good Washington Post story on the massive increase in scoring on two-minute drives

[dave mcbride]

It's pretty remarkable how much teams are more likely to score in such situations than in the past: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/10/20/nfl-game-winning-drives-two-minutes/

[dave mcbride]

I liked this passage:

 

'All those factors have amplified offensive success at the end of games. Defenses now must adjust. Paganetti predicted defenses may grow more aggressive, sending an extra rusher to mitigate the lack of pass rush from tired defensive linemen. For years, coordinators have been loath to blitz in two-minute situations so as not to risk giving up a big play. This year’s offensive success shows there may be just as much risk in playing traditionally.

 

“If I was a defensive coordinator in the NFL today and I had a competent quarterback, I would stop playing prevent defenses,” Eager said. “The worst thing that could happen to you is the other team scores. And the other team is going to score on you anyway. I would play aggressively and try to force a turnover or force a long-yardage situation.

 

“Having possession of the ball has never been more valuable in the NFL. If you’re going to give up a score, the upside is to have possession of the ball. The upside is to lean on the bad intuition of teams that will score too early.”'

Edited October 20, 2021 by dave mcbride

[Utah John]

The aspect of having the D line wear down, giving the opposing offense the advantage, is I think why McBeane went for such a deep and good D line, rather than a D line with one or two really good players and the rest not up to par.  

 

Not that this has always worked out.  No sacks of Tennessee, after the Jets got seven?  And after Lewan got hurt?  At that point I would have traded half the D line for one great pass rusher.

[ColoradoBills]

20 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

“If I was a defensive coordinator in the NFL today and I had a competent quarterback, I would stop playing prevent defenses,” Eager said. “The worst thing that could happen to you is the other team scores. And the other team is going to score on you anyway. I would play aggressively and try to force a turnover or force a long-yardage situation.

 

I'm really starting to think this is a wise move at times.  I think the key element is how well your DL or DL +1 blitzer perform.

[dave mcbride]

4 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

I'm really starting to think this is a wise move at times.  I think the key element is how well your DL or DL +1 blitzer perform.

The other thing that people forget is that in these situations, teams get four plays to make ten yards, not three (there are no punts), and if you don't inflict a negative play, it's a lot easier for them to get it. Given how accurate NFL QBs are now and the rules regarding defensive holding/PI, if you can block four and your QB can hit his targets (someone will always be open), you can march right down the field.

[Big Turk]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

The other thing that people forget is that in these situations, teams get four plays to make ten yards, not three (there are no punts), and if you don't inflict a negative play, it's a lot easier for them to get it. Given how accurate NFL QBs are now and the rules regarding defensive holding/PI, if you can block four and your QB can hit his targets (someone will always be open), you can march right down the field.

 

And especially how the D plays to not give up the big play leaving easy completions underneath available

[Nextmanup]

It's funny, but fans have been screaming out prevent defenses, urging their team NOT to do it, for at least 30 years.

 

And yet the teams continue to do it.

 

Another thing that is interesting how "enough time to score" has changed  over the years.

 

30 years ago, 2:00 might have been questionable...."Oh Gee, they only have 2 minutes to go 80 yards.  Not sure they can do it!" 

 

Now, if you have like 30-40 seconds you have enough time, or so it seems.

It helps that you don't have to get as far down the field (for a FG attempt) with the increased range of kickers across the league.

 

 

[dave mcbride]

17 hours ago, Nextmanup said:

It's funny, but fans have been screaming out prevent defenses, urging their team NOT to do it, for at least 30 years.

 

And yet the teams continue to do it.

 

Another thing that is interesting how "enough time to score" has changed  over the years.

 

30 years ago, 2:00 might have been questionable...."Oh Gee, they only have 2 minutes to go 80 yards.  Not sure they can do it!" 

 

Now, if you have like 30-40 seconds you have enough time, or so it seems.

It helps that you don't have to get as far down the field (for a FG attempt) with the increased range of kickers across the league.

 

 

Agreed. With Aaron Rodgers, I feel like 25-30 seconds is enough time to get into position for an attempted TD pass. And every kicker in the NFL now is capable of making a 50+ yard kick with regularity. Times have definitely changed.

Edited October 22, 2021 by dave mcbride

[RobbRiddick]

Yeah, I mentioned this a few weeks ago in one of the threads. It used to be a big deal when a QB led his team down the field in the last two minutes (remember Elways Drive against the Browns, or the one he engineered a few years later against the Oilers in the WC round to set up a winning FG). 

 

It's become a thing now where if 30 or 40 seconds are left on the clock and a FG is needed you just assume the team will get into range