Play calling was spot on today

[raleighpanther]

The one thing Pitt struggled with on offense today was trying to run between the tackles. Passing on first down was smart, as was running wide with Boyd and Whitehead. While some were frustrated with a few sweeps that went for 2 yards, many of them worked and were critical to our scoring drives.

The play where we sent Boyd left and Whitehead right didn't actually work, but it must have scared the crap out of Duke's DC, and should be used in the upcoming games. With Boyd sweeping right, you know a lot of the D is leaning right, and a pitch to Whitehead left could go a long way.

I thought our offense was diversified today and unpredictable. I don't understand the Chaney bashing at all. The first half drives ended because we failed to execute a few times, not because of the play calling IMO.

 

[DruidTM]

Agree Chaney called a great game today

 

[SteelCityChamps]

I thought our offense was diversified today and unpredictable. I don't understand the Chaney bashing at all. The first half drives ended because we failed to execute a few times, not because of the play calling IMO.

He called multiple pitch plays when we were in kill the clock mode. That could have cost us in a closer game. I remember he has called those pitch plays in earlier games (UVA I believe). James dropped the pitch today. Horrible calls by Chaney.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Chaney was fine today , Nate wasn't sharp especially in the first half.

Thankfully dukes offense was anemic without sirk...so we survived it.

 

[#99HUGHgreen]

Chaney was fine today , Nate wasn't sharp especially in the first half.

Thankfully dukes offense was anemic without sirk...so we survived it.

Another way of looking at it is that Nate was fine today, Chaney wasn't so sharp in the first half ...

but then finally stuck with a more complete running attack (using Ollison) in the second half which allowed the other offensive play calling to work much better.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

Another way of looking at it is that Nate was fine today, Chaney wasn't so sharp in the first half ...

but then finally stuck with a more complete running attack (using Ollison) in the second half which allowed the other offensive play calling to work much better.

#99HUGHgreen, your analysis have been spot this year and they finally put it all together all 4 Quarters on Offense, Defense, and Special Teams, and they need to do it again 3 More Games!

It ain't over and they need to do it 3 More Games, not just this one?

 

[#99HUGHgreen]

The one thing Pitt struggled with on offense today was trying to run between the tackles. Passing on first down was smart, as was running wide with Boyd and Whitehead. While some were frustrated with a few sweeps that went for 2 yards, many of them worked and were critical to our scoring drives.

The play where we sent Boyd left and Whitehead right didn't actually work, but it must have scared the crap out of Duke's DC, and should be used in the upcoming games. With Boyd sweeping right, you know a lot of the D is leaning right, and a pitch to Whitehead left could go a long way.

I thought our offense was diversified today and unpredictable. I don't understand the Chaney bashing at all. The first half drives ended because we failed to execute a few times, not because of the play calling IMO.

I don't think anyone would argue that Chaney doesn't change it up enough. Rather that he changes it up too often, or maybe more accurately, too soon. For the past 6 games or so up until today's 2nd half, he hasn't shown enough patience to allow the run game to develop. A successful offense can't be successful for 4 quarters on "unexpected" razzle dazzle plays.

For the first time in a long time, Channey was a little more patient with the running game today (starting in the second half). Once the running game got going, other plays worked better.

Call enough run plays for big Ollison (other than sweeps to the short side of the field), and he breaks one or more for a big gain and tires the defense, giving Pitt an advantage.

There were great passes by Peterman, nice catches by Ford and Holtz and Challingsworth, nice runs by Tyler and Jordan, and yes some nice play calling by Chaney today. But it all worked better in the second half, when the run game was successful and keeping the defense a little more honest.

 

[#99HUGHgreen]

#99HUGHgreen, your analysis have been spot this year and they finally put it all together all 4 Quarters on Offense, Defense, and Special Teams, and they need to do it again 3 More Games!

It ain't over and they need to do it 3 More Games, not just this one?

That's right. Good point. The special teams effort was quite good today too.

The way Pitt played in the second half was indeed very encouraging. If we continue to see that kind of effort by everyone (including coaching staff), Pitt will be in very good shape to win the last few games.

 

[ZekeGadsonFan]

I don't understand the Chaney bashing at all.

I do. People ignorantly think that every time a play fails or the team struggles, it is the fault of the coaches. But yeah, his play calling all year has been balanced and diversified. Hes good at what he does. He has one play maker on the field and every team we play is scheming to take him away, yet he has found a way to successfully get him the ball all year, often in creative and unconventional ways. Overall, the results have been and will continue to be inconsistent, simply because we are severely lacking talent at the skill positions, but hes doing the best he can to overcome that and win football games IMHO.

