Does anybody know how analytics determines the success or failure of a prevent defense? I've hated the way the prevent has evolved over the years and am wondering if the age of analytics will reverse the trend. Is it simply based on the outcome of game, win or lose? Or is it more than that?

Let's use last night as an example. Aggies shutting down OSU in second half. Zero points for OSU until their last drive. Magically they score easily on prevent D. And, way too quickly to boot.

In my non analytic brain I'd say if you allowed that TD with something around 25 seconds or so to go in the game then I'm ok with the prevent. Allowing the TD so quickly with over a minute to go seems like a fail to me. Really, what is the difference if OSU scores in 4 plays on your somewhat normal, perhaps slightly more protective D? They score with 1:35 on clock? 1:45? It all comes down to onside kick at that point. In fact if they recover onside kick, whether at 1:35, 1:45 or 1:05 left in game they would have plenty of time for game winning TD drive, forget FG to tie.

Anyway, I feel prevent D is used too much and incorrectly many times when it is used and I think last night, though Aggies won, is an example of that. Sans OSU scoring in 1 or 2 plays on a normal D (perhaps slightly more soft) the prevent was worthless and seems arguably reduced our chances of winning.

If they had scored with 1:45 on the clock and a timeout in the bag, which they had, we wouldn't have been able to just kneel the clock out. That's the difference.

OSU managed the clock terribly on that last drive. They wasted a couple minutes and used a timeout.

Defense played it out well. Made them run enough clock and burn a timeout, almost got a stop and made them have to hope to get an onside kicks we know is coming... Those almost never work these days.. In that situation, a bomb touchdown pass or run in a quick drive would have been a disaster. Clock was our friend.

Speaking of bad clock mgmt, not sure what the hell gundy was doing near the end of our last scoring drive. He should have burned all 3 of his timeouts to conserve clock, not just 1.

In response to Aggies2009. True. But that seems from an analytic perspective something that shouldn't swing in favor of prevent.
In that example we would have the ball around midfield and three straight kneels likely results in OSU best case getting ball on their 20 yard line with no TO and about 20-25 seconds left. And that is best case scenario IF OSU scores in like 1 or 2 plays on our D which statistically had a very low chance of happening. I'd still rather be in that situation I think.

I figure that our defense did pretty well in the second half. Why not continue the defense that proved successful?

A cover 2 or 3 soft zone isn't necessarily a prevent defense

Prevent works. The goal is to prevent a quick score, drain the clock and play real D on a short field in the red zone. If you play normal D, you risk them getting behind you and scoring quickly. If you get a bit of luck, the offense makes a mistake and you stop them before they get to the red zone.

We were never in the prevent defense. I've always believed you can spot low football IQ fans by not knowing what a prevent is or if they think you shouldn't run the option to the short side of the field.

Cassius said:

---

Prevent works. The goal is to prevent a quick score, drain the clock and play real D on a short field in the red zone. If you play normal D, you risk them getting behind you and scoring quickly. If you get a bit of luck, the offense makes a mistake and you stop them before they get to the red zone.

---

My observation is that prevent defense generally leads to a quick score because all the offense has to do is quick 10 yard routes. So instead of possibly scoring on a big play they just score in 4-5 quick plays

Too many times over the years I have seen a prevent defense cost a team the game.

Stay with what has worked.

Prevent D is a loose term.

I suppose it is possible that OSU did nothing in second half and that magically they score a TD in short order with virtually no resistance.

Again I think you will see a swing in such soft prevent coverage in the near future. As somebody pointed out above OSU actually wasted a bit of time and were not as efficient as they could have been. If the "prevent" D allows such a quick score it doesn't seem it really increases your chance of winning.

And I get a team could score in 1 play or 2 plays but again, that is something you almost never need to really worry about because stats tell you it will almost never happen. Yet given the way we played D we were certainly going to need to get the onside kick to win.

So perhaps I can view it this way. What are the odds OSU scores in 1 or 2 plays and compare that to odds of them recovering onside kick. Gotta believe analytics would tell me they have higher percentage of getting onside than scoring in 1 or 2 plays.

Dance with the one that brung ya.

Every time defenses switch to 3 rushers the opponents march down the field with ease. The 3 man rush defense at the end of games is always terrible.

