Would Henson have had the same success as Vinny - Dallas Cowboys Forum

Cajuncowboy · 11-26-2004

in the seconf half?

I tivo'd the game and rewatched it late last night. One of the things that happened was that Chicago decided to run blitz and force Henson in to bad decisions. But the same thing happened to Vinny. What was the difference?

I noticed that in the second qtr Julius was getting stoned quite a bit on those run blitzs. But in the late third quarter and fourth quarter he started to break the blitz. THis is what took the Bears out of that mode. Vinny had a couple of lousy first drives. THrowing the ball into the ground and flat out missing the WRs. I think both QBs performance was a product of what Cicago did on Defense as it relates to the success of the running game. Once they were forced out of that run blitz, the QBs did much better.

Juke99 · 11-26-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajuncowboy

in the seconf half?

I tivo'd the game and rewatched it late last night. One of the things that happened was that Chicago decided to run blitz and force Henson in to bad decisions. But the same thing happened to Vinny. What was the difference?

I noticed that in the second qtr Julius was getting stoned quite a bit on those run blitzs. But in the late third quarter and fourth quarter he started to break the blitz. THis is what took the Bears out of that mode. Vinny had a couple of lousy first drives. THrowing the ball into the ground and flat out missing the WRs. I think both QBs performance was a product of what Cicago did on Defense as it relates to the success of the running game. Once they were forced out of that run blitz, the QBs did much better.

It was clear that the Bears offense was AWFUL...and that our defense was cranked up...so, why pull Henson when the score was tied?

Winning the game was important to Parcells, seeing Henson was important to Jerry...Parcells could have had the best of both worlds...all Henson had to do was drive the team to ONE FG in the second half....

I don't understand why Parcells didn't simply coach Henson at halftime, make some adjustments and send Henson out on the field...if he made some mistakes and we fell behind, ok then pull him.

It wasn't the pulling of Henson that was so mind boggling....it was the WAY and the TIMING of when he was pulled.

Mash · 11-26-2004

I agree Juke.....

Juke99 · 11-26-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mash

I agree Juke.....

Parcells could have had the best of both worlds..

JDSmith · 11-26-2004

The turning point of the game was when the DB fumbled the ball back to us on the 20 after intercepting Vinny. If he'd managed to run it in or the Bears had found a way to move the ball 20 yards from there we would have lost the game. Most weeks this team sucks when faced with adversity, if the Bears had taken the lead at that point Vinny would have thrown another 2 or 3 picks - he's the gift that keeps on giving. Instead, our whole team was lifted by the fact that we got another chance, and JJ took over in the 4th quarter. So rather than ask could we have won with Drew, a more realistic question is - How close did we come to losing with Vinny? I think we came VERY close.

Derinyar · 11-26-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juke99

Parcells could have had the best of both worlds..

I think the man just doesn't want to admit that he built a hog this year.

Winning that game yesterday way irrelevant.

I've never felt worse about a win. It does nothing for me now watching the ancient play pitch and catch with the old.

tyke1doe · 11-26-2004

Back to the question.

NO!!!!

Why can't you guys realize that Henson is not ready. That interception return for a touchdown was the result of a QB who can not read a defense, a QB who has no rapport with his receivers and a QB who panicked.

As soon as he threw that ball, I said TD Bears.

Henson would have done no better in the second half. He's just not ready. Period.

Juke99 · 11-26-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyke1doe

Back to the question.

NO!!!!

Why can't you guys realize that Henson is not ready. That interception return for a touchdown was the result of a QB who can not read a defense, a QB who has no rapport with his receivers and a QB who panicked.

As soon as he threw that ball, I said TD Bears.

Henson would have done no better in the second half. He's just not ready. Period.

I don't disagree...VT had a better chance of winning...that's what happens when ya start a rookie...I am sure, as evidenced by the outcome of their game, Warner presented a better chance of winning than Manning. Coughlin stuck with Manning, with real playoff implications on the line..

And let's not turn this into a Parcells vs Coughlin debate...I am only using that example as a way of saying, there is a viable other side to this.

The interception by Henson had zilch to do with reading the defense...I've watched that play a dozen times....he dropped back, got to the spot where he was supposed to throw from, hesitated because there was an oncoming defender...and by the time he threw, he had given the CB a chance to jump the route.

I don't understand why Parcells wouldn't let Henson go back out after the half...if he got the team in more trouble, ok, then pull him...(which I still wouldn't have agreed with but I could "understand" it)

Fact is, we won....so now we are 4-7....the season is over as far as the playoffs are concerned...If we end up, 8-8 vs 6-10, I could care less...except for the fact that we will go into next season with a question mark at QB..

