Coach Narduzzi shares some thoughts

[cashisking884]

If anything, him throwing Conklin under the bus is more of a discussion point.

No, the draft is more of a discussion.
Narduzzi completely removes "agency" from it. As if he is just a bystander when it comes to the recruiting players. He has no control over it apparently.
"Hey, it's difficult to recruit because I actually have to convince kids to like me and want to come here. Drafting is so much easier because the kids lose all agency. I point and you come."
It points to a coach that is lost when it comes to recruiting.

 

[Jpripper88]

After 3 years of getting laughed out of the living rooms of 4 and 5 star kids or getting strung along by some local prima donna whose ass the Dooz has been kissing for 18 months, only to watch him pull out the PSU, ND, OSU or Michigan cap at his presser, can you blame him?

It appears that our staff hardly even bothers to target that top 250 level of player anymore. I suspect it's just a matter of reality having set in. If Dooz could string together a couple of 10-11 win seasons, decent bowl games and some level of national relevancy, that could change the recruiting equation dramatically.

Football recruiting and basketball recruiting, and what appeals to prospects in the respective sports are totally different from one another. The fact that one sport requires 85 scholarship athletes to the other's 13 makes it a completely different animal as well.

Wins follow recruiting, not the other way around.

 

[Jpripper88]

No, the draft is more of a discussion.
Narduzzi completely removes "agency" from it. As if he is just a bystander when it comes to the recruiting players. He has no control over it apparently.
"Hey, it's difficult to recruit because I actually have to convince kids to like me and want to come here. Drafting is so much easier because the kids lose all agency. I point and you come."
It points to a coach that is lost when it comes to recruiting.

Exactly. It is troubling.

 

[Jpripper88]

If anything, him throwing Conklin under the bus is more of a discussion point.

The thing that is interesting about that is if he really thinks that, why didn't he hire Bates in the first place? If he doesn't, why is he going out of his way to say that about a former assistant?

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

No, the draft is more of a discussion.
Narduzzi completely removes "agency" from it. As if he is just a bystander when it comes to the recruiting players. He has no control over it apparently.
"Hey, it's difficult to recruit because I actually have to convince kids to like me and want to come here. Drafting is so much easier because the kids lose all agency. I point and you come."
It points to a coach that is lost when it comes to recruiting.

I heard a coach answer a question from a reporter. Tell him they weren't getting it done, they were thin at LB, and they made coaching changes. He then said they've developed some players and he feels better about where they're at LB and with coaches. He emphasized they need to develop players.

The draft talk was nonsense that people who aren't happy about recruiting decided to blow out of proportion. Like your comment about being lost.

He will sink or swim based on performance on the field. There's no excuses.

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

The thing that is interesting about that is if he really thinks that, why didn't he hire Bates in the first place? If he doesn't, why is he going out of his way to say that about a former assistant?

I didn't like the comments about Conklin, and I wouldn't expect him to say anything other than what he said about Bates.

 

[Jpripper88]

I didn't like the comments about Conklin, and I wouldn't expect him to say anything other than what he said about Bates.

Definitely expect him to be positive about Bates, but agree that the put down of Conklin was interesting.

 

[h2p_5150]

I think people are taking a harmless comment that was quoted with no context, and blowing it out of proportion.

Yeah. Narduzzi isn't exactly well spoken. He says a lot of weird shit, quite frankly. This was probably an off the cuff comment, not some proclamation about preferring walk ons over 5 stars...

 

[cashisking884]

I heard a coach answer a question from a reporter. Tell him they weren't getting it done, they were thin at LB, and they made coaching changes. He then said they've developed some players and he feels better about where they're at LB and with coaches. He emphasized they need to develop players.

The draft talk was nonsense that people who aren't happy about recruiting decided to blow out of proportion. Like your comment about being lost.

He will sink or swim based on performance on the field. There's no excuses.

It’s weird that people don’t want to read recruiting into a quote about recruiting.
He’s literally complaining about the actual process of recruiting, and lamenting that it’s not drafting, where you can just call out a kid’s name and you have him.
He then says it’s the developmental side that he finds fun. As almost like a silver lining to the process of recruiting he just complained about in the previous sentence. “I can’t get 4* players, but fortunately I love teaching players. So it’s okay that I land players that are going to need a whole lot of teaching.”
That is what he is saying. Anybody reading it to say anything else is just being dishonest.

 

[gbgpanther]

It’s weird that people don’t want to read recruiting into a quote about recruiting.
He’s literally complaining about the actual process of recruiting, and lamenting that it’s not drafting, where you can just call out a kid’s name and you have him.
He then says it’s the developmental side that he finds fun. As almost like a silver lining to the process of recruiting he just complained about in the previous sentence. “I can’t get 4* players, but fortunately I love teaching players. So it’s okay that I land players that are going to need a whole lot of teaching.”
That is what he is saying. Anybody reading it to say anything else is just being dishonest.

