"UNC obviously better than Pitt" is a crap narrative

[pittpitt]

They won by 7 simply because Pitt left points all over the field. I'm not talking about the refs or Pitts & Amara getting abused -- simply situations in which it was reasonable to expect Pitt to have done better.

1) Missed the PAT on the final TD. (-1 pt)
2) Starting at the UNC 15, we run dumb plays on 2nd and 3rd down (James up the gut for the second time in a row, no short hooks when we need 3 yards) and end up with a FG instead of the TD we needed when down 3-20. (-4 pts)
3) Ford fumble with 4:09 left in the 1st half at the Pitt 38. Who knows how far that drive goes without the fumble, but we moved 13 yards in 2 plays, gained over 400 in the game so it's not like we were in constant stall out mode, and our previous two drives that resulted in no points were 3:31 and 4:27 long. It's reasonable to think we could have killed the half on the way to a FG. Instead we give UNC a short field (their next 5 drives went 22, 5, 57, 39, and 18 yards, generating 3 total points) and they get a quick TD. We go into halftime down 20-3, instead of something like 13-6. Conservatively, I'll call this a net -7 point swing. (-7 pts)
4) Clock management on the final drive of the first half was terrible. We let 12 seconds run off the clock as Peterman is begging for a play before calling a timeout most fans were yelling for once Peterman went down after his run, and we still move to the UNC 18 quickly. If we have 20 seconds in the red zone instead of 8, we get 2 shots at the end zone and at worst a short FG. I won't give Pitt any more points left on the field with this final drive because it overlaps with what could/should have happened with #3 above, which again confirms how conservative that -7 point swing is. (0 pts, see above)
5) Hood fumble at the Pitt 36 right at the end of the 3rd quarter bounces in the only way that it can for UNC to recover it. Maddox was right on top of it if it had bounced in approximately 80-90% of the directions it could have gone. Instead it mercifully goes right under the UNC TE who still could have lost it. Considering we got the ball only 16 yards downfield (punt went into the end zone for a touchback) and we went 3-and-out on the next drive, that's 0 points, but worth mentioning. (0 pts)
6) This last point was a larger problem so I don't know how to properly account for how much this hurt us, but Ollison averaged 5.4 yards/carry and only ran 10 times, with only 3 of those coming after the 1st quarter. His longest 2 carries only went for 19 yards, so even his remaining 8 carries still averaged 4.4 yards/carry. That 3-and-out above ended with Peterman not making it on a sneak on 3rd-and-1; Ollison would have made it, and we all know it. James had 12 for 44 (3.7 yards/carry), with a long of 9 so his others were 11 for 35 (3.2 yards/carry - ugh). We're facing a D that's great against the pass and bad against the run, so we sit our hot RB for most of the game and have Peterman throw it 42 times. Again, it's really tough to quantify what this cost us, but it's more than fair to say it cost us at least 6 points. (-6 pts)

There was also the Jarrett (I think it was him) shoulda-been sack early in the 2nd quarter that instead was facemasking and gave Switzer the time to lose Pitts/Amara (can't remember which) and end up with a 71-yard TD; there's another play if run again is a sack and 3rd-and-12 for UNC most of the time but I won't put it above because one can logically say Williams was going to evade the sack anyway (hard to say considering a huge DT grabbing jersey drops him there). We only gained 30 less yards than UNC, but with this basic stuff above in normal situations (or with normal strategic gameplanning/adjustments) we probably improved our point disparity by 18 points, so losing by 7 becomes winning by 11. And don't say UNC let up the last few drives by primarily running because a) they're great at running and Williams is known for bad decision making, so this was the best choice no matter what the point spread at that point, b) they've been running it up on teams all year, c) as an unranked team they desperately need to make a big statement against a ranked team. Also, don't say the punt block was a fluke since we barely missed blocking the punter's first punt, and we blocked another one earlier this year -- it's now part of who we are.

Could have won, should have won -- now it's just motivation to go knock ND's heads off next week!

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

You could come up with a list of points UNC left on the field as well. They had better players. They deserved to win that game. I think UNC is closer in overall talent to Clemson than they are Pitt.

 

[pittpitt]

You could come up with a list of points UNC left on the field as well.

I don't think you can. Let's see this list.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

I don't think you can. Let's see this list.

We settled for 3 instead of 7 inside the red zone twice in the first half, when on the rest of the drive we were rolling along. So there's 8 points right there. Especially our first drive of the game where we methodically moved it down the field, then went for the corner route (and Marquise delivered the ball late) which put us behind the chains and we settled for 3. Using your example above where Hood fumbled on the 3rd down attempt, if he doesn't fumble, or if forward progress is blown before he fumbles, his forward progress likely gives him a first, and we could've punched it in because we were at like the 10. So that's 4 more points. There's 12 right there. We also had dropped interceptions on balls that hit our DB's in the hands, and I think y'all got either a TD or FG on one of those drives.

