End of game drives

Winning end-of-game drives seem to happen more frequently than they should - Tebow the other night, Ravens against us, Steelers in the Superbowl, etc., etc. Any idea what happens to defenses at the end of the game that makes them porous, or offenses that all of a sudden makes them unstoppable? I don't buy the "prevent defense prevents you from winning" stuff - coaches are smarter than that. But something goes on at the end of some games that makes what had been stellar defenses look moronic and ineffective. Any idea what it might be?

 

Maybe knowing that "this is it" for the offense lights a fire under their ass and they perform much more efficiently than they have leading up to that point in the game. When you're backed into a corner you typically come out swinging in a state of heightened awareness. That's why it is SO critical for us to be up by two scores (or at least a TD) late in games, because as good as our defense is, odds are always stacked against them to hold the oppositions attack at bay. That's also why I'm more lenient and forgiving towards our defense than our offense.

That's a good observation on your part, and one that only a student of the game (rather than a fan of one team) would make.

 

There was an article somewhere last week (sorry, I could not find the link) that addressed this and I think it said it best. It related to, basically, the offensive playbook goes out the window for these last second drives and most defenses are not structured to adjust that quickly.

If you watch what happened to us against Balt you can see that our defense was just way out of position and not prepared for an end zone pass. What is funny is that is exactly what cost the Jets against Teebow. All the defenders were down field and allowed the run. Though 8 in the box didn't help the situation.

 

I disagree I think teams do quit doing what they do the whole game and play that prevent crap....Watch the Jets game again....Jets played totally different D than they did the rest of the game...and TEEBOW made them pay

 

Never played in the Pros but a good bit of exerience at safety in college. Offenses are a lot smarter by game end as they have seen what works for them. They usually have a few plays saved that look like an earlier play but has a different finish. Knowing this defenses get more intense but there is some fatique and a defender will sometimes commit a penalty knowing he cannot let someone get past him.

 

You are correct, no matter what the scheme is, you don't want to be the guy that loses the game so you back up a little and while the guy you were covering caught a pass for a first down he didn't score, that is the mentality. When you leave enough time on the clock it becomes pretty easy for a team to march down field by moving the chains and just about every team plays so conservative on offense and defense when they have a lead they end up losing or coming very close to losing.

 

I think there may be a level of aggressiveness that goes away. When playing aggressive, most of the time you can make a big play, but you also take some risks that could allow a play on the part of the offense. During the course of the game, that's an acceptable risk because your offense has time to answer. At the end of the game, you can't afford to take that risk because your offense doesn't have time to answer. As such, the defense doesn't play quite as agressive. Furthermore, the offense is playing their most agressive at the same point.

 

This explanation makes the most sense to me - defense fatigue, defensive intensity but often conservative approach, and high risk offense. I guess it is a matter of playing the probabilities as a defense - they probably hold off the offense much more than the offense drives the length of the field. But those long scoring drives sure stick in our memories. The likelihood of a long scoring drive also highlights the need for an offense to protect a slim lead - grind out the clock and keep the ball away from the opposition. Let's face it - better to have your offense have the ball when protecting a 2 point lead with 2 minutes left than have your defense on the field.

 

I think Coach T would call it ,riding the "ebb and flow", of the game...
Obviously, it is better to have your offense have the ball on the final drive...
The trick is, managing the first 55 plus minutes of the game, to put you in that position...
If you can be up by 14 points or more, with less than 10 minutes left to play, you should ALWAYS win!
However, there is a lot to be said for the fact that the team that is losing in that case, is gonna pull out all the stops, and try things they wouldn`t have, earlier in the game..
The "backed in a corner" mentality, as another poster put it...
Interesting thread, regardless of the reason.
Because I had noticed a couple/few years ago, that there have been more "Madden-esque", comebacks going on , league-wide, than I had ever seen before.
Just felt like watching video games, not real football...
At the time, I just attributed it to the rule changes, favoring the offense, but there is obviously a lot more to it than just that...
Great thread. Thanks for the observations, and things to think about!

 

Thanks for the compliment, but mostly I am just confused. I think that is why football is so fascinating.

 

I do think that the subject of this thread is another example of something that we may overlook as Steelers fans. While I agree that last minute drives happen way too often against our defense, the ability of this team to hold a lead is, historically, extremely efficient. I'm not sure of the current statistics, but in the last 25 years or so, the Steelers have won something like 99% of games in which they have had a 10-point lead at ANY time in the game. I have mentioned that to my son on numerous occasions this year as we have watched teams come back from 21+ point deficits. I've said things like "If the Steelers had had that kind of lead - there would be no comeback." Also, when the Steelers DO get a 10-point lead, I always feel like the final score will be in our favor. You can't say that for other teams.

Now - the issue is - how in the heck can our defense NOT hold a 4 point lead??!! This has been an area of relative weakness for the Steelers for the past 4-5 years. The one year, it put us out of the playoffs. Dick LeBeau is a defensive genius. You would think that he could devise a 2-minute defense designed to hold the small lead. Just because you're tired - have seen formations before and over-play - are facing a team that is down to a high-risk offense doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to find some scheme to defend in those situations. The man who does devise that scheme is going to have some serious job security with a team some day.

 

I believe it's situational football. How can you leave William Gay one on one with anyone in the last minute of a game? I never see Lebeau call his entire defense over to the sideline and talk to them. In critical situations, it doesn't seem like we are in the right defense. If guys are tired, especially pass rushers, subsitute with fresh bodies. Carter and Worlds would be on the field at the end of game at least for a couple of plays to give Harrison and Woodley a breather. They can't make that bad of mistakes if they are just rushing the passer to cause us the game. Baltimore started on 92 yard drive, i would have had them in there until at least until they got to midfield. That would of gave Harrison a few plays. And like i said before, Gay would not be one on one with anyone in last minute of any game. We would double team whoever he has and make it obvious.

 

Many times the "comeback" drives are in a no huddle offense. This does not allow the defense to substitute normally. Also this means the plays are coming quicker (not 1 or 2 seconds on the play clock). In the Balt. game, Harrison was either winded or confused on at least two plays of the last drive. He was not at the line when the ball was snapped and he basically walked into the OT and stood and watched the play. We all know that 92 doesn't take plays off for no reason. From what I saw, he looked winded. Like I said the inability to substitute vs a no huddle might be the biggest factor.