Game thoughts

[load1079]

Agree - Canada call on the qb sneak did not work, but I don't know that is was a bad call. I did not see too many bad calls (would have liked to have seen an attempt over the top sometime while we had one of those 14 point leads - Weah would probably have dropped it anyway).

Penalties really hurt (Bisnowaty down field on would be 1st down pass to Aston) and of course Conner's fumble deep in our end.

I thought PSU had an obvious hold on a big play they had that got them down the sideline. That penalty was not called.

PSU would probably have won or at least tied if they we willing to be more patient. Fortunately, Franklin is too arrogant (he wanted a dramatic victory) to play it the smart way.

I think what made the QB draw call a bad one was the formation and the personnel on the field at the time. We made it obvious what we were going to do. We had both Conner and Ollison in the backfield and both motioned out wide into a 5 wide empty set. If we're going to throw out of a 5 wide set, why would we have two 230 lb running backs lined up as WRs? I guarantee that as soon as PSU saw this, everyone was yelling to watch the QB draw. I know I was from the stands.

if we ran another 5 wide set earlier with those two guys in and threw the ball, maybe you confuse the defense with a draw. But we didn't. In fact, it's the only 5 wide empty backfield set I can remember from the game (that being said, I had a lot of beer before the game so there could have been other times we lined up like this and I just don't remember them).

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I guarantee that as soon as PSU saw this, everyone was yelling to watch the QB draw. I know I was from the stands.

Way to go, tipping them off like that!

 

[sherepower]

The PSU game reminded me of last years Louisville game. We jumped out to a big lead only to have to hang on at the end.

The point is, we did hang on at the end. The end result was not a Cincinnati or Houston result and that is the most important thing. I hope Narduzzi is the difference.

I think Canada called a great game and I believe he has more he has not used left in the bag (particularly for the passing game)

Conklin (Narduzzi) need to get better on those 3rd and 16 and 4th and 17 kind of plays. We allowed a few of those last season that really hurt. I feel the two most important things you must do in the situations are to prevent the QB from running and force the quarterback to get the ball out quickly. You can not allow him to break contain or to have all day to survey the field.

I would bring 5 and play a zone - 4 across in a short zone - 2 on the hashes in a deep zone. The extra rusher should rush in a manner the opponent has not seen that game.

How did Pitt play 4th and 16? I heard they blitzed but did not get any pressure. It sure did not look like that to me.

They only rushed 4. And played soft coverage. A philosophy a strongly disagree with

 

[gary2]

They only rushed 4. And played soft coverage. A philosophy a strongly disagree with

Someone on another thread (4th and 16) posted Narduzzi said on his Wednesday show that both Galambos and Idowu blitzed.

"Coach just said on his radio show that Idowu and Galambos were blitzing on that last play"

 

[sherepower]

Someone on another thread (4th and 16) posted Narduzzi said on his Wednesday show that both Galambos and Idowu blitzed.

"Coach just said on his radio show that Idowu and Galambos were blitzing on that last play"

Ummmmm.........i watched the game live and the replay twice. Pitt only rushed 4

 

[gary2]

Ummmmm.........i watched the game live and the replay twice. Pitt only rushed 4

From watching it live, that was my impression as well.

Maybe Pitt dropped Soto and Jarrett - just kidding!

 

[Somerset Panther]

Ummmmm.........i watched the game live and the replay twice. Pitt only rushed 4

Just watched in on Pitt live wire. Galambos blitzed up middle and was picked up by no. 53, and Pitt's no. 49 came off our left side and actually got the most pressure. That makes six rushers by my count.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Ummmmm.........i watched the game live and the replay twice. Pitt only rushed 4

I just watched it again. It was actually kind of four and a half. We had a three man line, Price, Soto and Folston, and Wirginis lined up next to the tackle and rushed on the snap. Additionally, Galambos looked like he was perhaps spying the quarterback at first for some reason but then he rushed the passer late. By the time he rushed it was too late to affect the play. It would have been a neat trick (and interesting to see) for Idowu to have rushed the passer on that play, because he was not on the field.

Maybe there is some confusion with the 4th and 16 play and the pass interception play two plays later. On that play we did rush six, four down linemen plus Galambos and Idowu. Perhaps that is the play that Narduzzi was talking about, but that was not the play that gary was asking about.

 

[gary2]

I just watched it again. It was actually kind of four and a half. We had a three man line, Price, Soto and Folston, and Wirginis lined up next to the tackle and rushed on the snap. Additionally, Galambos looked like he was perhaps spying the quarterback at first for some reason but then he rushed the passer late. By the time he rushed it was too late to affect the play. It would have been a neat trick (and interesting to see) for Idowu to have rushed the passer on that play, because he was not on the field.

Maybe there is some confusion with the 4th and 16 play and the pass interception play two plays later. On that play we did rush six, four down linemen plus Galambos and Idowu. Perhaps that is the play that Narduzzi was talking about, but that was not the play that gary was asking about.

Thanks for the clarification - whatever we did, certainly came nowhere near effective

Again, I would:

Bring 5 and play a zone - 4 across in a short zone - 2 on the hashes in a deep (15 yards, but inching up at the snap) zone. The extra rusher should rush in a manner the opponent has not seen that game - like a corner fire

Most importantly, you need to prevent a qb run while also forcing the qb to get it out quick and short - then you need to be ready to tackle.

 

[sherepower]

I just watched it again. It was actually kind of four and a half. We had a three man line, Price, Soto and Folston, and Wirginis lined up next to the tackle and rushed on the snap. Additionally, Galambos looked like he was perhaps spying the quarterback at first for some reason but then he rushed the passer late. By the time he rushed it was too late to affect the play. It would have been a neat trick (and interesting to see) for Idowu to have rushed the passer on that play, because he was not on the field.

Maybe there is some confusion with the 4th and 16 play and the pass interception play two plays later. On that play we did rush six, four down linemen plus Galambos and Idowu. Perhaps that is the play that Narduzzi was talking about, but that was not the play that gary was asking about.

I am talking about the 4th and 16 they converted. Pitt rushed only 4.

 

[gary2]

Thanks for the clarification - whatever we did, certainly came nowhere near to effective

Again, I would:

Bring 5 and play a zone - 4 across in a short zone - 2 on the hashes in a deep zone. The extra rusher should rush in a manner the opponent has not seen that game.

You need to prevent both a qb run and also force the qb to get it out quick and short, plus be ready to tackle.

I am talking about the 4th and 16 they converted. Pitt rushed only 4.

4th and 16 is almost never converted in the NFL. Defenses simply apply enough pressure to force the ball out of the qb's hand quickly. The results are usually an incompletion or a tackle after a hot read, short of the sticks.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I am talking about the 4th and 16 they converted. Pitt rushed only 4.

Right, which is what gary was asking about. As I said, I think others were confusing that play with the interception two plays later.