Why the prevent is not good for this team

[ivanvamp]

I understand the concept of the prevent defense, and the reality is, the last two games, the Pats have played it in the 4th quarter, and they've won the games. Since that's the objective, I guess one could justify its use.

However, the concept, as we all know, is to make the opposing offense take a lot of time off the clock, gaining small chunks of yardage. You trade off yards and even some points for time; in the end, the opponent shouldn't have enough time left. But here are the 4th quarter drives by Pitt and Indy:

Pit
7 plays, 71 yds, 2:09, TD
2 plays, 12 yds, 0:30, INT
5 plays, 53 yds, 1:48, TD
5 plays, 80 yds, 1:24, TD
7 plays, 47 yds, 1:47, time expired

Indy
7 plays, 73 yds, 2:26, TD
7 plays, 73 yds, 2:18, TD
9 plays, 50 yds, 1:48, INT

Ok, the INT's are obviously very nice. But both Pit and Indy absolutely *shredded* the prevent defense. If the concept was to make the other team take a lot of time off the clock, clearly, that objective was not met - not even close. Look at those drives. Not one of them took longer than 2:26. As soon as the Pats went into the soft defense, the other team just ripped down the field.

If the philosophy of going to the soft prevent is to prevent the big plays from the other team, and to eat up the clock, this is not working. You may as well play your regular defense - you know, the one that kept both Indy and Pit under control for the first three quarters of those games. As soon as the Pats went soft, the other offenses went nuts.

Moreover, going to the soft prevent seems, for some strange reason, to impact the entire attitude of the team, because the offense tends to play timid. Even as early as the Cincy game, we saw this kind of thing. Huge lead, offense played crisp early, but tended to really slow down in the 2nd half.

Anyway, my two cents on this. BB knows more football than I could ever dream of, but it seems pretty obvious that the soft prevent is not doing what it's supposed to. May as well play normal defense.

 

[alvinnf]

Amen.........

 

[Kontradiction]

I'm sure someone will come in and attempt to make a (poor) argument over how the game wouldn't have been different had we applied pressure to Manning. That would be funny, though, considering the fact that we finally forced Manning's third turnover precisely because we were able to get pressure on him. Props to Jermaine Cunningham.

The prevent defense is absolutely terrible against good quarterbacks. Manning is a good quarterback. Give him enough time to make a sandwich back there and it doesn't matter if you field ten defensive backs. He'll find a way to hit the open man. For that matter, why are we still playing zone defense?

 

[apple strudel]

Not really serious devil's advocate: you've got to get the young guys snaps in the prevent and pressure situations.

Hey, I'm looking for a bright side to no-name guys running free through the middle of our secondary (Funny how missing Dallas Clark doesn't change much for Indy in that regard). I know, I know, don't let Reggie Wayne beat you....

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I'm not sure if the problem is the "prevent" or the zone coverage or our sub package with 5+ DBs struggling. There were also several other mistakes involved in yesterday's 4th quarter comeback, and I think a lot of this points to lack of focus.

On the first TD drive of the quarter, Manning threw for 30 yards, but the real key was giving up a 36-yard run to Brown which took them from the Indy side of the field to the red zone. Brown also added a 7-yard run near the goal line, giving him 43 of his 68 total yards. Considering we played 39 of 42 snaps in the 4th quarter in a sub package with 5+ DBs, Manning probably noticed and ran the ball with a bit more effectiveness, as they picked up another 10 yards later on in the quarter.

On the second TD drive of the quarter, we had the chance to stop them at midfield with a long 3rd and 9. But Manning was able to convert with a long pass to the New England 33. Unfortunately, Tully also picked up a stupid personal foul on the play, putting them back into the red zone. This drive very easily could have ended in a field goal without that stupid penalty.

The defense was atrocious in the 4th quarter, not making excuses. But when you're playing against an elite QB and a top-notch team, you can't afford to make those types of mistakes. For the first 3 quarters, we did quite well. Manning struggled quite a bit in the first half but still threw for over 200 yards. But we found a way to avoid big mistakes and make enough plays to stop him. If you get the chance and don't take advantage, Manning will hurt you.

Consider the Colts last TD drive of the first half, Tully had a chance to sack Manning and stop that drive but didn't, which leads to the Colts cutting it to a one-possession game.

