No announcement yet.

Max Protect? What is that exactly?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Max Protect? What is that exactly?

    How can the Rams use something called Max Protect and STILL give up the most sack yards in the NFL? What is Max Protect? Keep the FB in? Boy that helped. Keep the TE close? Worked ever so welll last year didn't it?

    I don't get this max protect crap. Someone help me please.

  • #2
    Re: Max Protect? What is that exactly?

    It would seem to me that the idea of max protect is supposed to better protect the quarterback or take protection pressure off of the offensive line. However, if you think about it, by devoting more personnel to pass protection, you're effectively taking away targets for the quarterback to throw to during the play. For example, in a formation with two wide receivers, two tight ends, and one halfback, the quarterback has the potential for five targets. If one tight end and the halfback are devoted to pass protection, the quarterback only has three targets: the two WRs and the one remaining TE. If those three targets are covered -- and less face it, it's easier to cover two WRs and a TE than it is, say, four WRs and a delayed HB route -- then the quarterback has few if any options at this point. So I'm inclined to believe that max protect has the potential to hurt an offense as much as it does help because it takes away offensive targets.

    If you look at Marc Bulger's situational stats, there are a number of interesting pieces of information. Of the four formations that ESPN has situational stats for (shotgun, backs split, I-formation, lone setback), the backs split formation has the highest sack percentage. Bulger attempted 98 passes in this formation, and was sacked 10 times. That's a sack percentage of over 10%. No other formation has a percentage higher than six percent. Now in terms of number of wide receivers, the highest sack percentage falls when there are two or fewer receivers on the field. That seems to raise my eyebrow, because when I think of max protect, I think of formations that have a tight end or a fullback in to help pick up rushers, meaning fewer wide receivers. You don't normally associate max protect with three or four wide receiver sets, but these passing stats seem to imply that the Rams give up fewer sacks when more receivers are in the game, and that by using formations that lower the number of targets -- which I believe would be consistent with a max protection formation -- the Rams are in fact more likely to give up a sack. So perhaps if the Rams want to decrease the number of sacks, one possible way might be to keep a number of targets on the field so that the quarterback has a place to dump the ball off if pressure comes his way. And who knows, perhaps the Rams did that and Bulger wasn't making the reads. We know he's had problems checking down to Faulk, so this would be something he needs to definitely improve on as well.

    Just my two cents.


    • #3
      Re: Max Protect? What is that exactly?

      I think the west coast offense is designed to be the happy medium between max protect, and the greatest show on turf (aka, everyone go out for a pass).

      Max protect has the problem that there aren't enough weopons out there to throw to, and the other way means not enough time to throw the ball.

      IF you have a great offensive line and don't use your tight end much in the passing game, then you can be a bit more aggressive like we did for awhile there...

      But when that isn't working, I'm not sure the answer is to try to MAX protect, especially since that works against the strengths of this team.

      Unfortunately, we will not go far if we have to change to more of a max protect offense. The O' Line just has to step up and give reasonable protection so that we can get "Isaac Holt" going, and get Curtis/Looker/MacDonald in the mix, with Faulk as an outlet and occasionally the primary receiver. It's our bread and butter.


      • #4
        Re: Max Protect? What is that exactly?

        A vary valuable and insightful two cents, Nick. Thanks!


        • #5
          Re: Max Protect? What is that exactly?

          That's why I think all this max protect talk is just I really don't think the Rams max protected Bulger. If anything, Bulger just had less weapons at his disposal. He had no speed at 3 WR, played quite a bit without Faulk, and still led the NFC in passing yards.

          Take that max protect stuff and put it somewhere else because the Rams didn't really max protect Bulger. Maybe Bulger had a quicker release than some of you thought.


          • #6
            Re: Max Protect? What is that exactly?

            max protect is when you have everyone blocking except for two receivers and the qb.


            • #7
              Re: Max Protect? What is that exactly?

              Marc likes max protect, he is not as good as Warner was, in finding the 4th and 5th read.


              • #8
                Re: Max Protect? What is that exactly?

                Rambos, he's not? Take a look at Looker's might be surprised. They are similar to Hakim's.


