Why the prevent is not good for this team

[Metaphors]

So your logic is:

No "prevent"= shutdown defense
"Prevent"= TD after TD

Ummm the Colts do have a top rated offense, why exactly is it hard to believe they can actually like score a TD?

I truly hope you posted this comment as satire.

You didn't read what he posted. As there is no evidence that the Pats changed scheme/package/coverage in the 4th quarter as opposed to the first 3, everyone seems to be performing a results-based analysis. So the logic becomes:

1st 3 quarters = 6 drives = 2 TDs + 2 Punts + 2 Picks
4th quarter = 3 drives = 2 TDs + Almost TD
Defense in 1st 3 quarters = Meeting expectations = Good
Defense in 4th quarter = Fail = Bad
Prevent defense = Bad
Defense in 4th quarter = Prevent defense

Even if you don't have the game on DVR, check out the highlights on nfl.com. The Pats didn't significantly alter their approach from the 1st 3 quarters. Sometimes the safeties and inside linebackers dropped deeper...sometimes not. Doesn't mean anything. A prevent defense means you play deep and outside to keep everything in front of you and inbounds to burn the clock. If they run in the middle of the field, certainly don't chase them because you want them to go there.

But that isn't what happened. There were sideline passes, receivers behind safeties, trailing coverage on crossing routes...all things that NEVER happen in a prevent. If anyone saw anything different, I haven't heard it yet.

 

[ivanvamp]

Incidentally, I still haven't heard any of these phantom-prevent-D proponents explain why the defense getting burned by the Cols for two TDs in the 4th quarter is evidence of a change in defensive scheme, when the same exact thing had happened in the 2nd quarter.

Were we in "prevent" in the first half?

In the first half, Indy had two TD drives:

11 plays, 69 yds, 5:22
13 plays, 85 yds, 3:30 (and it couldn't have been any longer because they basically scored as the clock expired in the 2nd quarter)

That's 24 plays to go 154 yds, consuming nearly 9 minutes.

Their two 4th quarter TD drives were:

7 plays, 73 yds, 2:26
7 plays, 73 yds, 2:18

That's 14 plays, 146 yds, consuming 4:44. Half the plays, half the time, to go essentially the same distance.

I don't know what defense the Pats were playing in the 2nd quarter. I just know that whatever D the Pats were playing in the 4th quarters of both the Indy and Pitt games, the other teams just ripped their way downfield in almost no time at all.

 

[Kontradiction]

Rubbish. Simply rubbish.

The Pats' rarely rushed more than 4 all game. The Pats were switching up and disguising their coverage schemes all game, as well -- this is what baited Manning into some of his INTs. If you actually watched the game, you'd see the Colts catching their passes with Patriots defenders often in pursuit, not catching stuff open underneath and being closed on by deep defenders.

Of course we weren't sending the house all game. We haven't done that since Manning since 2004. However, the blitz packages and coverage noticeably changed in the 4th quarter. If you haven't seen that with your own two eyes, then it was noted in the Pats blog as well, hence the snippet that I gave you in my last post.

If you think you can see something different in the 4th quarter than what we were doing on similar down and distance in the other quarters, please, by all means, give us an example.

I did this already.

Otherwise, I'm going to believe what I saw with my own eyes, which happens to correspond to what Belichick was saying in his weekly radio spot (not press conference) in which he flat out stated in answer to whether the Pats played any prevent defense "No. We played the way we played the whole game."

Yes. We played nickel, dime, sometimes even quarter defenses the whole game. That's par for the course against Manning. What changed was the coverages within those defense. Once again, this has been noted by more people than just myself.

And your lame attempt at sophistry -- viz. "we used the same personnel package but different coverages" doesn't even make enough sense to be wrong in this situation.

Sure it does. Unless you're going to think that coverages cannot and do not change within a type of defensive package. They can and do change. This is seen all of the time, especially when a game winds down to the very end and coaches elect to keep their personnel in a particular type of package while dropping the LB's, safeties, and corners deeper into coverage in an attempt to stop the defense and chew up clock.

So once again, please, if you can tell me how many more snaps the Pats rushed 5 or more in the first 3 quarters vs the last ones, I'd be interested in hearing it.

That's one of the most loaded questions I've ever seen. But I'll give you examples. Remember the question mark of Arrington playing OLB in the third quarter when he came back into the game? It was noted that this was in the dime and he was in there as a pure pass rusher only.

CB Kyle Arrington, who was replaced at the end of the first half, returned to the field in the Patriots’ dime package which was called upon at the end of the Colts’ opening drive of the second half. Arrington came in solely as a pass rusher, and on a third-and-9, put a quick move on RT Ryan Diem to beat him inside, which flushed Colts QB Peyton Manning out of the pocket. Manning then delivered a short throw that WR Pierre Garcon was unable to haul in.

The only Patriots defender to get any pressure on Manning on his late third-quarter interception thrown to CB Devin McCourty was Arrington, rushing from the edge for a second straight play. On both plays, Arrington was hit by Diem and went to the ground, but on the second, started to crawl towards Manning which may have played a role in the overthrown pass, but not the likely missed route by Garcon.

Those are two examples from elsewhere that I can give you in a hurry. If I had more time before I had to go to work, I could do more combing. If you'd like, I can do it when I get some free time tomorrow. Off the top of my head, though, I also saw New England use both TBC and Ninkovich as pass rushers off the edge through the first three quarters. Something you didn't see in the fourth quarter. I also didn't see Cunningham lined up in the three point stance in the first three quarters either. In the fourth, he was lined up in the three point stance and was going one on one with the RT as a pass rusher.

If you can point to some specific examples of the Pats playing different coverages than the ones they were using in the first three quarters, please do so. If it happened, it's there for all to see.

