Building a team from the "inside out"

[Off The Grid]

Most people are familiar with the concept of building a football team around the offensive and defensive lines. Win the battle in the trenches, and you have a decisive advantage. I think many people realize the folly of trying to build a team around the "skill players" without having talent in the trenches.

Off the Grid has repeatedly advanced a version of this approach which emphasizes not only the importance of players who are closer to the LOS, but also players who are more closely clustered around the football - i.e., in the center of the field. This includes defensive tackles, "midfielders" and interior offensive linemen. Grid's formulation of this concept is the clear straightward: a player's value diminishes in rough proportion to his proximity to the football, thus players who are more peripheral to the ball are less valuable than players who are more centrally located. I call this approach building from the "inside out". It is extremely contrary to the current vogue in the NFL, which has pushed the action more and more to the periphery. Edge rushers, outside tackles, wideouts and outside cornerbacks are the most coveted positions after QB. Just look at the free agent feeding frenzy this year for cornerbacks (Cortland Finnegan and Brandon Carr getting $50M deals), pass rushers (Mario Williams, Mark Anderson and others), and wide receivers.

The reason for bringing all this up is an interesting article by Jason Cole at Yahoo.com, which proposes that the left tackle position is gradually becoming less valued in the NFL as the game changes:

Left tackle in the NFL is gradually becoming a less valued position - Yahoo! Sports

The article echoes some of Grid's "inside out" thinking. In particular, the article suggests (1) that changes in the rules on bumping receivers are resulting in QBs holding on to the ball less long, (2) that this creates a need to generate more rapid and direct pressure on the QB, and (3) that teams are attempting to do this by bringing pressure in different ways, including overloading one side, moving pass rushers around, and generating interior pressure. The article cites Rex Ryan as a good example of this:



The article notes that the most prolific scoring offenses in the NFL today and most of the Super Bowl teams of the past decade have not had a dominant left tackle - in fact, several have had offensive lines built around dominant interior linemen more than tackles. The article notes:



The importance of generating what Tuck calls "forward pressure" and of collapsing the pocket was advanced by Jay Shields on this board 3 years ago, in a classic post:



http://www.patsfans.com/new-england.../308687-my-dilettant-defensive-treatise.html

Sounds darn similar to what Tuck said. An effective pass rush has to cut off the QB's avenues of escape and prevent him from stepping up in the pocket and getting rid of the ball. As Grid more succinctly puts it "my Holy Grail is the interior pass rush threat." And increased internal pressure puts more importance on the value of internal linemen who can effectively handle that pressure.

The Cole article suggests that an elite left tackle is a "luxury" rather than a necessity, and that "the premium that used to be paid for a left tackle is no longer the case." I'm not sure that's entirely true. Having an ultra-athletic blindside protector who can handle a DeMarcus Ware or Jason Pierre-Paul is a huge advantage. But I think that the article raises some good issues about the importance of direct pressure and the value of internal as well as outside protection, and the need for overall strength of the offensive line as opposed to simply having a dominant left tackle. This also raises some things to think about for the long term, as the team has some aging issues on the inside of both lines. I think this is one of the priorities for the team to address in the 2013 draft and free agency. BB is doing a masterful job about rebuilding the team for the long haul, but I worry somewhat about the team getting old on the interior of both lines.

Food for thought.

PREACH it, Brother Mayo!! :rocker:

Flanks are Important...But What's Your First Priority??​

1 ~ I continue to be astounded, awestruck, and amazed at how very little value is attributed to Interior Linemen and MidFielders, relative to peripheral Glamor Positions, by the overwhelming majority of Media and Fans.

2 ~ Punch a guy in the Nose, the Jaw, the Belly, or the Balls with sufficient force, and you are well on your way to destroying him...Punch'm in the side'f the head, or get your punch blocked by his arm or'is ribs...and you're in trouble.

3 ~ Every smart Chess player knows that the Queen is assessed 8 Points of Trade Value, and that the Rooks are assessed 5 Points, each...But it's the Knights and Bishops ~ amusingly assessed values of 3 Points, each ~ who decide the Victor, 9 times out'f 10...and they do their most critical work through the center of the Board.

4 ~ Every smart BaseBall fan knows that the best way to build at team is InsideOut ~ as my wizened Friend, Brother Mayo, would put it ~ Catcher, MidFielders ~ ShortStop + 2nd Baseman ~ Center Fielder and, above all: Pitcher!!

