Narduzzi on changing the culture at Pitt...

[thebadby2]

“It’s a team and we talk about fighting for our brothers,” Narduzzi said. “It’s a culture we’re trying to build here at the University of Pittsburgh that we’re going to fight to the end and never quit and go after people. Our kids have that attitude that we can win in the last minute of the game, the last 10 seconds of a game. They have belief, we built a mental toughness here.”

Who was it that was arguing with me a week or two ago that "culture" in college football is a fiction? I believe it was a couple of our resident engineer/stats types that never played a team sport at a competitive level in their lives, yet believe they are the smartest people in the room, even if the conversation is about football and the room is full of football coaches.

Well guys, tell Narduzzi that there's no such thing as a winning or losing culture. He obviously hasn't read your statistical theses on that subject. Tell Dantonio or Harbaugh the same thing. They obviously don't get it either.

 

[GrowthHormone]

I wasn't the person you were talking to, but I am definitely a "stats type." I strongly believe in the power of culture, too. I honestly don't see any connection between the two. I mean, they aren't getting after the same things at all. It's like relating max bench press and favorite movie.

 

[blackngoldrules]

He sounds a lot like another guy that basically said those exact same things when he first got here. That guy was Clint Hurdle. And Clint inherited an even bigger mess than Narduzzi. I know that comparison may be apples and oranges, but I do think changing a culture is a big part of it, especially when you are going somewhere that hasn't won for a long time or has been mediocre for a long time. You still need the players, and need to be able to recruit and coach well, but an attitude is a start.

 

[rpost3]

Well they think they're stat guys but they continually botch it.

Regarding their athletics experience, you're definitely right there. Denying the existence of culture makes that abundantly clear.

 

[COengr]

“It’s a team and we talk about fighting for our brothers,” Narduzzi said. “It’s a culture we’re trying to build here at the University of Pittsburgh that we’re going to fight to the end and never quit and go after people. Our kids have that attitude that we can win in the last minute of the game, the last 10 seconds of a game. They have belief, we built a mental toughness here.”

Who was it that was arguing with me a week or two ago that "culture" in college football is a fiction? I believe it was a couple of our resident engineer/stats types that never played a team sport at a competitive level in their lives, yet believe they are the smartest people in the room, even if the conversation is about football and the room is full of football coaches.

Well guys, tell Narduzzi that there's no such thing as a winning or losing culture. He obviously hasn't read your statistical theses on that subject. Tell Dantonio or Harbaugh the same thing. They obviously don't get it either.

You should've been at the Armed Services Bowl....AFTER the game! Just sayin'!

CO

 

[Pitt-Chains]

You should've been at the Armed Services Bowl....AFTER the game! Just sayin'!

CO

Narduzzi is a motivator of men !

 

[TD_6082]

You are certainly correct thebadby2.

Let's just hope our administration is on board and will fight for the program as well instead of holding it back.

 

[MartyInLawrenceville]

I think that the current administration has shown more commitment in the past 10 months than the previous one did in the past 10 years. The stars are aligning, the time is now! #H2P

 

[paulbl99]

Well they think they're stat guys but they continually botch it.

Regarding their athletics experience, you're definitely right there. Denying the existence of culture makes that abundantly clear.

That's a bingo

 

[Jeffburgh]

The overall commitment is huge, but it starts with Nards.

He just feels like he could be special.

He built a staff totally out of scratch. Not like most HC hires who bring mostly or a lot of guys they worked with at the last job. He busted his tail and put together a staff that had really good experience and also who were matches with his mindset and energy.

I don't know if it was here or the pay site, but someone said on the flight back from GT, he was in coach while the players were in first class. This after he roomed with the players in camp.

He has spent the three months dropping Pitt swag on former players out of the blue. Just a simple, let really meaningful gesture on this part. And, he keeps going it, and it seems timed a bit. Waited to drop it on Fitz when he was here last week. Creating good vibes with alumni AND generating a non stop stream of twitter posts with them thanking him.