Overall though, I would agree that Pitt and UNC are fairly evenly matched. IMO, both are in the Top 5 best teams in the conference and I think both have the best/brightest future ahead of them out of all 7 Coastal teams, especially with Va Tech going through their rough Beamer (aka Bobby Bowden) situation and Miami looking for a new coach.

Last night's game didn't and isn't getting the hype/pub it deserves. That was a premier matchup in terms of what was on the line, but since it was the ACC and didn't involve two "name" programs, it didn't receive as much play as it should.

Best of luck moving forward. I absolutely think y'all can beat Notre Dame and possibly win out. Louisville will be tough but your defense will give their fledgling offense fits.

 

[PittSquared]

You can say that Pitt would win every game if each key play and turnover went our way. That's not realistic.

UNC had better athletes than Pitt in at least the following positions -- QB, TB, WRs, and DBs. It's not a fluke that they are 7-1 and favored on the road. Beatable? Absolutely. Did Pitt miss opportunities? Sure. But the better team won.

 

[Parkview57]

1. UNC QB apparently can beat you in many ways, last night a lot of good "old fashion from the pocket" throws in the first half at key times did the trick.

2. Better team speed on UNC's defense. It was pretty hard to find see any one open from the stands let alone from behind the OLine most of the time. Any glimpses of big plays where closed up quickly.

 

[Delpanther]

There's a difference between saying Pitt could have won which is true but that doesn't negate the fact that NC has better players, which is equally true. Boyd aside, NC had better WR's, their secondary was clearly better as was their OL and they held the real trump card, the better QB, who made plays at all the critical junctures of the game. Yet Pitt was still in the game. NC, however, has better talent hands down as best evidenced by the fact that they "made the key plays" and Pitt simply didn't.

 

[WNYPanther]

Would of, could of, should of goes both ways. Can't say our O left points on the field because of the play calling after the blocked punt (which I agree with BTW) without also recognizing that they also settled for 4 FGs after basically moving the ball at will to get ino FG range. Can't say our D stepped up and stopped them but not give their D credit for doing the same. All that matters is last night they were definitely the better team & deserved the win.

 

[Las Panteras]

Better team won. Not even up for debate.

But Pitt is headed in the right direction. Anyone that thinks however, that its a straight shot to the top his his head up his ass.....

 

[Pitt is #1]

I think you could see two things in this game, if you are a realist. Pitt didn't have enough depth. Pitt's top talent may have been better than UNC's, but it didn't have as many complimentary players.

 

[pittmeister]

Better team won. Not even up for debate.

But Pitt is headed in the right direction. Anyone that thinks however, that its a straight shot to the top his his head up his ass.....

Spot on... Why is it so difficult for a Pittsburgh fan to accept that the other team was better????

 

[rpost3]

Well I predicted Pitt to lose by 6. Didn't expect a win without Conner. This loss was pretty easy to swallow unlike the one where Switzer had 2 punt return TDs b/c the officials blatantly ignored blocks in the back on both. Those replays are hard to watch.

 

[pittpitt]

We settled for 3 instead of 7 inside the red zone twice in the first half, when on the rest of the drive we were rolling along. So there's 8 points right there. Especially our first drive of the game where we methodically moved it down the field, then went for the corner route (and Marquise delivered the ball late) which put us behind the chains and we settled for 3. Using your example above where Hood fumbled on the 3rd down attempt, if he doesn't fumble, or if forward progress is blown before he fumbles, his forward progress likely gives him a first, and we could've punched it in because we were at like the 10. So that's 4 more points. There's 12 right there. We also had dropped interceptions on balls that hit our DB's in the hands, and I think y'all got either a TD or FG on one of those drives.

I listed extremely specific plays and pieces of strategy that should have turned out a different way, and the UNC response is:
1) UNC scored 2 FG's instead of all TD's in the first half, the logic being the drives to get into FG range showed you were moving the ball and therefore should have continued them all the way (thus negating nearly every FG ever kicked), and Marquise threw a bad ball. Are you implying he is most usually a perfect thrower?
2) Hood wasn't yet at the 1st down marker when the ball was knocked loose, and even if he barely made it past the marker on that 3rd down, it was at the 36, not "like the 10."
3) Dropping interceptions is a common and rarely counted upon part of the game -- that's why those guys play on defense and not offense. Now if you know exactly who dropped them on which specific plays (and the result of those specific drives) and it's the guy who has 1 interception in 3 different games, maybe that's something to consider, not "I think y'all [scored] on one of those drives."

