Can someone who understands the X's and O's of football please help me understand why this Achilles Heel Scheme exists so much in the NFL? My wife was asking me what I thought about our new DC and it got me on the topic of saying how Gus Bradley won't be missed too much by me at least due to his dependence on the prevent defense/soft zone coverage that too often ended up losing games for us, the least of which being the divisional playoff game against the Falcons.

Then it made me wonder...What if our new DC will do the same thing in the same situations? In fact, why is it even utilized when 99 out of 100 times fans end up bitching about why it was used?

We all know the saying..."The only thing prevent defense does is PREVENT you from winning!"

For years and years, regardless of coaching staff, players and schemes, that statement always seems true.

So what gives? Please help me and perhaps others understand what I may be missing here. Why is soft zone, prevent D used, especially at the end of the game when the game is on the line and so often - so it seems - that very scheme is the reason we end up losing?

(kearly, Absolute, etc...Please pick up the white courtesy phone...)

_________________


"WE ALL WE GOT! WE ALL WE NEED!"

At its most basic, it isn't a scheme so much as a philosophy within the scheme. A true prevent defense is a cover-4 (quarters) with 3-4 underneath zones (depending on how many rushers).

But what you see more often is the prevent philosophy more than the scheme. In this philosophy you emphasize to the players playing deep to be BEHIND the deepest man. So if the offense sends two speedsters 50 yards downfield - the 4 cover guys (2 in man and two in deep zone often rather than 4 in quarters) are 50 yards downfield. This leaves the other players in coverage to cover areas that are simply far too large to either play man or zone in. If in man, slot corners and LBs in coverage against TEs simply have no help as we saw against Atlanta with Harry Douglas. We were in man coverage there but it was just difficult to execute. Playing in man also gives the QB huge amounts of open space to run. If in zone - often the deep ins at around 20-25 yards are open behind the LBers but in front of the safeties and the reads are easy.

You saw what can happen when you don't emphasize it in the Denver game. That play in Denver (the Jones bomb for the tie) is the reason we see this prevent philosophy so much. That safety should have been much further back.

Overall, then the "prevent" is much about telling your safeties - do not give up the big play. In turn, that puts too much pressure on the rest of the cover guys and holes easily develop because unless those other guys are playing flawlessly (and even when they are) good offensive schemes will punch holes fairly easily - especially when given time.

Having said all that, the one limiter is pressure. If you can get pressure on the QB, especially with four men - it shortens the field significantly and the plays do not develop as easily. That 20 yard deep in may not have had time to develop and those players may not get 50 yards downfield allowing the safeties to still be in play. This is why the 4 man rush is so important to a defense these days. This is why the Giants won 2 superbowls and could beat the Patriots.

However, if you have to send 6-7 guys to do the job of those 4 - the margin for error for the cover guys basically becomes zero (as does the coverage) and one mistake (missed tackle, bad jump) equals a huge gain. Moreover, every NFL offense has blitz-beating routes (hot routes) made to beat the man coverage that comes with a blitz (using slants or similar quick routes). This latter point is why the zone-blitz scheme of Pittsburgh and the 3-4 in general has been so successful over the years because there are more guys who could rush and defensive lineman who the QB almost always expects to rush can drop into those hot route passing lanes. We did some of it this year - especially with Clemons - in fact Irvin dropped on one play in the game and looked pretty lost (I forget which one but it was a success for Atlanta) - so it is hard to execute and even Clem isn't great at it. You would rather have him rushing the QB as when you drop him in coverage and it isn't a success - you hate yourself.

In the end, there lies the catch-22 of all defensive coordinators (me included). Do I defend the deep ball and hope that my underneath players can make a play? Or do I risk a deep play and help them out? The answer is almost invariably the former - especially when up by more than 3 points. Because if the offense dinks and dunks down the field the one helper of a defense is the end line. As the field of play gets shorter - it becomes easier to defend. So most coaches would take their chances and let the opposing offense dink and dunk until getting to such a point where they can now scheme to help the underneath guys and mitigate some of the risk of a deep ball.