He just GETS IT, the "culture" in the college game in 2015 ...

 

[TD_6082]

I think that the current administration has shown more commitment in the past 10 months than the previous one did in the past 10 years. The stars are aligning, the time is now! #H2P

That is true, but that isn't saying much. Are they willing to do whatever is necessary to help the staff get every possible advantage they can in recruiting? And that includes giving them the leeway to do whatever it takes to recruit with the big dogs of the sport.

 

[TD_6082]

The overall commitment is huge, but it starts with Nards.

He just feels like he could be special.

He built a staff totally out of scratch. Not like most HC hires who bring mostly or a lot of guys they worked with at the last job. He busted his tail and put together a staff that had really good experience and also who were matches with his mindset and energy.

I don't know if it was here or the pay site, but someone said on the flight back from GT, he was in coach while the players were in first class. This after he roomed with the players in camp.

He has spent the three months dropping Pitt swag on former players out of the blue. Just a simple, let really meaningful gesture on this part. And, he keeps going it, and it seems timed a bit. Waited to drop it on Fitz when he was here last week. Creating good vibes with alumni AND generating a non stop stream of twitter posts with them thanking him.

He just GETS IT, the "culture" in the college game in 2015 ...

I feel the same way. However, if they don't support and enable him to do whatever is necessary to turn Pitt into a school that can recruit with other elite programs, and if they aren't willing to break the bank to keep him satisfied, they will be back to square one looking for another coach when a program calls that does offer all of those things. That said, its still early. I like everything I've seen so far though.

 

[MartyInLawrenceville]

That is true, but that isn't saying much. Are they willing to do whatever is necessary to help the staff get every possible advantage they can in recruiting? And that includes giving them the leeway to do whatever it takes to recruit with the big dogs of the sport.

TD, I think we could see evidence of this as soon as the off season. It may be something as (seemingly) small as increasing the recruiting budget, or maybe bonuses for HCPN and the staff. Maybe a jet for recruiting trips...? Panther One, you're cleared for takeoff...

 

[pittdan77]

Actions speak louder than words. He has a swagger and suddenly, so does this program.

 

[OzonePitt]

If you think that culture is overrated simply look at the cincy Bengals. They are 6-0 and are favored to win it all year in and year out over the past few seasons. However they don't. Why? Because they don't have a winning culture established. No toughness no learned winning behavior.

 

[Pittx9]

That is true, but that isn't saying much. Are they willing to do whatever is necessary to help the staff get every possible advantage they can in recruiting? And that includes giving them the leeway to do whatever it takes to recruit with the big dogs of the sport.

What are you implying? I'd like to see them do whatever it takes to win, but not if it means doing things way out of line. Not saying they have to be the poster child of following rules, but I wouldn't want to see them go as far as doing things that are only going to result in having whole seasons wiped clean in the future.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

“It’s a team and we talk about fighting for our brothers,” Narduzzi said. “It’s a culture we’re trying to build here at the University of Pittsburgh that we’re going to fight to the end and never quit and go after people. Our kids have that attitude that we can win in the last minute of the game, the last 10 seconds of a game. They have belief, we built a mental toughness here.”

Who was it that was arguing with me a week or two ago that "culture" in college football is a fiction? I believe it was a couple of our resident engineer/stats types that never played a team sport at a competitive level in their lives, yet believe they are the smartest people in the room, even if the conversation is about football and the room is full of football coaches.

Well guys, tell Narduzzi that there's no such thing as a winning or losing culture. He obviously hasn't read your statistical theses on that subject. Tell Dantonio or Harbaugh the same thing. They obviously don't get it either.

Well I'm a big stats guy and I certainly never said anything of the sort. In fact others have mentioned Clint Hurdle and I have said on more than one occasion that Hurdle is a better manager of men than he is an in game manager, and that's what makes him successful. However I'll bet if you ask any head coach or manager of any team in the world if they'd rather have a team with great "culture" but crappy players or a bad "culture" with great players I think I know which one every single one of them would pick. And I know which of those two would win more games. And oddly enough, that noted manager of men has said as much on numerous occasions when asked about it.