Looking back on the Steelers game, penalties piled up in that 4th quarter. On the 3rd quarter Steelers drive that resulted in a TD at the start of the 4th, the Steelers were called for holding at the Patriots 26 but the Pats were also called for a penalty, offsetting. Instead of pushing them back to FG range, they got another chance, and completed a 20-yard pass for a first and goal. And after Sanders scored, I forgot that Chung got a 15-yard penalty that was enforced on the kickoff. A decent return from the Steelers gave them the ball at midfield, where they proceeded to quickly score a TD. On the next Steelers drive, they went the full 80 yards, but missed on the 2 point conversion. But we were penalized, and the Steelers took advantage to score the 2 points on their second attempt.

The stats indicate our 5+ DB package is extremely poor, and that it's even worse outside of the 4th quarter, which is hard to believe. But I think we make a lot more mistakes with the big lead, and need to sharpen the focus and learn how to close out games.

 

[Marqui]

The prevent defense isn't neccessarily supposed to "run out the clock". It's meant to prevent this and this.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Patriots have lost 2 games this season. They've lost to the Jets, and they've lost to the Browns. In neither case was the prevent defense the problem.

 

[apple strudel]

The Patriots have lost 2 games this season. They've lost to the Jets, and they've lost to the Browns. In neither case was the prevent defense the problem.

I don't know, I'm pretty sure we're 0-10.

 

[TriplecHamp]

both of those happend against prevent defenses btw and both of those happened with the final 30 seconds of the game as opposed to 10 minutes.

 

[stcjones]

I'm sure someone will come in and attempt to make a (poor) argument over how the game wouldn't have been different had we applied pressure to Manning. That would be funny, though, considering the fact that we finally forced Manning's third turnover precisely because we were able to get pressure on him. Props to Jermaine Cunningham.

The prevent defense is absolutely terrible against good quarterbacks. Manning is a good quarterback. Give him enough time to make a sandwich back there and it doesn't matter if you field ten defensive backs. He'll find a way to hit the open man. For that matter, why are we still playing zone defense?

You know in reality....pressure on Manning is one of the PRIMARY things that you have to do to get him off his rhythm ...and/or make mistakes. If you give him all day like we did in 2nd half he will obviously torch us...the primary think that brought us a victory in the end....Cunningham's pressure that led to INT....up to that point manning and colts were rolling.....Don't get me wrong pats D schemes confused manning for alot of the game (which he said in PC)...but overall pats need to find way to bring more heat....GO.PATS!

 

[SuperPatsFan]

Although I think Chung is huge asset for the Pats, he seems to struggle in coverage against quicker receivers. His plus is that he's a great tackler, so when playing NB he's typically better in zone than man. Unfortunately, it appears that a lot of his NB role involves man coverage. A better man-coverage NB seems to be a need.

JMHO.

 

[RayClay]

I understand the concept of the prevent defense, and the reality is, the last two games, the Pats have played it in the 4th quarter, and they've won the games. Since that's the objective, I guess one could justify its use.

Finally a good post on the defense. I agree.

 

[lamafist]

Interview with Bill Belichick on the Big Show this AM:

Did you go to a prevent defense with a 17-point lead?

No. We played the way we played the whole game. … We missed some tackles. He made a great throw there on the middle read for the last touchdown. They had a good play on the pop pass where he faked the run and hit the slot over the middle. They had some good plays. We had some good plays. Luckily, we just had a couple more than they did.

[Emphasis mine.]

 

[RayClay]

Manning is perfectly capable of one play drives when you leave people uncovered.

 

[Ring 6]

I understand the concept of the prevent defense, and the reality is, the last two games, the Pats have played it in the 4th quarter, and they've won the games. Since that's the objective, I guess one could justify its use.

