Narduzzi on changing the culture at Pitt...

[ncyajleel]

I agree with you that a year does make a huge difference. But do you really believe if House was still the defensive coordinator, our defense would be doing this well?

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.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

No, I don't think that for one second this defense would be anywhere near as good as it is in this scheme and under this staff. That's not my point. My point is that a lot of players would be similarly developed regardless of who was coaching the team.

Again, that is not to take anything away from Narduzzi, Conklin, Harley, etc. I liked Narduzzi's hire from day one and I haven't seen anything to cause me to reconsider that viewpoint. I liked the fact that he was from Youngstown, that he recruited Western PA, OH and NJ well for years and I also loved his attack style defensive scheme - which I think is how defenses MUST play at this level to have any success.

It is just to say that we were going to be better pretty much no matter what because the players are all a year older and a year better.

What we are seeing is not a miracle or an overhaul. Rather, it is an acceleration and enhancement of a process that really began three years ago.

 

[ncyajleel]

Ok. Sorry. I wasn't going where you were heading.

The one thing I noticed about Narduzzi that I never saw in Chryst, Graham, or Wannstedt was the emphasis in all three phases of the game. Chryst only cared about his offense. Graham only cared about his system. And I'm not quite certain what Wanny cared about. Though he did take us to two of the best seasons we had seen for some time, I'm not sure who he would have done in the ACC.

No, I don't think that for one second this defense would be anywhere near as good as it is in this scheme and under this staff. That's not my point. My point is that a lot of players would be similarly developed regardless of who was coaching the team.

Again, that is not to take anything away from Narduzzi, Conklin, Harley, etc. I liked Narduzzi's hire from day one and I haven't seen anything to cause me to reconsider that viewpoint. I liked the fact that he was from Youngstown, that he recruited Western PA, OH and NJ well for years and I also loved his attack style defensive scheme - which I think is how defenses MUST play at this level to have any success.

It is just to say that we were going to be better pretty much no matter what because the players are all a year older and a year better.

 

[rockypanther]

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.

So what would PC's record with Pitt be now minus JC?

 

[TD_6082]

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.

View embedded media

 

[TD_6082]

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.

View embedded media

Sure, you can turn a team around. But not a program. I'm more concerned about the program. He's definitely turned the team around, at least defensively and having the guys believe they will win.

All that said, we are winning close games against bad teams.

 

[ncyajleel]

Turning a program around has to start with one team. You cannot turn a program around with 6-6 records year after year after year. Four consecutive 6-6 records shows no improvement and a program will not be turned around unless you see some type of improvement. Recruits don't want to commit to an annual 6-6 team. If we split the next three games, that shows improvement (8-4) and the recruits will start coming.

Sure, you can turn a team around. But not a program. I'm more concerned about the program. He's definitely turned the team around, at least defensively and having the guys believe they will win.

All that said, we are winning close games against bad teams.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

So what would PC's record with Pitt be now minus JC?

No idea. 73-9?

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

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.

Nobody is lamenting the loss of Chryst...
But he stabilized the program and stocked the shelves fairly well.

I like how Narduzzi had the team compete in everything, even the scrimmages. The early returns are positive, but like you said he is also benefitting from a maturing team and roster and a good talent level left for him.

 

[TD_6082]

Turning a program around has to start with one team. You cannot turn a program around with 6-6 records year after year after year. Four consecutive 6-6 records shows no improvement and a program will not be turned around unless you see some type of improvement. Recruits don't want to commit to an annual 6-6 team. If we split the next three games, that shows improvement (8-4) and the recruits will start coming.

Maybe. Maybe not. Pitt's administration needs to do everything it can to get the program at a place where recruiting will always be a strong suit, regardless of the record, coach, or amount of coaching turnover. At least that should be a goal.

 

[sherepower]

No, I don't think that for one second this defense would be anywhere near as good as it is in this scheme and under this staff. That's not my point. My point is that a lot of players would be similarly developed regardless of who was coaching the team.