I am still amazed how people come to conclusion out of an article and make there point facts. I am throughing no one under the bus but most comments in this thread show that most are pure fans of Pitt who are dying to win but really have no Idea what is going on.

 

[Chescat]

I am still amazed how people come to conclusion out of an article and make there point facts. I am throughing no one under the bus but most comments in this thread show that most are pure fans of Pitt who are dying to win but really have no Idea what is going on.

Exactly. So much was taken out of context in this thread with the intent to feed
a narrative. Narduzzi was shooting from the cuff IMO (as he often does). I respect
the opinions of posters on here, but your point about opinions becoming facts is
a good one. My posts usually reflect my opinion and nothing more.

 

[cashisking884]

Q.Over the past couple of seasons, your defense has given up more yards than points at times than I'm sure you're comfortable with. You have so many players coming back from that unit. What are you challenging them to improve on this year?
PAT NARDUZZI: Well, obviously you can't give up the big play. When you look at a defense, you want to be stingy. You'd like to stop the run and stop the pass and stop it all. Realistically in the offenses we're facing today, it's not happening a bunch. But I think as you recruit to the talent you need on your football team that you eventually will get better.

We made some major strides, I think, last year. I think we probably got as far as we could do with our coordinator there at the time. Josh Conklin did a heck of a job when he was there, he took a head job. And I really think we upgraded in the hire of Randy Bates, I really do. And that's no disrespect to Josh. It's just a different guy that brings some different ideas and a different way of doing things with a ton of energy. So I'm excited about where we are as a coordinator, I'm excited about the players we have.

A year ago last June, I walked out on the field, we get about 30 minutes a day to work with them, I should say 30 minutes every other day, two days a week we worked with them. I looked at the linebacking corps and Seun was one of them and I'm going, God, that's all we've got. Almost a little scary.

But now I walk out there this June, I'm going, whoa, there's a lot of guys there that can play for us, which they couldn't play for us a year ago. So it's another year of development. We can't draft them, you know. It's a little easier, I think, in the NFL. It's not easier to win, but it's easier when you can say I want that guy, I want to pick that guy. I don't care if it's the first pick in the draft or the 24th pick, but you're recruiting him, and you've got to develop him into young men, and they give it everything they've got, and that's the fun of coaching.

If we all had great players, what fun would it be to coach? But that's part of the development part that I enjoy, especially at Pitt.

This is the full context.
Narduzzi wasn't asked about recruiting. He wasn't asked about the challenges "especially at Pitt." He was simply asked about the defense.
The fact that Narduzzi, "shooting from the cuff," decided to use this to springboard into a discussion on how you have to recruit, you aren't allowed to draft, and how can't every team have great players, and "especially at Pitt" you better love the develop side of coaching, is telling.
There's nothing being taken out of context here. People can disagree with the interpretation. But don't confuse out of context with a wrong interpretation.

 

[cashisking884]

Exactly. So much was taken out of context in this thread with the intent to feed
a narrative. Narduzzi was shooting from the cuff IMO (as he often does). I respect
the opinions of posters on here, but your point about opinions becoming facts is
a good one. My posts usually reflect my opinion and nothing more.

Which is why you never need to write "IMO." It's understood unless you stipulate this isn't something you believe ("to be fair," "let me play devil's advocate," etc.)

 

[Jpripper88]

I am still amazed how people come to conclusion out of an article and make there point facts. I am throughing no one under the bus but most comments in this thread show that most are pure fans of Pitt who are dying to win but really have no Idea what is going on.

It wasn't just "out of an article". It was live video and the live video is even posted in this thread. Did you miss all of that?

 

[Chescat]

Which is why you never need to write "IMO." It's understood unless you stipulate this isn't something you believe ("to be fair," "let me play devil's advocate," etc.)

Well it may be understood by you, but from my perspective I see post after post
which sees one's opinion equal to fact. As far as writing IMO, I will continue to
use it, because IMO, it's not as "understood" as you seem to feel it is. Now, with all
that said, I respect your opinion on this, I just don't agree with it.

 

[cashisking884]

Well it may be understood by you, but from my perspective I see post after post
which sees one's opinion equal to fact. As far as writing IMO, I will continue to
use it, because IMO, it's not as "understood" as you seem to feel it is. Now, with all
that said, I respect your opinion on this, I just don't agree with it.

There's still no reason to put "IMO" after something, even if what you are asserting isn't a guaranteed fact.
2 + 2 = 4 is not the only thing that doesn't need "IMO" after it.
If I said, "George Washington is the greatest president of all time." It's an assertion. Not a fact. But it doesn't need "IMO" after it. I just need to be prepared to support the assertion with reasoning and facts.