 

[upj87]

one negative that got under my skin...just before the half 2nd and 4 from Duke's 30 something attained during a solid Pitt drive...play called was low percentage throw to the endzone making it 3 and 4 taking away the run option play call...much like the experimental corporal-captain rank, didn't like it, didn't like it at all. Glad Blewitt saved some grace after the sack on 3rd down...of course, had Peterman connected on the td pass the hypocrite in me would be here singing the brilliant and ballsy call...

 

[Jeffburgh]

Chaney called the same way in the second half that he did in the first half for the most part.

Boyd killed two drives personally in the first half with drops on passes he needs to catch, Orndorff dropped a huge pass down the middle, etc.

There just is such a fine line with offense, and this team pretty much has no play maker on offense, so they aren't snapping off big chunk plays and need to have 15 play drives to score, which is asking a lot of NFL players, much less college kids.

The difference in the second half was guys held on to catches and Duke wore down - because Chaney ran the ball like crazy all game long, including the first half.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

That's right. Good point. The special teams effort was quite good today too.

The way Pitt played in the second half was indeed very encouraging. If we continue to see that kind of effort by everyone (including coaching staff), Pitt will be in very good shape to win the last few games.

Yep, I know it is just one game win, but it really shows good portending games to come as far as I am concern? Coach Pat went up against the Former SEC & ACC Coach of the year in Cutcliffe, a class act I might add too.

Yet, Coach Pat & Staff Team has improved as the season has advanced which is good sign of a Very Good to Great Coach. Everyone looks better on all 3 Units! No one quits, and execution of Plays on game Days with good coaching all game long and half time adjustments, just has not been as consistent as under other coaches at Pitt.

Now onto the ULou and Miami challenges!

 

[Cap pitt]

Another way of looking at it is that Nate was fine today, Chaney wasn't so sharp in the first half ...

but then finally stuck with a more complete running attack (using Ollison) in the second half which allowed the other offensive play calling to work much better.

I don't think anyone would argue that Chaney doesn't change it up enough. Rather that he changes it up too often, or maybe more accurately, too soon. For the past 6 games or so up until today's 2nd half, he hasn't shown enough patience to allow the run game to develop. A successful offense can't be successful for 4 quarters on "unexpected" razzle dazzle plays.

For the first time in a long time, Channey was a little more patient with the running game today (starting in the second half). Once the running game got going, other plays worked better.

Call enough run plays for big Ollison (other than sweeps to the short side of the field), and he breaks one or more for a big gain and tires the defense, giving Pitt an advantage.

There were great passes by Peterman, nice catches by Ford and Holtz and Challingsworth, nice runs by Tyler and Jordan, and yes some nice play calling by Chaney today. But it all worked better in the second half, when the run game was successful and keeping the defense a little more honest.

some of you people would complain if you were hung with a new rope, Pitt is very much improved over last year, this is Duzzi's 10th game as HC, this Duke game was a complete game offense and defense they looked pretty darn good, get over it

 

[NTOP]

That's right. Good point. The special teams effort was quite good today too.

The way Pitt played in the second half was indeed very encouraging. If we continue to see that kind of effort by everyone (including coaching staff), Pitt will be in very good shape to win the last few games.

Winslow has become a nice weapon. Blewitt seems to be in a groove, too. Coverages have been excellent....need some better returns.

 

[MajorMajors]

some of you people would complain if you were hung with a new rope

cap - appreciate your use of the "new rope" line. Gave me a chuckle.

Go PItt.

 

[MrGee]

He called multiple pitch plays when we were in kill the clock mode. That could have cost us in a closer game. I remember he has called those pitch plays in earlier games (UVA I believe). James dropped the pitch today. Horrible calls by Chaney.

Right, and many to the short side---running Ollison to the perimeter is a losing proposition---the pitch plays were losers---that was a very good 2nd half team performance---guys caught passes---big difference---players made plays, tackled opponents--didn't see that against ND---the Duzz is making it happen

 

[#99HUGHgreen]

some of you people would complain if you were hung with a new rope, Pitt is very much improved over last year, this is Duzzi's 10th game as HC, this Duke game was a complete game offense and defense they looked pretty darn good, get over it

Thanks... But We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

I guess I could say Pitt looked as good on offense in the first half as they did in the second, but then I'd just be lying. There were indeed a number of reasons Pitt's offense played better in the second half, but Chaney being more patient with the run game clearly was a factor in the offense being much more productive (i.e. they sustained longer drives, kept the defense on the field longer, and scored more than twice as many points).