MIND you...

5 ~ An Offense that neglects its Flanks wastes Interior Dominance, as we have witnessed for two consecutively excruciating years, two Championships being squandered for want of legitimate Horizontal Weaponry.

6 ~ But Glamor gets you nowhere in The Grim Games of Deep Winter ~ the ones that decide Championships.

 

[Snake Eyes]

PREACH it, Brother Mayo!! :rocker:

Flanks are Important...But What's Your First Priority??​

1 ~ I continue to be astounded, awestruck, and amazed at how very little value is attributed to Interior Linemen and MidFielders, relative to peripheral Glamor Positions, by the overwhelming majority of Media and Fans.

2 ~ Punch a guy in the Nose, the Jaw, the Belly, or the Balls with sufficient force, and you are well on your way to destroying him...Punch'm in the side'f the head, or get your punch blocked by his arm or'is ribs...and you're in trouble.

3 ~ Every smart Chess player knows that the Queen is assessed 8 Points of Trade Value, and that the Rooks are assessed 5 Points, each...But it's the Knights and Bishops ~ amusingly assessed values of 3 Points, each ~ who decide the Victor, 9 times out'f 10...and they do their most critical work through the center of the Board.

4 ~ Every smart BaseBall fan knows that the best way to build at team is InsideOut ~ as my wizened Friend, Brother Mayo, would put it ~ Catcher, MidFielders ~ ShortStop + 2nd Baseman ~ Center Fielder and, above all: Pitcher!!

MIND you...

5 ~ An Offense that neglects its Flanks wastes Interior Dominance, as we have witnessed for two consecutively excruciating years, two Championships being squandered for want of legitimate Horizontal Weaponry.

6 ~ But Glamor gets you nowhere in The Grim Games of Deep Winter ~ the ones that decide Championships.

Excellent stuff, although I'm still working on the best analogy right now I liken the center to being the handle of a sword and the outside the tip of the sword. A strong base with a blunt or weak tip is not ideal but you can certainly mess people up with it very well, a magnificent tip with a poor handle and you've got a piece of junk.

 

[mayoclinic]

5 ~ An Offense that neglects its Flanks wastes Interior Dominance, as we have witnessed for two consecutively excruciating years, two Championships being squandered for want of legitimate Horizontal Weaponry.

6 ~ But Glamor gets you nowhere in The Grim Games of Deep Winter ~ the ones that decide Championships.

It would be ironic and tragic to finally solve some of our peripheral problems, only to get old and thin at the core. I trust BB won't let that happen, but it is something of a long term concern.

 

[Off The Grid]

Most people are familiar with the concept of building a football team around the offensive and defensive lines. Win the battle in the trenches, and you have a decisive advantage. I think many people realize the folly of trying to build a team around the "skill players" without having talent in the trenches.

Off the Grid has repeatedly advanced a version of this approach which emphasizes not only the importance of players who are closer to the LOS, but also players who are more closely clustered around the football - i.e., in the center of the field. This includes defensive tackles, "midfielders" and interior offensive linemen. Grid's formulation of this concept is the clear straightward: a player's value diminishes in rough proportion to his proximity to the football, thus players who are more peripheral to the ball are less valuable than players who are more centrally located. I call this approach building from the "inside out". It is extremely contrary to the current vogue in the NFL, which has pushed the action more and more to the periphery. Edge rushers, outside tackles, wideouts and outside cornerbacks are the most coveted positions after QB. Just look at the free agent feeding frenzy this year for cornerbacks (Cortland Finnegan and Brandon Carr getting $50M deals), pass rushers (Mario Williams, Mark Anderson and others), and wide receivers.

The reason for bringing all this up is an interesting article by Jason Cole at Yahoo.com, which proposes that the left tackle position is gradually becoming less valued in the NFL as the game changes:

Left tackle in the NFL is gradually becoming a less valued position - Yahoo! Sports

The article echoes some of Grid's "inside out" thinking. In particular, the article suggests (1) that changes in the rules on bumping receivers are resulting in QBs holding on to the ball less long, (2) that this creates a need to generate more rapid and direct pressure on the QB, and (3) that teams are attempting to do this by bringing pressure in different ways, including overloading one side, moving pass rushers around, and generating interior pressure. The article cites Rex Ryan as a good example of this:



The article notes that the most prolific scoring offenses in the NFL today and most of the Super Bowl teams of the past decade have not had a dominant left tackle - in fact, several have had offensive lines built around dominant interior linemen more than tackles. The article notes:



The importance of generating what Tuck calls "forward pressure" and of collapsing the pocket was advanced by Jay Shields on this board 3 years ago, in a classic post:



http://www.patsfans.com/new-england.../308687-my-dilettant-defensive-treatise.html

Sounds darn similar to what Tuck said. An effective pass rush has to cut off the QB's avenues of escape and prevent him from stepping up in the pocket and getting rid of the ball. As Grid more succinctly puts it "my Holy Grail is the interior pass rush threat." And increased internal pressure puts more importance on the value of internal linemen who can effectively handle that pressure.

The Cole article suggests that an elite left tackle is a "luxury" rather than a necessity, and that "the premium that used to be paid for a left tackle is no longer the case." I'm not sure that's entirely true. Having an ultra-athletic blindside protector who can handle a DeMarcus Ware or Jason Pierre-Paul is a huge advantage. But I think that the article raises some good issues about the importance of direct pressure and the value of internal as well as outside protection, and the need for overall strength of the offensive line as opposed to simply having a dominant left tackle. This also raises some things to think about for the long term, as the team has some aging issues on the inside of both lines. I think this is one of the priorities for the team to address in the 2013 draft and free agency. BB is doing a masterful job about rebuilding the team for the long haul, but I worry somewhat about the team getting old on the interior of both lines.

Food for thought.

PREACH it, Brother Mayo!! :rocker:

Flanks are Important...But What's Your First Priority??​

1 ~ I continue to be astounded, awestruck, and amazed at how very little value is attributed to Interior Linemen and MidFielders, relative to peripheral Glamor Positions, by the overwhelming majority of Media and Fans.

2 ~ Punch a guy in the Nose, the Jaw, the Belly, or the Balls with sufficient force, and you are well on your way to destroying him...Punch'm in the side'f the head, or get your punch blocked by his arm or'is ribs...and you're in trouble.

3 ~ Every smart Chess player knows that the Queen is assessed 8 Points of Trade Value, and that the Rooks are assessed 5 Points, each...But it's the Knights and Bishops ~ amusingly assessed values of 3 Points, each ~ who decide the Victor, 9 times out'f 10...and they do their most critical work through the center of the Board.

4 ~ Every smart BaseBall fan knows that the best way to build at team is InsideOut ~ as my wizened Friend, Brother Mayo, would put it ~ Catcher, MidFielders ~ ShortStop + 2nd Baseman ~ Center Fielder and, above all: Pitcher!!

MIND you...

5 ~ An Offense that neglects its Flanks wastes Interior Dominance, as we have witnessed for two consecutively excruciating years, two Championships being squandered for want of legitimate Horizontal Weaponry.

6 ~ But Glamor gets you nowhere in The Grim Games of Deep Winter ~ the ones that decide Championships.

It would be ironic and tragic to finally solve some of our peripheral problems, only to get old and thin at the core.

I trust BB won't let that happen, but it is something of a long term concern.

It certainly is.

I cannot fathom why a Coach of Mad Bill's Insight and Brilliance would pass on a phenomenal Prospect like Senio Kelemete on Day 3, this Spring, and I fear that this Missed Opportunity will haunt us, yet again.

The best way to counteract the NasCar Pack ~ one I hope to see in February each of the next 3 Winters!! ~ is with an explosive, athletic Interior Line...And Kelemete would've gone light years towards attaining that.

 

[randomk1]

inside out sounds boring...need more WR

We should see if Millen is available for GM duties.

 

[Fencer]

The LT is still going to take on the opposing team's best rusher in every game.

Didn't Michael Strahan usually rush from his left?

And I'd guess the Patriots have had years where their leading position in producing sacks, pressures, and everything else was SOLB (Vrabel, McGinest, et al.)

 

[patsfan13]

This could explain the use of a hybrid front last year. using Love for 2 gap and VW in a 1 gap situation can provide more push up the Middle. Fletcher and Spikes show some potential with good timing on the blitz up the middle.

 

[VJCPatriot]

This could explain the use of a hybrid front last year. using Love for 2 gap and VW in a 1 gap situation can provide more push up the Middle. Fletcher and Spikes show some potential with good timing on the blitz up the middle.