 

[Chescat]

There's still no reason to put "IMO" after something, even if what you are asserting isn't a guaranteed fact.
2 + 2 = 4 is not the only thing that doesn't need "IMO" after it.
If I said, "George Washington is the greatest president of all time." It's an assertion. Not a fact. But it doesn't need "IMO" after it. I just need to be prepared to support the assertion with reasoning and facts.

Ok, fine it's an "assertion." Now whether it "needs" an IMO is up to the writer (poster).
If one WANTS to include one, I feel that's his/her choice. This is a message board
with all kinds of "assertions" made by some posters who see their "assertions" as
guaranteed facts. I try to stay away from posting my opinions as facts, and for clarity
tend to use an IMO. It's ok that you don't agree...let it go. LOL....I'm done with this.

 

[PhPanther2]

So, you guys want to see all 4 and 5 star players because they are the most talented and help you win......but the majority of you hate the NFL? If you really want to see the best of the best, then watch the NFL.

 

[thebadby2]

Wins follow recruiting, not the other way around.

What does Pitt have to sell a kid who has offers from a bunch of top programs? Meaningful bowl games? An electric atmosphere? Significant national exposure? If you want top 25 level recruits, you have to become a top 25 level team. That can be accomplished with good coaching, good schemesthe right players to fit those schemes, and a winning culture/mindset that the players buy into.

Did Bill Snyder build Kansas State from a doormat to a top 20 team with great recruiting? Dantonio at MSU? Alvarez and his protégés at Wisconsin? Patterson at TCU?

Obviously you have to have good players, and I’m not suggesting Narduzzi’s recruiting is good enough. But we aren’t going to get many of the legit 4 star kids that the big boys really want unless and until we do better on the field than we have. What I expect to see this year is a defense that actually doesn’t embarrass itself for the first time in years, and an offense that struggles. The problem here has been getting both in the same year. In 2016 the O was great, the D was a national joke. Last year both sides were bad but the D started to come together a bit by the end.

Unless the O line, WRs and Watson are a lot better than I think they’re going to be, this year could end up a lot like last year, but for different reasons.

 

[foxchapelpanther]

Yeah. Narduzzi isn't exactly well spoken. He says a lot of weird shit, quite frankly. This was probably an off the cuff comment, not some proclamation about preferring walk ons over 5 stars...

This. Definitely not his strong suit.

And throwng last year’s DC under the bus is a real headscratcher.

 

[Jpripper88]

What does Pitt have to sell a kid who has offers from a bunch of top programs? Meaningful bowl games? An electric atmosphere? Significant national exposure? If you want top 25 level recruits, you have to become a top 25 level team. That can be accomplished with good coaching, good schemesthe right players to fit those schemes, and a winning culture/mindset that the players buy into.

Did Bill Snyder build Kansas State from a doormat to a top 20 team with great recruiting? Dantonio at MSU? Alvarez and his protégés at Wisconsin? Patterson at TCU?

Obviously you have to have good players, and I’m not suggesting Narduzzi’s recruiting is good enough. But we aren’t going to get many of the legit 4 star kids that the big boys really want unless and until we do better on the field than we have. What I expect to see this year is a defense that actually doesn’t embarrass itself for the first time in years, and an offense that struggles. The problem here has been getting both in the same year. In 2016 the O was great, the D was a national joke. Last year both sides were bad but the D started to come together a bit by the end.

Unless the O line, WRs and Watson are a lot better than I think they’re going to be, this year could end up a lot like last year, but for different reasons.

You have to recruit as well or better than your competition. If you don't do that, you won't win. It is as simple as that. Now, you also have to have good coaching, so you don't blow it with a guy like DW at the helm, but you can't realistically win without recruiting as well or better than your competition. Your examples speak exactly to that. Unfortunately, our competition is much better than those examples.

 

[Jpripper88]

So, you guys want to see all 4 and 5 star players because they are the most talented and help you win......but the majority of you hate the NFL? If you really want to see the best of the best, then watch the NFL.

Wat?

 

[thebadby2]

You have to recruit as well or better than your competition. If you don't do that, you won't win. It is as simple as that. Now, you also have to have good coaching, so you don't blow it with a guy like DW at the helm, but you can't realistically win without recruiting as well than your competition. Your examples speak exactly to that. Unfortunately, our competition is much better than those examples.

Michigan State under Dantonio has dominated Michigan and more than held its own with OSU despite consistently having far lesser ranked recruiting classes. KSU ran off 4-5 straight 11 win seasons beating the likes of Oklahoma, A&M, Texas and Nebraska along the way. KSU probably never had a recruiting class ranked in the national top 50. There are numerous other examples over the years.

