Max Protect

AROS

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
18,958
Reaction score
7,669
Location
Sultan, WA
At what point do we employ that basic response to the circumstance we've been in for several weeks now? I'm astonished that we didn't see it in full effect last Monday. Thoughts?
 

SeeHawkRun

New member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
167
Reaction score
0
Location
Bellingham, WA
They seem to be going in the opposite direction though. I don't recall seeing many two tight end sets on the field against the Rams (I'll have to rewatch the game).

I think it's needed. Something has to be done. You can't just ignore the problem and hope it fixes itself. Miller is a great blocking Tight End to begin with, and we sure could stand to give Wilson some breathing room.

I'm glad we won. But I wonder what the deal was last Monday. Whole gameplan just seemed totally unlike anything resembling football sense. (only 8 carries for Beast Mode?? In a low scoring game even?)
 
OP
OP
AROS

AROS

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
18,958
Reaction score
7,669
Location
Sultan, WA
This is my number one complaint right now. We're putting guys in with little to no experience at these positions due to injury. I get that we don't have a choice. What I don't get, is why in the hell are we not providing these guys with safety valves, aka Max Protect? Keeping Miller and others in to help block may limit RW's passing options but you know what else limits RW's pass options Pete and Bevell?? Try having the ball in his hands for less than two seconds before he's spitting pieces of field turf out of his mouth!

The lack of adjustments with our OL in pass pro is extremely troubling to me. As it stands right now, we're on borrowed time before our season comes to a screeching halt if God forbid Russell gets hurt badly.

It's almost like Pete is happy with just hoping things will improve instead of proactively stepping in and doing whatever is necessary to keep our star upright and intact.

ADJUST!
 

SeeHawkRun

New member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
167
Reaction score
0
Location
Bellingham, WA
I fear that with the injury to Rice (and still no Percy this week) it will continue to be more of the same. We'll overmatch the Bucs regardless...But we'd better have righted the ship or adjusted by @Atlanta. I don't care that they're even more depleted than us and having a lousy season. That's a game we should be fired up to WIN.

Anyway, I fear that Tate, Baldwin and Kearse, while good, just aren't enough to get consistent separation in the amount of time that Russell has to throw. Without a back in the flats or a tight end as a checkdown option...max protect formations might merely buy Wilson enough time to scramble out of the pocket more often than not.

At least, that might be what Carroll and company are thinking.
 

Hawkscanner

New member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
0
Location
Middle of Nowhere, Washington
Following the game, that was one of my biggest complaints. Gruden kept illustrating again and again that McQuistan and Bowie just could not block Long and Quinn 1:1 at all. Fine I said -- bring on the 2 TE sets. I could be wrong, but I don't ever recall seeing any 2 TE sets in the game. I know those sets are somewhat limiting, but you can also run a lot of short and very effective pass patterns with your TE's in the face of pressure out of those sets as well. With the complete inability of McQuistan and Bowie to do anything -- that's the way I would have gone for sure. I mean crap, last year when Seattle signed Kellen Winslow they spent a lot of time implementing/working on those 2 TE sets in training camp. It seemed to me back then that Pete and Bevell really liked the idea of having 2 TE sets and all the issues that could cause. Have those sets just simply disappeared from the playbook?
 

purpleworld

Member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
451
Reaction score
3
It is funny....Zac's first year here they kept him in to block cause the line was so bad....then Monday, going against two ProBowlers with stiffs for tackles, they do nothing to protect the Franchise...that is what I am most pissed at....they had 10 days to prepare for a Fisher defense that was going to be bringing the house all night as they did last year and it is like the coaches didn't even care! Totally Disgusting!!
 

plyka

New member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,342
Reaction score
0
Rice will be a big loss in my opinion. I know the general feeling toward Rice's injury, ie not a big loss, but Rice was our only REAL WRs. By REAL i mean a guy that has the intangibles of a WR. The way he moves, runs his routes, catches the ball, etc. Tate is an unbelievable athlete, he does amazing things for his height and other limitations. And I'm probably the only guy on this board that sees this, but the guy just doesn't pass the eye test for a true WR. I understand his stats are better than Rice's, but just by watching Tate I don't feel comfortable with him being the #1 guy.

Baldwin/Kearse on the other hand I'm very happy watching. They both look great to me, Baldwin in particular has shown himself to be an absolute beast when given the opportunities, unfortunately our coaching staff / Wilson don't seem to feed him the ball and it is astonishing to me. Baldwin makes incredible catches, he has great hands, he is a big time player. Kearse has great ball hawking skills, in that he goes up for the ball. We are going to miss Rice, but with Baldwin/Kearse I have confidence that one or both will step up.

That said, our Oline is horrible, and the playcalling is actually worse. I don't think Carroll has a say in the offense, putting everything in the other coaches hands. Pete is a smart / common sense type of guy. How in the world do you call a game like last week with literally no in game adjustments? How do you not max protect? Run screens? Run shallow routes? 3 step routes? If they are stacking the box, then you make sure and protect the QB and take them apart with quick routes. They had a few slants, some worked perfectly but were dropped or had penalties --fine, don't give up on it. If i see another 5-7 step drop while Wilson is being raped right in front of our eyes on the field I'm going to explode.

Max protect, screens, draws, draws and more draws, and for god's sake, CHIP THE EDGE RUSHERS WITH ANYONE JUST SOMEONE!
 

Tical21

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
82
Good teams don't run max protect. They put more guys into the routes, know their hot reads, and get rid of the ball and burn the defense.
 

HawKnPeppa

New member
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
4,733
Reaction score
0
Tical21":9aky2x2e said:
Good teams don't run max protect. They put more guys into the routes, know their hot reads, and get rid of the ball and burn the defense.