Look, it was a great game and UNC deserves a top-20 ranking (despite being outscored 16-6 after halftime), but this is not a legitimate response to my list.

 

[pittpitt]

Can't say our O left points on the field because of the play calling after the blocked punt (which I agree with BTW) without also recognizing that they also settled for 4 FGs after basically moving the ball at will to get ino FG range. Can't say our D stepped up and stopped them but not give their D credit for doing the same.

The key issue is that Pitt stopped Pitt on that FG after the blocked punt, not UNC. Almost any fan on this board could have chosen a better set of plays from the 15 and you even agree with me; that's how obvious it is we stopped ourselves. Saying it's unusual that a team kicks a FG after moving into FG range (and that moving into FG range by itself implies the driving team would be expected to just keep moving right into the endzone) negates nearly every FG ever kicked. That in no way fits the description of the list I made.

 

[thebadby2]

I don't think you can. Let's see this list.

Try this one-kicking 4 FGs from inside our 15 yard line. Not to mention, up 3 scores in the 2nd half, they played a lot more conservatively. to the naked eye they looked like the better, bigger, faster team-because that's what they were.

 

[pittpitt]

Try this one-kicking 4 FGs from inside our 15 yard line. Not to mention, up 3 scores in the 2nd half, they played a lot more conservatively. to the naked eye they looked like the better, bigger, faster team-because that's what they were.

Lots of teams kick FG's near the end zone. In fact, that's where FG's are usually kicked from (especially a team with a kicker with a weak foot). I already addressed UNC's "conservative" gameplay in the second half; they ran up the score all year - I seriously doubt they decided to stop doing it when they are finally in a position to make a statement win against a ranked team. Maybe the pattern of Pitt slowing down everyone in the second half continued; that's what a pattern is - something that continues in the same way it has before.

 

[Pittx9]

We have a first year head coach and UNC has a legit superstar college QB. A one possession loss is the result of that, Williams was the difference maker. When Narduzzi starts getting his recruits here and Williams and that midget Switzer are finally gone, there's a good chance we could surpass them then.

I had a bad feeling about this game after seeing our defense in the first halves of the Tech and Syracuse games. GT's triple option is incredibly tough to defend, but our secondary was getting burned as well. Syracuse's QB was good, although not as good as many on here tried to claim him as being. Point is, Williams is far superior to both those team's quarterbacks. He's probably the toughest QB we'll play all year. Notre Dame up next is probably the second best passing attack we'll see, so hopefully we turn it around quick. The second half Thursday was much better, but didn't make up for the dismal second quarter.

 

[runthewildcat]

They won by 7 simply because Pitt left points all over the field. I'm not talking about the refs or Pitts & Amara getting abused -- simply situations in which it was reasonable to expect Pitt to have done better.

1) Missed the PAT on the final TD. (-1 pt)
2) Starting at the UNC 15, we run dumb plays on 2nd and 3rd down (James up the gut for the second time in a row, no short hooks when we need 3 yards) and end up with a FG instead of the TD we needed when down 3-20. (-4 pts)
3) Ford fumble with 4:09 left in the 1st half at the Pitt 38. Who knows how far that drive goes without the fumble, but we moved 13 yards in 2 plays, gained over 400 in the game so it's not like we were in constant stall out mode, and our previous two drives that resulted in no points were 3:31 and 4:27 long. It's reasonable to think we could have killed the half on the way to a FG. Instead we give UNC a short field (their next 5 drives went 22, 5, 57, 39, and 18 yards, generating 3 total points) and they get a quick TD. We go into halftime down 20-3, instead of something like 13-6. Conservatively, I'll call this a net -7 point swing. (-7 pts)
4) Clock management on the final drive of the first half was terrible. We let 12 seconds run off the clock as Peterman is begging for a play before calling a timeout most fans were yelling for once Peterman went down after his run, and we still move to the UNC 18 quickly. If we have 20 seconds in the red zone instead of 8, we get 2 shots at the end zone and at worst a short FG. I won't give Pitt any more points left on the field with this final drive because it overlaps with what could/should have happened with #3 above, which again confirms how conservative that -7 point swing is. (0 pts, see above)
5) Hood fumble at the Pitt 36 right at the end of the 3rd quarter bounces in the only way that it can for UNC to recover it. Maddox was right on top of it if it had bounced in approximately 80-90% of the directions it could have gone. Instead it mercifully goes right under the UNC TE who still could have lost it. Considering we got the ball only 16 yards downfield (punt went into the end zone for a touchback) and we went 3-and-out on the next drive, that's 0 points, but worth mentioning. (0 pts)
6) This last point was a larger problem so I don't know how to properly account for how much this hurt us, but Ollison averaged 5.4 yards/carry and only ran 10 times, with only 3 of those coming after the 1st quarter. His longest 2 carries only went for 19 yards, so even his remaining 8 carries still averaged 4.4 yards/carry. That 3-and-out above ended with Peterman not making it on a sneak on 3rd-and-1; Ollison would have made it, and we all know it. James had 12 for 44 (3.7 yards/carry), with a long of 9 so his others were 11 for 35 (3.2 yards/carry - ugh). We're facing a D that's great against the pass and bad against the run, so we sit our hot RB for most of the game and have Peterman throw it 42 times. Again, it's really tough to quantify what this cost us, but it's more than fair to say it cost us at least 6 points. (-6 pts)

