"We are 23 points away from being 11-2 in 2014"

[mehinpgh]

..."But at the same time, you're 6-7. We've got to finish." I like this new staff, a lot. Even if we split the difference and get to 9-3 with a shot at a decent bowl game, I would be ecstatic.

Read more: http://triblive.com/sports/college/pitt/7859923-74/coach-narduzzi-season#ixzz3TLSg5xxl

 

[PITTLAW]

Reply

Sounds good...but not sure it means much. Looking back, Pitt was 14 points away from being undefeated in 2009. I like the new attitude...but you can play with numbers quite a bit. The only numbers I'm really concerned about are 2015 wins. Hail to Pitt!

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Re: Reply

Originally posted by PITTLAW:
Sounds good...but not sure it means much. Looking back, Pitt was 14 points away from being undefeated in 2009. I like the new attitude...but you can play with numbers quite a bit. The only numbers I'm really concerned about are 2015 wins. Hail to Pitt!

I think the point is........."your inability to finish and making key mistakes is holding you back. You didn't work hard enough." Not so much "hey guys, you are so close to being great..."

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Re: Reply

I see those numbers and think, "Boy, for having the youngest roster among all P5 teams - including sanction-riddled Penn State - that former staff did one helluva job of being EXTREMELY competitive with such marginal, inexperienced talent."

 

[PITTLAW]

Reply

You could certainly spin it that way. But if you looked at the kids that were actually playing the games, Pitt was young, but not nearly as young as it seems if you take the overall roster average age. You know the old stats thing Hail to Pitt!

 

[rc79]

I can't imagine anyone suggesting that was a well coached team. When you are throwing up games in November and January of the following year the age of the overall roster is irrelevant.

In addition, our two deep, which are the guys who actually play the games, were older than UNC, VT, and GT just in our division.

They underperformed for three years. Probably worse than any staff in recent memory.

 

[raleighpanther]

Re: Reply

PittLaw: if you look at the 2-deep for Pitt last year, a large majority of them were freshman and sophomores.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then. I have no idea if they were a well coached team because they were so young. Young teams make mistakes that more experienced teams do not regardless of who's coaching them. Young teams lose their lanes on special teams (Duke). Young teams turn over the football with regularity. Young teams collapse after turning over the football (Georgia Tech).

This is not to suggest though I did not have my frustrations with the former staff because I absolutely did. I just think that many people grossly exaggerate the problems of the former staff who I think by and large did a remarkable job under very trying circumstances. I would imagine that is why they all are making more money coaching football now than they were a year ago.

I think it all depends on your perception of where the program was when these guys inherited it. When I look at the fact that almost all of Todd Graham's guys either failed out, were kicked out, or transferred out, and the class before that also fell apart in the final weeks whenever our idiotic former AD butchered the firing of one of several former coaches, basically creating a windfall for other schools in this region, I think Chryst and his staff inherited a tire fire and did an excellent job of weathering what could have been a very ugly storm.

No coach in his right mind wants to play with the youngest team in college football. That is something foisted on a coach by an incompetent administrative team Who seem to specialize in catastrophic personnel decisions.

If people don't want to admit that almost none of Graham's guys made any impact whatsoever here or that two thirds of Wannstedt's final recruiting class left before signing day, and several others were kicked out for behavioral reasons, that is up to them. However, I deal in the realm of reality and I know what I saw transpire with my own two eyes.

I do agree that the Paul Chryst era was a very frustrating one for fans of the University of Pittsburgh football team. I just don't hold the coaches primarily responsible for most of my frustrations. I hold the former athletic director that went through 239 coaches in three years primarily culpable for that debacle.

Apparently, based on the subsequent actions of each university, the key decision-makers at of the Universities of Wisconsin and Pittsburgh agree with my assessment. And really, why wouldn't they? I am very clearly right-between-the-eyes correct on this one. Just look at how all of the key people involved behaved and you have your answer. One guy got fired and another guy got a raise/promotion. It doesn't take Colombo, Angela Lansberry, or the Scooby Doo gang to piece together this mystery. All it takes is some good old-fashioned common sense.

H2P!



This post was edited on 3/3 4:19 PM by Dr. von Yinzer

 

[PITTLAW]

Reply

I'm just saying that if you look at the kids that played...Pitt was not that much younger than many. Take into account that most of Pitt's sophomores played practically every game as freshmen, and the stats can become pretty deceiving. With kids going pro early...nearly all college programs have freshmen and sophomores playing significant minutes every season. Were there misstakes based upon youth? Yeah, but to suggest that is why the team finished 6-7 I think is a pretty good stretch. Hail to Pitt!

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Re: Reply

That is not true on special teams, where many of our biggest mistakes happened. Those units are always full of guys who are not in the two deep or who play sparingly and the two deep. Guess what age group that mostly consisted of?

I think without having an intimate knowledge of the roster/depth chart every team we played, it is difficult to say exactly how much younger we were then everyone else in all of the "key spots." That smells like a qualifier to me.

