uncle flap

Upon further review, I take that back about the designed blitz. Initially I thought Moats was playing the run, but it appears he was blitzing all the way. I still think everyone else is playing zone, and it appears Hughes is supposed to play the seam. I just checked some other plays and saw Lawson doing the same. However, Lawson had help, so I'm still thinking Hughes shouldn't have been on his own. I'll have to check out some more replays.

Right. I think even if they were targeting that coverage in such a way, they had to anticipate there would be some help from Gilmore or Byrd. With the play action causing missteps and hesitation, they could've expected a nice soft spot between the middle and deep zones. Lots of corner/flag routes are run that way to exploit that very area and those very matchups. I agree that even if the play was drawn up exactly as the D played it with Hughes and Gilmore playing man coverage, I would hope that Byrd or Gilmore would recognize the breakdown in coverage and make an adjustment.

I don't recall that exact coverage with Lawson manned up on a WR in a twin set, but of course I could be wrong on that. I do recall seeing him manned up on TEs in the seam, but I guess no OC/QB has been savvy enough to exploit that by clearing out the coverage the way it was on this play. Again, I totally realize I could be wrong, just calling it how I see it. I know combo coverage is common in certain scenarios, but nothing besides Gilmore following Toon leads me to believe that to be the case.

I've seen the Bills run plenty of combo coverage but I can't think of an instance where it wasn't a part of a designed blitz, and that didn't seem to be a designed blitz. I do think that you're right about the Saints seeing something exploitable, since the Bills have done quite a lot of zone blitzing out of a 4-3 Cover 3 with the SS in the box. They probably thought Stills would find a soft spot between Gilmore and where Hughes would've been if he hadn't bit. The PA seemed to be the biggest catalyst in creating that space. I don't mean to sound so defensive, I'm just finding it hard to buy that Hughes would be responsible for the deep third OR put into man coverage vs a WR in a two WR set. But maybe it really is that simple and I'm reading too much into it.

I would agree with you except McKelvin wasn't playing man, and neither were the LBs. It's standard cover 3 all the way, and I think the pictures show that pretty clearly. Except in some very exotic blitz packages, you never see one wide corner playing man, and the other playing zone. The three deep zones are Gilmore, Byrd, and McKelvin. They're each responsible for one third of the field. It's a lapse by Gilmore, and Byrd IMO should've recognized that and covered for him by taking Gilmore's deep third. Hughes is supposed to drop but only to cover the mid range throws over the middle. Kiko has the flat/underneath on that side. Gilmore or Byrd has to take away the deep ball on that side. Maybe if Hughes drops initially and doesn't bite on the play fake, Brees doesn't make that read in enough time to get the throw off before Kyle sacks him. Well it's not a conspiracy theory, but since this play has been discussed quite a bit in quite a few threads, I thought I'd start one to try to corral the discussion in a centralized place. I also addressed Marrone and Hughes owning up for it. I think that was simply a diplomatic answer. Anything else would've been seen as passing the buck and throwing someone under the bus, or as excuse making. I wouldn't want Marrone or Hughes to try to deflect the questions. They did the right thing by accepting responsibility. I wouldn't want my coach singling out a player (IMO, Gilmore) for blowing the coverage. Accept the blame and move on. Anyway, I'm not trying to beat this to death. This play didn't make or break the game. But like I said, it seems to be a hot topic so I thought I'd back up my thoughts with some evidence and provide some insight to those who may not have had a chance to give it another look.

Hughes thread: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/163185-the-hughes-thread-aka-stills-69-yd-td/ Gilmore is a very good corner. Good corners often have two things going for them that show up on the stat sheet. 1. OCs plan on attacking some other area of the field, and so they aren't often targeted. 2. Good coverage will prevent the QB from throwing that way, even if the WR is the first or second read. Because of those reasons, top corners are often only thrown at when the QB/offense is desperate, which is also when the offense becomes predictable and those CBs can completely play the pass and not have to worry about the run. Corners like Gilmore who are able to create a reputation seemingly only get better at shutting down their field because QBs/OCs become more and more weary to test them. It'd be interesting to see a breakdown of PBUs vs targets, but I imagine that those numbers would be skewed as well for the reasons above. With McKelvin stepping up, is it any wonder we've seen Robey getting picked on?