There was also the Jarrett (I think it was him) shoulda-been sack early in the 2nd quarter that instead was facemasking and gave Switzer the time to lose Pitts/Amara (can't remember which) and end up with a 71-yard TD; there's another play if run again is a sack and 3rd-and-12 for UNC most of the time but I won't put it above because one can logically say Williams was going to evade the sack anyway (hard to say considering a huge DT grabbing jersey drops him there). We only gained 30 less yards than UNC, but with this basic stuff above in normal situations (or with normal strategic gameplanning/adjustments) we probably improved our point disparity by 18 points, so losing by 7 becomes winning by 11. And don't say UNC let up the last few drives by primarily running because a) they're great at running and Williams is known for bad decision making, so this was the best choice no matter what the point spread at that point, b) they've been running it up on teams all year, c) as an unranked team they desperately need to make a big statement against a ranked team. Also, don't say the punt block was a fluke since we barely missed blocking the punter's first punt, and we blocked another one earlier this year -- it's now part of who we are.

Could have won, should have won -- now it's just motivation to go knock ND's heads off next week!

They beat us and at our place...quit whining!

 

[pittpitt]

They beat us and at our place...quit whining!

Being an optimist and pointing out how close we were to winning is not whining. I guess if I was a SOP type of fan who saw every loss as re-affirmation that we suck and don't deserve to win, your line of thinking would make sense. Sorry but I don't see a loss as a reason to assume the worst about Pitt's ability to win against certain teams and to only say negative things afterward.

 

[bwh05]

Spot on... Why is it so difficult for a Pittsburgh fan to accept that the other team was better????

This is such a dumb premise. If all that mattered was who had better players then the naval academy would never win a game & we would never lose to Akron or YSU. UNC is marginally better than us talent wise. However We had opportunities but we failed offensively to do what we needed. That wasn't Alabama or LSU we lost to.

 

[MrGee]

They won by 7 simply because Pitt left points all over the field. I'm not talking about the refs or Pitts & Amara getting abused -- simply situations in which it was reasonable to expect Pitt to have done better.

1) Missed the PAT on the final TD. (-1 pt)
2) Starting at the UNC 15, we run dumb plays on 2nd and 3rd down (James up the gut for the second time in a row, no short hooks when we need 3 yards) and end up with a FG instead of the TD we needed when down 3-20. (-4 pts)
3) Ford fumble with 4:09 left in the 1st half at the Pitt 38. Who knows how far that drive goes without the fumble, but we moved 13 yards in 2 plays, gained over 400 in the game so it's not like we were in constant stall out mode, and our previous two drives that resulted in no points were 3:31 and 4:27 long. It's reasonable to think we could have killed the half on the way to a FG. Instead we give UNC a short field (their next 5 drives went 22, 5, 57, 39, and 18 yards, generating 3 total points) and they get a quick TD. We go into halftime down 20-3, instead of something like 13-6. Conservatively, I'll call this a net -7 point swing. (-7 pts)
4) Clock management on the final drive of the first half was terrible. We let 12 seconds run off the clock as Peterman is begging for a play before calling a timeout most fans were yelling for once Peterman went down after his run, and we still move to the UNC 18 quickly. If we have 20 seconds in the red zone instead of 8, we get 2 shots at the end zone and at worst a short FG. I won't give Pitt any more points left on the field with this final drive because it overlaps with what could/should have happened with #3 above, which again confirms how conservative that -7 point swing is. (0 pts, see above)
5) Hood fumble at the Pitt 36 right at the end of the 3rd quarter bounces in the only way that it can for UNC to recover it. Maddox was right on top of it if it had bounced in approximately 80-90% of the directions it could have gone. Instead it mercifully goes right under the UNC TE who still could have lost it. Considering we got the ball only 16 yards downfield (punt went into the end zone for a touchback) and we went 3-and-out on the next drive, that's 0 points, but worth mentioning. (0 pts)
6) This last point was a larger problem so I don't know how to properly account for how much this hurt us, but Ollison averaged 5.4 yards/carry and only ran 10 times, with only 3 of those coming after the 1st quarter. His longest 2 carries only went for 19 yards, so even his remaining 8 carries still averaged 4.4 yards/carry. That 3-and-out above ended with Peterman not making it on a sneak on 3rd-and-1; Ollison would have made it, and we all know it. James had 12 for 44 (3.7 yards/carry), with a long of 9 so his others were 11 for 35 (3.2 yards/carry - ugh). We're facing a D that's great against the pass and bad against the run, so we sit our hot RB for most of the game and have Peterman throw it 42 times. Again, it's really tough to quantify what this cost us, but it's more than fair to say it cost us at least 6 points. (-6 pts)

