Prevent Defense

[MainePatsFan26]

Hey all, another thrilling win for the Pats today. I decided to post to see if anyone else finds that the Pats resort to the prevent far too early. I've been watching football my whole life and I can't recall any other teams going into prevent mode with six minutes left in the 3rd quarter. I get the idea of forcing the opposition to work for every single first down to burn clock, but it doesn't feel like giving 10-15 yards a pop is really doing anything other than letting other teams back into the game. With the Patriots ahead by anywhere from 14-21 points, I still don't feel comfortable since we always seem to let teams stick around.

Would anyone else prefer the Patriots play a little more riverboat gambler on defense and jailbreak blitz from time to time when ahead? We managed 41 points on offense without a single turnover by the Bills. However, the lack of turnovers generated of late is a glaring area we could improve upon. Forcing other teams into big mistakes could be the difference between a Super Bowl win and staying home. In my estimation, playing a hair more aggressive could help us to establish more of an identity on defense. Moreover, a little risky defensive play call from time to time would keep us from being so predictable towards the end of games.

Ultimately, would you recommend the Patriots defense plays more aggressive with the lead?

 

[meatface]

I think fans would be pretty upset if someone got hurt late in a blowout

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

 

[Ronbo]

Hey all, another thrilling win for the Pats today. I decided to post to see if anyone else finds that the Pats resort to the prevent far too early. I've been watching football my whole life and I can't recall any other teams going into prevent mode with six minutes left in the 3rd quarter. I get the idea of forcing the opposition to work for every single first down to burn clock, but it doesn't feel like giving 10-15 yards a pop is really doing anything other than letting other teams back into the game. With the Patriots ahead by anywhere from 14-21 points, I still don't feel comfortable since we always seem to let teams stick around.

Would anyone else prefer the Patriots play a little more riverboat gambler on defense and jailbreak blitz from time to time when ahead? We managed 41 points on offense without a single turnover by the Bills. However, the lack of turnovers generated of late is a glaring area we could improve upon. Forcing other teams into big mistakes could be the difference between a Super Bowl win and staying home. In my estimation, playing a hair more aggressive could help us to establish more of an identity on defense. Moreover, a little risky defensive play call from time to time would keep us from being so predictable towards the end of games.

Ultimately, would you recommend the Patriots defense plays more aggressive with the lead?

Don't like the prevent. This doesn't mean I want to blitz more with a nice lead. We really don't blitz much anyway. I would just like to quit giving up the easy underneath stuff.
The way I look at it the prevent almost guarantees a drive into red zone and then the same odds as a regular defense after that. It consumes a little more time than a normal defense that is more subject to a big play but the normal defense reduces the odds of even getting to the red zone. Teams nowadays are running more plays per game so the time you take off the clock in a prevent isn't as big a deal as it used to be. The prevent is also like playing behind a pitcher who works slowly. It makes you lose your edge and aggressiveness.

Bottom line play the same d as what got you the lead

 

[DarrylS]

I find the prevent defense boring, but that defensive philosophy of BB and MP will probably not change..

It just pads a lot of stats, for the other team..

 

[luuked]

When you are up multiple scores your main opponent is the game clock and not the other team scoring. Going to zone and giving up some of the underneath coverage to make a big play more difficult/less likely gives overall better odds of winning and whatever makes it more likely that we win is absolutely fine with me.

In the end you gotta play to your strengths and our team is definitely not a pass rushing behemoth as we have our best defensive players at LB and in the secondary. In the end it doesn't matter if you win by 2 or by 21.. a win is a win and after a season is in the books nobody remembers individual games anymore.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

?!?!?

First, this isn't Madden on rookie mode where you spam the same D over and over and over again. There are elements of "prevent" defense played in all 4 quarters for various game situations, so I'm not even really sure what you mean when you say not playing prevent D.

Yes, there have been times the team has fallen flat or adjusted the D and gotten lit up. The Miami game jumps to my mind. But how much of that was our defensive change and how much of that was their offensive change? We often overlook that the opponent's strategy has also changed up. Less run, more pass, and more receivers to cover which exposes a bit of our CB depth more.

But of all the times to complain about this, why the hell is this coming up after the Buffalo game? Yes, on the surface, we gave up 10 points in the first half and 15 in the second. But when you really look at it, there's not much difference.

On the first drive of the game, the Bills took it all the way down to the goal line and had to settle for 3. If they had scored, we'd be talking 14 vs. 15 points. In all 4 quarters, the Bills scored one time. Mike Gillislie had 72 yards in the first half, 13 in the second. Tyrod Taylor had 100 yards passing in the first half, 83 in the second, and if you tack in the 35 from Manuel, that's 105 passing yards in the second half. Sure, it's slightly more, but nothing to get worked up about.

In the first half, they drove 70 yards and settled for 3. The D forced a few 3-and-0uts, but then here are their drive totals (yards gained) for the rest of the first half: 22, 36, 49.

In the second half, they drove 75 yards for a TD (aided by that ridiculously fortunate botched punt). The D didn't force any 3-and-outs, but here are the drive totals for the rest of the half: 31, 42, 37.