And this is why the addition of Hightower is going to be key for us. Watch his clips. Hightower brings explosiveness in the passrushing game. He may not end up with more sacks than Jones, this season. But his versatility and violent play will likely make a bigger overall impact on the defense.

Dont'a Hightower Highlights 2011-2012 - YouTube

Think, the athleticism of Mayo, combined with excellent overall size, strength, and versatility. As long as he can absorb the playbook, we're going to see Hightower in a lot of different looks this season, and that's gonna be a good thing. I bet we will also see more unbalanced overloads, and a/b gap pressure. If it works, the Pats will use it!

Excited about the Pats D this season!

 

[patsfan13]

I thought the D would be better simply because the core guys had another year of experience + getting back some guys we were missing last year due to injury. Clearly the talent level has impoved and this D has great potential.

Excited about Hightower, but haven't seen him play yet.

Pressure from the Edge can be effective, see D Freeney and J Taylor and what they did from the outside against the Pats.

 

[Stilla]

I am not sure rushing the passer pressure up the middle, with the intent to gets sacks, is what we need up the middle. If other teams understand that we can do this well enough, they will just scheme the offense to work against our production, which would force our defense to change the way we go about playing defense.

It a game of timing, a good defense needs to give the offense breathing room, the offense needs to think they can be productive with a given formation. If you allow them to have this, then a defense will have a better understanding of what the play will be. Its not a question of what defensive formation we should have on the field, but who is going to step up and make the better play on the ball. Lets the offense make a play, as a defense you put your skill players or play makers in a position to have better success within what you know about that given formation. Its better to know what skilled players need to be on the field than to question what play is coming at you.

What we should expect from the inside of our defense is to produce a longer play. After the ball is snapped we need to push the o-line back. We need to reestablish the line of scrimmage. The o-line needs to react to the fact they are loosing ground. It doesn't need to be 5 yards but it has to be at least 2 yards every play. In doing do we force longer throws, a QB may question the integrity of his line, a RB may think he has to run to the outside.

This isn't pressure its owning the line of scrimmage. It happens on every play, there is nothing the offense can do about changing it, its just the way things will be.

 

[mayoclinic]

I am not sure rushing the passer pressure up the middle, with the intent to gets sacks, is what we need up the middle. If other teams understand that we can do this well enough, they will just scheme the offense to work against our production, which would force our defense to change the way we go about playing defense.

It a game of timing, a good defense needs to give the offense breathing room, the offense needs to think they can be productive with a given formation. If you allow them to have this, then a defense will have a better understanding of what the play will be. Its not a question of what defensive formation we should have on the field, but who is going to step up and make the better play on the ball. Lets the offense make a play, as a defense you put your skill players or play makers in a position to have better success within what you know about that given formation. Its better to know what skilled players need to be on the field than to question what play is coming at you.

What we should expect from the inside of our defense is to produce a longer play. After the ball is snapped we need to push the o-line back. We need to reestablish the line of scrimmage. The o-line needs to react to the fact they are loosing ground. It doesn't need to be 5 yards but it has to be at least 2 yards every play. In doing do we force longer throws, a QB may question the integrity of his line, a RB may think he has to run to the outside.

This isn't pressure its owning the line of scrimmage. It happens on every play, there is nothing the offense can do about changing it, its just the way things will be.

In the words of Ricky Bobby to Jean Girard, I didn't understand a word you said. Half of it is just very hard to parse and figure out what you actually mean - I've underlined some of the more curious phrases. Do you mean that you believe the defense needs to collapse the pocket? That's not a new idea. I'm not sure what benefit there is to "giving the offense breathing room" or producing a "longer play". Longer in time, or in distance. Longer in time just gives the opposing team more time to find an open guy, and puts more pressure on the DBs. Longer in distance - pushing the LOS back 2 yards doesn't accomplish much if the QB can just step to the side and find a throwing lane. 2 yards is the difference between a 5 step and 7 step drop, and most NFL QBs have plenty of arm strength to handle that. If you're consistently pushing the LOS back 2 yards then all I do is take a deeper drop to find my throwing lane. And I have absolutely no clue what "let the offense make a play, as a defense you put your skill players or play makers in a position to have better success within what you know about that given formation" means. And I don't know why we wouldn't want to generate pressure up the middle. Any time you can do something well enough to force the opposing team to change their gameplan, you have an advantage. The fact that they will react to what you did doesn't make it useless in the first place.