OK I looked at the footage and I feel my initial suspicions are confirmed: Even if Hughes has underneath coverage, Gilmore or Byrd have to take deep responsibility on that side of the field. Brian Galliford of Buffalo Rumblings does a pretty good write up here: http://www.buffaloru...hes-in-coverage Here's my breakdown so you can see what I'm talking about: Here you see the snap- Hughes is over Stills, but is about to bite on the play action. Notice McKelvin is set back on the far side, and didn't follow the receiver to the other side, signaling zone coverage. This is the moment Hughes realizes he's been had, and begins to turn and chase. Here we see Gilmore shading toward the middle of the field, and Byrd with the entire play in front of him. I would like to think at this point both of them should realize that there are two receivers heading toward them, and both are already obviously behind Hughes. At some point during or between the next two photos, I think that Gilmore should realize he has help from Byrd and McKelvin and doesn't have to track Toon all the way across the field, especially when we can all see Stills turning his route toward the now vacated sideline. Next, we can see that it's too late. I wonder if Byrd is the one getting caught watching Brees's eyes or what, since he still has the entire play in front of him, but fails to realize that Stills is wide open. Byrd obviously can't cover that much ground fast enough to make a play on the ball, but he certainly should've recognized Gilmore's mistake. If he were to make a move toward Stills and the sideline, he would've had a good shot at preventing the TD. It isn't until this shot, when the ball is leaving Brees's hand, that Byrd realizes his/Gilmore's mistake. As we all saw live, Kyle Williams is right on top of Brees. I wonder if Brees even tries to push the ball downfield if Gilmore stays at home and we could've seen a sack or at least a check down instead. All that said, I'm not looking to blame any one player or players in particular. I think the most important factors were a great play call and great execution by the Saints. Hughes fell for the play action, but I think the misdirection also caused both Gilmore and Byrd to misread the WRs. What do you guys think? I know Marrone and Hughes both owned up for this play, but I think they both didn't want to throw anyone under the bus, be it Gilmore, Byrd, or Pettine.

The plastic seats are typically filled, it's the lower bowl and club seats that have been sparsely populated.

I don't think so. Signing Byrd and Wood and whomever else they may have wanted to AND including Fitz's and Anderson's hit would have left them right up against the cap, possibly going over. So there would be essentially no space left to roll over to next year. That would leave them at around $106 M next year (including draft pick salaries) with a projected cap of $123 M. If they tag Byrd again, add $8.5 (let's call it $114 M). So that would leave them with only $9 million. Do we like Carrington and Branch? Add another few million for them, let's call the total $117. Chandler's contract is up too. They'll have to re-sign him, which will cost around $4m. Now they'd be at $121 M. $2 million is NOT a lot of money to play with. If you don't think they'd re-sign any of those guys, they're likely to spend approximately the same money on replacements or in other areas. Not to mention not having the money to make a splash on any "name" players. Of course then they'll hardly have any space to roll over the following year when even more contracts are expiring, including Dareus, Aaron WIlliams, and Jerry Hughes, just to name a few. So now all of a sudden they're in a rut because they essentially mortgaged the future this year. I agree it sucks that they weren't able to make good use of this year's roll over space, but as it stands, they're still rolling over almost $7 million in space for next year which will be a huge help going forward, and IMO is the sensible thing to do. I disagree that it's all about saving real money. The FO went into the offseason looking to extend Byrd, extend Wood, upgrade at LB (Lawson), and seemed to be looking for O line, ILB, QB, and TE help. Just because they didn't spend all of that money doesn't mean that they weren't trying, or at least prepared to.

Because they were trying to spend it on Byrd, and likely some other FAs that didn't wind up signing here.

