I've brought this point up a number of times, but don't recall getting a response, and I'd like to get some input.

A LOT of our passing plays come in the form of max protection. Basically we keep 7 players in to block for Henne while 3 receivers run routes. (Bess, Marshall, Hartline and Fasano when we're only using 2 WR)

On a given max protect play, the defense is most likely playing man due to the threat of the running game, even though we run this formation in obvious passing situations.

Even if the D is running a basic 2-Man-Under (everybody mans up except for the safeties, which play zone and split the back of the field) we're looking at 5 DBs on 3 WRs. We have the corners on our receivers with the safeties hawking around...and what is worse is that since we have no legitimate deep threat, those safeties can creep up, essentially creating 2-on-1 match-ups for each receiver.

So now, in a max protect scheme with the D playing in a basic 2MU, Chad Henne drops 3 steps...unless the first read is open this play is already dead...5 steps and Henne is (technically) on his second read and the safeties are on top of the WRs...7 steps we have two 2-on-1 and one 1-on-1 (most likely in the middle of the field where a gain would be minimal).

So now we are forcing a young and inexperienced QB to throw into tight coverage in hopes that he can make something happen. We are giving the D a gift by creating mismatches in their favor. We are being boring and predictable.

So what happens? Interceptions, sacks because nobody is open, and general groaning from the fans after another predictable offensive series ends.

Yeah, Henne throws some bad balls, they all do, but Henning NOT doing him any favors.

I can't do my job at work if a PC has the minimal specs. QBs can't do their job either if the offense they're running has minimal receiving options.

In short: Fire Dan Henning.

AMEN!

Sorry if I haven't responded to previous posts. I was thinking about starting this thread myself this week.

There are other implications:
- it LOOKS like he's getting great protection and time to throw because we're routinely only putting a couple receiving options into patterns. That's why we fans get so frustrated when it looks like he's staring down receivers and holding onto the ball too long getting sacked...or we get upset that he throws a pass that it looks like he has no business throwing in spite of having so much time. (I know you said this, but I'll echo it...it's a really important point).
- our running game is so bad that defenses can "play run on the way to the QB"

Playcalling is a huge part of it, but the quality of our OL is also a huge part of it. They require so much help in protecting the QB that it hampers the passing game by keeping backs and TE in to block rather than them becoming options for Henne.

Henning didn't do much to veil his criticism of Henne today. He seemed like a know-it-all codger in his interview and I practically threw up in my mouth as I listened to him blame everything on execution. He blamed Henne for the sack/fumble when on that play Ellis ran right between the two blockers (Brown was one of them...can't remember the other one). I don't care how thick-skinned & robotic you are, my guess is that Henning has basically sucked every bit of confidence out of Henne where the best he can do is not screw up.

BTW Predictable - you know you're predictable when it's reported that other teams are able to tell our offensive players what's coming before we snap the ball.

Well I didn't get to here the interview with Henning and I'm glad I didn't if that's what he said.
Christ, the first move needed is to get rid of Henning.

TheFutt, That's pretty much it. If you watch NE and how they spread the offense and still pass block. How they pick up and read the blitz it's easy to tell that we really need a much better OL.

Pretty sick I'd say.

There are two schools of thought. One is to go max protect, and hope for your primary guys to beat double teams. The other school of thought is to line up more WR, force the defense to spread out, and make them back off the pressure or risk single coverage all over the field.

I prefer the latter. And that's what teams like the Pats and Colts do. When you go max protect, you let the other team dictate to you.

It's interesting, in 1985, when the Bears had that ferocious pass rush, everything went max protect against them. Not Don Shula. His game plan was to use Nat Moore as a 3rd WR on every play, and him singled up on a safety. It worked out pretty good.

To be fair, Shula had Dan Marino throwing to Nat Moore.

But yeah, I agree. Max Protect is a joke and it's obvious that sending out 2-3 receiver patterns just doesn't work for this team.


dolfanmark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are two schools of thought. One is to go max
> protect, and hope for your primary guys to beat
> double teams. The other school of thought is to
> line up more WR, force the defense to spread out,
> and make them back off the pressure or risk single
> coverage all over the field.
>
> I prefer the latter. And that's what teams like
> the Pats and Colts do. When you go max protect,
> you let the other team dictate to you.
>
> It's interesting, in 1985, when the Bears had that
> ferocious pass rush, everything went max protect
> against them. Not Don Shula. His game plan was to
> use Nat Moore as a 3rd WR on every play, and him
> singled up on a safety. It worked out pretty good.

dolfanmark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's interesting, in 1985, when the Bears had that
> ferocious pass rush, everything went max protect
> against them. Not Don Shula. His game plan was to
> use Nat Moore as a 3rd WR on every play, and him
> singled up on a safety. It worked out pretty good.


Yes, Moore had a couple great years towards the end of his career as a result. He was considering retirement when we got Duper and Clayton on board, but Shula convinced Nat to stay another year or two, and it was a good thing he did.

(R/J)ay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To be fair, Shula had Dan Marino throwing to Nat
> Moore.
>
> But yeah, I agree. Max Protect is a joke and it's
> obvious that sending out 2-3 receiver patterns
> just doesn't work for this team.
>

Our receivers are not explosive guys who get open quickly, or who get a lot of separation. They all have their strengths, but none of them are particularly good at that. When you go max protect, it's because you are expecting a heavy pass rush. When the other team does that, they also go with tight coverage, close to the line, because they don't anticipate you having a lot of time waiting for a route to develop. In the ideal situation, your max protect works, and you have the time to hit a big play. Our pass protection is not good enough for this to be the case. So, the other hope is for your receivers to get open quickly. But, we don't really have that kind of talent either. That's why I think we'd be better served by going with 4 or 5 wide, and forcing the D to backoff, and hoping for 1 or 2 guys to get open.

dolfanmark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are two schools of thought. One is to go max
> protect, and hope for your primary guys to beat
> double teams. The other school of thought is to
> line up more WR, force the defense to spread out,
> and make them back off the pressure or risk single
> coverage all over the field.
>
> I prefer the latter. And that's what teams like
> the Pats and Colts do. When you go max protect,
> you let the other team dictate to you.
>
I agree 100%. The offense should ALWAYS be dictating the game. Heavy pass rushes are countered by plays that and formations designed to get behind the defense. Unfortunately, Henning has NO IDEA how to run a screen. It's the best play to counter a heavy rush. We haven't run a really successful screen in 3 years, and I attribute that to Henning's coaching.