This year if no Jurkovec and Cignetti?
Either of Yarnell or Veilleux gets us that.
Either of Yarnell or Veilleux gets us that.
Anyone think Pitt would have gone 7-5
- Thread starter gary2
- Start date
Doubtful. Pitt 2023 is just a bad team.
Yarnell & Veilleux really aren't capable of winning games without a running game. The defense wasnt very good either. They couldn't even get key stops against Cincinnati or Wake Forest.
The 50/50 games on the schedule this year were against conference bottom feeders.
Jurk and Cigs were on the sideline when Syracuse was running all over them with their second string quarterback. That still burns my butter!
I think if Yarnell started the season they would have went 7-5. You can not underscore how all the poor decisions, indecisiveness and turnovers at the QB position hurt this team. I think they beat Cincy, Wake, Syracuse, VT in addition to the three wins they did have.
that's a bad lineup, void of talent on both sides. with good qb play, maybe 6-6..
Without Cignetti and with a competent QB, sure. But Wake Forest and Syracuse happened, so I don't know that a 7-5 quarterback exists on this roster.
Hard to say. Hope you're right as that bodes well if Yarnell is the future. But Veilleux looked decent his first two starts too. Rise in level of opponent and there being more tape on him caught up. Curious to see if Yarnell continue to look solid as thr level in comp rises and there's more tape on him.
The injuries and inconsistencies on the oline cannot be overlooked. Collectively they got better as the year went on but those Cincy and WVU games were rough
Remember Cincinnati’s defensive line being hyped up then destroying Pitt’s O-line. Turns out Cincy stunk and its defense was nothing special. Yarnell could’ve beat the Bearcats.
Yeah like Chris said after the BC game, it’s really not that hard to win 6 or 7 games, even 8 with the right schedule. Look at WVU - 7 wins against teams all under .500 except Duquesne and Texas Tech who is 6-5… and they can win 8 just by beating another 3-8 team in Baylor next week.
I mean, just 3-8 Cincy at home and 4-7 Wake with their 3rd string QB. I know you can point to others, but the other teams they lost to are actually all at least 5 wins or better themselves. Just don’t lose those two games and you’re playing for bowl eligibility next week.
I mean, just 3-8 Cincy at home and 4-7 Wake with their 3rd string QB. I know you can point to others, but the other teams they lost to are actually all at least 5 wins or better themselves. Just don’t lose those two games and you’re playing for bowl eligibility next week.
The Patti one is especially good. We'd have beat Tennessee if he didn't have to play the second half, but we'd have also won the national championship if he started all 15 games last season.
That said, it's hard to not be a bowl team in college football. You get at least one, sometimes up to three, freebies just by bum slaying lesser levels of competition. Our QB situation this season is something that only gets duplicated about once every 20 years.
It's the argument people have been making for decades: A lot of bad teams are playing in these bowl games.
5-7 level team with CV or Yarnell. Not enough playmakers, weaker in the trenches than a typical PN team. But yes it was a bad QB eval it seems.
When it was reported that the OL guys were coming back, and that Convalves had developed into an NFL prospect, i absolutely thought we would be able to run the ball and PY would be able to manage games
Additionally, the schedule that so many "experts " considered challenging really wasn't that difficult at all.
To Gary2's point,
A healthy OL and a decent PY this team wins 9, with a 10 win season in reach.
Yes, the defense was below expectations. But it would be wise to not underestimate the ability to wear teams down in the second half of games. A healthy OL and a heavy dose of Hammond would have done that to the likes of Wake, Cuse, VT, Cincy and WVU.
Additionally, the schedule that so many "experts " considered challenging really wasn't that difficult at all.
To Gary2's point,
A healthy OL and a decent PY this team wins 9, with a 10 win season in reach.
Yes, the defense was below expectations. But it would be wise to not underestimate the ability to wear teams down in the second half of games. A healthy OL and a heavy dose of Hammond would have done that to the likes of Wake, Cuse, VT, Cincy and WVU.
Pitt played 3 wounded teams.
WVU had a backup QB. Wake a 3rd stringer. Syracuse no QB.
We approached those situations in the worst possible manner: super conservative.
You needed to be aggressive get ahead and add on.
Throw an interception? So what?
Either Yarnell or Veilleux were capable of that. Cignetti (and Narduzzi) prevented it.
If we played (sans Jurkovec) to win those games, we would have.
Last edited:
I think Vir.Tech beats us on that day regardless of QB or coordinator.
Their QB played better (that day) than I expected.
Agree, although I do think Pitt would have beaten Michigan st with Pickett or patti.
Only problem, the offense was incapable of sustaining drives and the defense couldn't get off the field.
Pitt's offense was incapable of getting leads and adding on. The running game sucked and we didn't have a QB that could compete 60%, even with a remedial game plan.
Yarnell & Veilleux have potential and might be good in the future. Right now though, they aren't good enough to go out and win games, even against bad teams, without a running game and good defense.
Pitt is also a bad team. I'm sure there are fans in Louisville & Boston blaming their coaching staff wondering how the hell they lost to Pitt.
