Would just like to make a thread saluting the decision to not play Prevent Defense that last series. I have always hated prevent defense and I truly believe it is useless in those scenarios.

 

I have heard similar sentiments on this forum before: "Prevent defense only prevents you from winning."

 

I will use this game as an example the next time we use prevent defense and end up losing the game. A regular defense can do the job much better.

 

Since it worked, I know most of you will be happy about it, but what were you thinking when the last series was still in progress? The announcer even mentioned it and thought it was a good decision.

I’m all for the aggressiveness too until somebody gets burnt on man coverage and we lose on a big play...

I'm for the idea that ND is fast and fundamental enough to play man-to-man coverage now.

I’m going to go out on a limb & say our previous team’s secondary would easily give up 6 pts w/o prevent. This defense is a bit better & can carry out the order today

Still, rushed 4 guys. Also, it didn’t look like a legit prevent. Hell, our DBs we’re giving their WRs no room.

Still, rushed 4 guys. Also, it didn’t look like a legit prevent. Hell, our DBs we’re giving their WRs no room.

 

Yeah, the opening poster is agreeing with you, it was not a traditional prevent, like 3 down and 8 back.

 

Elko mixed it up well

 

Some man some zone some rush 4 some 5 I think.

 

[ame]

[/ame]

I believe I saw blitzes as well, including a safety blitz if I am not mistaken. I enjoyed it and would like to see it more in the future (unless the defense has already given up 35+ points)

I believe I saw blitzes as well, including a safety blitz if I am not mistaken. I enjoyed it and would like to see it more in the future (unless the defense has already given up 35+ points)

 

Yup, we sent 4 front 7 and 1 safety. 5 man pass rush. I liked it it was both aggressive and not overly risky, because you still have 6 back for 5 receivers.

I’m all for the aggressiveness too until somebody gets burnt on man coverage and we lose on a big play...

 

I'd rather lose that way then by sitting back and letting them carve you up.

 

My specific preference is play whatever got you there.. If the game plan calls for primarily softer defensive backs and 2 deep safeties, then play that way or if the game calls for a lot of aggressive man and single high, don't deviate from the installed game plan.

 

Too many teams go soft too early and can never get back into attack mode if a team closes the gap on the scoreboard.

 

Bama is the only team good enough to play aggressive on the slot and outside and keep their safeties 15 yards back and not get diced up

Elko and staff had a great gameplan and had his kids fired up and playing to win. Last series was a perfect example and loved watching it knowing they were going to close it out. The plays on the ball by our Corners were terrific and obvious the staff knew tendencies allowing them to be aggressive.

Frankly kudos need to go to Kelly and Long as well for pulling Wimbush and playing Book. Clearly the right move though the silly season is already underway with the QB starter question the first asked in the post game presser.

To go from 4-8 to 10-3 clearly mattered to this staff and team and it showed in the way they played to win, pulling out all the stops with the trick plays, the TE throw was a first(!), and happy for the players who committed themselves to this season. We've got depth, good to very good coaches so much to like about yesterday and look forward to. Heck, we might even have a chance to beat MI in the opener next year! GO IRISH!

My comment was kind of tongue and cheek regarding the mixed feelings on this board. Half the world would complain about us being too aggressive if we got burnt.