Just out of curiosity, who were these mystery "engineer/stats types"?

 

[thebadby2]

Well I'm a big stats guy and I certainly never said anything of the sort. In fact others have mentioned Clint Hurdle and I have said on more than one occasion that Hurdle is a better manager of men than he is an in game manager, and that's what makes him successful. However I'll bet if you ask any head coach or manager of any team in the world if they'd rather have a team with great "culture" but crappy players or a bad "culture" with great players I think I know which one every single one of them would pick. And I know which of those two would win more games. And oddly enough, that noted manager of men has said as much on numerous occasions when asked about it.

Just out of curiosity, who were these mystery "engineer/stats types"?

one in particular who also proclaimed his own intellectual prowess in a post where he also panned the intelligence of the average college football coach. As if he understood the game better than they do, because of a call or two that they disagree with that didn't go our way. Classic.

As for your post, you're missing the boat. Michigan for the most part had the same players last year as they do this year. They were an embarrassment, idiotic mistakes, tons of penalties and turnovers, keystone cops. On paper they were loaded, 4 and 5 stars all over the place. But under RR and Hoke, they got soft, they lost so much they played as though they expected to lose, they were complacent, they quit in games. That's a culture of complacency, mediocrity. Enter Harbaugh, and that shit is over like someone flipped a switch. They are tough, hard nosed, physical, play to the whistle, expect to win every game and don't accept losing. He changed the culture in one off season and is kicking ass with the same players Hoke had.

Look at us. Last year the battle cry of the unknowing on this board was that our defense was so devoid of talent it couldn't compete. Enter Narduzzi, and suddenly these same guys, less our two best LBs and our best DB, are a top 10 defense. A team that has found creative ways to lose close games for years is now finding ways to grind out wins. Its more than Xs and Os. If you don't buy that, ask a Pitt player or coach what the difference is between Duzzi and Chryst.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

As for your post, you're missing the boat.

I'm not missing the boat at all. First off, it seems pretty clear that you are confusing "culture" with coaching. "Culture" is something that all winning teams seem to have in abundance and all losing teams seem to be sorely lacking. It is amazing how that happens. We are winning because we have good coaches who have figured out how to put their players, even the ones who aren't all that good, in positions to succeed (or in some cases to hide what they aren't so good at). We aren't winning because the guys feel great about their teammates. Guys feel great about their teammates because we are winning.

However you could still answer the question. Would you rather Pitt have a great "culture" and bad players or bad "culture" with great players? Simple question. Ought to be a simple answer. And the correct one will tell you which is more important.

Oh, one more thing. I'll pan the intelligence of the average football coach. The notion that football is some sort of complicated endeavor that only the best and brightest minds can manage to figure out is laughable. The number of times that football coaches make completely dumb decisions ought to tell you that. Just two weekends ago we saw a coach who most people would say is near the top of his profession completely screw up when he should go for two and when he shouldn't and he possibly (probably) cost himself a game. And it isn't the first time we've seen something like that. That's a decision that is based on simple, ordinary grade school math, and the head football coach of one of the best football programs in the country got it completely wrong.

There certainly are football coaches who are pretty smart guys. And there certainly are football coaches who, well, let's just say aren't.

 

[#99HUGHgreen]

Last year the battle cry of the unknowing on this board was that our defense was so devoid of talent it couldn't compete. Enter Narduzzi, and suddenly these same guys, less our two best LBs and our best DB, are a top 10 defense. A team that has found creative ways to lose close games for years is now finding ways to grind out wins. Its more than Xs and Os. If you don't buy that, ask a Pitt player or coach what the difference is between Duzzi and Chryst.

This.