The bottom line is Pitt had a younger roster then everyone else and of course that is going to impact their depth and their performance. Penn State was "crippled by NCAA sanctions" according to most of the national media and they had a more experienced roster than did Pitt. That is ridiculous and it is incompetent and it is absurd for people to refuse to acknowledge that fact when discussing the performance of the previous coaching staff or more importantly, the current state of the program.

Honestly, there have been times on this message board when I have been accused of being a apologist for Walt Harris, then Dave Wannstedt, and now Paul Chryst. The truth is I don't really give a shitt about any of those guys. However, I do care about the health and well being of the University of Pittsburgh's football program and the cold truth is the way we have treated our coaches has been an embarrassment and is a major reason why we continue to languish on this treadmill of mediocrity.

If people want to bash the former coaching staff then I say have at it. It's almost always unfair and almost never honest. However, if resorting to that type of bush league nonsense helps you get through the night then I say go for it.

I just want to make sure that while we are doing that we don't delude ourselves into believing that all of our problems and challenges went out the door whenever that group of coaches packed up their respective offices and moved up to Madison.

Too many of our fans have fallen into that trap time and again and again and again and again and again over the years and it is frustrating for someone who would rather discuss big picture items than supermarket tabloid baloney.

If we don't fix those issues, I will soon be accused of being a Pat Narduzzi apologist while the torch and pitchfork crowd seeks out their next Savior whom they will also hate with a passion within a year or two of his anointing.

I am just sick and tired of the cycle, that is all I am saying. At some point, the even-tempered adults have to assume the lead in these types of conversations.

 

[pitt-girl]

Re: Reply

Great post Dr. Can't diagree with any of it. Our fan base is certainly a fickle group and at the same time somewhat self-loathing. Hence the "who needs critics when we have our own fans".

 

[wbrpanther]

Re: Reply

Wouldn't using the kids actually playing as the basis be the best way to figure this. People who don't like PC refuse to give him credit for anything but the fact is our roster was dominated by first and second year players.

And these players will dominate our roster as 2nd and 3rd year players next year.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Re: Reply

Originally posted by Dr. von Yinzer:
I see those numbers and think, "Boy, for having the youngest roster among all P5 teams - including sanction-riddled Penn State - that former staff did one helluva job of being EXTREMELY competitive with such marginal, inexperienced talent."

Our youth was overblown in many cases. Sure, a lot of underclassmen and Sophs especially started, but they also had experience.

I think the last staff was completely mediocre and again, I than Paul Chryst, no I thank Mike Anderson for leaving Wisconsin.

 

[dchst23]

I think we were about ten points away from being undefeated in 2009.

 

[OriginalEther]

Youth was part of the problem at times, but not for these 4 lines I'm about to present that, sadly, sum up much of the season and the regime:

- Pitt punts the ball for 44 yards. Touchback (you know which one I'm talking about)
- Onside kick recovered by Houston
- Onside kick recovered by Houston
- Akron 21, Pitt 10

Truth is, if it weren't for beating Miami in Miami for the first time in 60 years (Chryst's version of 13-9), the season would have been a disaster.

 

[OriginalEther]

Re: Reply

Originally posted by recruitsreadtheseboards:
I think the point is........."your inability to finish and making key mistakes is holding you back. You didn't work hard enough." Not so much "hey guys, you are so close to being great..."

This.
The culture of losing is still present with this program; for at least the past 10 years, when the game is on the line, the team usually folded, sometimes in unbelievable fashion.

 

[phxpanther]

Re: Reply


You can think it was overblown all you want, the fact is we were very young.

And who is Mike Anderson, and why are you thanking him for leaving Wisconsin

 

[OriginalEther]

Re: Reply

I'm going to guess he meant Gary Andersen, Wisconsin's former HC who left for Oregon State, thus opening up the Wisconsin job for Chryst to take.

 

[Pghfan]

so we were close to being good.. OK, I can live with that. There is another term for that, it's called "mediocrity." For those people that cling to the idea of "youth" being the reason why we lost our games, are you going to back it up by saying we win 10 games now that are team isn't young anymore?? For some reason, I think you'll find another excuse to justify a 6 or 7 win season.. Guys like you always have excuses, that's for sure.

 

[PITTLAW]

Reply


Presume your post was mis-directed...as I was hardly attacking the former coaches. I never said a think about "key spots." It is also dishonest to not look in depth at the experience of the kids that were playing...as well as their class year. Just reciting the mantra of young hardly seems like a very intelligent way of looking at things. It is absolutely possible to play freshmen and sophomores and win. Look no further than Pitt's women's basketball team...7/11 kids on the roster are freshmen and sophomores...and they are in [will be] the NCAA tournament [and were in far worse condition when Suzie took over the team than the football program]. Hail to Pitt!