Good teams have at least a representative NFL OL.
 

brimsalabim

Active member
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
3
If Miller is as you say a great blocking TE does that mean he was missing blocks against the rams by design?
 

HolyCatfish

New member
Joined
Oct 11, 2013
Messages
183
Reaction score
0
Tical21":340wedml said:
Good teams don't run max protect. They put more guys into the routes, know their hot reads, and get rid of the ball and burn the defense.

I don't think any team is really using max protect much anymore except for maybe the Bears and the Red Skins. Even they aren't using but about a quarter of the time on passing plays.


http://www.chicitysports.com/forum/show ... -Statistic

The Bears were in max protection 18% of the time on passing plays in 2012, second highest percentage in the NFL behind the Washington Redskins. Their definition of max protection is seven blockers. (“Max protect” is defined as using at least seven blockers with at least two more blockers than pass rushers.) According to FBO.
 

Scottemojo

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
14,663
Reaction score
1
On a handful of occasions, Zach, Mike Rob, and Lynch had blocking assignments they did very poorly on. I know that isn't max protect, but it kind of tells why we didn't go more that direction. Also, and this is my theory only, I think STL had one or two players(sometimes one on each side of the formation) who had the assignment of watching Russell, and they had immense freedom to come after if he tried to execute play action or run an option look keeper. I think a habit of max protect would have only played right into freeing those guys up to come after Russell even more, the only thing keeping those spy's honest sometimes is having to pass guard an area.

The more I watch, the more I think the biggest failure was just not putting the game on Lynch. Ride or die with Lynch. McQuistan and Bowie were getting their ass kicked, letting them do some attacking would have been a good thing, continuing to ask them to do things they just physically can't was an error. There has been an ever increasing trend of layering in offensive looks that will feature Harvin, and for the most part there has not been a lot of success with those looks because defenses don't have to play them as if Harvin is actually there. I am sure it has been good for the team to practice those looks at game speed, but in this particular game being more spread played into the hands of the Rams. A lot of the missed assignments were from those looks, and in space. The team speed of that Rams front 7 put our players at a serious disadvantage in space. Simply dialing the offense back to a focus on the run might have been enough to get the Rams out of attack mode, which would have freed up play action.

As the two teams are constructed right now, I don't think we can have anything but difficult games with Rams. Last year and this, their speed has really messed up the sync of our offense. Max protect would have done little to negate their speed advantages. in my opinion. which is worth precisely dick.
 

edogg23

Well-known member
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
1,121
Reaction score
68
IMO all max protect does in invite more pressure into RW face because there are fewer players outside of the box. RW just needs to find his dump off more often.
 

Hawknballs

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
837
we aren't in max protect because we still have a game plan to execute and as long as we have the best defense in the NFL we won't be out of any games.

call it stubborn or even wrong, but they are trying to stick with what they want to do regardless of the line's issues.
 

HawkFan72

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
16,570
Reaction score
1
Location
Bay Area, CA
Hawknballs":ohbfeplf said:
we aren't in max protect because we still have a game plan to execute and as long as we have the best defense in the NFL we won't be out of any games.

call it stubborn or even wrong, but they are trying to stick with what they want to do regardless of the line's issues.

At least with max protect Wilson can drop back, see if anybody gets open, and then take off if not.

The ways things are now, he doesn't even have a chance to look at the field before he has to run or get sacked.
 

Hawknballs

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
837
I think we need to be careful not to over-react to one game.

The protection hasn't been good but it was abused by the rams, and that's not going to happen every game.

Personally I'd rather they keep running the offense they want to run and surviving until we get some guys back on the line rather than having to change the playbook and then change it back in a few weeks.

some schemes and rosters are easier to just 'throw in max protect' and some aren't.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,610
Aros":6zbkvfvn said:
At what point do we employ that basic response to the circumstance we've been in for several weeks now? I'm astonished that we didn't see it in full effect last Monday. Thoughts?

According to interviews I've heard this week with players, we were trying to max protect. Which is why a lot of the blame is going to missed assignments on the part of our RB's, TE's and O-Line switches.

This makes me even madder than I was before. Just getting beat because our O-Line is less talented than the Rams D-Line is forgivable, but not being prepared and missing assignements? That is not forgivable, especially with a supposed O-Line guru like Cable.
 

DavidSeven

New member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
5,742
Reaction score
0
I know there's been a lot of hand wringing over this last game, but we can't reinvent the wheel every week. They've been ramping up the quick passing game over the last three weeks, which everyone on .NET seemed to be pining for a month ago, and they're still trying to work out the kinks in that strategy. So, now we want to go max protect and have our receivers, who supposedly "can't get separation", outnumbered 2-1 in the secondary? We used many protection concepts against St. Louis, and their D-line was still schooling us.

The Rams D-line took our healthy O-line to the woodshed last year at C-Link, too. They're just a real tough match-up for Seattle.
 

hawks4thewin

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
752
Reaction score
7
let me point out a few things...
Every team in each division has a division rival they play better then anyone reguardless of talent/coaching/scheme.
For the rams it was seattle, for seattle its the 49ers..

now, compile that with the hawks going in there 2nd road game thinking it would be a walkin the park. and the rams thinking they would beat hte best team in the division to prove a point and i think you have a tough challenge..

Lynch going out for a few series with a sore knee. didn't help. but lets be honest here we TRIED to run.... lynch was getting smacked in the backfield..
They had our number...
They always do.. last year we lsot this game. this time we won.

looking forward i think they will be tough on us here also.
 

Natethegreat

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
2,564
Reaction score
391
I wonder if they don't like max protection because it limits Russel's throwing lanes a lot more plus makes it harder to see. Just a thought.
 

Latest posts

Top