The difference was 58 yards in penalties on those last 3 drives, including some really touchy pass interference calls. But again, the situation dictated the Bills throw deep whether they wanted to or not, and the refs bailed them out a few times because they did. But that doesn't seem like a significant shift in how we played D.

So I don't know, bottle this common complaint up and save it for use in the future. It doesn't apply to yesterday's game.

 

[Fixit]

As long as it results in a win, I couldn't care less what they do or how unsexy it is to watch. Nothing turns a big lead into a losable game faster then giving up huge plays.

 

[PP2]

When you are up multiple scores your main opponent is the game clock and not the other team scoring. Going to zone and giving up some of the underneath coverage to make a big play more difficult/less likely gives overall better odds of winning and whatever makes it more likely that we win is absolutely fine with me.

In the end you gotta play to your strengths and our team is definitely not a pass rushing behemoth as we have our best defensive players at LB and in the secondary. In the end it doesn't matter if you win by 2 or by 21.. a win is a win and after a season is in the books nobody remembers individual games anymore.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner here. The objective of the prevent is not just to prevent the deep play but is also designed to bleed the clock. It's based on two premises: that most quarterbacks aren't patient enough or disciplined enough to steadily march their offense upfield, and two, most HC's (and OC's) do not practice clock management scenarios.

Of course, every once in a while we do see a big play made, regardless, that ruins the impression that the prevent is doing its job, but statistics-speaking, I'm willing to bet that over the long run it's often been more effective than not.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Without Shady, Watkins, Goodwin and others, it was clear as day that the strategy was to make Tyrod to make plays downfield with the personnel they had and beat the Pats is a shootout w Tom. He failed.

Let them run and let them dink and dunk vs GoAT and this offense.

The 25 points allowed is cosmetic only. Taylor did virtally nothing yesterday

 

[PF_SU]

Raising this issue after yesterday's game is quite strange. The Patriots defense set a season-high for rushing five or more with 39% of all drop-backs. Against the Steelers the rate was 20% (they set a season-high for three-man rushes that game with 51%) and against the Bengals it was 17%.

 

[luuked]

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner here. The objective of the prevent is not just to prevent the deep play but is also designed to bleed the clock. It's based on two premises: that most quarterbacks aren't patient enough or disciplined enough to steadily march their offense upfield, and two, most HC's (and OC's) do not practice clock management scenarios.

Of course, every once in a while we do see a big play made, regardless, that ruins the impression that the prevent is doing its job, but statistics-speaking, I'm willing to bet that over the long run its often been more effective than not.

Yep, exactly.

People often just build their opinions on the outcomes of plays and then call them bad or great plays post fact. You gotta do what gives you better odds to win and sometimes the correct call will still fail you and other times the absolutely wrong call will succeed.

 

[nabwong]

1. Big plays are big psychological boosts. One big play even on that miscued punt and run for a first down can change the entire flow of the game. A 50 yard TD is a much bigger psychological blow.

2. Many have said, they're playing against time at that point in the game.

3. It could also be that they're saving plays.

4. And saving players. Much easier to rotate in players when you're playing zone Prevent D.

5. I suspect a 1 point win or a 20 point win doesn't really matter. Points in general matters much less to BB than wins. Just look at the 16-0 shutout. How many here were praying we go for a field goal instead of trying for it on 4th down.

6. One advantage of making the opponent execute more plays is that you have more film against them. Conversely, limiting our own offensive time decreases our game film.

 

[Biffins]

My view is that most of you are kind of making a distinction between our regular defense and what you call "prevent defense". I disagree.

If you listen to Belichick talk about his defense philosophy he has explained that the point of a defense is to stop the other team from scoring. There are various routes for the other team to score, they can throw deep balls and hit you with a big play, they can march down the field and go through the red zone and make a TD, they can score FGs etc. He was making the point that he believes that the most effective way to stop the other team from scoring points is usually to take away the "big play". The deep ball etc. He wants to force other defense to go through the Red Zone since Red Zone offense if much harder to execute than to get lucky on a deep ball. He also believes giving up FGs via this method (letting them march down to FG range) is ok since he sets up the offense to beat any team repeatedly kicking FGs.

In the context of the above, which would be categorized as our "regular" defensive philosophy or what most call "bend but don't break", the strategy when you have a big lead is even clearer. Just emphasize the same principles even more since if a team is deep in the hole, they will be even more desperate to get the "big play" since that's the only way for them to catch-up on points quickly. So what most call the "prevent defense" is really just the regular defense emphasizing its main concepts even more to prevent the "big play", which is always the core philosophy of "bend but don't break", and force the opposing team to march through the red zone to score and essentially ignore FGs.

So basically "prevent defense" is just a more extreme version of "bend but don't break" regular defense. It's nothing completely new scheme that we break into when we have 3 score leads.

 

[JMC00]

They pressured Taylor on almost 50% of his dropbacks and missed about 3-4 sacks because of his running ability

If you also look at it closely the issue wasn't "prevent" defense. jills got 22 points basically handed to them by the refs.

