Max Protect - a solution or a problem?

Submitted by AC1997 on

This morning on ESPN radio's Mike and Mike show they were talking to Jeff Saturday, former center from the Colts.  The topic was the obviously injured Peyton Manning and what Saturday would do to keep him healthy since he is the only reason the Broncos are a super bowl contender.  As Saturday spoke, I immediately thought of our situation with Devin Gardner - his health, his unproven back-up, and the fourteen recent sacks.  

Saturday's first comment was that he would absolutely not max-protect.  In his opinion that causes more "trash" around the QB because every TE and RB that stays in to block brings a defender who will read their tendencies and add another blitzing body to the mess around your QB.  He said he would spread the field, spread the D, and thus give the QB plenty of options to get rid of the ball faster.  

Obviously Denver's OL is far more competent than whatever we're throwing out there, but this is a strategy I'd like to see us use more.  I'm guessing you won't see any covered WR in Denver's next game.  

The other comment he said was that if he were the OL coach he would tell the guys that if they got beat by their man to hold, grab, or tackle the guy so he didn't hit Manning.  He said they'd rather see a penalty or bad play than get their QB hurt.  That made me realize that for all the lousy protection lately, we haven't had hardly any penalties for holding.  Why not tell the guys to push the limits a little more until the refs call it?  

 

Space Coyote

November 13th, 2013 at 11:49 AM ^

Even in the case of Michigan. But you also have to remember that DG has struggled making quick reads, which is something that is required with spreading the field out. Typically, in max protect situations, you have to run more complex route combinations because there are fewer routes being run. But they do make the reads easier because the QB sees how everything develops.

So it's not just the OL, but also the QB. Manning, for instance, immediately knows on the snap exactly where to go. He can look of defenders and get the ball out immediately because he's had that time repping the plays and he understands the game at such a high level. DG isn't there yet.

robmorren2

November 13th, 2013 at 12:58 PM ^

I've been wondering about the max protect too. With teams blitzing like crazy and completely jamming the box, couldn't you go 4 or 5 wide just to space things out horizontally? It seems like Michigan's answer is to bring in more OL/TE to block, but that's counterproductive in my opinion. The defenses just send more people when they see the extra blockers, and no matter what the defense will always be able to bring 1 extra guy. It jams everything up and doesn't leave any lanes for Gardner to scramble (which is probably our #1 run-game threat at this point). It's as is Al thinks that they'll stop sending people if we roll out 6 OL, 1 TE, and 1 RB to block. All we're doing is putting more guys on the field that aren't threats and aren't even particularly good at blocking. It basically invites defenses to bring even more blitzers, or bring more defenders up in the box.

the unsilent m…

November 13th, 2013 at 1:19 PM ^

I suggested this and was board lynched/deleted a few days ago. Yes, Borges needs to make an adjustment to counter the mad blitzing. But, he needs a quarterback who is capable of making those adjustments. We went through the same thing with Denard (who was deemed incapable of playing QB at the next level). It's a fundamental answer to an aggressive defense. Borges sees what DG is capable of every practice/game, and knows what he can do. Quick, progressive reads isn't one of them, as evidenced by his innacuracy and his turnovers. I think the coaching staff is taking the high road by not throwing him under the bus, instead blaming it on themselves and youth.

Monocle Smile

November 13th, 2013 at 2:00 PM ^

There seems to be this theme among a few posters like you who post what would otherwise be harmless or decent input, but are obnoxious raging dickheads about it (while sometimes starting useless threads that should merely be comments in another thread). Then when you make a bunch of douchey responses to people who ask you to turn it down and get your threads deleted, you bitch and bitch and bitch about being censored. Just shut up already. Sometimes the problem is in the mirror.

the unsilent m…

November 13th, 2013 at 2:31 PM ^

Maybe it's a problem with this blog. There seems to develop currents of thought on this blog that are self-ratifying. Then, if someone cuts against that current, they are being "douchey" or "obnoxious", etc. I am a daily reader of this blog (2years running), and it's under attack from the fucking MGoBolsheviks.
I digress. The purpose of my thread, and I think what should be gleaned from Space Coyote's response is that there may be more to the situation with our beloved team than meets the eye. The solution to the offense's problems is somewhat academic; we just may not have the right tool to fix it. If that's true, the staff certainly isn't going to further shatter his confidence by coming out and saying as much. Assuming this may be true, I applaud the staff's handling of the situation, and await better days. There is a reason the man can recruit the way he does, and this may lend some insight as to why he can.

