The Henning factor?

Re: I have another question...

>>Being inspired by Magnus's "overcompensation" comment, I started thinking...

That's dangerous stuff there. Oh wait, you must just be part of the "flock"...lmao

>>Houston has a rookie QB and a LOT of rookie players on his offensive team. I haven't watched much Texans football, but from what I have seen, it doesn't look like they're running a high school offense, but maybe that's a bad example.

They're not a good example - they're not that talented, they have a rook QB, they don't have much line. But still, they are a great example because when they have the ability to do so, they use strategy, they try their damndest to do something with the ball, and they adjust. It's hard to adjust to a lack of line talent, though.

A known: Palmer's a very complex coach. So's Gilbride. they both sometimes overcoach to compensate, but they're never predictable. When they have talent that they can make fit, they produce. They adjust to what's going on for the most part.

>>The question I have is this: is Henning 'dumbing down' a simplistic offense too much for our QB's to the point of being too easy to defend?

Depends. Henning's playbook is roughly five hundred pages thick. So that has merit. And yet the difference between the three wins and the losses under Peete (negating the last two games as bad case samples) aren't that great, nor the difference between what we did with Weinke in. It's very static, and not at all creative or hard to plan against. For Peete "knowing the playbook" we certainly never went above and beyond anything the average second year player would need to know.

>> And if that is so, is our offense doomed to fail, regardless of talent?

That third down dive play used to get five yards. Now it's lucky to get to the LOS. This is how we decide to use a crucial down at the end of a game.

>> "no. We're going to stick with the offense as it is."

Yep. It's very concerning that not only do they not adjust for the players coming in or changing, but also the lack of offensive progress and productivity.

>>Now if we had three similar QB's with similar experience, similar talents, and similar build, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But can anyone really argue that Peete, Weinke, and Fasani are all the same player, and therefore interchangeable in an offensive system?

No. Not at all.

 

so basically you admit their strengths are running the ball (with an average at best RB), the line (which is getting it's share of holding calls on both runs and passes), and playing safe football (with one vet QB, a rookie, and a 2nd year qb)....then you get pissed because they run the ball and throw screen passes.

What's you beef with Henning again?

 

Re: I have another question...

With a vet QB, they'd go into a game with 110 plays, with Harrington, they are going in with 100 plays. They are however calling plays he has practiced a lot and is comfortable with...and handing the ball off to Stewart to keep them honest. They would be scoring in the 30's if Harrington was better in the red zone, that's the last thing for a young QB to master...he was 2 for 2 last week.

I mentioned before about teams figure shit out. Teams are starting to figure out harrington. It was obvious that he gets rid of the ball fast and accurate which makes him hard to sack (as New Orleans). Now teams are blitzing almost 100% of the time and are hiding coverages and his numbers have gone down...a large part of that is also every receiver on the roster is hurt.

 

Re: Re: I have another question...

Hmmm. That sounds familiar, doesn't it?

 

>>....then you get pissed because they run the ball and throw screen passes.

They don't throw screen passes. I don't get pissed at running the ball - since you did read my post you'd have known the point was running the ball when it's not advantageous to do so - stacked sets, 8th man in the box, third and long - and then the rest of the things I detailed that you seemed to miss.

>>What's you beef with Henning again?

Poor playcalling, underprepared, uninspired teams, talent not being used to its strengths, giving up on drives, being terribly easy to read and recognize, being completely uninnovative, basically the same thing that people said about him in his Jets tenure and the Boston College incident.

The bottom line is exactly what you've said. We did one thing well, people stopped it. Guess now that they've stopped that one thing, we're just supposed to give up - no reason to make adjustments or attempt to still try to win. We should be happy with a ball control offense that neither controls the ball nor really takes that much time off the clock, or in darker days we can always reactionarily blame the talent entirely rather than try to fathom that Dan Henning could ever do wrong