When Narduzzi was hired, I posted a comment that any talented coach should be able to take over a team of players coached by a less talented coach and get them to win more games in the first year (assuming the quality of the opponents remains similar). I posted that I believed Narduzzi would prove it.

Some people were responding with statements like, "It's going to take several years for a new coach to turn the team around... for their players to be able to learn a new system" or "We need to wait until he brings in his own players." All of which are BS excuses that mediocre coaches (including some we've had) try to sell fans to help camouflage the fact that they just aren't that good at coaching.

I pointed out that there were some key differences with Narduzzi right away. First (the obvious), he was more articulate than Chryst or Wannstedt. Also, He had more passion when he spoke. Further, he did not shy away from saying the team could win right away. Most importantly, he was big on paying attention to the details-a crucial attribute we were not seeing from previous Pitt coaches.

When I suggested (before the season began) that this team could very well win 9 or more games this year under Narduzzi (pointing both to Narduzzi's ability to coach up players and the fact that the schedule was not overly difficult), I had a number of people telling me I was not being realistic. One went so far as to call my notion "pie in the sky." Not looking so "Pie in the sky" right now, is it.

The point is that we are seeing proof that a first year talented coach who carefully pays attention to details, gets his players to buy in to his way of doing things, proves that "his way" is effective when players just trust it and give 100% of their effort, sees why something went wrong in a game and knows how to make second half adjustments to fix it, can create the type of instant and dramatic positive changes within his players that will lead to more victories.

 

[TD_6082]

one in particular who also proclaimed his own intellectual prowess in a post where he also panned the intelligence of the average college football coach. As if he understood the game better than they do, because of a call or two that they disagree with that didn't go our way. Classic.

As for your post, you're missing the boat. Michigan for the most part had the same players last year as they do this year. They were an embarrassment, idiotic mistakes, tons of penalties and turnovers, keystone cops. On paper they were loaded, 4 and 5 stars all over the place. But under RR and Hoke, they got soft, they lost so much they played as though they expected to lose, they were complacent, they quit in games. That's a culture of complacency, mediocrity. Enter Harbaugh, and that shit is over like someone flipped a switch. They are tough, hard nosed, physical, play to the whistle, expect to win every game and don't accept losing. He changed the culture in one off season and is kicking ass with the same players Hoke had.

Look at us. Last year the battle cry of the unknowing on this board was that our defense was so devoid of talent it couldn't compete. Enter Narduzzi, and suddenly these same guys, less our two best LBs and our best DB, are a top 10 defense. A team that has found creative ways to lose close games for years is now finding ways to grind out wins. Its more than Xs and Os. If you don't buy that, ask a Pitt player or coach what the difference is between Duzzi and Chryst.

badby2, I really don't disagree with anything you are saying about culture. However, I think its fair to note that Brady Hoke himself was the poster child for culture change in his first year at Michigan. He went 11-2, was Big 10 coach of the year, won a BCS Bowl game, and beat Ohio State for the first time in 8 years. Everyone thought Michigan was back.

I like almost everything I've seen from Narduzzi thus far. I can't emphasize that enough. However, its far too early to tell how this is going to play out. Every win is a good win, but we're grinding out some close wins against mediocre/bad competition. Recruiting has been slow, but it seems to be picking up some momentum. Its going to be wait and see for the next 2 or 3 years. At least I'm optimistic about Duzzi. Something I never was under Graham & Chryst.

FWIW, Graham's win over UCLA doesn't look so impressive anymore after Stanford hung 56 on that Bruin ass.

 

[TD_6082]

HUGHgreen, It will take time to turn the program around and we do need to wait and see what it looks like when he gets his players in there. Having a good year versus having a great program are two totally different things.

 

[ncyajleel]

I could never understand why any admin would not want their football and basketball teams to do well. They are recruiting tools that bring students and attention to the university while bringing money back into the school so why not put some money into them and use them? As long as it is good attention, not PoSU or Louisville attention.

You are certainly correct thebadby2.