I believe Narduzzi is doing a very nice job in his first year.

I believe Chaney should be commended for bringing Peterman aboard, but it must be pointed out that he has struggled a bit this year to get a solid offensive unit to play up to their potential. Even Narduzzi has been frustrated with his OC at times.

I believe it is not a coincidence that Chaney chose not to establish the run game in the first half of both the North Carolina game and the ND game and Pitt only scored 3 points in the first half of both those games. The poor offensive performance in the first half of each of those two games made it very difficult for Pitt to have a chance to win.

I do understand that this is a new staff and that we aren't loaded with 5 and 4 star talent. I have seen dropped balls and other mistakes that players have made on the field. Yet, you seem to have the view that none of the issues all year with the offense had anything to do with Chaney's play calling or preparation of his offensive unit.

I see an OC who's offense hasn't played well for more than 2 quarters at a time all season. While that's may not all be on him, some of it surely is. But I also see an OC who did a nice job of putting it all together in the 2nd half on Saturday. Maybe the offense's second half performance is a glimpse of what's to come. Maybe it's not. We'll know soon enough.

 

[#99HUGHgreen]

Winslow has become a nice weapon. Blewitt seems to be in a groove, too. Coverages have been excellent....need some better returns.

Yes we do. I think speedy Henderson and Whitehead (who have more recently been added to the mix or returners) may soon prove to be valuable there. I can see either or both returning one for a TD. Just a matter of time.

 

[TD_6082]

Chaney called the same way in the second half that he did in the first half for the most part.

Boyd killed two drives personally in the first half with drops on passes he needs to catch, Orndorff dropped a huge pass down the middle, etc.

There just is such a fine line with offense, and this team pretty much has no play maker on offense, so they aren't snapping off big chunk plays and need to have 15 play drives to score, which is asking a lot of NFL players, much less college kids.

The difference in the second half was guys held on to catches and Duke wore down - because Chaney ran the ball like crazy all game long, including the first half.

Agreed. We desperately need some playmakers. That's the number one thing that caught my eye about this Duke team that differs from the Duke teams of the past two years. It makes a huge difference. This year's Duke team is totally void of playmakers and they have to have long drawn out drives to find the end zone. The one big play for a TD should have been a tackle after the catch. I'm not sure what Whitehead was doing on that play.

 

[Jeffburgh]

Thanks... But We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

I guess I could say Pitt looked as good on offense in the first half as they did in the second, but then I'd just be lying. There were indeed a number of reasons Pitt's offense played better in the second half, but Chaney being more patient with the run game clearly was a factor in the offense being much more productive (i.e. they sustained longer drives, kept the defense on the field longer, and scored more than twice as many points).

I believe Narduzzi is doing a very nice job in his first year.

I believe Chaney should be commended for bringing Peterman aboard, but it must be pointed out that he has struggled a bit this year to get a solid offensive unit to play up to their potential. Even Narduzzi has been frustrated with his OC at times.

I believe it is not a coincidence that Chaney chose not to establish the run game in the first half of both the North Carolina game and the ND game and Pitt only scored 3 points in the first half of both those games. The poor offensive performance in the first half of each of those two games made it very difficult for Pitt to have a chance to win.

I do understand that this is a new staff and that we aren't loaded with 5 and 4 star talent. I have seen dropped balls and other mistakes that players have made on the field. Yet, you seem to have the view that none of the issues all year with the offense had anything to do with Chaney's play calling or preparation of his offensive unit.

I see an OC who's offense hasn't played well for more than 2 quarters at a time all season. While that's may not all be on him, some of it surely is. But I also see an OC who did a nice job of putting it all together in the 2nd half on Saturday. Maybe the offense's second half performance is a glimpse of what's to come. Maybe it's not. We'll know soon enough.

The panthers struggled offensively against nd and nc because ... nd is a top 10 team and nc is the second best team in the acc. They were better teams. This fantasy that, gee of they only ran more ...

Duzz chewed galabos arse off after chewing out a coach to get him of the filed early, nearly spit his gum into grigsbys mouth he was yelling at him so hard in the duke game .... to the extent that people want to create some kind of thing where he was frustrated w chaney is no different than his being frustrated w anyone else.

 

[JoeScaz]

Agreed. We desperately need some playmakers. That's the number one thing that caught my eye about this Duke team that differs from the Duke teams of the past two years. It makes a huge difference. This year's Duke team is totally void of playmakers and they have to have long drawn out drives to find the end zone. The one big play for a TD should have been a tackle after the catch. I'm not sure what Whitehead was doing on that play.

