"The Hughes Thread" aka Stills 69 yd TD

[uncle flap]

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.

[26CornerBlitz]

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.

 

Why the conspiracy theory? They already said who was at fault.

[BringBackFergy]

I am perfectly comfortable (and have already expressed my opinion in other thread) that Byrd should have saved us a TD on that play. There is no reason for Hughes to chase a WR with no one else in the area...Byrd was late to the game for the "best safety in the NFL".

[K-9]

I think Gilmore was in man-under coverage. If he's in zone, there's no way he vacates his third.

 

As we've discussed in the other thread, we've seen Lawson in this exact coverage earlier in the year. If Hughes doesn't take two steps in vs. getting on his man immediately, I think it's a different story.

 

Bandit had some good insight earlier today and I agree with his assertion that Byrd should have known he had an LB in coverage on a WR, he was the deep safety and, as such, he should have been over to help on that side of the field given all the saturation of coverage in the middle and left side of the field.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[BringBackFergy]

I think Gilmore was in man-under coverage. If he's in zone, there's no way he vacates his third.

 

As we've discussed in the other thread, we've seen Lawson in this exact coverage earlier in the year. If Hughes doesn't take two steps in vs. getting on his man immediately, I think it's a different story.

 

Bandit had some good insight earlier today and I agree with his assertion that Byrd should have known he had an LB in coverage on a WR, he was the deep safety and, as such, he should have been over to help on that side of the field given all the saturation of coverage in the middle and left side of the field.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Agreed

[uncle flap]

I think Gilmore was in man-under coverage. If he's in zone, there's no way he vacates his third.

 

As we've discussed in the other thread, we've seen Lawson in this exact coverage earlier in the year. If Hughes doesn't take two steps in vs. getting on his man immediately, I think it's a different story.

 

Bandit had some good insight earlier today and I agree with his assertion that Byrd should have known he had an LB in coverage on a WR, he was the deep safety and, as such, he should have been over to help on that side of the field given all the saturation of coverage in the middle and left side of the field.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

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.

 

Why the conspiracy theory? They already said who was at fault.

 

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.

[NoSaint]

Flap - I think you are both oversimplifying and over complicating perhaps.

 

I don't think the mixed coverages are that rare. In this case I think if you add up that the coach and player agree it was Hughes, and that we've run similar plays in the past, it seems that you are underestimating the scheming of the play and overstating the scheming in the press conference.

 

I'm not sure we will ever 100% know but my gut is leaning towards us having a LB that hasn't been asked to execute that assignment often as a smaller role player simply taking the wrong first step. Odds are the saints identified that man/zone mix and designed the play to force Hughes to play man on stills.

 

Instead of Gilmore running the entirely wrong play, I'm guessing they simply exploited a weakness they saw on film.

Edited October 30, 2013 by NoSaint

[K-9]

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.

 

We'll just agree to disagree. We've seen this exact coverage earlier in the regular season and even pre-season with Lawson. And man-under schemes are pretty common, especially when only two WRs are on the field and you can designate your best CB to be in man coverage underneath. Given the way Gilmore committed to Toon, I just can't see him vacating his third so blatantly to follow him across the field.

 

Is it possible it was a blown coverage? I guess. But if we hadn't seen this exact defense earlier, I would be more convinced.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[NoSaint]

 

 

We'll just agree to disagree. We've seen this exact coverage earlier in the regular season and even pre-season with Lawson. And man-under schemes are pretty common, especially when only two WRs are on the field and you can designate your best CB to be in man coverage underneath. Given the way Gilmore committed to Toon, I just can't see him vacating his third so blatantly to follow him across the field.

 

Is it possible it was a blown coverage? I guess. But if we hadn't seen this exact defense earlier, I would be more convinced.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

And add in the saints likely seeing it - good chance it was a snap that was won/lost on Tuesday in the film room and simply executed right by the saints come Sunday.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

Great analysis. I rewatched the play several times during the game and came away with a similar conclusion.

 

Marrone can say that Hughes had responsibility, which i dont doubt, but there is no way that he was supposed to be alone without any deep help.

[NoSaint]

Great analysis. I rewatched the play several times during the game and came away with a similar conclusion.

 

Marrone can say that Hughes had responsibility, which i dont doubt, but there is no way that he was supposed to be alone without any deep help.

 

I don't think it was 100% expected he'd be covering their best deep threat. It's likely schemes to be a FB/TE that he gets not a WR that runs a 4.3 forty coming out of the backfield - yet alone bite and abandon a guy that fast

Edited October 30, 2013 by NoSaint

[uncle flap]

Flap - I think you are both oversimplifying and over complicating perhaps.

 

I don't think the mixed coverages are that rare. In this case I think if you add up that the coach and player agree it was Hughes, and that we've run similar plays in the past, it seems that you are underestimating the scheming of the play and overstating the scheming in the press conference.