Also, as my philosophy is, so is Pete's, the big play is a back-breaker for teams. So I can accept a team driving 15 plays for a touchdown because that means they had to execute 15 plays and that is difficult to do. Every play the offense has the ball increases the chances of a mistake (fumble, sack, int) and so the more plays the offense requires to score - often the better it is for the defense. Though there are some caveats to that, obviously, for the most part it is the philosophy I have seen from Bradley and Pete these last 3 years.

_________________
Beast Mode...try BORG MODE

Driver of the PC/JS Bandwagon since 2010

I guess if we shore up our pass rush, any defense will work a lot better,...our 3rd down defense (esp. 3rd and long), has been a joke for way too long,...

If you can rush the QB effectively with 4 men on a routine basis - your defense will be a top-5 defense in the league.

_________________
Beast Mode...try BORG MODE

Driver of the PC/JS Bandwagon since 2010

Prevent is kind of like cover 4 when you drop 4 guys into thier deep quarter zones, but in prevent you rush 3 instead of 4 and the 4 guys that drop into thier hook zone are 20 yards downfield, so you're basically running a cover 4 where everyone backs off and plays deep trying to keep the play in front I them

Awesome post. Thank you for this, it was really informative and easily understandable.

Excellent post TDot !!!

That's one part of the game that I am trying to understand more of, the X's and O's. I love when, those of you who understand that aspect of the game, post analysis like this ... GOLD !!!

I was SOoooo pissed that our D was playing so far back on that last drive, when they gave up the pass plays underneath, I as like, "What the hell is Gus doing" !!!

However, understanding the purpose of this approach, is the kind of thing that would calm me down a bit.

Seems like it was the lesser of 2 evils, IMO. Also the reason we're looking to upgrade our pass rush this off season ... making more sense to me now.

_________________
I reject your reality and substitute my own

as TDOTSEAHAWK says, it prevents the big play, then you just have to hope you can cut out ONE small play, which really relies on the pass rush being effective. Unfortunately that hasn't really been the case for us and that's evident in the statline by opposing QBs in those 4 drives that cost us -
Tannehill was 4-4, Stafford was 9-14, with 4 of those incompletions from within 12 yards of the endzone (where you don't have to play prevent), Cutler was 1-1 with that big play (where the prevent D wasn't really the cause, but rather Sherman going for the INT instead of batting it down), and Ryan was 2-2.

A few pressures turning those into incomplete passes and we probably win all 4

Exactly. which is why a good defensive line rotation is also pivotal. Getting fresh guys in - especially at DT is pivotal. Our depth was not great at all this year at DT. It is the place we most need to draft.

Miami putting Bess in the slot was also a tactic we didn't respond to at all and should have. They stuck some duster on Sherman all day and just ran him deep. Making Trufant cover their best receiver.

_________________
Beast Mode...try BORG MODE

Driver of the PC/JS Bandwagon since 2010

Wow !!!

This info is somewhat staggering to me, can you imagine if we win a few, if not all of those games?

We likely would have had a first round bye, and then playing at home ...

DAMN IT !!!

Back to the OP: If you consistently are losing games that way, why wouldn't you try and make an adjustment of some sort in an effort to change the outcomes that you, as a DC/HC ,are seeing several times over ?!?!?

Like, would playing man and bringing an extra pass rusher be a better idea in those situations? We don't often get burned in man so would that be an option? Again, if you're getting poor results in "prevent" ... or whatever you guys were calling it, lol

_________________
I reject your reality and substitute my own

TDOTSEAHAWK Wrote:


yep.

_________________

Was watching NFL Turning Point last night and the same defense the team used on Ryan's first INT, was the same play call on the throw to Gonzalez to put them in FG range. The first time the Falcons didn't block it correctly and the second time they adjusted and blocked it perfectly.