Let's just hope our administration is on board and will fight for the program as well instead of holding it back.

 

[rpost3]

I could never understand why any admin would not want their football and basketball teams to do well. They are recruiting tools that bring students and attention to the university while bringing money back into the school so why not put some money into them and use them? As long as it is good attention, not PoSU or Louisville attention.

Screw the recruiting tool excuse. The fiscal irresponsibility of not winning at football and basketball should be reason enough. Fan apathy doesn't come w/out cost.

 

[PittME75]

HUGHgreen, It will take time to turn the program around and we do need to wait and see what it looks like when he gets his players in there. Having a good year versus having a great program are two totally different things.

This, of course, coming from a nitter fan boy.

 

[ncyajleel]

There is ASOLUTELY such a thing as a winning and losing culture. Ironically Pitt is in a city who should know all about that because they have been on both sides of it. Prior to the 1970's the Steelers were the poster child for a losing culture. Post 1970's they are just the opposite and since that time have been the most successful team in the NFL. And as far as winning cultures, what do you think helped to form that cult to the east of us?

“It’s a team and we talk about fighting for our brothers,” Narduzzi said. “It’s a culture we’re trying to build here at the University of Pittsburgh that we’re going to fight to the end and never quit and go after people. Our kids have that attitude that we can win in the last minute of the game, the last 10 seconds of a game. They have belief, we built a mental toughness here.”

Who was it that was arguing with me a week or two ago that "culture" in college football is a fiction? I believe it was a couple of our resident engineer/stats types that never played a team sport at a competitive level in their lives, yet believe they are the smartest people in the room, even if the conversation is about football and the room is full of football coaches.

Well guys, tell Narduzzi that there's no such thing as a winning or losing culture. He obviously hasn't read your statistical theses on that subject. Tell Dantonio or Harbaugh the same thing. They obviously don't get it either.

 

[ncyajleel]

I get that, but some administrations believe that football and basketball are not all that important. And though it is true that they are not the world's top priorities, if you are putting money into that product and placing it on the field, why not make it the best product you possibly can? Football and basketball make money, if you are putting money into it, wouldn't you want to get money out of it?

Screw the recruiting tool excuse. The fiscal irresponsibility of not winning at football and basketball should be reason enough. Fan apathy doesn't come w/out cost.

 

[ncyajleel]

Narduzzi is winning with the same team that Chryst couldn't win with. Pretty much the same players. Narduzzi and his staff obviously watch game film of their opponents and know what to do with it. If you look at the games so far Pitt has allowed 16 points in the 1st quarter, 59 in the second, 16 in the 3rd and 40 in the fourth. What that tells me is his staff knows how to prepare for teams and make adjustments. You can tell because of the low number of points in the first quarters that he prepares his team well. As the opponent adjusts to Pitt they score more against us in the 2nd quarter. Our staff is great with halftime adjustments as proven by the 16 points they have allowed in the 3rd quarter then again, the other team adjusts to Pitt and score more in the 4th.

And that is what makes a good coach. Preparation of your team to play the opponent, then during the game you have on the fly adjustments and bigger adjustments at halftime. You go into the game with a plan, then make changes and adjustments to that plan during the game. Players make plays, coaches put the players in position to make those plays.

One thing a coaching staff cannot do is become predictable. That same game film can show you a coach's, player's and team's tendencies. Once you find these tendencies, a team can be easy to beat. I'm sure that is what happened in Brady Hoke's case. The more game film that became available, the easier he was to beat.

badby2, I really don't disagree with anything you are saying about culture. However, I think its fair to note that Brady Hoke himself was the poster child for culture change in his first year at Michigan. He went 11-2, was Big 10 coach of the year, won a BCS Bowl game, and beat Ohio State for the first time in 8 years. Everyone thought Michigan was back.