There was also the Jarrett (I think it was him) shoulda-been sack early in the 2nd quarter that instead was facemasking and gave Switzer the time to lose Pitts/Amara (can't remember which) and end up with a 71-yard TD; there's another play if run again is a sack and 3rd-and-12 for UNC most of the time but I won't put it above because one can logically say Williams was going to evade the sack anyway (hard to say considering a huge DT grabbing jersey drops him there). We only gained 30 less yards than UNC, but with this basic stuff above in normal situations (or with normal strategic gameplanning/adjustments) we probably improved our point disparity by 18 points, so losing by 7 becomes winning by 11. And don't say UNC let up the last few drives by primarily running because a) they're great at running and Williams is known for bad decision making, so this was the best choice no matter what the point spread at that point, b) they've been running it up on teams all year, c) as an unranked team they desperately need to make a big statement against a ranked team. Also, don't say the punt block was a fluke since we barely missed blocking the punter's first punt, and we blocked another one earlier this year -- it's now part of who we are.

Could have won, should have won -- now it's just motivation to go knock ND's heads off next week!

Right now NCS looks better than NC

 

[aged_wolverine]

Spot on... Why is it so difficult for a Pittsburgh fan to accept that the other team was better????

Same reason it is for PSU I suppose. Must be a Pa thing. /shrug

 

[wbrpanther]

They won by 7 simply because Pitt left points all over the field. I'm not talking about the refs or Pitts & Amara getting abused -- simply situations in which it was reasonable to expect Pitt to have done better.

1) Missed the PAT on the final TD. (-1 pt)
2) Starting at the UNC 15, we run dumb plays on 2nd and 3rd down (James up the gut for the second time in a row, no short hooks when we need 3 yards) and end up with a FG instead of the TD we needed when down 3-20. (-4 pts)
3) Ford fumble with 4:09 left in the 1st half at the Pitt 38. Who knows how far that drive goes without the fumble, but we moved 13 yards in 2 plays, gained over 400 in the game so it's not like we were in constant stall out mode, and our previous two drives that resulted in no points were 3:31 and 4:27 long. It's reasonable to think we could have killed the half on the way to a FG. Instead we give UNC a short field (their next 5 drives went 22, 5, 57, 39, and 18 yards, generating 3 total points) and they get a quick TD. We go into halftime down 20-3, instead of something like 13-6. Conservatively, I'll call this a net -7 point swing. (-7 pts)
4) Clock management on the final drive of the first half was terrible. We let 12 seconds run off the clock as Peterman is begging for a play before calling a timeout most fans were yelling for once Peterman went down after his run, and we still move to the UNC 18 quickly. If we have 20 seconds in the red zone instead of 8, we get 2 shots at the end zone and at worst a short FG. I won't give Pitt any more points left on the field with this final drive because it overlaps with what could/should have happened with #3 above, which again confirms how conservative that -7 point swing is. (0 pts, see above)
5) Hood fumble at the Pitt 36 right at the end of the 3rd quarter bounces in the only way that it can for UNC to recover it. Maddox was right on top of it if it had bounced in approximately 80-90% of the directions it could have gone. Instead it mercifully goes right under the UNC TE who still could have lost it. Considering we got the ball only 16 yards downfield (punt went into the end zone for a touchback) and we went 3-and-out on the next drive, that's 0 points, but worth mentioning. (0 pts)
6) This last point was a larger problem so I don't know how to properly account for how much this hurt us, but Ollison averaged 5.4 yards/carry and only ran 10 times, with only 3 of those coming after the 1st quarter. His longest 2 carries only went for 19 yards, so even his remaining 8 carries still averaged 4.4 yards/carry. That 3-and-out above ended with Peterman not making it on a sneak on 3rd-and-1; Ollison would have made it, and we all know it. James had 12 for 44 (3.7 yards/carry), with a long of 9 so his others were 11 for 35 (3.2 yards/carry - ugh). We're facing a D that's great against the pass and bad against the run, so we sit our hot RB for most of the game and have Peterman throw it 42 times. Again, it's really tough to quantify what this cost us, but it's more than fair to say it cost us at least 6 points. (-6 pts)