However, the concept, as we all know, is to make the opposing offense take a lot of time off the clock, gaining small chunks of yardage. You trade off yards and even some points for time; in the end, the opponent shouldn't have enough time left. But here are the 4th quarter drives by Pitt and Indy:

Pit
7 plays, 71 yds, 2:09, TD
2 plays, 12 yds, 0:30, INT
5 plays, 53 yds, 1:48, TD
5 plays, 80 yds, 1:24, TD
7 plays, 47 yds, 1:47, time expired

Indy
7 plays, 73 yds, 2:26, TD
7 plays, 73 yds, 2:18, TD
9 plays, 50 yds, 1:48, INT

Ok, the INT's are obviously very nice. But both Pit and Indy absolutely *shredded* the prevent defense. If the concept was to make the other team take a lot of time off the clock, clearly, that objective was not met - not even close. Look at those drives. Not one of them took longer than 2:26. As soon as the Pats went into the soft defense, the other team just ripped down the field.

If the philosophy of going to the soft prevent is to prevent the big plays from the other team, and to eat up the clock, this is not working. You may as well play your regular defense - you know, the one that kept both Indy and Pit under control for the first three quarters of those games. As soon as the Pats went soft, the other offenses went nuts.

Moreover, going to the soft prevent seems, for some strange reason, to impact the entire attitude of the team, because the offense tends to play timid. Even as early as the Cincy game, we saw this kind of thing. Huge lead, offense played crisp early, but tended to really slow down in the 2nd half.

Anyway, my two cents on this. BB knows more football than I could ever dream of, but it seems pretty obvious that the soft prevent is not doing what it's supposed to. May as well play normal defense.

I think you are missing the point though. Even with that happening they ran out of time. If we had played aggressive defense and allowed quick strike plays 2:26 could have been 0:17. Also, did you factor in using time outs? A 2:20 drive using 3 timeouts is different than a 2:20 without any.

 

[Ring 6]

When you have a large lead choosing a scheme that is less likely to stop the team from scoring but more likely to eliminate any chance they can score enough to beat you is sound.

I think there is confusion in this debate.

No one is saying a prevent defense, or better put a defense that takes away the deep pass, thereby leaving a better chance to complete passes, but shorter ones, is the best way to stop a team from scoring.
But the job when you are up 17 points is not to stop them from scoring, it is to stop them from scoring 3 times.
The way the game played out from 10 minutes on, everything went perfect for the Colts, and that perfection had them throwing toward the end zone with 25 seconds left. The chances of losing playing the style we played were miniscule, even if they came close to doing so. Playing a more aggressive style would leave much more room for error for the other team to get back in the game, and the chance for a quick score that would have given them an extra possession after the Int.

There is no question that BB played the odds, that the scheme he chose gave him the best odds of winning, even if it wasnt the best way to stop an individual drive.

 

[Ring 6]

Also, people speak as if we can choose to put pressure on the QB any time we want.
If you havent noticed, our pass rushers are not extremely successful at getting to the QB. Deciding to blitz isnt deciding to get pressure. It is deciding to TRY to get pressure, while putting yourself heavily at risk to a big play if you fail, which is more likely than not.

 

[RayClay]

Also, people speak as if we can choose to put pressure on the QB any time we want.
If you havent noticed, our pass rushers are not extremely successful at getting to the QB. Deciding to blitz isnt deciding to get pressure. It is deciding to TRY to get pressure, while putting yourself heavily at risk to a big play if you fail, which is more likely than not.

Excellent point. It's hard to get to Manning, we got some pressure at key times.

It's not like we've got an easy time covering with the depleted CB core. How many people do we rush? It's Peyton Manning, he can burn you bad.

Per the first of two posts, yes, the object is to win the game. Getting ahead gave us a chance. If we could just shut Manning down by willing it, wouldn't life be easy? Make him work, run some clock and hope he makes some mistakes.

 

[The Dynasty]

Good post by the OP, also some good points made about whether time outs are factored in or not. The bottom line is that the Pats still have won the games where they have used the "prevent". It may not be pretty, but it is winning games.

I think a major reason why the "prevent" didnt look great yesterday was all the mistackles in the 4th. BB even noted this on EEI, I do think he was lying when he said they didnt change their defense in the 4th. Clearly, they did. How many times did they play aggressive besides the last Colts drive? I am not saying it was wrong to play prevent, personally I think its playing the odds and is the right call. It may not look pretty but it gets the job done and secures wins.

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

My only issue with the defense is our LBs. It just seems to me that when dropping back into coverage, they seem confused. I've noticed this in other games too. Im just going to chaulk it up to them being young, and needing more experience. The good news is, they're pretty good against the run,,,,,well except that Brown run for 30 yards