Who made the decision?

[Pantha-kun]

1 hour ago, Zaximus said:

I'm not sure but I don't want to see prevent unless we're up 21 points or more.    Seriously, stop.   

um... Remember the playoff game against Seattle in 2015? I dont even think 21 is enough

[pantherclaw]

Hates the prevent defense as much as anybody. It's in EVERY defensive coordinator's book, cause the idea behind it, is to allow the underneath stuff, protect the sidelines the keep the clock ticking so time evaporates. 

I'm not a fan of it myself, as it's infuriating. Blame also goes to the offense for not being able to run out the clock. 

As for whom makes the call? Coordinator. 

[pantherphan96]

This has been a thing for years now and it astounds me how they've never adjusted despite it costing us games before. I don't want to see prevent defense unless we are up 7+ with under 2 minutes. This soft zone poo with 15 minutes left in the game is like giving up on offense after 3 quarters if we are ahead.

[OBXPantha]

It was mainly just the dline.  We never sent more than 5 guys on the last series.

[UpstatePanther]

1 hour ago, Davidson Deac II said:

I do think we tend to be less aggressive on offense when we are up by two scores or more.  We usually do it to early. 

DDII is on to something here. i dont think our defense is really the biggest problem. sure, they do go prevent and it can be infuriating. but if our offense could just keep pace with the other team's scoring in the second half, it would NEVER be an issue. i think our offense tries to sit on the lead and get too careful. we make ourselves one dimensional on offense like clockwork. the opposing defense doesnt even have to adjust. 

im not sure if that begins with Rivera or Shula, but its one of them and thats the bigger problem IMHO

[Pimpdaddy]

13 minutes ago, UpstatePanther said:

DDII is on to something here. i dont think our defense is really the biggest problem. sure, they do go prevent and it can be infuriating. but if our offense could just keep pace with the other team's scoring in the second half, it would NEVER be an issue. i think our offense tries to sit on the lead and get too careful. we make ourselves one dimensional on offense like clockwork. the opposing defense doesnt even have to adjust. 

im not sure if that begins with Rivera or Shula, but its one of them and thats the bigger problem IMHO

...aggressive offence can lead  to turnovers...like the pick to CMC.. could of been a momentum changer but we dealt well with it...comes with risks...

[UpstatePanther]

4 minutes ago, Pimpdaddy said:

...aggressive offence can lead  to turnovers...like the pick to CMC.. could of been a momentum changer but we dealt well with it...comes with risks...

i hear you, but that play is not an example of aggressive offense if you ask me. i love me some Cam. i nearly screamed out loud at a work meeting and got myself fired when be ripped off that 60 yard run to all but seal the game. but that INT to CMC was a really bad throw. if Cam had put it more in CMC's body, or at least thrown it alittle softer, i bet CMC comes down with it and who knows from there. maybe we run the clock out and Cam never rips off that 60 yard run.

my point is that youre right, aggressive offense can lead to turnovers, if the team isnt smart or doesnt execute well. the time for aggressive offense is when you have a sizeable lead. we were up 24-13 and basically shut our offense down. im glad the aggressive offense worked on the final drive to win the game, but it should have happened sooner. 

anyway... curious for your thoughts. not really disagreeing with ya man

[luke nukem]

2 hours ago, pantherphan96 said:

This has been a thing for years now and it astounds me how they've never adjusted despite it costing us games before. I don't want to see prevent defense unless we are up 7+ with under 2 minutes. This soft zone poo with 15 minutes left in the game is like giving up on offense after 3 quarters if we are ahead.

It actually has not costed us many games, but it has caused lots of unnecessary butt clenching.

[panthers55]

Hard to say given Wilks has been the coordinator all year and we have gone prevent lots of times at end of games this season. I might be making it up but it seems we played more man at the end of the game instead of zone after getting exploited in zone all day in their hurry up offense. I think we were more aggressive yesterday especially in man coverage. I for one applaud the new aggressiveness and think it is long overdue.

[weyco2000]

Depends on your definition of prevent, they only had an extra CB and were rushing 4. 

[pantherphan96]

47 minutes ago, luke nukem said:

It actually has not costed us many games, but it has caused lots of unnecessary butt clenching.

certainly not as many games as it could have but still a decent amount:

Bills in 2013, first Bucs game last year, first Aints game last year, Chiefs and Raiders games last year as well. just letting teams march 60+ yards down the field in 2-3 minutes to close the gap, tie, or win the game.

[Mr. Scot]

3 hours ago, Pimpdaddy said:

...aggressive offence can lead  to turnovers...like the pick to CMC.. could of been a momentum changer but we dealt well with it...comes with risks...

And that, unfortunately, sums up Ron Rivera. "Something might go wrong, so play it safe."

"Riverboat Ron" is a fictional character.

[Matt62881]

7 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Panther fans have become maddeningly accustomed to seeing one of the league's best defenses being told to go into a soft prevent mode every time we have a fourth quarter lead.  This consistently means we get to watch opposing teams take advantage and come back on us, often ultimately defeating us or at the very least making the game scarily close.

But on the final defensive series yesterday, something was different.

In need of a "close out", the Panthers defense went into full attack mode, blitzing the daylights out of Vikings quarterback Case Keenum and his already depleted offensive line.  The result: a final drive that went absolutely nowhere.  No late game nail biting, no "Cardiac Cat" theatrics, just a much needed victory secured.

So why the change?

Did the notoriously conservative Ron Rivera manage for just a moment to find his inner "Riverboat" again?

Or did defensive coordinator Steve Wilks say "screw this pansy s--t" and make the decision to amp things up on his own?

There's no real hard evidence that I know of to support either conclusion.  There's circumstantial stuff that Rivera pretty much never goes this route (at least not with McDermott as his DC) and the general talk is that Wilks is more aggressive than his predecessor (analysis of our defensive patterns would seem to support this) but it's ultimately still Rivera in charge, so who can say for certain?

What's your speculation?

What happened at the end of the game yesterday?

This lesson has been learned before and then forgotten as soon as we get to comfortable . Its the same thing with the offense...its maddening ...so aggravating to the point some wins dont even feel as good as they should !

[Bj-Monster23]

7 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Panther fans have become maddeningly accustomed to seeing one of the league's best defenses being told to go into a soft prevent mode every time we have a fourth quarter lead.  This consistently means we get to watch opposing teams take advantage and come back on us, often ultimately defeating us or at the very least making the game scarily close.

But on the final defensive series yesterday, something was different.

In need of a "close out", the Panthers defense went into full attack mode, blitzing the daylights out of Vikings quarterback Case Keenum and his already depleted offensive line.  The result: a final drive that went absolutely nowhere.  No late game nail biting, no "Cardiac Cat" theatrics, just a much needed victory secured.

So why the change?

Did the notoriously conservative Ron Rivera manage for just a moment to find his inner "Riverboat" again?

Or did defensive coordinator Steve Wilks say "screw this pansy s--t" and make the decision to amp things up on his own?

There's no real hard evidence that I know of to support either conclusion.  There's circumstantial stuff that Rivera pretty much never goes this route (at least not with McDermott as his DC) and the general talk is that Wilks is more aggressive than his predecessor (analysis of our defensive patterns would seem to support this) but it's ultimately still Rivera in charge, so who can say for certain?

What's your speculation?

What happened at the end of the game yesterday?

Wilks started to realize going conservative will get you beat. If you want to build a aggressive football team and preach that philosophy you have to live by it. You want to be the #1 defense you don't play conservative. You bring pressure and go get after that QB.