There was also the Jarrett (I think it was him) shoulda-been sack early in the 2nd quarter that instead was facemasking and gave Switzer the time to lose Pitts/Amara (can't remember which) and end up with a 71-yard TD; there's another play if run again is a sack and 3rd-and-12 for UNC most of the time but I won't put it above because one can logically say Williams was going to evade the sack anyway (hard to say considering a huge DT grabbing jersey drops him there). We only gained 30 less yards than UNC, but with this basic stuff above in normal situations (or with normal strategic gameplanning/adjustments) we probably improved our point disparity by 18 points, so losing by 7 becomes winning by 11. And don't say UNC let up the last few drives by primarily running because a) they're great at running and Williams is known for bad decision making, so this was the best choice no matter what the point spread at that point, b) they've been running it up on teams all year, c) as an unranked team they desperately need to make a big statement against a ranked team. Also, don't say the punt block was a fluke since we barely missed blocking the punter's first punt, and we blocked another one earlier this year -- it's now part of who we are.

Could have won, should have won -- now it's just motivation to go knock ND's heads off next week!

I thought their lines were better. I thought their QB was better. I thought their RB was better. Other than that it was pretty even. There is nothing wrong in admitting they were a better team. Give Duzz a couple of years and we'll see.

 

[Pittx9]

Same reason it is for PSU I suppose. Must be a Pa thing. /shrug

I know what you're getting at, but I've never heard a Penn State fan say their opponent was bad. They have fans trying to say the teams they beat aren't really that bad. It's okay though because apparently playing Ohio State means they got a participation trophy.

 

[thebadby2]

This is such a dumb premise. If all that mattered was who had better players then the naval academy would never win a game & we would never lose to Akron or YSU. UNC is marginally better than us talent wise. However We had opportunities but we failed offensively to do what we needed. That wasn't Alabama or LSU we lost to.

Bigger, faster, stronger, more athletic than us all over the field. Obvious to anyone who watched with any ability to have an objective eye. I'll say it again-bigger, faster, stronger, more athletic. Was very close to being a blowout but our D got a couple of stops deep in the red zone after getting gashed all the way down the field. The game was not as close as the final score. Defense got physically pushed around for the entire first half, offense was putrid all game for the most part. I have been thinking for weeks that our yards per play have to be some of the lowest in the country. Just looked it up-sure enough, we're 83rd in the country in YPP. We are also 88th in scoring offense.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

The reason why a narrative has built up that North Carolina is better than Pitt is because, well, North Carolina is better than Pitt.

Not by some huge margin. Not by enough that Pitt had no chance to win the game last Thursday. Not by enough that if they played again Pitt couldn't win the game. But they are better than us. Anyone with at least one eye and a brain could see that.

 

[Pittx9]

The game was not as close as the final score.

Agree with everything else in your post except that. It's a 60 minute game, the final score is the final score. If Pitt recovers the onside kick, scores, and it goes to OT, is the game still not really that close?

 

[pittpitt]

The game was not as close as the final score.

Pitt: 415 yards, 1 turnover, 38 total return yards
UNC: 444 yards, 0 turnovers, 37 total return yards

Like all of UNC's close games, it came down to turnover margin. If Ford doesn't fumble in our territory (WR's get hit hard all the time - don't act like because it happened it was inevitable and emblematic of what would always happen when a UNC DB hits him) you can't say with any intelligent certainty that UNC would have still won that game.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

but this is not a legitimate response to my list.

Yes it was. You cannot make a statement like:

They won by 7 simply because Pitt left points all over the field.