                • #9
                  Re: Max Protect? What is that exactly?

                  we have no short passing game.... faulk was missing and no confidence with our TE's... should have gone for a big short yardage receiver in FA.


                  • #10
                    Re: Max Protect? What is that exactly?

                    "Max Protect" is what you say when you finally admit that the QB's play wasn't all the QB's fault but you don't want to admit that QB's play was partly your fault too.


                    Related Topics


                    • RamsInfiniti
                      Please get off Bulger's back about the checkdowns!
                      by RamsInfiniti
                      I've read alot of articles on how about how Bulger was trying to force the ball to Bennett, and S.J. was wide open in the flat on 3rd down and Bulger didn't see him, or why isn't Bulger throwing to ball to the tight end's more often, or why aren't we getting the ball down field ...

                      It's clear that the wide receivers were on top of their game against the ***** for us to be able to throw the ball downfield as much as we did. I have made reference to the one play where Ike absolutely make the ***** defender look ridiculous on that dig route to the sideline. Without the fantastic route running of our receivers, we might not have passed for 150 yards against those guys ...

                      There is simply no time to go through the progressions. It doesn't mean that Bulger doesn't read the defense as well as other elite quarterbacks or that he is locking in on certain receivers. Watch his eyes in the game, he is always looking all around the field. However, when you only have two seconds of comfort in the pocket, it's impossible to go through you typical progression scheme. I would guess he only had a handful of times in the game where he even had a chance to look for his third or fourth option when the first and second were covered. Give the guy a break, he is working behind an absolutely terrible offensive line ....

                      As the line improves, you'll see more passes to the tight ends and backs. We had to leave them in to block just about every play against the *****. It is really a guessing game against a blitzing 3-4 defense like that: if you send the TE's and RB's out on the wrong play, Bulger is going to get killed. If you don't send them out against a typical Cover 2 or man scheme, it's going to be hard to find anyone open if only two WR's are downfield ...

                      Bulger will find ways to improvise. Look at the improvement between game 1 and game 2. He will get comfortable behind what he has and I fully expect us to be scoring in the 20's and 30's soon enough ...

                      Be patient and keep your heads up!
                      -09-18-2007, 09:51 AM
                    • MauiRam
                      The Evolution of the Zone Blitz ..
                      by MauiRam
                      By Greg Cosell

                      Don Coryell and Bill Walsh were two pioneering and aggressive innovators who greatly expanded how people approached the NFL offense. As I wrote in a recent piece about the evolution of the offense, both men challenged standard beliefs and conventional wisdom, helping to gradually transform the run-dominated league that Vince Lombardi ruled in the 1960s into the pass-heavy NFL we know today. More than 30 years after Coryell and Walsh first advanced their strategic views, their influence remains as strong and pervasive as ever.

                      But how did defenses react to these historic changes in offense? Remember that, for years, defensive coaches had been trying to stop offensive formations that almost exclusively featured two backs, two wide receivers and a tight end aligned on the line of scrimmage right next to the tackle. Passing was predominantly a long-yardage tactic, focused on deep, seven-step drops and long-developing routes. The defensive template was fairly well-established, consisting of 4-3 fronts that rarely blitzed, minimal coverage schemes that highlighted man-to-man with deep safety help and basic zone concepts that did not incorporate route progressions or pattern reading. When teams did blitz and a blitz back then was always defined as sending five or more rushers they played man coverage, working without a deep safety in the middle of the field most of the time. The rewards could be great, but so were the risks.

                      Unless they had great talent, defenses of that era (and in the early 1980s) were not strategically equipped to effectively respond to the expansion of the passing game, with its innovative emphasis on quick timing throws, three-receiver sets and tight ends that could align outside the formation. Thanks to Air Coryell, Bill Walsh and the proliferation of the West Coast offense, offenses were usually a step ahead. Teams needed to make a parallel change in defensive philosophy. As quarterbacks became increasingly important to their offenses, stopping them became increasingly important to defenses. The challenge was to exert pressure on the quarterback without placing too many demands on the coverage. Conventional thinking about blitzing held that pure man coverage be used. Cornerbacks had no help; they were exposed, liable to give up big plays and touchdowns if they were beaten on the outside.