Again, that is not to take anything away from Narduzzi, Conklin, Harley, etc. I liked Narduzzi's hire from day one and I haven't seen anything to cause me to reconsider that viewpoint. I liked the fact that he was from Youngstown, that he recruited Western PA, OH and NJ well for years and I also loved his attack style defensive scheme - which I think is how defenses MUST play at this level to have any success.

It is just to say that we were going to be better pretty much no matter what because the players are all a year older and a year better.

What we are seeing is not a miracle or an overhaul. Rather, it is an acceleration and enhancement of a process that really began three years ago.

You know Doc. As the players here at Pitt get bigger and stronger. So does all players at every other program get bigger , stronger , smarter... just sayin

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

You know Doc. As the players here at Pitt get bigger and stronger. So does all players at every other program get bigger , stronger , smarter... just sayin

Well no, not really. Because most programs are replacing a lot more seniors who are bigger, stronger and smarter with underclassmen who are not as big, not as strong, and not as smart. Young teams that are maturing are far more likely to get bigger, stronger and smarter than older teams that have to replace lots of contributors.

 

[sherepower]

Well no, not really. Because most programs are replacing a lot more seniors who are bigger, stronger and smarter with underclassmen who are not as big, not as strong, and not as smart. Young teams that are maturing are far more likely to get bigger, stronger and smarter than older teams that have to replace lots of contributors.

You couldn't be more wrong. But hey what do i know.
Chryst was the best coach ever.......feel better now

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

You couldn't be more wrong. But hey what do i know.
Chryst was the best coach ever.......feel better now

What on earth are you talking about?

DvY's point was that because Pitt was a young team last season that if all else was the same we should have naturally expected improvement from last season to this season. If a team has a lot of seniors that they lose to graduation then if all else is the same there should naturally be a step back from the previous season. Oddly enough, for exactly the kinds of things that you mentioned. Older teams tend to be bigger, stronger and smarter (I think more experienced would be a better way to say it) than younger ones. Young teams tend to improve as the get older. How on earth is any of that controversial to anyone who understands the game?

 

[sherepower]

What on earth are you talking about?

DvY's point was that because Pitt was a young team last season that if all else was the same we should have naturally expected improvement from last season to this season. If a team has a lot of seniors that they lose to graduation then if all else is the same there should naturally be a step back from the previous season. Oddly enough, for exactly the kinds of things that you mentioned. Older teams tend to be bigger, stronger and smarter (I think more experienced would be a better way to say it) than younger ones. Young teams tend to improve as the get older. How on earth is any of that controversial to anyone who understands the game?

There is 2 reasons why the defense is better. Scheme and better coaching. That's the bottom line.
Has nothing to do with being young and becoming more intelligent. They learned a brand new scheme anyway this year.........soooo?

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Of course the coaching is better and the scheme is better. But you don't think any of the improvement at all is due to the fact that a lot of these guys got a lot of experience playing D1 ball last year? You don't think that a year getting used to the speed of the game at this level matters? You don't think an extra year in the weight room makes any difference at all? You don't think that a year of seeing what you need to improve and work on makes any difference at all?

So it would then be your contention that if the coaches remain the same and the scheme remains the same that guys won't get any better from their freshman year to their senior year? They won't get bigger and stronger? That their game experience and there extra years of practice time won't make any difference at all? If so that would pretty much make you a party of one.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

A healthy Juan Price has helped the defense , too.

 

[ncyajleel]

Of course it starts with the administration. There are so many parts to this. First thing that has to happen is the administration has to be committed. But we have seen committed admins fail too. Admin has to hire the right coach, the coach has to build the team, but the team which includes coaches and players have to start winning. It is the winning that builds the culture. Just like perennial losing builds a losing culture.

Maybe. Maybe not. Pitt's administration needs to do everything it can to get the program at a place where recruiting will always be a strong suit, regardless of the record, coach, or amount of coaching turnover. At least that should be a goal.

 

[rojo36]

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.

Do you really think Pitt is going to "break the bank" with the kind of paltry funding they get from the state of Pennsylvania ?

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Do you really think Pitt is going to "break the bank" with the kind of paltry funding they get from the state of Pennsylvania ?

You misspelled ticket revenue and boosters.