Dave_in-NC · 11-26-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyke1doe

Back to the question.

NO!!!!

Why can't you guys realize that Henson is not ready. That interception return for a touchdown was the result of a QB who can not read a defense, a QB who has no rapport with his receivers and a QB who panicked.

As soon as he threw that ball, I said TD Bears.

Henson would have done no better in the second half. He's just not ready. Period.

Thank you! I guess Henson has an on off switch. I guess Parcells had it on off the first half and was going to switch it on for the second half.

Cajuncowboy · 11-26-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyke1doe

Back to the question.

NO!!!!

Why can't you guys realize that Henson is not ready. That interception return for a touchdown was the result of a QB who can not read a defense, a QB who has no rapport with his receivers and a QB who panicked.

As soon as he threw that ball, I said TD Bears.

Henson would have done no better in the second half. He's just not ready. Period.

See this is where being able to evaluate well comes into play. Vinny HAd a pick. Henson had a pick. THe difference was when Jones broke the run blitz that forced the Bears out of their scheme they had been playing for over 2 qtrs. Vinny then had time. I'm not saying that Henson WOULD have done better in the secong half. I am saying that all things being equal Henson should have at least had the chance. Vinny benefited from Jones Running more becasue of the timing of the runs. Here are JOnes Stats for the first 8 drives.

1. 50yds rushing- Result TD
2. 6 yds
3.11 yds (2 neg. rushing plays)
4. 7 yds.
5. 6 yds (1 neg yds rushing play)
6. 21 yds (Int)
7. 0 yds (1 carry)
8. -1 yd

When Jones was able to run we did fine. When they used the run blitz to stop jones they were unable to block the def and Henson had no time. And neither did Vinny until they made them come out of that scheme. All I am saying is that if Henson would have played the whole game he would have had the same chance as Vinny.

Now all that being said, we will now see what kind of guy Henson is becasue if Parcells, who said he was sooooo concerned with Henson's confidence getting shaken, is trying to make a point Henson will need to respond. If not and this shatters his confidence then we really don't need him anyway. But for Parcells to pull the guy the way he did and then for him to watch Vinny throw a pick the same as he did it will say volumes about the guy how he reacts. But you still have to look at the situation for what it was and not after drinking the Parcells kool-ade.

starfrombirth · 11-26-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajuncowboy

See this is where being able to evaluate well comes into play. Vinny HAd a pick. Henson had a pick. THe difference was when Jones broke the run blitz that forced the Bears out of their scheme they had been playing for over 2 qtrs. Vinny then had time. I'm not saying that Henson WOULD have done better in the secong half. I am saying that all things being equal Henson should have at least had the chance. Vinny benefited from Jones Running more becasue of the timing of the runs. Here are JOnes Stats for the first 8 drives.

1. 50yds rushing- Result TD
2. 6 yds
3.11 yds (2 neg. rushing plays)
4. 7 yds.
5. 6 yds (1 neg yds rushing play)
6. 21 yds (Int)
7. 0 yds (1 carry)
8. -1 yd

[View Full Quote]

How exactly does he "respond". Seriously, I'm not sure how you let someone know that your ok. Does he throw a completed pass in practice and go "ok coach I know what i did wrong now can I go in and start next game now?"? Does he stand on the sidelines of practice and watch Vinny complete another shoestring pass to Keyshawn and go "So that's what I've been doing wrong!" I'm just curiuos how he is supposed to respond other than What he's been saying "I'm glad we won. I would have liked the chance to come back and get the opportunity for a win in the 2nd half but I'll just come back tomorrow and learn from my mistakes and hope to do better next time.".... Good response Drew!

tyke1doe · 11-26-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juke99

I don't disagree...VT had a better chance of winning...that's what happens when ya start a rookie...I am sure, as evidenced by the outcome of their game, Warner presented a better chance of winning than Manning. Coughlin stuck with Manning, with real playoff implications on the line..

You would agree that Eli is further along in his progress than Henson.
Eli played four years in college. Henson ... well, we know his story.

Quote:

The interception by Henson had zilch to do with reading the defense...I've watched that play a dozen times....he dropped back, got to the spot where he was supposed to throw from, hesitated because there was an oncoming defender...and by the time he threw, he had given the CB a chance to jump the route.

The interception ... had zilch to do with reading the defense?

It had EVERYTHING to do with reading a defense.