We have playmakers that are underclassmen. You can already see that Henderson is a playmaker.. he almost broke a couple of KO returns and should be back there permanently. As is Tre Tipton, who has not seen the field due to injury.

 

[#99HUGHgreen]

The panthers struggled offensively against nd and nc because ... nd is a top 10 team and nc is the second best team in the acc. They were better teams. This fantasy that, gee of they only ran more ...

Duzz chewed galabos arse off after chewing out a coach to get him of the filed early, nearly spit his gum into grigsbys mouth he was yelling at him so hard in the duke game .... to the extent that people want to create some kind of thing where he was frustrated w chaney is no different than his being frustrated w anyone else.

No doubt they are two good teams. But so good that Pitt's offense should not be expected to score more than3 points in the first half in both games?... I think not.

U Mass scored 20 points in their first half against ND. USC scored 24 in their first half against ND. Navy scored 21. Virginia scored 14.

Georgia Tech score 21 points against North Carolina in the first half. Wake Forest scored 14 points against NC in the first half. Heck, even Delaware, an FCS team which has only won 3 of its 10 games this year was able to score 7 first half points against North Carolina.

In fact, out of the 18 other teams ND and North Carolina have played so far this year, only 4 of them have scored less points than Pitt in their first half. So there is that.

But like I said, Pitt's offense played well in the second half on Saturday- A half where they gained 173 yards on the ground and scored 21 points.

 

[Jeffburgh]

No doubt they are two good teams. But so good that Pitt's offense should not be expected to score more than3 points in the first half in both games?... I think not.

U Mass scored 20 points in their first half against ND. USC scored 24 in their first half against ND. Navy scored 21. Virginia scored 14.

Georgia Tech score 21 points against North Carolina in the first half. Wake Forest scored 14 points against NC in the first half. Heck, even Delaware, an FCS team which has only won 3 of its 10 games this year was able to score 7 first half points against North Carolina.

In fact, out of the 18 other teams ND and North Carolina have played so far this year, only 4 of them have scored less points than Pitt in their first half. So there is that.

But like I said, Pitt's offense played well in the second half on Saturday- A half where they gained 173 yards on the ground and scored 21 points.

WTF do points in the first half have to do with it?

Pitt scored 19 total points against NC.
Three other teams have scored more on NC all season.

Pitt scored 30 points on Notre Dame.
The only team to score more against ND this season was USC with 31.

The Panthers have run the ball 61% of the time this year and somehow people have ginned themselves up into wanting to think, gee, if only the rushed more often ...

 

[#99HUGHgreen]

WTF do points in the first half have to do with it?

Pitt scored 19 total points against NC.
Three other teams have scored more on NC all season.

Pitt scored 30 points on Notre Dame.
The only team to score more against ND this season was USC with 31.

The Panthers have run the ball 61% of the time this year and somehow people have ginned themselves up into wanting to think, gee, if only the rushed more often ...

Goodness, do I have to explain why it's important for a team not to play so poorly in the first half as to dig a huge hole for their team in the second half.

I've got to believe you are smarter than that.

Need I remind you that the last two TDs against ND occurred after the game was all but out of reach... ND was up 42-17 in the 4th qtr with 5:47 left in the game. ND's defense wasn't exactly playing lock down defense at that point. They just wanted the game to be over. Just like half of the fans who had already exited Heinz field before Boyd's practically uncontested score.

As for the North Carolina game, had the offense not played so poorly in the first half, they may have been close enough to actually have a legitimate shot of coming back at the end. But unfortunately they were just too many points behind. So yeah, one might say doing well in the first half is kind of important.

 

[Jeffburgh]

Goodness, do I have to explain why it's important for a team not to play so poorly in the first half as to dig a huge hole for their team in the second half.

I've got to believe you are smarter than that.

Need I remind you that the last two TDs against ND occurred after the game was all but out of reach... ND was up 42-17 in the 4th qtr with 5:47 left in the game. ND's defense wasn't exactly playing lock down defense at that point. They just wanted the game to be over. Just like half of the fans who had already exited Heinz field before Boyd's practically uncontested score.

As for the North Carolina game, had the offense not played so poorly in the first half, they may have been close enough to actually have a legitimate shot of coming back at the end. But unfortunately they were just too many points behind. So yeah, one might say doing well in the first half is kind of important.

Well there is the math you are making up to support a wrong headed position, and there is the math that exists in the real world.