It was shown several times on TV and the commentators made mention every time he entered and exited the game. I got the impression he was in pain but that he was still able to contribute. I have to think the coaching staff wouldn't let him on the field if they truly felt he was a liability. Keep in mind, a banged up player can serve as a decoy. Simply being out there, gimpy or not, warrants attention from the D. They can't be 100% sure he isn't hamming it up and waiting for them to let down their guard.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not saying you or anyone can't criticize him. What I'm saying is that it seems to me that there are a lot of people looking for scapegoats and nit picking. I don't want to be a defensive homer, but in response to the criticisms: The first challenge seemed like a surefire TD to me, so I was surprised it wasn't called that way. The second challenge was maybe a little desperate, but I don't really fault him for wanting to swing the momentum back in the our favor. I guess I would've preferred he save the timeout but I can also understand the need for some urgency. The two point conversion wasn't a big deal. There was a lot of time left and if the saints scored again, the Bills would need another score anyway. If the Saints didn't score again, they'd still need a TD and would've had another opportunity to go for two. So it didn't make a difference. As far as him not being visibly emotional- well, the players were certainly playing their hearts out so he must be doing something right. None of those things are a big deal to me, but if they bother you or anyone else, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

They didn't lose because of Marrone's clock management or any in-game decisions. Why does it have to be Marrone's fault that they lost? Can't we just acknowledge that the other team outplayed the Bills and not be bitter about it?

While I don't exactly agree with the OP's reasoning, he may get his wish. The deadline is Tuesday, and I expect the rumor mill will be roaring in short order.

Yeah maybe you're right. Gilmore has the club off, McKelvin has been ballin, Aaron Williams is where he belongs, and Byrd should be up to speed. Plus Brooks is back, he's really good coming off the edge, and Robey has been playing out of his mind. Whether or not they send extra guys, they've got to be wary of Sproles leaking out. I like how Pettine has adjusted after the Bengals lit them up on a few screens. Most of the second half of that game and for all of the Fins game they were able to neutralize the screens. My thinking was that although getting after Brees is probably the best recipe for success defensively, if they wind up getting down early, I don't know that Big Bad Thad has the firepower to hang in a shoot out. NO is soft up the middle and the Bills need to run. I'd hate to see the clock become a factor and cause the Bills to start slinging it to play catch up. I also agree turnovers are key, I guess I'm just hoping the front 4 can generate enough pressure on their own to force some mistakes.

I'm not a big fan but he's 1000000x better than James Walker. Although I suppose that isn't saying much.

Great point. To piggy back, I think it was Bill Simmons who recently wrote something along the lines that because the Bills are built to beat NE, they are also built to beat NO. Not that he was predicting that they will, just that the matchup could make it a lot tighter than the spread would indicate. I think he also alluded to Marrone having some insight on how to rattle Brees from his stint in NO, but I might have read that somewhere else.

They need to contain contain contain. Don't get beat over the top. I'd rather see the less blitzing and hope that the front 4 can feast on their o line. I think taking away the deep ball and letting Brees dink and dunk will keep the clock moving and keep the Saints from running away with the game early, which will keep the Bills from abandoning the run. If the Saints are going to score, at least make them drive and eat clock. They might not generate picks by sitting back in coverage, but I think the Bills are best served by Pettine calling off the dogs somewhat. The high pressure stuff leaves the D vulnerable to big plays, and Brees obviously isn't scared test single coverage and chuck it down the field. I don't think the Bills can keep up in a shootout, so as much as it pains me to say it, I want to see a Jauron-esque game plan Sunday.

I'm not sure if you're just trolling now, but I think if you polled both fans and coaches around the league, they'd overwhelmingly agree that running the ball from from inside the five is the smart call. Trying to get a little breathing room and create a manageable third down in that situation is what OCs and HCs would do 99% of the time. Of all the things to criticize, the fact that you're hanging your hat on that sequence makes me think that you're either being contrarian for the sake of attention, or that you simply have no clue what you're talking about. I think everyone lost their ish because of the less than perfect throw by Lewis and drop by Hogan on third down and the subsequent terrible punt coverage. If you go back and watch the plays, Spiller nearly broke his second run for a first down on the ground. Would you still be so upset if he made that first down? I know- coulda would shoulda- but of all the things to criticize, in that situation and throughout the season, it has boiled down to execution IMO, not play calling nor scheming. I apologize in advance if your criticisms are genuine and you aren't simply trying to be argumentative. I hope that over the course of the rest of the season you learn to appreciate the things that Hackett is doing well, and not dwell so much on the instances that haven't worked out.