It's not so cut and dry as you make it out to be., You have to have the right players and the right coach with the right schemes to win consistently. We do have to recruit better than we have, but I believe we could do quite a bit better with what we have as well. I think the offense in 2016, especially as compared to 2015, was a good example of how to win with lesser players than the opponent. On paper our offensive personnel that year were middling P5 at best, but we had one of the highest scoring and most dynamic offenses in the country, routinely racking up huge numbers against teams that were far better than us on paper. That was because of Canada far more than it was Peterman or any of our other personnel.

 

[cashisking884]

Michigan State under Dantonio has dominated Michigan and more than held its own with OSU despite consistently having far lesser ranked recruiting classes. KSU ran off 4-5 straight 11 win seasons beating the likes of Oklahoma, A&M, Texas and Nebraska along the way. KSU probably never had a recruiting class ranked in the national top 50. There are numerous other examples over the years.

It's not so cut and dry as you make it out to be., You have to have the right players and the right coach with the right schemes to win consistently. We do have to recruit better than we have, but I believe we could do quite a bit better with what we have as well. I think the offense in 2016, especially as compared to 2015, was a good example of how to win with lesser players than the opponent. On paper our offensive personnel that year were middling P5 at best, but we had one of the highest scoring and most dynamic offenses in the country, routinely racking up huge numbers against teams that were far better than us on paper. That was because of Canada far more than it was Peterman or any of our other personnel.

But as he said, you have to have good coaching to not blow it.
Meyer is 4-2 against Michigan State, and only a few of those games have been with Meyer's elite classes making up the 4 year recruiting cycle.
Dantonio has done really well against Michigan, but that's largely during the Rich Rod and Brady Hoke era. He's 2-1 against Harbaugh, but also needed the Michigan punter to just literally drop the punt with a few seconds left, when all he had to do was punt it out of bounds and the game is over.

Kansas State is unique in that Snyder relied on inefficiencies in the recruiting market. Nobody really knew what to make of JUCOs. They didn't get much attention, either by other coaches or by recruiting sites. It's not a coincidence that his program has kind of fallen off to an 8-5 type program, now that JUCOs are more properly evaluated and other programs are targeting them. Snyder's talent well has dried up.

But even with all of that being said. It's realllllllll difficult to follow the model of the exception. That's why they are the exception.

 

[Jpripper88]

Michigan State under Dantonio has dominated Michigan and more than held its own with OSU despite consistently having far lesser ranked recruiting classes. KSU ran off 4-5 straight 11 win seasons beating the likes of Oklahoma, A&M, Texas and Nebraska along the way. KSU probably never had a recruiting class ranked in the national top 50. There are numerous other examples over the years.

It's not so cut and dry as you make it out to be., You have to have the right players and the right coach with the right schemes to win consistently. We do have to recruit better than we have, but I believe we could do quite a bit better with what we have as well. I think the offense in 2016, especially as compared to 2015, was a good example of how to win with lesser players than the opponent. On paper our offensive personnel that year were middling P5 at best, but we had one of the highest scoring and most dynamic offenses in the country, routinely racking up huge numbers against teams that were far better than us on paper. That was because of Canada far more than it was Peterman or any of our other personnel.

KSU benefitted from a B12 division setup that, essentially, had their only in division competition as Nebraska. They beat 1, 1, 3, and 1 ranked teams in those 4 seasons of 11 wins. Our path to 11 wins is much, much harder.

Michigan State took advantage of a downturn with Michigan, there is no doubt. They are 3-12 against OSU in the last 15 games. PSU was sleep walking with Paterno and the sanctions. With Meyer, Harbaugh, and Franklin at the helms, MSU will be a clear #4 in their division without a substantial uptick in recruiting.

 

[freddietee511]

It almost feels as if he knows/thinks he'll never be able to recruit the top end kids here. That's a defeatist attitude imo and not one I'd like the man in charge to take. I want him to believe he can get the best of the best here. That quote tells me he doesn't think that will happen, so he's reserved himself to the fate of getting the 3 star kids and having to develop them, which obviously leads to 6 - 6, 7 - 5 seasons.

Not to compare them, but you think Capel would say that?

Thinking way too deep here lol

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

On paper our offensive personnel that year were middling P5 at best, but we had one of the highest scoring and most dynamic offenses in the country, routinely racking up huge numbers against teams that were far better than us on paper. That was because of Canada far more than it was Peterman or any of our other personnel.

Uh maybe.

Peterman, Conner, Henderson, Weah, Orndoff, O'Neill, Dorian Johnson. That's a lot of marginal NFL players, plus others who may advance in the future. The personnel was really good by modern Pitt standards. Chryst recruited the trenches well, Conner was a diamond in the rough, and Chaney did a good job landing a transfer QB who could run the thing.

 

[foxchapelpanther]

He needs to prep for these things. His answers get quoted everywhere and prospects and their parents read them.

He should have started with a prepared statement. And then taken a min to think thru in advance the very obvious questions he got.

He shoots from the cuff and says very weird stuff. Throwing old coaches and players under the bus is never a good look.