In reply to by the unsilent m…

Monocle Smile

November 13th, 2013 at 2:42 PM ^

There may in fact be much more wrong with this team/program than we perceive. I'm almost afraid to know how far down the rabbit hole this goes.

umchicago

November 13th, 2013 at 4:14 PM ^

i'm not a QB or coach, but currently, isn't DG being asked to make reads based on routes that take a lot of time to develop?  wouldn't it be easier if we had 3-4 receivers and he makes his read pre-snap and goes there?  that way, there is no decision making while under duress.  that may involve bubble screens though (yikes).  just asking.

go16blue

November 13th, 2013 at 11:57 AM ^

I agree completely on the max protect thing. It's the same concept as running out of 2 or 3 TE sets - all you're really doing is bringing in more defenders, which equals more opportunities for a block to be messed up. Mathematically it's really best to spread the field.

That having been said, as a changeup I think max protect can work very well. If you spread the field consistently throughout the game to the point that the defense only sends 4 or 5 every play, changing things up by using 7 or 8 pass blockers can have its desired effect: keeping the QB clean long enough to hit a deep route. But when you are consistently loading the box with 2 or 3 TEs and running a lot of max protect, you're just inviting more defenders to blitz.

MikeCohodes

November 13th, 2013 at 12:00 PM ^

Agreed, they should push the limits until the refs flag them. Besides, I'd rather have a pass play wiped out by a holding penalty than a pass play wiped out by Devin taking another helmet to the ribs.

LSAClassOf2000

November 13th, 2013 at 12:25 PM ^

The Salt Lake City Tribune actually had a piece on Del Rio's reluctance to use max protect schemes where Manning is concerned. He states, in contrast to the wishes of the Bronco faithful:

"But quarterbacks are actually hit more often when you pack them in. And they’re hit far more often in maximum protection. In fact, one of the times he was hit Sunday was on a max protection and the tight end got beat."

 

Michigan4Life

November 13th, 2013 at 12:52 PM ^

Generally, the rule for LB/S is if RB/TE stay in to protect the QB, it's an automatic blitz if it's man coverage.  We attack them to hold them off just in case they leak then go after them once we realize there's no leak route.  Staying in for max protect allows fewer receivers to run routes against 7-8 men on the field covering. This will give DL more time to get to the QB especially if they're really good at stack and shed.

UMfan21

November 13th, 2013 at 1:12 PM ^

I know I've felt that max protect is hurting this team.  The fact is, we don't have people who can block consistently.  In my opinion, the answer then is not to put MORE bad blocking on the field, but to put LESS bad blocking on the field.  Spreading out the defenses and trading LBs/DL for nickle/dime packages would be ideal IMO.

 

Space coyote brings up a  good point about Gardner's ability to read, so I don't know.  Maybe they are damned if they do, damned if they don't.   But I think I'd take my chances with Gardner reading defenses instead of having the pockets crumble and him eating the ball because complicated 2 man routes are not open.

SamIam

November 13th, 2013 at 1:56 PM ^

I would think Funchess would make a great screen for Dileo underneath on a quick route.  He seems like a shore handed slot ninja that is never used.  Or maybe try Northfleet at it.  We seem to have personel that could make you pay for what defenses are doing.  Heck, I would just throw it up immediatly when you have Funchess one on one on the outside.  I like those chances better than the standard 2 yard loss.

reshp1

November 13th, 2013 at 2:10 PM ^

As with most things in a sport where you only get 11 guys no matter what, it helps you in some ways and hurts you in others. I tend to agree it's probably a net negative at this point, especially combined with the slide protection scheme since some of the best linemen are often blocking air leaving the RB is 1v1 with the DE. I'll defer to coaching types, but I would guess spreading has other problems and is more susceptable to blitzs if the QB can't make quick reads and find the dump off. Is it better than taking a coverage sack because your two WRs are double/triple covered? I don't know.

gbdub

November 13th, 2013 at 3:04 PM ^

Max protect does nothing to cover our main issues of terrible blocking by the interior line. Yeah, you've got more guys in, but we do (or can do) nothing to prevent the defense from bringing in just as many guys. Max protect only helps if you've done other things to keep the defense from blitzing every play, and only if your extra blockers are smart and skilled enough to pick up the extra rushers.

Ultimately, more guys is just more chances for a defender to get through, and less chances for a quick out if one of them does.

The other issue is that frequent max-protect is going to hurt your run game - those defenders in the box to pressure your QB can just as easily stifle your runs.

I think our best bet at this point is to spread the field, with more outlet opportunities for Gardner. Worst case, fewer guys in the box is a better chance for a run play to succeed, and a much higher likelihood of there being a scramble lane open if Gardner decides to tuck it.

