Maximum Grilled Steelers Forum
Nov 24, 2014 at 14:19 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Calendar Media Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Dolpins' "Max Protect" Package  (Read 2094 times)
steelerfaninCO
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1271
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,484



« Reply #10 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 21:18 »

Quote
The Dolphins were alarmingly effective last night when they left 8 guys into block, and only had 2 men run routes.
I'm not sure what you mean by "alarming effective". Miami had 159 total yards, with 110 net passing yards. They were also sacked 4 times while converting only 25% of their 3rd downs. They had a couple of passes to the 2 receivers out running routes, but based on the stats and the outgame of the game, I would say Miami was completely ineffective with their offensive strategy. They couldn't threaten downfield, they couldn't run, and they still gave up 4 sacks. Sure, it could have been like 8 sacks if they hadn't max protected, but the decision to block with 8 guys was a major factor (besides the obvious field problems) keeping them from stretching the field and gaining yards,

A bunch of BR's sacks this year were due to him not throwing the ball away and holding it too long. He's trying to make a play every time, and while thats admirable, it going to lead to sacks. You got 3 or 4 seconds and you need to get rid of it. He is taking sacks outside of the tackles when he could have just throw it away. But thats just Ben being Ben. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

As far as slants, someone already mentioned it  by Hines has made a living on the quick slant inside the 15 for years. Also Heat runs a slant in the RZ which has scored on this year.
Logged
Winters in Holland
Brownstains can suck my Member
****

Karma: -1001
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #11 on: Nov 28, 2007 at 10:14 »

Quote
I think the problem with using a lot of slants against current defenses is that zone blitzing is specifically designed to take away slants.  A whole lot of teams have integrated zone blitzes into their defenses.  That would theoretically make a slant based offense a little dicey.

Of course some teams do use slants a lot, so it can be done, but by and large we have never used (except for the Andre Hastings/Yancey Thigpen era) a lot of 3 step drops or many other rhythm based/ west-coast offense principles.
That's an interesting point, but I tend to disagree.

If a WR can't outrun a DL dropping back into coverage, he shouldn't be on the field.

Maybe instead of "slant", I should've said "fat post" (hehe).  Watching the Patriots do it, their guys are running about 7-10 yard patterns before getting fed the ball, which may put them beyond the retreating DL in a zone blitz.


.WiH.
Logged

I don't care if Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy are black. Good for them. But that doesn't change the way I feel about them. The longer we keep looking at guys like Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith as "BLACK HEAD COACHES" as opposed to just "coaches" the longer race will continue to be a problem. --DoctorJohnnyFever
bamf16
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1267
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,097


« Reply #12 on: Nov 28, 2007 at 11:06 »

Quote
Quote
The Dolphins were alarmingly effective last night when they left 8 guys into block, and only had 2 men run routes.
I'm not sure what you mean by "alarming effective". Miami had 159 total yards, with 110 net passing yards. They were also sacked 4 times while converting only 25% of their 3rd downs. They had a couple of passes to the 2 receivers out running routes, but based on the stats and the outgame of the game, I would say Miami was completely ineffective with their offensive strategy. They couldn't threaten downfield, they couldn't run, and they still gave up 4 sacks. Sure, it could have been like 8 sacks if they hadn't max protected, but the decision to block with 8 guys was a major factor (besides the obvious field problems) keeping them from stretching the field and gaining yards,

A bunch of BR's sacks this year were due to him not throwing the ball away and holding it too long. He's trying to make a play every time, and while thats admirable, it going to lead to sacks. You got 3 or 4 seconds and you need to get rid of it. He is taking sacks outside of the tackles when he could have just throw it away. But thats just Ben being Ben. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

As far as slants, someone already mentioned it  by Hines has made a living on the quick slant inside the 15 for years. Also Heat runs a slant in the RZ which has scored on this year.
Read his post.  He wrote about when the Dolphins went to max protect.  He's only dissecting a small segment of their offensive gameplan.  You can throw out all those statistics if you want to, but they're completely irrelevant.

If I get a chance to watch the game again this week, I'll see what I can come with statistics-wise for when the Dolphins used a version of "max protect" which can be anything from keeping a RB and TE in to block, all the way up to sending only 1 or 2 receivers into patterns.

Your observation that Ben is holding onto the ball too long is right on point.  On I believe the fourth sack Monday Night, Ben held onto the ball, even though Heath Miller was WIDE OPEN in the middle of the field.  We saw it from our seats, and then the replay on Jumbotron showed it again.  Ben's making strides in his progressions, but isn't to the point of Brady yet.

Ben's been sacked 35 times this season I think it is, and I'd be willing to say 8-10 of those sacks were caused more by Ben holding onto the ball too long (some were "coverage sacks") more so than blown assignments at the line.  

And you're right that most of the slants have been run in the red zone in the recent past.  Another solution besides the slant is the drag.  Move the receiver in motion, and have him continue across the field 3-4 yards past the LOS.  We ran that a lot back in the pass happy offense in 2002 and 2003.