I already quoted one. Apparently, you didn't want to hear it...

With a 17-point lead to begin the Colts’ first drive of the fourth quarter, the Patriots defense moved into a softer coverage look, with ILB Jerod Mayo in a deeper zone seen more often in a “Tampa 2” system. This opened up the middle of the field, but it still did not explain the 11-yard WR Reggie Wayne catch against CB Darius Butler to begin the drive. On the play, Butler bumped Wayne at the line but was three steps slow to chase him as he broke inside on a crossing route, and even then had trouble chasing Wayne across the field, making the tackle only after Wayne stuttered to avoid Mayo.

And this is from the second quarter review. Keep in mind that it's been noted elsewhere that we played mostly dime in the fourth quarter.

For most of the Colts’ two-minute drive to end the first half, they stayed in their base three-receiver, one tight end set while the Patriots mainly were in their nickel package, with safety Patrick Chung and linebacker Gary Guyton covering the third and fourth receivers. This limited the Colts to mainly underneath routes, including two dump-off passes to RB Jarvarris James to get the Colts to midfield. After that, when the Patriots' defense began to tighten up, QB Peyton Manning focused on the WR Reggie Wayne matchup against CB Kyle Arrington, gaining 17, 28, and finally 11 yards on passes to Wayne, with the final one a touchdown. CB Darius Butler replaced Arrington for the second half.

We were also playing three deep during portions of the fourth quarter that we didn't do as often in the first three quarters.

Incidentally, I still haven't heard any of these phantom-prevent-D proponents explain why the defense getting burned by the Cols for two TDs in the 4th quarter is evidence of a change in defensive scheme, when the same exact thing had happened in the 2nd quarter.

Were we in "prevent" in the first half?

It's because we were playing nickel in the second quarter as opposed to the dime in the second half, and heavily in the fourth quarter. Furthermore, Manning had our zones and coverages figured out at the end of the second quarter and was finding the soft spots all quarter long. In the third quarter, we changed things up with our defensive calls and started showing Manning different looks than we had in the first half. That's the reason why we were able to shut the Colts out in the third quarter when we had allowed them 14 points in the quarter before.

And please, keep up the thinly veiled personal attacks.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

In the first half, Indy had two TD drives:

11 plays, 69 yds, 5:22
13 plays, 85 yds, 3:30 (and it couldn't have been any longer because they basically scored as the clock expired in the 2nd quarter)

That's 24 plays to go 154 yds, consuming nearly 9 minutes.

Their two 4th quarter TD drives were:

7 plays, 73 yds, 2:26
7 plays, 73 yds, 2:18

That's 14 plays, 146 yds, consuming 4:44. Half the plays, half the time, to go essentially the same distance.

I don't know what defense the Pats were playing in the 2nd quarter. I just know that whatever D the Pats were playing in the 4th quarters of both the Indy and Pitt games, the other teams just ripped their way downfield in almost no time at all.

So we can agree. The Patriots defense was not executing well at the end of both games. That is hardly the same thing as saying they switch systematically to a prevent defense. Problem could be fatigue. Teams often give up points in the 4th quarter not because they are in the prevent but because playing defense is more tiring than offense and by the end of the game the offense has the adv.

What nobody has offered any evidence to is the notion that the Patriots were in a prevent defense.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

What we have lacked this year at times is PREVENT OFFENSE. We need to prevent the other guys from having the ball so much in the fourth quarter of games.

 

[JoeSixPat]

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 think the OP went out of his way to note how pleased he was with the INT that won the game - but his point stands... if the goal of the defense was to prevent Indy from getting into FG range, surely you can't sit there and claim the defense executed well when they clearly did not.

While I know the stat of 8-2 is the dominant one, it's not the only one, and clearly the Defense did not execute well...

Whether they are incapable of executing well is the question Belichick must assess and answer - and I highly doubt he's sitting back, judging the performance of the defense at the end of recent games and letting the lack of losses come into that assessment.

He's looking at actual performance here - not simply the W/L column, just as the OP is

 

[RayClay]

We have cornerbacks bumping receivers at the line in the prevent defense?

I'm not an X, O guy, but that doesn't make sense, does it?

 

[Deus Irae]

I think the OP went out of his way to note how pleased he was with the INT that won the game - but his point stands... if the goal of the defense was to prevent Indy from getting into FG range, surely you can't sit there and claim the defense executed well when they clearly did not.

While I know the stat of 8-2 is the dominant one, it's not the only one, and clearly the Defense did not execute well...

Whether they are incapable of executing well is the question Belichick must assess and answer - and I highly doubt he's sitting back, judging the performance of the defense at the end of recent games and letting the lack of losses come into that assessment.

He's looking at actual performance here - not simply the W/L column, just as the OP is

1.) It's yet to be demonstrated that a "prevent" defense was in place during the plays that gained the yardage.

2.) Belichick stated that the team did not change the defenses at the end of the game.

3.) Missed tackles are a product of execution issues, not a product of any particular play calling.

3.) I'm confident that Belichick is not debating whether or not he should scrap the "prevent" defense.

4.) It's clear that there were mistakes. However, that long run isn't something that only happens against the "prevent" defense, just to point to one example. I've not claimed that the defense executed well in the "prevent". I've noted that the team has not yet lost a game while leading in the 4th quarter this year. I've noted that the team has only lost one game where it led at halftime, and that was a 4 point lead against the Jets. The Jets loss was pretty clearly one that fell on the shoulders of the offense, so the "prevent" certainly wasn't a problem in that game. Bagging on the prevent, when this team's defense has sometimes sucked in all manner of formations/packages/styles, doesn't really bring anything to the table.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

You didn't read what he posted.

Well, not surprised because that pittsfan has this recurring problem of not comprehending the post but yet pontifying in a haughty manner.