Yeah, maybe Gardner can't adjust and might make some bad throws that get caught by the other team. But at some point 0 turnovers are meaningless because not moving the ball at all is essentially a turnover anyway.

Perd Hapley

November 13th, 2013 at 3:15 PM ^

I am no super smart coach or anything but I agree that in our situation max protect or full back/ multiple TE is a bad idea. I have only coached junior high kids and our first year I didn't have many players and so we're not athletic. My solution was to spread them out and run into a 5 man line (no TE ) with 4 wide. This way my bad players could block a player by not blocking them (moving them into coverage) of course in 5-6 grade they can't pass very well but I threw some passes to keep the other team honest. As my players got older I still spread them out but I could pass much better because of there age. Now I could run very well because they had to respect the WR. My point is that if your Full back and TEs can't block effectively then the best thing to do is spread them out when running the ball.

With that said I see what the coaches are trying to do and teach these YOUNG players for what they would like to do in the future and we should expect these growing pains to occur by now. We didn't do this the past 2 years. The fans and team could not take a 3-7. Also the players we need to teach this were not on campus yet. We would have to re-teach the next year any ways. It's time to pay the piper. I support this staff and we need to give them time. Just would like to see them spread out the defense more in games a little more even if it is just to set up some positive runs.

Sllepy81

November 13th, 2013 at 3:28 PM ^

can block why bother. what we need to do is slip the HB up the middle if they blitz dump it to him. they tend to blitz us up the middle so it should be open short over the middle.

Jacoby

November 13th, 2013 at 4:03 PM ^

As a man with no experience either playing or coaching football on any level, I demand that Al Borges implement Saturday's suggestions at once based on the fact that Saturday's suggestions seem to make good sense.

WhoopinStick

November 13th, 2013 at 4:24 PM ^

Personally I'd like to see Michigan go almost exclusively from a spread formation the rest of the year.  The fewer defenders/blitzers in the box that have to be blocked, the better.  I cringe every time Michigan lines up in a heavy formation as it doesn't tend to end well.  

wolverinebutt

November 13th, 2013 at 8:01 PM ^

I played football for 10 years(DII @ Saginaw Valley in the 1970's).  I Coached youth football

for a couple of years for my sons team.  I am not expert, but I remember a year with a terrible O-line and it was brutal in youth football.  We had limited options with very little passing, but its VERY hard for anything to work when the D is in your backfield every play.  

We did slant passes, draws, screens, short counters(no long, reverses) and all quick hitter type plays.  Yes, a straight handoff/dive play like we see with Fitz was in the mix because its quick and you pray for even a small crease or small hole for the RB.

We are going to see the same D we saw the last two weeks until we force the other team out of it by hurting them.  I hope Brady and Al come up with something.   

     

XM - Mt 1822

November 13th, 2013 at 8:22 PM ^

and let it fly.  hit the slant or  fake a Y dump, and go the other way on a fade, but never hold the ball more than about 2.5 seconds.   if you loosen up the defense, then you can run, but with 8-9 guys in the box, you aren't going anywhere fast on the ground. 

UofM626

November 14th, 2013 at 2:03 AM ^

You bitch and complain that the offense sucked under RR when they spread it out all over the field. And everyone wanted power I and multiple TE sets. All yearned to go back to running the ball with one or even two TE. Now that the offense sucks you all bitch and complain to "spread it out " use "the read"



This is garbage people, Hoke is out guy now and we need to support them. Have you not learned anything from bashing RR and his staff. Shit up until a few weeks ago everything was perfect. Just sick of everyone flip flopping on what they want on O and just let them work. Now no excuse for Borgis and his crappy play calling though, I'm sick of his vanilla cream of a game plan but so be it and stop flip flopping all the time.

Red is Blue

November 14th, 2013 at 8:33 AM ^

For simplicity and recognizing there are a lot of assumptions, lets suppose the d plays man and blitzes the rest. Send 2 guys out and that leaves 2 opportunities for a receiver to shake his man (obviously) and 8 blockers for 9 rushers. You've got 8 blockers that need to execute and even if one blocker takes one man that leaves an unblocked rusher whom the qb must avoid with 8 other defenders in the area. Sending 5 out gives you more opportunities to get someone open (5 v. 2), there are only 5 blockers that need to execute and the qb has to avoid the unblocked rusher with fewer other defenders in the area (5 v. 8).

Of course, with 5 out the qb has more reads to make and there is less space between receivers, so there is a greater possibility a defender comes off his receiver to help with a pbu or pick.

Seems best to mix these things up, but with max protect as the change up not the base.