 

I'm not sure we will ever 100% know but my gut is leaning towards us having a LB that hasn't been asked to execute that assignment often as a smaller role player simply taking the wrong first step. Odds are the saints identified that man/zone mix and designed the play to force Hughes to play man on stills.

 

Instead of Gilmore running the entirely wrong play, I'm guessing they simply exploited a weakness they saw on film.

 

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.

[3rdand12]

Great analysis. I rewatched the play several times during the game and came away with a similar conclusion.

 

Marrone can say that Hughes had responsibility, which i dont doubt, but there is no way that he was supposed to be alone without any deep help.

]great read and pass by Brees

.

Great post up here. Thanks. Partly because i found this play to be a heart breaking mistake

 

At least one players mental error if not two. Gilmore never seems to break off his assignment regardless of the situational .

 

Though, i wish he would now and then.

Byrd ... he was playing centerfield and should have shifted.

Interesting Marrone and Hughes took credit for the error.

Was it player or play call ?

I have my opinions of course

Edited October 30, 2013 by 3rdand12

[uncle flap]

We'll just agree to disagree. We've seen this exact coverage earlier in the regular season and even pre-season with Lawson. And man-under schemes are pretty common, especially when only two WRs are on the field and you can designate your best CB to be in man coverage underneath. Given the way Gilmore committed to Toon, I just can't see him vacating his third so blatantly to follow him across the field.

 

Is it possible it was a blown coverage? I guess. But if we hadn't seen this exact defense earlier, I would be more convinced.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

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.

[NoSaint]

 

 

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.

 

Like I said, could go either way and we will likely never know - no need to feel like you have to defend or anything. I may disagree but I won't call you wrong either.

 

I don't think the saints have put stills in that spot much at all with regards to coming off the TEs shoulder- which is the first way they really forced a bad situation, then the play action really pushing it. We got caught with our pants down and Hughes compounded it by not selling out on his coverage with all he had.

 

If you picture Lawson being there and being asked to cover a FB or TE it makes sense as a coverage package, but the saints slipping in a deep guy against a backup LB made it a TD

[uncle flap]

And add in the saints likely seeing it - good chance it was a snap that was won/lost on Tuesday in the film room and simply executed right by the saints come Sunday.

I don't think it was 100% expected he'd be covering their best deep threat. It's likely schemes to be a FB/TE that he gets not a WR that runs a 4.3 forty coming out of the backfield - yet alone bite and abandon a guy that fast

 

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.

 

 

]great read and pass by Brees

.

Great post up here. Thanks. Partly because i found this play to be a heart breaking mistake

 

At least one players mental error if not two. Gilmore never seems to break off his assignment regardless of the situational .

 

Though, i wish he would now and then.

Byrd ... he was playing centerfield and should have shifted.

Interesting Marrone and Hughes took credit for the error.

Was it player or play call ?

I have my opinions of course

 

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.

[26CornerBlitz]

Like I said, could go either way and we will likely never know - no need to feel like you have to defend or anything. I may disagree but I won't call you wrong either.

 

I don't think the saints have put stills in that spot much at all with regards to coming off the TEs shoulder- which is the first way they really forced a bad situation, then the play action really pushing it. We got caught with our pants down and Hughes compounded it by not selling out on his coverage with all he had.

 

If you picture Lawson being there and being asked to cover a FB or TE it makes sense as a coverage package, but the saints slipping in a deep guy against a backup LB made it a TD

 

You have to figure Payton spotted a vulnerability in Pettine's scheme with the bye week to break down the Bills defensive tendencies. They were burned badly on that one. That's what offensive brilliance can do when combined with great execution.

[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.

[NoSaint]

 

 

 

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.

 

Did stills motion to start the play?

 

The problem with Byrd selling out his zone or Gilmore his man is that you have a qb tha can exploit either hole left behind. Couple that with the route being effective against either combo of man or zone and I think its hats off to the saints for having the talent to design and run effectively a play that put so much pressure on the defense.

 

The play action, the routes, etc... All put a lot of pressure on everybody. It's the type of play that should be successful against our tendencies and if anyone messes up it could be 7.

 

My gut still says we asked too much of Hughes there and he failed, but regardless I think it's mostly credit to the saints.

Edited October 30, 2013 by NoSaint

[3rdand12]

You have to figure Payton spotted a vulnerability in Pettine's scheme with the bye week to break down the Bills defensive tendencies. They were burned badly on that one. That's what offensive brilliance can do when combined with great execution.

Easy there 26. Dont get all Saintsy on us : )

even if correct.

Bills did get some education Sunday.

Fun to see coach Marrone so "wound " at the presser.

looks like Payton has challenged Doug .

I did mention previous to this game that how we respond.if we should lose , would define Marrone.

I can see he is up for it. gotta love that man

GO BILLS!