                      Dick LeBeau, the defensive backfield coach for the Cincinnati Bengals from 1980 to 1983, recognized this significant shift. He intuitively understood that the objective was to impact the quarterback without sacrificing bodies in coverage. It was a numbers game: Teams had to rush with fewer defenders while forcing offenses to keep more blockers in pass protection, including eligible receivers like running backs and tight ends. The goal was to have more defenders available to cover fewer receivers. LeBeau addressed the need to bring pressure by attacking specific...
                      -07-26-2012, 10:58 AM
                    • RamWraith
                      Some Balzer stuff :-)
                      by RamWraith
                      ***** It was always a weak theory. It's just like the "Martz was outcoached in the Super Bowl loss to the Patriots because he didn't run Faulk enough" theory. It gets said by analysts immediately after it happens and then gets repeated and repeated so many times that it becomes accepted as fact.

                      I call it the "pat" analysis, because it doesn't require any deeper thought or real analysis, which is needed in a game that has many elements to it. Didn't go for it? Lack of confidence in the quarterback. Didn't beat New England? Faulk didn't run enough. As if that was all there was to it. There are always many variables involved, and usually never just one reason for explanation.

                      ***** (Poster) I feel like I'm being pushed into a corner here. Let me ask a simple question. Is Bulger needing to work on the deep passes or not. From what I have heard, he does. If this is not true, then the reports I have heard are bogus.

                      (Howard) It would be good to read entire posts. No one has said he doesn't need to work on it. My point was directed at those who believe him getting a lot better at it is the key to the Rams offense achieving. As I mentioned, it was one of the best passing offenses in the league last year without a lot of success on deep throws. However, Bulger wasn't much worse than most quarterbacks in that regard. In Warner's good years, he wasn't much better at the deep ball than Bulger was last year. And how about the one to Holt against Carolina that Holt failed to catch?

                      We're talking, at most, about 1 pass per game, on average. And the rest of my post noted that what's important is for the defense to know the Rams will try the long pass, and that in itself affects the way they play.

                      *****is is really amusing. Chandler's deep ball is looking better at this point? In one minicamp? Some people saying this haven't even seen him!

                      This stuff about the deep ball is so overblown. Sure, it would be great if some were hit. But the problems last year on 14 long passes sure didn't prevent the Rams passing offense from being one of the best in the NFL in a year when the ground game wasn't very good. Heck, it's as if everyone forgets that Holt led the NFL in receptions and yards!

                      Bulger was near the top of the league in percentage and yards. The bottom line is that defenses respect the deep pass because they know the Rams will try it. That opens up other things in the passing game.
                      -06-06-2004, 04:44 PM
                    • r8rh8rmike
                      Time To Get The Tight Ends More Involved?
                      by r8rh8rmike
                      Could we see things open up for the tight ends against Seattle? The offense has been progressing nicely the last few weeks and making the tight ends more a factor could be an added dimension that the Seahawks may not be planning for. Both Klopf and Walker have shown the ablity to make big catches and incorporating something else for the opposition's defense to worry about could really open things up and help in the red zone.
                      -10-14-2006, 03:10 PM
                    • ramhard
                      Beating a dead horse - big receivers
                      by ramhard
                      I think I just need to copy and save this post. For the last three years I have harped and harped for the Rams to draft a big receiver. He doesn't have to be the faster, or even run the super precise routes that Martz loves (the reason I think he doesn't draft or keep the big receivers), but he's physical and can win jump balls (when was the last time the Rams receivers won a jump ball like the ones the ******'s receivers won yesterday). He can shield dbacks with his body and be a big red zone threat. Even with an improved running attack without a big receiver, the redzone's lack of space and lanes shuts down the Rams passing attack and forces Bulger to try to be too precise in there. You know the Rams are small at receiver when Ridgeway, at 5'11 and 212 was considered a big physical receiver... the Lions would laugh at that with their trio of 6'3+ 220+ wideouts.

                      Time for the annual "compare the size of the Rams WR to the rest of the league and see how much smaller they are game"....
                      -09-12-2005, 05:49 AM