Mahan still sucks though.
Logged

No one wants to hear about the labor pains, they just want to see the baby.
--Lou Brock
DoctorJohnnyFever
No longer a N00b!
**

Karma: 102
Offline Offline

Posts: 75



WWW
« Reply #13 on: Nov 28, 2007 at 11:39 »

Quote
If a WR can't outrun a DL dropping back into coverage


It's not that the WR can't outrun the lineman, it's that the lineman is dropping into a zone where the Quarterback isn't expecting him to be.  I haven't seen it as much this season from the Steelers, but in recent years it would be hilarious to see Casey Hampton and Aaron Smith sitting in a zone 8 yards down field. And having it work every time.

 
Logged

"The MGS board is regarded here as a board with adult rated content. There are virtually no rules. There are no words that are inappropriate and no subject that cannot be discussed. Should you feel the need to get crazy, do it there. You will be welcomed with open arms."

 
blurjose
N00b
*

Karma: 101
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


« Reply #14 on: Nov 28, 2007 at 13:25 »

Quote
it would be hilarious to see Casey Hampton and Aaron Smith sitting in a zone 8 yards down field. And having it work every time.
Almost everything Hampton does on the field looks hilarious. There are times when he stands up after a tackle and you can barely tell the difference--a circle is a circle, afterall.

BTW: I got a Hampton jersey this year. I'm proud to be the only guy at the Steelers bar I go to here in Cali with a Hampton.  
Logged
steelerfaninCO
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1271
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,484



« Reply #15 on: Nov 28, 2007 at 18:11 »

Quote



Read his post.  He wrote about when the Dolphins went to max protect.  He's only dissecting a small segment of their offensive gameplan.  You can throw out all those statistics if you want to, but they're completely irrelevant.

 
Umm, I did read his post and the statistics I mentioned are completely relevant. The Fins went max protect on obvious passing downs all night and I wouldn't characterize their max protect scheme as a small segment of their gameplan, especially when they had no RB's. And what did that get them? Nada. Once again they had 110 passing yards,  gave up 4 sacks, converted 25% of 3rd downs(mostly from a max protect scheme), while managing to score zero points. "Alarmingly effective" does not come to mind when thinking about what the Fins did when in max protect mode.

The main objective for every offense is not to just simply protect their QB, but rather to move the ball and score points and thats the bottom line when assessing the effectiveness of a particular offensive gameplan. You wouldn't call a max protect offensive scheme effective if they gave up no sacks, but lost the game 34-0 while throwing for 110 yards.

The Fins might have been effective at protecting their QB with max protect(although thats questionable), but just protecting your QB doesn't win the game. They were completely ineffective at moving the chains and scoring points from a max protect offense and to me, that is way more important.
Logged
Winters in Holland
Brownstains can suck my Member
****

Karma: -1001
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #16 on: Nov 29, 2007 at 10:04 »

Nada. Once again they had 110 passing yards, gave up 4 sacks, converted 25% of 3rd downs(mostly from a max protect scheme), while managing to score zero points. "Alarmingly effective" does not come to mind when thinking about what the Fins did when in max protect mode.


I dunno who drove the barbed wire post up your rectum, friend.

What I found "alarmingly effective" about their max protect package is this:


1)  It gave Beck all day to pass.

2)  Their completion % was higher in those situations than "regular" pass plays.

3)  Had the Dolphins' receivers not dropped a lot of HUGE passes, it would've been more effective still, and the Steelers might be 7-4 right now instead of 8-3.


You can't blame dropped balls on the ineffectiveness of a formation.


.WiH.
Logged

I don't care if Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy are black. Good for them. But that doesn't change the way I feel about them. The longer we keep looking at guys like Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith as "BLACK HEAD COACHES" as opposed to just "coaches" the longer race will continue to be a problem. --DoctorJohnnyFever
pensodyssey
Halfsharkalligator halfman.
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 8123
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,749



« Reply #17 on: Nov 29, 2007 at 10:56 »

Quote
What I found "alarmingly effective" about their max protect package is this:


1)  It gave Beck all day to pass.

2)  Their completion % was higher in those situations than "regular" pass plays.

3)  Had the Dolphins' receivers not dropped a lot of HUGE passes, it would've been more effective still, and the Steelers might be 7-4 right now instead of 8-3.


You can't blame dropped balls on the ineffectiveness of a formation.
 
So, you're saying the formation was effective, but the actual plays were not?



 :huh2:  
Logged

A shabby Charlie Brown.
jburghfan
Brownstains can suck my Member
****

Karma: 223
Offline Offline

Posts: 855


« Reply #18 on: Nov 29, 2007 at 11:01 »

It just drives me crazy when teams max protect against us and only send out two receivers.....And it's successful.....

Why can't 5 guys ever seem to cover two guys?......
« Last Edit: Nov 29, 2007 at 11:01 by jburghfan » Logged
Big Virgil
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3768
Online Online

Posts: 3,253



« Reply #19 on: Nov 29, 2007 at 12:23 »

Quote
Quote
What I found "alarmingly effective" about their max protect package is this:


1)
« Last Edit: Nov 29, 2007 at 12:26 by Big Virgil » Logged

Looks like you've been missing a lot of work lately.
I wouldn't say I've been *missing* it, Bob.
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal
| Sitemap
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!