 

[pittengineer75]

Pitt was also 11 points away from being 10-2 in 2011, but just like in 2014 this is just some trying to rationalize a 6-6 season.

I dont think that is what Anderson meant though when he said it. He basically called a spade a spade and pointed out the failure and how "coming close" only matters in horseshoes and hand grenades.
This post was edited on 3/5 11:50 AM by pittengineer75

 

[raleighpanther]

Re: Reply

PittLaw, you're really missing an essential point.

Yes, Pitt had a few starters who were juniors and seniors. Upperclassmen should be starting. 21 to 23 year-olds should be stronger both mentally and physically. They been in the weight room a lot longer. They been coached a lot longer. They know the playbook better. A guy like Vinopal was not a good player when he was 18, 19, and 20 years old, but he grew into a good player as a 23 year-old fifth year senior. Age and maturation should, and in his case did, make all the difference in the world. You can say the same about Gonzo, Thomas and the other fifth year seniors as well.

So juniors and seniors should start. The problem Pitt had was that it didn't have many, so the upperclassmen HAD NO COMPETITION from other upperclassmen, because there were no other upperclassmen. Coaches had the choice of playing the one 23 year-old fifth year senior they had at a position (if they had one at all) or an 18/19 year-old instead. They DID NOT have a choice among upperclassmen, since there was only one upperclassmen, or at many positions, none at all.

Fortunately, Narduzzi will not face as severe of a problem. There will again be few seniors on the 2015 roster, but at least there will be a lot of juniors, many of which are experienced as you point out, and some of them are quite talented. 2016 will be an even older squad, although two guys will likely leave after their junior years. But the big bubble of two huge recruiting classes will be getting older. There will be competition AMONG juniors, and then among seniors the next year.

Younger guys will find it harder to get on the field early, even though they may be very talented. One example already happened. DJ was thrown into action as a true freshman on the OL out of necessity, even though I think we all agree that he really wasn't ready and should've been redshirted. Bookser is probably even better than DJ, but he was able redshirt because the OL had enough depth to allow that to happen.

That's what happens when a program has upperclass depth, when its junior and senior classes aren't mostly empty of numbers and talent due to two seriously disasterous recruiting classes.

And to Pghfan, nothing the Dr. said was in anyway an excuse. It was an explanation. There is a difference.

This post was edited on 3/5 12:39 PM by raleighpanther

 

[raleighpanther]

Re: Reply

By the way, in the past, posters have dismissed the 'Pitt is young' fact by saying that all teams are young, that even the powerhouse teams like Alabama are young because so many guys leave for the NFL after three years. Well, here is a comparison of Alabama and Pitt's 2014 starting offenses by class year:

SRs: Bama 8, Pitt 3
Juniors: Bama 3, Pitt 1
Fr/Sophs: Bama 1, Pitt 7

The site listed 12 starters for Bama (3 WRs) for some reason, so I just went with it.

But you get the point. Bama was better of course, because they are more talented. But they are also older...way older.

 

[PITTLAW]

Reply

My basic point is/was that looking at the overall youth of the roster versus the youth of those that actually played grossly distorts the observation of youth. Second, while many sophomores started last season, many of them started the previous season--which also distorts the idea of youth. Finally, there are plenty of very experienced teams that are not very good. Players that do not have the necessary talent do not get magically better just by getting older. Sure, Pitt had youth as an issue which contributed to being 6-7 on the season. But Pitt's problems were much more than just being young. Hopefully we see some prorgress on the W/L record in 2015. Hail to Pitt!

 

[raleighpanther]

Re: Reply

I agree that Pitt's problems last year were due to a lot more than just being young.

And experience is important. Better to have a sophomore that played a lot as a freshman than one that didn't. I agree. And this will serve Pitt well going forward, as the experienced sophs become even more experienced juniors.

But experience and youth are two different things. Pitt had some experience last year, but was still very young.

Young players with no talent don't magically get better with age, but talented players do get better with age. To be clear, not ALL players do. Some will not even be on the team in two years for a variety of reasons. But a player who stays with the program should and usually does get better. Outside of Clemmings, none of the seniors who started for Pitt last year will get drafted, and none was really more than a decent player. But they all got better as they got older, and all were better than they were as sophomores, some by a lot.

And this is not wishful thinking for Pitt, its true for all teams. Its why talented guys redshirt. You don't get any experience from a redshirt, but you do get older during the redshirt year...which translates to being more emotionally mature, phyiscally stronger, more knowledgeable, with more coaching behind you, etc.

Experience matters, but so does age.

 

[PITTLAW]

Reply

Well Pitt also had 7 red-shirt seniors, 2 red-shirt juniors, and 2 juniors starting most of the season. That is a lot of experience to say this was a youth challenged squad. Officer was the only freshmen that started...and he was a red-shirt freshmen...and did so because of injury. Pitt needs more talent, particularly on the defensive side of the ball. Hopefully game preparation will also be much better this season. Time will tell! Hail to Pitt!