Question about the prevent defense.

[Frozen Sooner]

I hear people bemoan the so-called prevent defense-which is usually a nickel or dime playing soft coverage to keep plays in front of them-all the time.

Here's my question:

Why do you think that football coaches almost unanimously use this defense when up by a couple of scores with less than three minutes to go? Seriously, this isn't an isolated phenomenon-pretty much ALL football coaches do this. So why do coaches use this defense that everybody in message-board and fired-coaches land thinks is terrible?

[Cam]

Using it when up by 14+ points doesn't really bother me much. It's when it's a 10 point game and the offense takes 30 seconds to drive 60-70 yards for a TD. You know what's going to happen next, and as we've seen this year, on-side kicks are 50/50 at best.

Why put yourself in that situation and play something that your team hasn't been playing the entire game?

[8timechamps]

IF there is a significant lead (14+ points) with very little time left, it's the only defense to call. Now, IF you're protecting a 3 point lead, not so much.

[IronSooner]

It prevents the large home-run play. Or rather, splits it up into several good-size plays so that rather than taking 10 seconds to score, it forces the opponent to score in 30 or 40 seconds.

[Scott D]

Ideally it prevents a big play possibility. The problem is that using it can allow a team to get into a rhythm offensively so the quickness of the strike doesn't come into play.

[Frozen Sooner]

Iron, check yo spek.

[Blitzkrieg]

Because it works 90% of the time. The 10% gets talked about a lot.

[oumartin]

works 90% of the time and the other times the sooners play it. ;)

[the_ouskull]

It also works a lot better, if you're in a dime package and still have four down lineman that can create pressure. Otherwise, you have to go to a Quarter package with 7 DB's and 3 lineman, and, at that point, you're trying to pressure a specific side of the QB to force him into a less-than-ideal throw, but your chances of getting to him are slim.

Overall, I completely agree with the prevent defense, as long as it's done properly. Basically, fans have just latched onto the catchy, "it prevents you from winning" phrase, and it's gotten stuck in their ADD-addled minds...

the_ouskull

[DrZaius]

I really don't like the prevent.......you have just spent the entire second half dominating them and then you change at the last minute. Does not make sense to me, though that is probably why I am not a coach.

[MojoRisen]

No reason to ever go prevent! Especially if your defense is good- don't fix what isn't broken.

That is all

[the_ouskull]

I really don't like the prevent.......you have just spent the entire second half dominating them and then you change at the last minute. Does not make sense to me, though that is probably why I am not a coach.

If you've been dominating them, you don't really NEED the prevent... Also, if you've been dominating them, you should be up by more points than the prevent would / (can?) allow...

the_ouskull

[John Kochtoston]

It's the right defense when you have more than a one-score lead and the other team LIKELY doesn't have enough time to score AND e the ball back. OU using it wasn't a bad call in the Oregon game, IMHO, when OU had a two-score lead. They really didn't use it after the onside kick, that was more of a blown coverage. If OU doesn't get absolutely hosed on the onside kick attempt, the game is over, because OU can run out the clock.
BTW, onside kicks are not a 50/50 proposition (in the NFL it's about 1 in 4, I think the college numbers are worse than that), especially with the rules mandating at least four players per side of the ball. You'd see a lot more of them if they were.