He's a third stringer that barely sees the field.

lmao bravo

I haven't coached at that level... yet. Im still young so there's still some hope. Meanwhile I'm stuck coaching soccer and basketball. But anyway, the point I was getting at is that it's not necessary to be an "expert" to thoughtfully discuss or analyze this type of stuff. There's a vast middle ground between varsity coach and those that don't seem to be able (or willing) to comprehend the subtleties of the game. I guess I sounded harsh in some posts earlier. I realize people like to vent. It just gets on my nerves when I see baseless criticisms parroted as gospel - and then when those claims are refuted, those making the original claims would seem to prefer to dig their heels in and dismiss any evidence to the contrary rather than engage in discussion. Opinions are fine, but some people would rather argue than try to incorporate other points of view and/or additional information into their opinions. PS Cincinnati Kid - I'm not quoting you because I totally disagree, or to discourage anyone from posting their opinions. Rather I want to encourage people to take a closer look so everyone can benefit from more informed discussions. It's been getting hard to read a lot of threads here.

Thanks for the acknowledgment

I didn't name anyone in particular because I was referring to some general themes I've seen thrown out there. If you're saying Hackett is too conservative, that's certainly a valid opinion. I'd say that some of those conservative calls are what have kept the Bills in games. I referred to the All-22 and packaged plays because it appears to me that some of the bland runs up the middle are the result of the QB reading the defense at the line and deciding to hand it off. I'm not just talking about the read option. There are plays with built in hot routes. Watch what the WRs do on some of the running plays. With inexperienced QBs, that may be the safest play, especially when he's not confident in analyzing what the defense is showing. I'm not claiming to be an expert either, and I agree that Hackett is playing on the conservative side. However, I think he's allowing for the big plays to happen - when they're there - rather than forcing them. I think that's the prudent approach considering he's in the process of installing a new offense with a lot of inexperienced pieces. If and when EJ "gets it," I think the offense will be dangerous. I'm seeing a lack of execution more so than an inherent lack of aggressiveness. I also take issue with the "very very conservative" statement. In the Cinci game, they were certainly aggressive in mounting their comeback. In OT, I'm ok with playing it safe when backed up against the endzone. The D had come around and if it wasn't for that awful punt coverage, they certainly would've had a decent shot at getting the ball back. And before it even got to that point, if Hogan makes the third down conversion, maybe they open it up once they got some breathing room. The conservative argument would hold a lot more water if they had run it again on third down. I imagine Hackett would have been vilified far more than he is now if he called throws on first and second down that were incomplete. Can you imagine if one resulted in a pick six or a safety? As far as the Jets game, there was an excellent write up in Buffalo Rumblings IIRC. EJ wasn't reading the defense properly and missing wide open receivers. He was feeling the pressure (from a very good d line) and making crap throws off his back foot. I put that on EJ and the o line more than I do Hackett. And don't forget that's when he had I think at least three throws downfield that were simply inaccurate. If my QB wasn't hitting on those deep sideline passes, I'd probably start to shy away from them too. Anyway, like I said upthread, I'm not trying to completely absolve Hackett or claim he's some revolutionary genius, I just think much of the criticism I'm seeing here is unwarranted.

I've alluded to this in a few threads now, but it seems pretty clear to me that most of the people who are "Anti-Hackett" simply don't understand what is happening on the field. I'm not saying he's infallible, and I've seen some completely valid criticisms. However, most people have no idea what plays are being called, or how they are designed. Those same people can't be bothered to educate themselves with the WEALTH of great football analysis out there. Since the emergence of the All-22, it's relatively easy to tell what play was called -especially on offense- and almost as easy to determine the difference between a poor call and poor execution. One does not have to subscribe to the NFL's service to access the All-22 footage, plenty of capable writers and bloggers dissect numerous plays every week. Although this will fall on deaf ears, I would suggest to those who are hypercritical of Hackett to read up on "packaged plays," learn about QBs anticipating defensive keys, and perhaps re-watch each Bills game this year to notice the steady expansion of the playbook. Again, I'm not anointing Hackett and Marrone as geniuses, but it seems to me there's a lot more going on than some of you are seeing.