Thread: Can we get rid of the prevent defense?

Can we get rid of the prevent defense? Everytime we have a prevent defense, we either blow a lead and lose the game or barely win a game which should have been a blow-out because of it! GET RID OF IT! :angryfire:

Teams use it because they don't want to get burned by a quick score.... Instead it's a slow and painful death. They must hope that the offense makes a mistake, with a bad throw or a fumble. The problem is, professional teams generally don't make those types of mistakes unless they're forced into it. I agree. I hate the prevent defense.

The prevent defense reminds me of customers who come into the cafe, already having been asked to NOT come back by both managers, and well, their still here. HUH? Just one of those things you have to put up with I guess. And cuss about afterwards. You can also give the person that gets stuck with it this time shit. Perhaps that is its redeeming value.

The prevent defense, from what I understand, involves only rushing 3 down linemen, and dropping the other 8 players into coverage, most often a deep zone. I have yet to see the Vikings do this.

I have seen them play very soft coverages, sometimes giving up to a 10 yard cushion to the opposing WRs, and that needs to stop. They need to take advantage of the rule that says that you can make contact with the receiver within 5 yards. There's been a lot of press about how fast this D is. Well, we need to see them use that speed. They should be able to keep up with the receivers from the line of scrimmage, and not give them so much of a cushion. I've seen a number of plays so far this season where the receiver runs a quick slant, and the defender is lined up so far off the line of scrimmage, that there is no way they could be in position to make the play.

I have a few pet peeves in football. One of them is calling any soft coverage a "prevent" D. It's right up there with the announcers calling a reverse on an end-around, and calling a double reverse on a reverse. What's even worse, I saw Michael Irvin on some analyst show during the week, and he called an end around a double reverse! He had 3 or 4 days to prep for that show, and he screwed up worse than normal.

I think the actual definition of prevent defense is adding an extra defender to prevent the LONG pass. This doesn't always come from the line it can come from a backer position. So I think you could have a four man front in a prevent D.

The Nickle and Dime packages could be mistaken for prevent D, but the desired outcome is the same. Stop the pass. The Prevent D is focused on stopping the deep pass and either the D is playing weak cloud nickle and dime or they are playing prevent D.

Either way they are playing pansy D and are affraid of the pass. It doesn't matter they can stop the 40 yard pass is the other team gets 4 ten yard passes in a row. Lets tighten this thing up and let the safties do the cushion.

Don't worry, Cotrell and Winfield have both cited in the newspapers yesterday/today that the loose coverage crap is over

I did not see the Viks actually playing a prevent. It was damn close, just loose coverage.

Yeah, enough of this loose stuff, I want it to be tight...defense, that is...LOL

he Prevent defense doesn't prevent a damn thing.
They should call it the "Lets give up huge chunks of yards in exchange for taking a little time off the clock" Defense.

"North40" wrote:

he Prevent defense doesn't prevent a damn thing.
They should call it the "Lets give up huge chunks of yards in exchange for taking a little time off the clock" Defense.

Doesn't even take that much time off the clock, if you can go down the field in 15 to 25 yard chunks it doesn't take long to move down the field.