A QB should be able to read the distance between a CB and a receiver and where he needs to put the ball. I saw the play also. I called the interception before it happened.
Henson isn't quick enough mentally to roll out, read where the defender is and either toss the ball or throw it to another receiver.

And that's because he couldn't read the defense properly, which includes knowing where the defender is going to be when you deliver the ball to a spot.

Quote:

I don't understand why Parcells wouldn't let Henson go back out after the half...if he got the team in more trouble, ok, then pull him...(which I still wouldn't have agreed with but I could "understand" it)

So you're going to let him start the second half and then pull him?
No, you make adjustments at half time. That was the appropriate time to pull the plug on Henson.

Quote:

Fact is, we won....so now we are 4-7....the season is over as far as the playoffs are concerned...If we end up, 8-8 vs 6-10, I could care less...except for the fact that we will go into next season with a question mark at QB..

Well, if Henson played like he did in the first half, the question marks still would exist.

Again, Parcells can't approach the game as if he's given up. Maybe fans can. But not coaches, or not coaches worth their salt or their legend.

mr.jameswoods · 11-26-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajuncowboy

in the seconf half?

I tivo'd the game and rewatched it late last night. One of the things that happened was that Chicago decided to run blitz and force Henson in to bad decisions. But the same thing happened to Vinny. What was the difference?

I noticed that in the second qtr Julius was getting stoned quite a bit on those run blitzs. But in the late third quarter and fourth quarter he started to break the blitz. THis is what took the Bears out of that mode. Vinny had a couple of lousy first drives. THrowing the ball into the ground and flat out missing the WRs. I think both QBs performance was a product of what Cicago did on Defense as it relates to the success of the running game. Once they were forced out of that run blitz, the QBs did much better.

I don't think you are giving enough credit to Vinny. What you said was true because Julius was picking up the blitz better but Vinny was clearly making quicker reads as he should due to his veteran experience. Vinny is just playing injured and it's evident he has trouble putting heat on the ball on deep throws. I think we were fortunate we were playing the Bears. That made Vinny look better than he is.

tyke1doe · 11-26-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajuncowboy

When Jones was able to run we did fine. When they used the run blitz to stop jones they were unable to block the def and Henson had no time. And neither did Vinny until they made them come out of that scheme. All I am saying is that if Henson would have played the whole game he would have had the same chance as Vinny.

At least you THINK he would have had the same chance.

Why do you think the Bears abandoned their pass/run blitzing scheme?

It was because VINNY was reinserted into the lineup!!!

Vinny is not as green as Henson. Thus, he was able to read the defense, get Keyshawn involved in the game (which Henson was not able to do), get Witten involved in the game (which Henson did not do) and get the Bears to back out of their blitz package.

And the interceptions weren't equal.

Vinny's INT may have been a product of his ailing shoulder.

Secondly, it was a DOWN FIELD interception. The odds of McQuarters getting tackled is greater than the interception Henson threw, which is almost always a TD.

If I'm a coach and my QB is green and he's throwing interceptions that opponents have a greater chance of returning for a TD, I'm not going to take that chance, especially if my opponent's offense is crappy, their only score came from my QB's mistake and I have a chance to seal the game with better QB play.

A kool-aid drinker? Yall need to take off the Drew-colored glasses.

No way Drew would have led us to victory. In fact, he likely would have given the Bears another score.

Cajuncowboy · 11-26-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyke1doe

At least you THINK he would have had the same chance.

Why do you think the Bears abandoned their pass/run blitzing scheme?

It was because VINNY was reinserted into the lineup!!!

Vinny is not as green as Henson. Thus, he was able to read the defense, get Keyshawn involved in the game (which Henson was not able to do), get Witten involved in the game (which Henson did not do) and get the Bears to back out of their blitz package.

And the interceptions weren't equal.

Vinny's INT may have been a product of his ailing shoulder.

Secondly, it was a DOWN FIELD interception. The odds of McQuarters getting tackled is greater than the interception Henson threw, which is almost always a TD.

[View Full Quote]

WOuld you be saying this if McQuarters wouldn't have retunred the ball all the way to the Dallas 20 then fumble it back to us? I doubt it.

And the bears didn't stop blitzing becasue of Vinny. VINNY DOESN'T SCARE ANYONE!

They stopped run blitzing when Jones broke the blitz. Until then they kept it up. Vinny didn't beat the blitz. Then when they went to a soft def VInny had time to throw. YOu need to look at the game situation at the time to make these assertions.