This is from the Triblive link I saw that you posted:
"You can't cover them all,” Narduzzi said. “They're going to spread you out. “(Ryan) Switzer's a good player,” he said of the UNC wide receiver. “Mitch (Trubisky, the UNC quarterback) is a good player. There's nothing you can do about it.”..................
I did see not anything you posted that suggested he took any blame. If he did in fact take some blame, then maybe we are turning a corner here. PLEASE INCLUDE THE LINK WERE HE SAID THOSE THINGS. I would be elated. It would show some proof that he is not merely insecure or just finding excuses or completely stubborn about always being right, but rather more interested in fixing things than .
He also said, the Defense Players are not communicating enough,
Okay, here's where I have another area of concern. In the same Triblive piece you posted the other day it said...
Safety Jordan Whitehead said the communication problems that plagued the secondary at Oklahoma State were eliminated Saturday. “We were communicating better,” he said. “That was an emphasis all week in practice, making sure everybody got their assignment.”
Players and the coaches are saying two different things. Which is ti?
Also, look at Switzer Runs, Catches and Routes, don't tell me Pitt is the blame for not stopping him, he did a super job, Pitt players did too, but in the end Switzer did it to Pitt again! I mean go look Switzer is covered, the throw is high because DL made it be thrown in 3 seconds, and he still comes down
with the Ball about a foot pass the 1st Down Marker???? Just great FB!
No doubt Switzer is talented, but if everyone is being completely honest here (including the coaches), we'd all have to admit Pitt's poor secondary play made him look even better. How can I back this up? It's simple. The Last two passing offense (QBs and WRS) Pitt played against put up career high numbers. Look at those players number against any other defense they've played. Pitt's number are the absolute worst. So while I must concede that Switzer and Johnson (WR from NC) are both talented receivers and that both the NC and OSU QBs are better than average, you and the coaches must concede that they had bigger numbers (in some cases far bigger numbers) against Pitt's secondary than any other team they played so far this season- and that includes non FBS teams. In other words, Yes, they played a against some solid passing teams, but no, they were not nearly as good as PN would have us believe with his comments after the games.
the analogy using a Lottery on a FB game is not relevant nor proper. FB games are won and lost by 4 to 5 plays many times, unlike Lotteries pure odds and luck. It is fact, Switzer comes down, drops, or is tackled one inch less, in Three of 4th Downs Pitt Wins! That is a Fact a not a Lottery Hit!
We can try this a different way if you'd prefer. Pitt has not only the worst pass defense (second worst by a different measurement) but also ranks at the bottom when it comes to opponents completions per game against them (124th out of 128) of all FBS teams and again barely made any stops in coverage thought the game. Yet, after the game, Narduzzi is quotes as saying,"You can't cover them all." No you can't Or even a few. But your comment makes it sound like you have DBs playing well, who just were unlucky to play such great opponents. The fact is your "worst in the league" pass defense stunk and there above average QB and receivers took advantage of it.
Rudolph struggled with the short passes all day and excelled with the deep balls. Even the announcers were talking about how Rudolph didn't seem to have the touch to drop shorter passes over LBs. Yet PN kept playing his CB right next to the the line of scrimmage.
Fool me one, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me. Right?
I agree had QB Peterman hit 3 Open Players Drives would have been kept alive as well. Also, Agree, Pitt had the bigger Lead through the Game, but came up short on executions on O and D in 4th quarter! also, that UNC And OKSU have great Coaches and Players. At the same time, when a Defense gives up 45 and 37 points that is on the Coaches too, but Players have to execute in both. O did and D did not?
Players/ teams preform better wen you play to their strengths. The O executed for a little more than 3 qtrs. and then they didn't, for the third game straight.
At the end of the day, even as bad as the secondary was in the game, the team was good enough to win if the coaches just didn't change up the play calling/ and strategy on offense for the last three series. There is no sugarcoating it. Pitt lost a game it should have won. It's like an arm wrestling match where you have your opponent wrist bent back and you are an inch away from victory, but then all of the sudden you change the strategy and let up on what got you an inch away from victory, deciding to try a different strategy that does not play to the strength of your abilities and the opponent quickly jerks your arm back the other way and pins you. That's basically what happened here. The opponents coaches out coached Pitt's coaches in the last two games at the end- or maybe more appropriately put, Pitt coaches . Pitt's coaches did a nice job working to their strengths with the offense for 3 quarters and they did a nice job with the defensive line, but they took too many risks with DBs that couldn't handle what they were asking them to do and the coaches got away from their strengths on offense when they needed to stay the course. Period.
The coaches need to own much of both of Pitt's last two losses.
When the coaches decide to change how they call plays on offense (from what had been proven to be effective all game to something that did not play into the hands of the quarterback's and team's proven strength),
Well, 3 overthrows to wide open Players was good play calling and terrible execution?? Pitt Game Plan on Offense was working until last 3 minutes did the defense take over? If QB Nate hits 1, 2, or 3 open Players Drives stay alive and some had TD written all of them with no one in front of them, that is QB Execution problem. Not coaches at all?
I think you are not getting the point here: They took what was working- what Pitt was successfully able to execute all game for the third straight game , and pitched it in the garbage in the fourth quarter–– deciding instead to try something that did not play to their strengths (Nate throwing and Conner moving laterally). Remember these coaches have already made it clear that Nate is a Game Manager, not a Game Changer. Putting the game on the shoulders of Nate and some unproven receivers to come up with a victory, when you already had a winning strategy, just make ZERO sense.
ultimately believing they could always lean on the DBs (who again have not been able to cover against the pass all season) to come through and save the day (if needed), frankly doesn't sound like a smart strategy.
This is your interpretation and UNC QB had no problem hitting covered WR while under pressure and only 3 Time after missing 9 times? Coaches believing they could stop UNC QB & Switzer weer right 9 times as the Players executed it, then dropped Three 4th Downs by barely inched? This is still good football.
You may see it as the DBs only needing one stop. I see it as NC's solid passing offense has 4 chance to beat Pitt's terrible DBs for a first down. If you look at it my way you may then realize why statistically it works in NCs favor every time. I see a coach leaning on DBs who statistically are the worst in the FBS(128th out of 128) to win games for them instead of leaning on the offense with it's mix of jet sweeps and other running plays that statistically one of the best (9th out 128) other counters and other running. By the way the passing offense for Pitt, which Pitt coaches thought would work better) is near the bottom too (107th out of 128).
Why a coaching staff does not stick with it's strengths when the chips are down is beyond me. I just don't see how anyone can spin this in a way that let's the coaches off the hook for these losses. Not that you did. Just that it was sounding that way from the first Tribelive piece I saw you post after the game.
I appreciate your responses Captain even if you happen to have a different perspective on a situation. Overall though, I think we have far more areas where we agree than where we disagree.