So I don't think they were necessarily in a prevent.. the pass rush just didn't get there, and when you blitz and it's picked up.. that's basically a guaranteed gain of at least 15 yards.

_________________
Seahawks vs. TBD - Super Bowl 48 - February 2, 2014

Well, it was the same blitz. but it wasn't a soft zone on the interception.

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need

While fear of the big play may be why DC's do it, that doesn't mean they're operating on a cold hearted analysis of the probabilities. If big plays were so easy to generate against standard defense, offenses would throw deep on every play all game long. Fact is, there's basically zero chance we give up a big play on standard defense at the end of every one of those 4 losses. There's a reasonable chance we give up 0, since we had the 3rd rated secondary against receivers in the NFL this year. Ceding 15-20 yard passes to NFL quarterbacks with anything more than 30 seconds on the clock is a fool's game and we paid the price.

This is what I was thinking after contemplating this thread a bit more, your DB's have been fantastic all season when playing that way. So wouldn't it stand to reason that you put your faith in them when the chips are on the table?

Am I off base here?

_________________
I reject your reality and substitute my own

Nice job, TDOT.

I think guys just get beat sometimes. But to happen 4 or 5 times in a season means that we didn't adjust or have the wrong personnel.

I will call it a fluke, just to feel better, but I have a dream.

A dream that we play the Jags in the Superb Owl. The Jags hold a 2 point lead with a minute to go. Statistical probability that Russell Wilson beats Gus Bradleys defense to win - 103%

_________________
"it'd be a newborn deer" - pehawk

I would be curious to hear from players on how they feel about this defensive philosophy. Obviously the players are paid to play whatever defense the coordinators / coaches call but……………..it would be interesting to hear their thoughts. Not sure you would ever get an honest answer / an answer for the sake of team / political correctness.

_________________
"Our Quarterback is a Bad Man!" - Michael Robinson

Browner was ultra pissed about the soft zone right after the game.

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need

Fantastic response. I learned something today. Thank you.

_________________


"WE ALL WE GOT! WE ALL WE NEED!"

To this I would add:

1) We lost 3 games this season by conceding the 15-30 yard play in the 4th quarter, at some point I'd hope the DC would consider that with this personnel the philosophy is busted. Yet when playing defense aggressively (or at least not passively), the results have been much, much better.

2) You can justify the soft zone, IMO, if we're talking about preventing a touchdown. If we're talking about preventing a field goal, basically 2 long completions are enough for the opponent to push into field goal range. A defense designed to give up such long completions is nuts. Okay, so you look like an ass if you play aggressively and somehow you get burned deep, but it's just as likely the opponent expects you to play off, then when they seen tighter coverage on the intermediate routes, panics a little. Or hey, maybe you even surprise them with a punch in the mouth as they come off the line (hard to do against a Julio Jones I realize). Yes, you do have to trust your safeties to do what they've been doing all game long and get there to break up any plays where they get behind your corners.

I do see that it's harder than we fans make it out to be. When you can't generate pressure with the front 4 you're faced with the devil's choice. Because sending an extra defender in blitz AND playing aggressively in the secondary is an awful risk. If they choose to play aggressively and not send a blitz, that's essentially how we played all season long in all but the final minute of games, and it worked out pretty well. So maybe that's what I would have liked to have seen.

For all of the above, for acknowledging the difficult choice faced by the DC, I still come away feeling that look, if your secondary is as good as ours, if your defense kicks ass all year long and okay its one flaw is you can't count on getting there with the front 4, you oughta be able to find a way to wring a success out of one of these close games. But the fact that we pissed it down our legs in MIA, DET, ATL, CHI, and ARI, I mean come on law of averages says you'd be able to close out ONE game if you were worth a shit.

For all the "number one scoring defense" stuff, our defense cost us 5 games (okay we won CHI but not on account of the defense). I'd be happier with a defense that gave up a few more points (because I think RW can handle generating more himself) but was able to close out a game every now and then in the 4th quarter. Here's hoping it's a youth thing or we figure out the pass rush thing.