2nd quarter- 3rd and 12- Rowe plays the ball and gets called for PI because Hunter's momentum when he jumped carried him into Rowe. jills score after that

3rd quarter-4th and 15- The punter muffs it and picks up the 1st down. Defense thought they were off the field and has to come back on. They then make it 4th and 3 and Patricia sends Hightower and Collins WHICH IS THE absolute opposite of prevent defense and Wood blatantly grabs Collins by the facemask and pulls him away from potentially stopping Taylor who runs up the middle for the TD. Should have been 4th an 18 from the 41. Defense did their job and got screwed by ST not being in position to stop the punter and then got screwed again by the refs deciding to keep the flag in their pocket on the most blatant facemask.

End of the game- 3rd and 12- Rowe again. This time he perfectly plays it and Woods grabs his arm and somehow he gets called for the the PI and it puts the ball on the 1 instead of it being 4th and 12 from the 30.

Talking about 22 points allowed because of 1 ticky tack call, 1 blatant penalty and 1 penalty that was absolute horseshit.

Take that away and the jills scored 3 points and it came on the opening drive.

Which right now we are talking about a defense that is leading the league in Points Allowed Per Game with only 13.7

 

[Kontradiction]

Get used to it. This is how Belichick will defend mobile quarterbacks. 3-4 rushers that play contain and sit back in a Cover-3 or 4 with all eyes toward the QB until that QB proves he can make plays and beat the Pats from the pocket. Those wanting the Pats to constantly be more aggressive need to take note of Taylor's rushing TD when he broke the pocket.

 

[JMC00]

Raising this issue after yesterday's game is quite strange. The Patriots defense set a season-high for rushing five or more with 39% of all drop-backs. Against the Steelers the rate was 20% (they set a season-high for three-man rushes that game with 51%) and against the Bengals it was 17%.

Pressured Taylor on almost 50% of his drop-backs and probably should have had 3-4 more sacks than they did but credit to Taylor for those missed sacks. But they were example of why Belichick plays contain against mobile QBs.

It also goes to show the people that constantly complain have ZERO f**cking clue and here just to complain or troll. There were several posts about lack of pressure yesterday which not sure how getting pressure on a QB 43% of the time is "no pressure". Just fantasy/stat whores complaining because the defense didn't have 10 sacks

 

[Ring 6]

Hey all, another thrilling win for the Pats today. I decided to post to see if anyone else finds that the Pats resort to the prevent far too early. I've been watching football my whole life and I can't recall any other teams going into prevent mode with six minutes left in the 3rd quarter. I get the idea of forcing the opposition to work for every single first down to burn clock, but it doesn't feel like giving 10-15 yards a pop is really doing anything other than letting other teams back into the game. With the Patriots ahead by anywhere from 14-21 points, I still don't feel comfortable since we always seem to let teams stick around.

Would anyone else prefer the Patriots play a little more riverboat gambler on defense and jailbreak blitz from time to time when ahead? We managed 41 points on offense without a single turnover by the Bills. However, the lack of turnovers generated of late is a glaring area we could improve upon. Forcing other teams into big mistakes could be the difference between a Super Bowl win and staying home. In my estimation, playing a hair more aggressive could help us to establish more of an identity on defense. Moreover, a little risky defensive play call from time to time would keep us from being so predictable towards the end of games.

Ultimately, would you recommend the Patriots defense plays more aggressive with the lead?

If playing conservative gives the other team no chance to win why would you play aggressive.

Can you give me one example of where BB had a lead and played safe with it and list?

 

[mosslost]

Don't like the prevent. This doesn't mean I want to blitz more with a nice lead. We really don't blitz much anyway. I would just like to quit giving up the easy underneath stuff.
The way I look at it the prevent almost guarantees a drive into red zone and then the same odds as a regular defense after that. It consumes a little more time than a normal defense that is more subject to a big play but the normal defense reduces the odds of even getting to the red zone. Teams nowadays are running more plays per game so the time you take off the clock in a prevent isn't as big a deal as it used to be. The prevent is also like playing behind a pitcher who works slowly. It makes you lose your edge and aggressiveness.

Bottom line play the same d as what got you the lead

The offense got the lead.

 

[mosslost]

Get used to it. This is how Belichick will defend mobile quarterbacks. 3-4 rushers that play contain and sit back in a Cover-3 or 4 with all eyes toward the QB until that QB proves he can make plays and beat the Pats from the pocket. Those wanting the Pats to constantly be more aggressive need to take note of Taylor's rushing TD when he broke the pocket.

The Pats "seem" to usually give up more points the more they score, and end up winning by roughly the same margins. (I am just feeling like that is true, I have no data to back it up ) I think the D is doing well for this team. We are not the Sea Hawks who can't score a lot. The Sea Hawks and Broncos need the D to dominate to win games. Last year we choked away a certain Super Bowl yea (Admittedly after having terrible injury luck) We were a far better team than Denver.

PS. We STILL have not played anybody tho... hilarious but true

 

[VrabelJr]

Another win, another thread about the defense giving up meaningless points.