Also, kicking it short is stupid too.

Aston04 said:

---

Defense played it out well. Made them run enough clock and burn a timeout, almost got a stop and made them have to hope to get an onside kicks we know is coming... Those almost never work these days.. In that situation, a bomb touchdown pass or run in a quick drive would have been a disaster. Clock was our friend.

Speaking of bad clock mgmt, not sure what the hell gundy was doing near the end of our last scoring drive. He should have burned all 3 of his timeouts to conserve clock, not just 1.

---

Watching, I said they should kick the FG early and save all 3 timeouts.

Then I remembered their kicker had missed 2 already.

the defense did its job on the last drive...by forcing OSU into a recover-the-onside-kick or the game is over situation.

made them use enough time and their critical 2nd timeout (near tthe goal line) to get that done

I hate that prevent defense. I say blitz the heck out of them and don't let the quarterback have time to pick you apart. Outcome could not be worse. Just my 2 cents!

Define Prevent Defense - I believe it is any defense that allows your competition to score quickly when they have been struggling to score for a serious period of the game!

I've always thought that pressuring the QB in a passing situation is more valuable than a couple more guys covering 30,000SF of turf.

Poorly coached. Should have blitzed the QB and played tight man to man. Best D is what they were doing earlier. Also with poor special teams we kick to the 10 yd line and cover poorly as we have done before. Just dumb coaching and play. Special teams suck and so was the coaching this year.

Why not have your kicker put into the end zone. Why kick it short.

drevans956 said:

---

Define Prevent Defense - I believe it is any defense that allows your competition to score quickly when they have been struggling to score for a serious period of the game!

---

3 DL, 1 LB, 7 DB most of who are 20 or so yards off the receiver


We were never in the prevent

Houstonag said:

---

Poorly coached. Should have blitzed the QB and played tight man to man. Best D is what they were doing earlier. Also with poor special teams we kick to the 10 yd line and cover poorly as we have done before. Just dumb coaching and play. Special teams suck and so was the coaching this year.

Why not have your kicker put into the end zone. Why kick it short.

---

If you blitz and give up a quick easy score they can kick normally and only need to keep you from getting a 1st down on two series to get the call back.

We played the percentages with a soft zone (not a prevent) and it paid off.

OU down 35-14 with 4 minutes to go in first half and playing prevent D and gives up TD in 2 plays.
Oh wait, that wasn't prevent, just Big XII defense, never mind.

If you your defense (while tired) isn't able to tighten up in the red zone and force the field goal - then prevent is a losing game strategy.
If you have the talent and depth (rare in college), then you can consider it - but probably don't need to.
If you run a prevent at the end of the game where you're able to keep the offense in bounds and drain the clock - thats a good place for it.

Overall I'm not a fan as it is done so poorly by so many teams.

I still disagree. Why change what has been working. I remember the Slocum style that made us lose to the sips. All we did was let them catch short passes and kick a winning field goal.

Prevent is not a good strategy in these cases.

Johnny Chavis has made a career giving games away by changing to the prevent after his team had the lead.

A soft zone with 5 DBs or more is by definition a prevent defense.


Prevent generally works in the regular season in the NFL.

It often doesn't in college, because reduced motivation, hustle, immaturity, and mistakes.

Houstonag said:

---

I still disagree. Why change what has been working. I remember the Slocum style that made us lose to the sips. All we did was let them catch short passes and kick a winning field goal.

Prevent is not a good strategy in these cases.

---

If it's a one score game I agree it's definitely stupid

going back and watching the game highlights...

OSU reached the A&M 19-yard line at 1:47...with the clock stopped for the 1st down.

but OSU did not score the TD until 1:03 on the clock.

it took the Cowboys 44 seconds and 1 critical timeout to go the last 19 yards for the score.

that's what killed their comeback attempt.

----
hindsight is 20/20...wonder if Gundy considered kicking the FG right there at 1:47 with 2 timeouts left. It would have given him a couple of options for the ensuing kickoff. But the Cowboy kicker had struggled earlier in the game

Missing a 50+ yard FG is not "strugglng."

he missed a 46-yarder too --- which had the distance

and by the way...he had made 20 of 24 FG's during the season...including 7 of 11 in the 40 to 50-yard range