I like almost everything I've seen from Narduzzi thus far. I can't emphasize that enough. However, its far too early to tell how this is going to play out. Every win is a good win, but we're grinding out some close wins against mediocre/bad competition. Recruiting has been slow, but it seems to be picking up some momentum. Its going to be wait and see for the next 2 or 3 years. At least I'm optimistic about Duzzi. Something I never was under Graham & Chryst.

FWIW, Graham's win over UCLA doesn't look so impressive anymore after Stanford hung 56 on that Bruin ass.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Let's clarify...the question was if a culture from 6 years, and 4 coaches ago is at all relevant to this staff- these players- and this season...and it's not.

And the topic was come from behind in the 4th quarter to win the game- and was initiated by us, again failing to achieve that directive against Iowa- where we continued that streak since last achieving that specific objective in 2009 in Charlotte against UNC.

So- again...in that specific circumstance- the team and coaches, players. and culture of the team in 2010 and beyond have nothing to do with the current culture, coaches, and players.

You know, if you want to actually recall the specific circumstances correctly, rather than re-framing it to reach an erroneous conclusion and "win" some internet pissing match.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Narduzzi is winning with the same team that Chryst couldn't win with. Pretty much the same players. Narduzzi and his staff obviously watch game film of their opponents and know what to do with it. If you look at the games so far Pitt has allowed 16 points in the 1st quarter, 59 in the second, 16 in the 3rd and 40 in the fourth. What that tells me is his staff knows how to prepare for teams and make adjustments. You can tell because of the low number of points in the first quarters that he prepares his team well. As the opponent adjusts to Pitt they score more against us in the 2nd quarter. Our staff is great with halftime adjustments as proven by the 16 points they have allowed in the 3rd quarter then again, the other team adjusts to Pitt and score more in the 4th.

And that is what makes a good coach. Preparation of your team to play the opponent, then during the game you have on the fly adjustments and bigger adjustments at halftime. You go into the game with a plan, then make changes and adjustments to that plan during the game. Players make plays, coaches put the players in position to make those plays.

One thing a coaching staff cannot do is become predictable. That same game film can show you a coach's, player's and team's tendencies. Once you find these tendencies, a team can be easy to beat. I'm sure that is what happened in Brady Hoke's case. The more game film that became available, the easier he was to beat.

As was Charlie Weiss at ND. Just saying.

Let's see sustained winning over a long time.

 

[ncyajleel]

I'm not sure about everyone else, but I have never said Narduzzi is going to be the next greatest coach who will take Pitt to the national title. Heck, he may be a flop next year, though I doubt it. What I am saying is so far he is doing things our last few coaches failed to do. I see a difference in preparation of the team for games. I see a difference in the defense, it is more aggressive, attacking, and disciplined. I see the players more motivated to play, believe it or not the coach has to do this. I see Narduzzi emphasizing all three phases of the game, even the special teams are more involved. And I see this staff making adjustments during the game, which I had not seen as much with the staffs from Chryst all the way down to Wannstadt. I see a big difference in a lot of the little things that people take for granted.

Seeing these things makes me feel a little more positive than I was with the others. Like you, I would like to see sustained success over a few years. But let's walk before we run.

As was Charlie Weiss at ND. Just saying.

Let's see sustained winning over a long time.

 

[#99HUGHgreen]

HUGHgreen, It will take time to turn the program around and we do need to wait and see what it looks like when he gets his players in there. Having a good year versus having a great program are two totally different things.

I didn't say program... I said "turn the team around." Why exactly do you insist it will take time to turn a team around?

It's been less than a year and what have we witnessed: The players believe in the coaches, they believe in themselves and the schemes they are being taught. Their attitude is quite different their focus and confidence is much improved. Most importantly they are winning more games (And yes, I do realize the season is not over).

Let's say Pitt wins 10 or more games this season. How could that not be considered "turning a team around?"

Sure there will be new players that PN and staff will recruit and get, but he has already proven it's possible to make a change with what you've got.