...and then deny my statement that Carolina also left points all over the field. I gave specific examples too. We settled for 3 instead of 7 multiple times. Y'all did too. Both teams left points on the field. That's football. But to specifically address some of your points (in bold)

1) UNC scored 2 FG's instead of all TD's in the first half, the logic being the drives to get into FG range showed you were moving the ball and therefore should have continued them all the way (thus negating nearly every FG ever kicked), and Marquise threw a bad ball. Are you implying he is most usually a perfect thrower? <-- Nope. I'm implying that we methodically worked our way down the field and your defense failed to adequately cover Switzer on this particularly play, our QB simply failed to get the ball to him. Would've been a TD.
2) Hood wasn't yet at the 1st down marker when the ball was knocked loose, and even if he barely made it past the marker on that 3rd down, it was at the 36, not "like the 10." <-- Okay, maybe you've got the yard-line right. Fact remains that this is a coulda/woulda/shoulda play (both him fumbling and then us recovering) that either team could put in "their column" after the fact.
3) Dropping interceptions is a common and rarely counted upon part of the game -- that's why those guys play on defense and not offense. Now if you know exactly who dropped them on which specific plays (and the result of those specific drives) and it's the guy who has 1 interception in 3 different games, maybe that's something to consider, not "I think y'all [scored] on one of those drives." <-- Okay, sure. But you want to tell me that a drive that invovles a dropped INT that ultimately goes for points isn't a "break" or "good fortune" for the offense, then that's your opinion. Yes I know drops happen all the time. As does failing to score after a blocked punt. It's all just nitpicking and woulda/coulda/shoulda

Look, it was a great game and UNC deserves a top-20 ranking (despite being outscored 16-6 after halftime), but this is not a legitimate response to my list.

Look, either fanbase could dissect plays and attempt to quantify how many points it cost them, but it's an exercise in futility because it's not how it went down in reality. Your first post on this topic included such factors in imaginary points you think Pitt should've scored:
- play-calling (specifically getting away from running Ollison)
- clock management

You can easily argue the Carolina's play-calling and clock management prevented UNC from scoring more points / enabled Pitt to potentially score more (just one example: Fedora decided to call timeouts on your second-to-last drive of the first half; that, combined with our decision to pass on our final drive of the half ultimately left y'all too much time on your final possession where you COULD have kicked a FG and gotten 3 points).

I'm sorry if you disagree. Best of luck to Pitt the best of the way.

ETA: I see where you posted a few posts above, re: y'all not scoring after the blocked punt [and I'm paraphrasing]: "UNC did not stop Pitt on that possession. Pitt stopped Pitt. Anyone with a brain could see that." Well....okay. I guess our 11 guys stood around looking at their phones on that possession. I must've missed that.

 

[pittmeister]

This is such a dumb premise. If all that mattered was who had better players then the naval academy would never win a game & we would never lose to Akron or YSU. UNC is marginally better than us talent wise. However We had opportunities but we failed offensively to do what we needed. That wasn't Alabama or LSU we lost to.

When a Pittsburgh team loses, they MUST find someone to blame which is a dumb premise as well.

Pitt and NC both have good coaching. So then it comes down to player execution. In this case NC had better players. Period. You can nitpick forever but NC could do the same. NC won the game, Pitt didn't lose it.

 

[Pittx9]

Pitt and NC both have good coaching. So then it comes down to player in execution.

Not only that but going along with the coaching aspect, Narduzzi is just in his first year while Fedora is an experienced head coach. As good as Narduzzi has been this season, Fedora has been in these games before.

 

[pittpitt]

Look, either fanbase could dissect plays and attempt to quantify how many points it cost them, but it's an exercise in futility because it's not how it went down in reality....

Sure, and Duke fans have no legitimate gripe when pointing out the reality of how badly officiated that Miami return was, especially with 9 minutes of official review.

If our WR doesn't fumble the ball near the end of the first half, Pitt likely wins. Yes, the fumble happened and because it did we lost, but WR's get hit hard all the time - don't act like because it happened it was inevitable and emblematic of what would always happen when a UNC DB hits him. That is a single fluke play that flipped it from a Pitt win to a UNC win; I say fluke because they happen so rarely and can't be predicted or counted upon. That one play provided the cushion to withstand Pitt shutting down your offense in the 2nd half.

Regarding Ollison running more, you and I both know that Pitt has a much better chance of winning if he was actually treated like the starting RB in the game. UNC has had no answer for big backs all year, UNC had no answer for Ollison in the game, our fanbase knew all week that our success was predicated on him running a lot, & our HC even publicly ripped our OC after the game for not running him more (he's a new HC and the OC is experienced, so he hasn't started over-ruling his play calls when they're dumb). We inexplicably gave more carries to our smaller, faster RB (I said faster, not fast) who wasn't the starter which is a problem any fan could recognize because UNC's D is based on speed not up-front strength, so playing to a RB's speed (that is clearly neutralized by a whole D of fast guys) was pure stupidity. Pitt fans have been calling for this OC's head all year, and they're likely to get it in the next year or two. You and your fanbase must have let out a collective exhale when you realized Pitt wasn't utilizing the one player who could force a tough decision between focusing on him or on Boyd. Yeah, the reality is we didn't use Ollison, but that was Pitt beating Pitt in a way our fans, your fans, and even our HC found counter-productive to basic facts.

