The prevent defense

No that was not the issue. The purpose of that D is not to let anyone behind you. It has its place. Depending on the situation should tell you what D you run. For this game, the 3/20 or whatever it was, you don't want to play bump and run.. you play back and make the QB throw short. Just didn't work out. There are maybe 2 or 3 QB alive that could even think about attempting that throw.. and I bet none of them could it 2 out of 20 tries. But sometimes, Great players, make great plays.
 
phildadon86 said:
OK I've seen threads on the loss for so many different angles. This one I have yet to see. Is it time to scrap this entire play from the book? All it does is prevent us from winning.
Click to expand...
The first time I can remember cursing the prevent defense was in game against San Francisco.
We had a 5 point lead near the end of the game, went prevent and watched San Fran run and dink and dunk right down the field.
It had a tragic end. The Catch NFC championship game 1982
 
They didn't lose because of the "prevent". They lost because they did EXACTLY what the defense is not suppose to allow which is let someone get behind you for big plays. That defense was right for that play........except for the QB spy. I have no idea why we needed a spy we should've encouraged Rodgers to run if anything.
 
Cowboy4ever said:
No that was not the issue. The purpose of that D is not to let anyone behind you. It has its place. Depending on the situation should tell you what D you run. For this game, the 3/20 or whatever it was, you don't want to play bump and run.. you play back and make the QB throw short. Just didn't work out. There are maybe 2 or 3 QB alive that could even think about attempting that throw.. and I bet none of them could it 2 out of 20 tries. But sometimes, Great players, make great plays.
Click to expand...

The first problem was Lawrence losing contain on Rodgers and crashing inside instead of taking a wide rush and keeping Rodgers from rolling out to the left.
 
MichaelWinicki said:
The first problem was Lawrence losing contain on Rodgers and crashing inside instead of taking a wide rush and keeping Rodgers from rolling out to the left.
Click to expand...
Apparently, they suckered him in by opening up on the inside.
 
If anyone has heard Bill Burr's podcast, he hates the prevent defence. He thinks its just a tactic to keep games close as blowouts = poor ratings.

I can understand the point of the prevent. It keeps teams from going for the killshot (except against us idiots), and make them drive up slowly, wasting time. It makes sense when up by a couple scores with under two minutes left. But when you're dominating a team, and you go to prevent with 10 mins left, you're just asking for them to get into a rhythm and on a roll.

Can they not just play man with a couple deep safetys?
 
The thing is, we are usually very good about preventing the big play anyway in our "normal" defense (base and 3rd down). I see no reason to change to a "prevent" defense at the end unless we'd been getting burned throughout the game.

Maybe someone with more insight into what we're doing defensively can correct me (@xwalker ?), but is there really any need for us to go into a prevent defense when it seems like our regular defense would suffice?
 
guag said:
The thing is, we are usually very good about preventing the big play anyway in our "normal" defense (base and 3rd down). I see no reason to change to a "prevent" defense at the end unless we'd been getting burned throughout the game.

Maybe someone with more insight into what we're doing defensively can correct me (@xwalker ?), but is there really any need for us to go into a prevent defense when it seems like our regular defense would suffice?
Click to expand...

The trouble is that in that game the defense had given up a total of 7 (I'm crediting Bob Sturm with this number) of pass plays more than 20 yards, meaning it didn't matter what sort of defense was out there the secondary was having issues.
 
rocyaice said:
They didn't lose because of the "prevent". They lost because they did EXACTLY what the defense is not suppose to allow which is let someone get behind you for big plays. That defense was right for that play........except for the QB spy. I have no idea why we needed a spy we should've encouraged Rodgers to run if anything.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the problem wasn't the scheme, the problem was the execution. Selling out to stop the deep pass was the right decision... but they gave up the deep pass anyway.

The prevent defense is a bad idea when there is a lot of time left, and the other team can string together a lot of short passes and runs to score. But there were only 35 seconds, and literally the only thing that mattered was stopping the big play. The problem was the secondary couldn't stop ANY big play no matter WHAT the scheme or formation.
 
phildadon86 said:
OK I've seen threads on the loss for so many different angles. This one I have yet to see. Is it time to scrap this entire play from the book? All it does is prevent us from winning.
Click to expand...
It's the d you play when you have no faith in your defense, that's all. I've been hearing "bend but don't break" since campo, maybe it's a good plan for sea world, not a good scheme unless you have some major playmakers in the secondary, or you can rush 4 and get pressure.
 
It doesn't work for us...but it does often work for other teams. The play that set up GB winning field goal, going prevent on 3-20 or whatever it was made very little sense...send some sort of blitz, put Rogers under some duress, make him complete the perfect pass under duress...
 
They have used the 3 down lineman on 3rd and long all year.

Only now do we hear crying. Didn't hear anything during our 11 game winning streak.

Put this excuse next to resting our starters week 17 and the spiked ball.
 
The only thing the prevent does for the Cowboys is to prevent the opposing offense from scoring in 4 plays instead of 5.
 
phildadon86 said:
OK I've seen threads on the loss for so many different angles. This one I have yet to see. Is it time to scrap this entire play from the book? All it does is prevent us from winning.
Click to expand...
The Cowboys won 13 games with a defense that is not overly talented. The coaches must have done a good job. Lee is the only star type player on the defense and even he probably has some limitations (Many 4-3 NFL LBs are probably faster than Lee as this point in his career).
 
Toruk_Makto said:
They have used the 3 down lineman on 3rd and long all year.

Only now do we hear crying. Didn't hear anything during our 11 game winning streak.

Put this excuse next to resting our starters week 17 and the spiked ball.
Click to expand...

True.

They had been using the 3-2-6 all season.

Maybe someone should just give some credit to Rodgers and Green Bay.
 
xwalker said:
The Cowboys won 13 games with a defense that is not overly talented. The coaches must have done a good job. Lee is the only star type player on the defense and even he probably has some limitations (Many 4-3 NFL LBs are probably faster than Lee as this point in his career).
Click to expand...

Correct.

I'm astounded they led the league in sacks over the final 6 weeks of the season given how below average the DE position was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 80 more.
Total: 7,602 (members: 180, guests: 7,422)
Robots: 1,249

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
474,007
Messages
14,506,106
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top