I don't mean to be rude, but if there is a point to this it would be helpful to clarify it. But it sounds to me like you're making this more complicated than it has to be. It seems pretty straightforward to me:

1. Bump receivers off their routes and cover them long enough for your front guys to generate pressure, or generate pressure quickly enough to make it hard for their offense to find the open guys.
2. Generate pressure as quickly as possible to disrupt the rhythm of the offense, and cut off avenues of escape. Pressure from one point that allows an easy escape isn't effective.
3. Be aware of the passing lanes and clog them as effectively as possible.
4. Always be aware of where the ball is, make a play on it if available, and otherwise always tackle the guy with the ball.

I'm not sure how giving the opposing offense breathing room, creating a longer play, not pressuring them so they don't have to adapt to it, or letting them make a play so we can put our defensive players in better position has to do with accomplishing any of that.

 

[Joker]

get an edge rusher to Eli before he throws that pass to the sidelines and double coverage(he had over 5 seconds in the pocket) and the Super Bowl loss turns into victory...what I want to see is pressure in the BIG spots of the game...that takes a big time player...who is that on this team?...I have no idea but stay tuned...

 

[Stilla]

In the words of Ricky Bobby to Jean Girard, I didn't understand a word you said. Half of it is just very hard to parse and figure out what you actually mean - I've underlined some of the more curious phrases. Do you mean that you believe the defense needs to collapse the pocket? That's not a new idea. I'm not sure what benefit there is to "giving the offense breathing room" or producing a "longer play". Longer in time, or in distance. Longer in time just gives the opposing team more time to find an open guy, and puts more pressure on the DBs. Longer in distance - pushing the LOS back 2 yards doesn't accomplish much if the QB can just step to the side and find a throwing lane. 2 yards is the difference between a 5 step and 7 step drop, and most NFL QBs have plenty of arm strength to handle that. If you're consistently pushing the LOS back 2 yards then all I do is take a deeper drop to find my throwing lane. And I have absolutely no clue what "let the offense make a play, as a defense you put your skill players or play makers in a position to have better success within what you know about that given formation" means. And I don't know why we wouldn't want to generate pressure up the middle. Any time you can do something well enough to force the opposing team to change their gameplan, you have an advantage. The fact that they will react to what you did doesn't make it useless in the first place.

I don't mean to be rude, but if there is a point to this it would be helpful to clarify it. But it sounds to me like you're making this more complicated than it has to be. It seems pretty straightforward to me:

1. Bump receivers off their routes and cover them long enough for your front guys to generate pressure, or generate pressure quickly enough to make it hard for their offense to find the open guys.
2. Generate pressure as quickly as possible to disrupt the rhythm of the offense, and cut off avenues of escape. Pressure from one point that allows an easy escape isn't effective.
3. Be aware of the passing lanes and clog them as effectively as possible.
4. Always be aware of where the ball is, make a play on it if available, and otherwise always tackle the guy with the ball.

I'm not sure how giving the opposing offense breathing room, creating a longer play, not pressuring them so they don't have to adapt to it, or letting them make a play so we can put our defensive players in better position has to do with accomplishing any of that.

Defensive scheming isn't about preventing the offense from achieving forward progress on every play. You give them something, you are attempting to limit forward progress. You want them to play a particular way. It is common for a sports announcer to claim, during a game, that BB will give up the short yardage throws, in an attempt to prevent something else from happening. That is "giving the offense breathing room," and yes this isn't anything new.

Question, if you have skilled players who can get to the QB at will, would you unleash them to attack the QB every down? I wouldn't. I would keep that ace in my pocket and play it when I really need it. In order to play that ace, that player needs to be on the field. In other words why would I attempt to force the offense to change there scheme to the point where I would loose my ace?

You don't!

You give the offense something in order to keep your ace, you are baiting the offense, so you can keep the ace. For example, its common for a CB to bait a throw from a QB, the CB knows he has help deep, and he will play soft in an attempt to have the QB throw in his direction. Sometimes the CB can cut off the throw and grab an INT. The CB might have been smart enough to allow his receiver to catch a few during the game allowing the QB to feel as if he can get the throw off in a productive manner. He gave the offense breathing room, he gave them a feeling that they can have way with him, until he wanted to play his ace.

