bandied about like it's the most trivial thing in the world.
All in the name of "debate".