Congrats, a well-placed fumble and the minimal use of the RB with much success against your D gave you the win. To characterize it differently is a disservice to how the Pitt players played and improved in that game. And just to clarify: This whole thread is to point out that statements about UNC being obviously better than Pitt based on that game are crap, nothing else.

 

[bwh05]

When a Pittsburgh team loses, they MUST find someone to blame which is a dumb premise as well.

Pitt and NC both have good coaching. So then it comes down to player execution. In this case NC had better players. Period. You can nitpick forever but NC could do the same. NC won the game, Pitt didn't lose it.

We aren't well coached offensively right now and that's where we lost the game. UNC is in year 3 so they're ahead of us, but they didn't have a massive talent advantage over us. Teams in Pitt's position win games like that all the time. If it makes you feel better saying the other team was better, good for you. I'm just pointing out that we were in the game and could have won it.

 

[pittmeister]

We aren't well coached offensively right now and that's where we lost the game. UNC is in year 3 so they're ahead of us, but they didn't have a massive talent advantage over us. Teams in Pitt's position win games like that all the time. If it makes you feel better saying the other team was better, good for you. I'm just pointing out that we were in the game and could have won it.

If it makes you feel better to blame someone when you lose sans the opposition then good for you...Bottom line is every team can say they could've, would've, should've...If we had Conner and JJS we would be undefeated, right? Remember, there is another team across the field too that were playing hard and being coached, do they have anything to do with the outcome of the game???? If VT, Virginia, and Syracuse are all saying the same thing about losing to Pitt, then they are wrong as well...

There were no coaching brain farts that cost Pitt the game. Both teams played and we lost. Give credit to the opposition.

 

[thebadby2]

Pitt: 415 yards, 1 turnover, 38 total return yards
UNC: 444 yards, 0 turnovers, 37 total return yards

Like all of UNC's close games, it came down to turnover margin. If Ford doesn't fumble in our territory (WR's get hit hard all the time - don't act like because it happened it was inevitable and emblematic of what would always happen when a UNC DB hits him) you can't say with any intelligent certainty that UNC would have still won that game.

We blocked a punt inside the UNC 10 and couldn't get into the end zone. They made enough plays to win, we didn't. They were physically better than us-

I thought their lines were better. I thought their QB was better. I thought their RB was better. Other than that it was pretty even. There is nothing wrong in admitting they were a better team. Give Duzz a couple of years and we'll see.

Don't forget their WRs. Boyd is great but he's one guy. They had several talented pass catchers that were a mismatch for us all night. .

 

[aged_wolverine]

We aren't well coached offensively right now and that's where we lost the game. UNC is in year 3 so they're ahead of us, but they didn't have a massive talent advantage over us. Teams in Pitt's position win games like that all the time. If it makes you feel better saying the other team was better, good for you. I'm just pointing out that we were in the game and could have won it.

If you have talent from the previous regime, it doesn't matter. Talent, save at QB, wasn't Michigan's problem when Harbaugh took over. Proper coaching & mental toughness was. Last year we would of folded on the road. This year the team hung in there until the game came down to a final play, and the guys fought hard not to give up those final inches to the end zone.

 

[thebadby2]

The reason why a narrative has built up that North Carolina is better than Pitt is because, well, North Carolina is better than Pitt.

Not by some huge margin. Not by enough that Pitt had no chance to win the game last Thursday. Not by enough that if they played again Pitt couldn't win the game. But they are better than us. Anyone with at least one eye and a brain could see that.

Well put.

 

[pittdan77]

Could Pitt have won? Yes.

But that's the difference in good teams and better teams. The better ones win those games. Iowa is another great example. But Pitt was better than Syracuse and better than Georgia Tech.

Right now NC is better. Won't be shocked if they win the Costal.

 

[wbrpanther]

We blocked a punt inside the UNC 10 and couldn't get into the end zone. They made enough plays to win, we didn't. They were physically better than us-

Don't forget their WRs. Boyd is great but he's one guy. They had several talented pass catchers that were a mismatch for us all night. .

This too. Although I am convinced our other receivers would look a lot better if they had footballs thrown their way once in a while.

 

[thebadby2]

This too. Although I am convinced our other receivers would look a lot better if they had footballs thrown their way once in a while.

I tend to agree. I really don't think it's some gaping lack of talent for us as much as it is the offense we run, and the QBs always looking for their safest throw, which is anything in TB's zip code.

I felt like the UNC wideouts were just a physical mismatch for our secondary. Big fast and strong , and in the case of Switzer in the slot,faster than anyone on the field and very talented. They have some serious athletes.