Did Urban Meyer turn the team around the 7-6 team he inherited at OSU his first year there when he then went 12-0 (without any of the players he recruited)? I'm pretty sure most would agree he did.

Who knows what the future will hold. But right now, Narduzzi is not only turning heads, he's clearly turning a team around and changing the culture.

Anytime you doubt it... Just remind yourself by watching the video below.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Anytime you doubt it... Just remind yourself by watching the video below.

Damn, I thought that was going to be the video that is almost exactly the same as the one we saw after the 13-9 game. Help me remember, did that video show that the culture had changed too?

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

There is ASOLUTELY such a thing as a winning and losing culture. Ironically Pitt is in a city who should know all about that because they have been on both sides of it. Prior to the 1970's the Steelers were the poster child for a losing culture. Post 1970's they are just the opposite and since that time have been the most successful team in the NFL. And as far as winning cultures, what do you think helped to form that cult to the east of us?

Actually the Stillers are a perfect example. From the mid-70s to the early to mid-80s the Stillers were the best team in the league. Obviously the culture was a big part of that. Then from the mid-80s until Chuck Noll quit in the early 90s the team was mired in mediocrity. They made the playoffs one time in seven years. They averaged just over seven wins per season. So I guess just as obviously, even though the team still had (for the most part) the same coaches and still had (for the most part) the same people in the front office running the organization, they completely changed the culture. Why do you suppose that is? It surely seems such an odd thing for such a successful organization to do, and yet I guess they must have. Hmmm.

Or maybe, just maybe, what happened didn't have anything at all to do with the culture. The culture was the same, but the players weren't. Guys who were hall of fame players were now well past their prime or retired and replaced by guys not nearly as good. The coaches were also pretty clearly past their primes as well. And so on. Because you can have the greatest "culture" in the world, but if your players aren't very good and your coaches aren't very good all the culture in the world doesn't win football games.

Fortunately for the Stillers and their fans, after Chuck Noll quit and Bill Cowher came in he obviously must have completely revamped the culture and the team went back to being one of the best teams in the NFL again. I guess that tells us the the "Cowher Culture" was clearly and obviously superior to the "Noll Culture", right? Or does it just tell us that the Stillers started to get better players and the coaches (including the head coach at the time) were superior to the guys who had left? Because I am pretty sure that the people who were there and were involved in the organization at the time would tell you that the culture hadn't really changed at all. And yet somehow the results changed drastically. Hmmm.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I'm not sure about everyone else, but I have never said Narduzzi is going to be the next greatest coach who will take Pitt to the national title. Heck, he may be a flop next year, though I doubt it. What I am saying is so far he is doing things our last few coaches failed to do. I see a difference in preparation of the team for games. I see a difference in the defense, it is more aggressive, attacking, and disciplined. I see the players more motivated to play, believe it or not the coach has to do this. I see Narduzzi emphasizing all three phases of the game, even the special teams are more involved. And I see this staff making adjustments during the game, which I had not seen as much with the staffs from Chryst all the way down to Wannstadt. I see a big difference in a lot of the little things that people take for granted.

Seeing these things makes me feel a little more positive than I was with the others. Like you, I would like to see sustained success over a few years. But let's walk before we run.

I think this post is mostly spot on. We've seen some good signs, but it's still early and we need to sustain what appears to be good momentum in the program.

Meanwhile, let's enjoy the heck out of 5-1.

 

[ncyajleel]

I was born in 1968, so I only know the winning culture of the Steelers. But, from what I have heard and read, prior to Chuck Noll the Steelers would trade draft picks for players from losing cultures or past their prime. I'm assuming the coaches they hired weren't really winners as coaches, I don't know and I'm too tired to research it. But Chuck Noll came from the Browns who at that time were a winning team, they were NFL champions in 1965 and Noll was hired in 1969? Noll then went on to draft great players and keep them while getting rid of the players who were deemed as 'losers' or 'had a loser mentality.'

