Yeah, I just complimented him in a blog last night, but in yesterday's Rutgers/Iowa State game, college football announcer/analyst, Jesse Palmer, got on Rutgers defensive coordinator's case for playing prevent defense with the Scarlet Knights up 27-13 midway in the 4th quarter.
Like I said yesterday, I'm beginning to think Palmer may be my twin, excluding the hair and money and other things. I've been repeating this very line about the prevent defense for I don't know how long - don't drop back into the prevent when up in the 4th quarter. Go with what's been working throughout the course of the game. I can't tell you how many times a team will be up two scores midway or fairly late in the 4th quarter only to drop back in the prevent, allow an easy score, recover an onside kick and either tie or win the game in the closing seconds. Don't believe me? Look at Tim Tebow this year. The Miami Dolphins were up late in the 4th. What'd they do? Went into the prevent. What happened? They lost in overtime. The Chicago Bears were up in the 4th quarter. What'd they do? Went into the prevent. What happened? They lost in overtime.
If it's a three score game, I can understand this strategy somewhat, because it's attempting to prevent the big play downfield, the quick score and sacrificing yards for time drained from the clock. This is also the case on offense, where a team may run the ball three consecutive plays toward the tail-end of the game to force their opponent to burn timeouts and/or waste time. Again, if it's a three-score game, I can understand this strategy. However, if it's just a two score game, I don't. Again, go with what has been working.
The problem with these strategies, especially on defense is that, while the prevent is attempting to prevent the quick, big play, it's allowing the 10-15 yard completions with ease and if tackles are missed, these short to intermediate routes can wind up being the very big plays which the prevent defense was attempting to, well, prevent. I don't care how inaccurate a quarterback is throwing the ball (i.e. Tebow), if he isn't getting any pressure and is allowed a wide open receiver about 10-15 yards away, he'll be able to make those very completions 9 times out of 10.
If the blitz has been working, if the opposing quarterback has been rattled and forced into making some bad decisions, keep that pressure on him. I find it ridiculously stupid to suddenly move away from what has been working for most of the game. By playing prevent defense, not only is the defending team sacrificing yards for time spent, they're also sacrificing points and on many occasions, those very sacrifices cost a team the game.
Like I said yesterday, I'm beginning to think Palmer may be my twin, excluding the hair and money and other things. I've been repeating this very line about the prevent defense for I don't know how long - don't drop back into the prevent when up in the 4th quarter. Go with what's been working throughout the course of the game. I can't tell you how many times a team will be up two scores midway or fairly late in the 4th quarter only to drop back in the prevent, allow an easy score, recover an onside kick and either tie or win the game in the closing seconds. Don't believe me? Look at Tim Tebow this year. The Miami Dolphins were up late in the 4th. What'd they do? Went into the prevent. What happened? They lost in overtime. The Chicago Bears were up in the 4th quarter. What'd they do? Went into the prevent. What happened? They lost in overtime.
If it's a three score game, I can understand this strategy somewhat, because it's attempting to prevent the big play downfield, the quick score and sacrificing yards for time drained from the clock. This is also the case on offense, where a team may run the ball three consecutive plays toward the tail-end of the game to force their opponent to burn timeouts and/or waste time. Again, if it's a three-score game, I can understand this strategy. However, if it's just a two score game, I don't. Again, go with what has been working.
The problem with these strategies, especially on defense is that, while the prevent is attempting to prevent the quick, big play, it's allowing the 10-15 yard completions with ease and if tackles are missed, these short to intermediate routes can wind up being the very big plays which the prevent defense was attempting to, well, prevent. I don't care how inaccurate a quarterback is throwing the ball (i.e. Tebow), if he isn't getting any pressure and is allowed a wide open receiver about 10-15 yards away, he'll be able to make those very completions 9 times out of 10.
If the blitz has been working, if the opposing quarterback has been rattled and forced into making some bad decisions, keep that pressure on him. I find it ridiculously stupid to suddenly move away from what has been working for most of the game. By playing prevent defense, not only is the defending team sacrificing yards for time spent, they're also sacrificing points and on many occasions, those very sacrifices cost a team the game.
Comments
Post a Comment