Baiting the offense means you keep your skilled player on the field. A lot can happen in a game. A QB may not be TB, and not all of his throws are on the money. A RB can fumble the ball. you don't have to attempt to stop the offense when they are capable of stoping them selves.

I don't have time to complete this, I have to run, but I will be back and I hope this clears somethings up for you.

 

[mayoclinic]

Defensive scheming isn't about preventing the offense from achieving forward progress on every play. You give them something, you are attempting to limit forward progress. You want them to play a particular way. It is common for a sports announcer to claim, during a game, that BB will give up the short yardage throws, in an attempt to prevent something else from happening. That is "giving the offense breathing room," and yes this isn't anything new.

Question, if you have skilled players who can get to the QB at will, would you unleash them to attack the QB every down? I wouldn't. I would keep that ace in my pocket and play it when I really need it. In order to play that ace, that player needs to be on the field. In other words why would I attempt to force the offense to change there scheme to the point where I would loose my ace?

You don't!

You give the offense something in order to keep your ace, you are baiting the offense, so you can keep the ace. For example, its common for a CB to bait a throw from a QB, the CB knows he has help deep, and he will play soft in an attempt to have the QB throw in his direction. Sometimes the CB can cut off the throw and grab an INT. The CB might have been smart enough to allow his receiver to catch a few during the game allowing the QB to feel as if he can get the throw off in a productive manner. He gave the offense breathing room, he gave them a feeling that they can have way with him, until he wanted to play his ace.

Baiting the offense means you keep your skilled player on the field. A lot can happen in a game. A QB may not be TB, and not all of his throws are on the money. A RB can fumble the ball. you don't have to attempt to stop the offense when they are capable of stoping them selves.

I don't have time to complete this, I have to run, but I will be back and I hope this clears somethings up for you.

Thanks for explaining it in a way that my limited intelligence can comprehend. Most of the people on this board are fairly familiar with the concept of "bend but don't break", which you seem to call "giving the offense breathing room", and also with disguising coverages and defensive schemes. I'm not sure how those fit into the topic of this thread, but whatever.

 

[livinginthe past]

I don't know. playing defense in the hopes that the RB will fumble the ball seems a little.....negative

 

[mayoclinic]

I don't know. playing defense in the hopes that the RB will fumble the ball seems a little.....negative

"Bend and hope they fumble"? That doesn't work too well for me.

Of course teams don't blitz every down. But effective pressure is almost always good. It cuts down the time the QB has to find a receiver, cuts down the time the DBs need to maintain coverage, disrupts the offense's rhythm, disrupts passing lanes, and causes errant throws, regardless of whether anyone gets to the QB. It usually produces a good result, unless the offense gets lucky or is extremely good. Ineffective pressure, which leaves the QB with an easy avenue of escape or an open passing lane, is usually bad - it leads to broken or extended plays and breakdowns of coverage, and often to big plays.

 

[JR4]

Defensive scheming isn't about preventing the offense from achieving forward progress on every play. ....

.

I disagree. The defense is ALMOST always trying to prevent forward progress. In fact negative progress is highly desired.

I say ALMOST because there are rare situations that the defense
wants to let the offense make forward progress such as the last superbowl
with 39 seconds left and PATs wanted the ball so they let Bradshaw get the
TD. There might be other situations that apply but they are rare.

 

[mayoclinic]

I disagree. The defense is ALMOST always trying to prevent forward progress. In fact negative progress is highly desired.

I say ALMOST because there are rare situations that the defense
wants to let the offense make forward progress such as the last superbowl
with 39 seconds left and PATs wanted the ball so they let Bradshaw get the
TD. There might be other situations that apply but they are rare.

There are also obvious situations like 3rd and long where the defense doesn't care much about giving up a short gain. And the Pats have taken BBDB to an extreme in recent years, willingly giving up huge chunks of yardage in the 4th quarter so long as the game was comfortably out of reach.

 

[JR4]

There are also obvious situations like 3rd and long where the defense doesn't care much about giving up a short gain. And the Pats have taken BBDB to an extreme in recent years, willingly giving up huge chunks of yardage in the 4th quarter so long as the game was comfortably out of reach.

Of course you are right but even in those two situations I doubt the
defense wants the offense to make any forward progress.
In other words the defense would still like the forward progress to be
nothing or negative if possible even though configured to prevent the deep threat.

 

[Off The Grid]

Brother Stilla??

Sometimes Less IS More.