What happened with Chuck Noll I believe is football evolved and the game passed him by. He was coaching 1970's football in the late 1980's and it was completely different. You look at coaches like Noll, Don Shula, Tom Landry who were dominant in the 1970's were hanging on in the late 1980's. The Steelers and Cowboys at least hired coaches who knew the new, evolved game of football. The Dolphins hung on for a while then eventually did the same.

When talking about cultures, there are two different cultures. The team and administration, and the fan base. One drives the other. The culture of the pre 1970's Steelers probably would have been happy keeping Noll around forever, but the new culture that was formed by the 1970's Steelers are now used to winning and wanted to keep winning. Culture is a funny thing. If you are used to losing, you sit and take it because you are used to it. But once you start winning, then you expected to win all the time.

Of course, I'm not feeling well and I'm really tired so I could actually be talking out of my behind.

Actually the Stillers are a perfect example. From the mid-70s to the early to mid-80s the Stillers were the best team in the league. Obviously the culture was a big part of that. Then from the mid-80s until Chuck Noll quit in the early 90s the team was mired in mediocrity. They made the playoffs one time in seven years. They averaged just over seven wins per season. So I guess just as obviously, even though the team still had (for the most part) the same coaches and still had (for the most part) the same people in the front office running the organization, they completely changed the culture. Why do you suppose that is? It surely seems such an odd thing for such a successful organization to do, and yet I guess they must have. Hmmm.

Or maybe, just maybe, what happened didn't have anything at all to do with the culture. The culture was the same, but the players weren't. Guys who were hall of fame players were now well past their prime or retired and replaced by guys not nearly as good. The coaches were also pretty clearly past their primes as well. And so on. Because you can have the greatest "culture" in the world, but if your players aren't very good and your coaches aren't very good all the culture in the world doesn't win football games.

Fortunately for the Stillers and their fans, after Chuck Noll quit and Bill Cowher came in he obviously must have completely revamped the culture and the team went back to being one of the best teams in the NFL again. I guess that tells us the the "Cowher Culture" was clearly and obviously superior to the "Noll Culture", right? Or does it just tell us that the Stillers started to get better players and the coaches (including the head coach at the time) were superior to the guys who had left? Because I am pretty sure that the people who were there and were involved in the organization at the time would tell you that the culture hadn't really changed at all. And yet somehow the results changed drastically. Hmmm.

 

[ncyajleel]

Pitt fans are like people with abandonment issues. They cannot enjoy what they currently have because they are too worried things will get worse.

Meanwhile, let's enjoy the heck out of 5-1.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Of course, I'm not feeling well and I'm really tired so I could actually be talking out of my behind.

 

[OriginalEther]

I don't think it's an either/or proposition.

To me, culture is largely synonymous with mindset.
Yes, you want good players, but if their heads aren't on straight for whatever reason, things likely aren't going to go well.

I also think some here are mixing it up with chemistry; which are two different things.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I love Narduzzi and appreciate what he's doing here. I think we may have our best coach since Sherrill left in 1982.

However, he is absolutely, positively NOT doing what he's doing with the same players as Chryst. Chryst inherited a dumpster fire and last year he had the youngest roster among all P5 schools. Pitt was younger than even Penn State and USC, which were each immersed in major scholarship reductions.

The guys Chryst had were freshmen and sophomores. There is a big developmental difference between a freshman and a sophomore and perhaps an even bigger difference between a sophomore and a junior. LIke an ENORMOUS difference on every front. Now imagine dozens of players making that jump physically, intellectually and emotionally. For people to minimize that fact, or to ignore it altogether, is really difficult to fathom an I just can't lend that POV any legitimacy because it is pretty brazenly dishonest.

Again, this is not to suggest that I think Chryst is a better coach than Narduzzi because I do not believe that to be true at all. However, let's at least make sure we are being honest with ourselves about what we're seeing here. Or, if you can't bare to be honest, that's fine too. However, for me honesty is very important and I am going to insist on that remaining my standard.