In real world math, a football game is 60 minutes, A fg is worth 3 points in the second half the same as in the first half, a td is 6 points in the second half the same as the first half.

The game is 60 minutes, you are acting like every other team is hitting on all cylinders for all 4 quarters, and ignoring that they performed worse overall.

My point stands, the biggest issue is that they simply were better teams.

 

[#99HUGHgreen]

Well there is the math you are making up to support a wrong headed position, and there is the math that exists in the real world.

In real world math, a football game is 60 minutes, A fg is worth 3 points in the second half the same as in the first half, a td is 6 points in the second half the same as the first half.

The game is 60 minutes, you are acting like every other team is hitting on all cylinders for all 4 quarters, and ignoring that they performed worse overall.

My point stands, the biggest issue is that they simply were better teams.

In real world math, you need to score more points than your opponent to win the football game. You are mathematically making it more for that win, when you sputter on offense in the first half, allowing your opponent to build a lead. You are in essence giving yourself no real option but to play better in the second half in order to win.

If you're point is that they (ND and North Carolina) were better teams, you will not get an argument from me. I didn't say Pitt had the better (or. Ore talented) team. But teams with less talent are know to compete and win against better teams when the coaching /play calling and preparation is very good.

If your point is that first half points don't matter in a game, then I can not agree.

 

[Jeffburgh]

In real world math, you need to score more points than your opponent to win the football game. You are mathematically making it more for that win, when you sputter on offense in the first half, allowing your opponent to build a lead. You are in essence giving yourself no real option but to play better in the second half in order to win.

If you're point is that they (ND and North Carolina) were better teams, you will not get an argument from me. This was my origional response, "The panthers struggled offensively against nd and nc because ... nd is a top 10 team and nc is the second best team in the acc. They were better teams. This fantasy that, gee of they only ran more ..." I didn't say Pitt had the better (or. Ore talented) team. But teams with less talent are know to compete and win against better teams when the coaching /play calling and preparation is very good.

If your point is that first half points don't matter in a game, then I can not agree.

This was my last response, "In real world math, a football game is 60 minutes, A fg is worth 3 points in the second half the same as in the first half, a td is 6 points in the second half the same as the first half."

I will once again note, on the season the Panthers have run the ball on 61% of their plays.

When you run 6 out of 10 plays over the course of the season it is a pretty good indicator that the OC is "patient" with the run by nature.

The issue here is the assumption that when the OC is not running the ball as much at any particular period of time when on the season he runs the ball more than 6 out of 10 times it is because he is a clueless idiot vs that he might actually know more about running an offense than we might think and the other team is over playing the run (because they know he is patient with the run), which 1) makes it less likely to successfully run the ball against GOOD teams that have better athletes/players 2) opens up the chance for plays downfield in the passing game.

CONVERSELY, in these games, with a deficit in the second half, is the opposing defense playing the pass more or the run more?

Likely the pass, which ... opens up the run game ...

So, you are blame the symptom, the inability to run the ball effectively on better teams playing the run in the first half on the OC. I

ts a fantasy, that if he just ran the ball more it would be break a better team.

All his running more in the first half of these games would have done was leave them getting stoned on the run and having people complain that he didn't pass enough.

 

[#99HUGHgreen]

This was my last response, "In real world math, a football game is 60 minutes, A fg is worth 3 points in the second half the same as in the first half, a td is 6 points in the second half the same as the first half."

Its a fantasy, that if he just ran the ball more it would be break a better team.

All his running more in the first half of these games would have done was leave them getting stoned on the run and having people complain that he didn't pass enough.

Repeating your response and changing the color of all your opinions to red doesn't magically make them become facts or help them make any more sense for that matter. Frankly, I have no idea what you're trying to say with your "real world math" point is the first place.

Let me try to run some "real world math" past you. If your offense can't score but 3 points in the first half while your opponent's offense scores 21 points in that same half, your offense (possibly with the help of your defense or special teams) is going to have to score at least 19 more points in the second half than your opponent's offense in order to win. That's some really world math for you.

As for my response to your opinion that it's a fantasy to think running Ollison more in games would have produced better results:

Let me just lay this on you...

Every game Ollison got more than 12 carries, Pitt won.

That's right. The three games Pitt lost, Ollison got the ball 12 or less times.

How many carries did Ollison get in the ND game? Only 12.
How many carries in the North Carolina game? Only 10.
How about the Iowa game. 4 carries.

That my friend is no fantasy.

Oh... And how many carries did Ollison get in last week's big 31 to 13 win against Duke? Answer: 26

 

[Jeffburgh]

Repeating your response and changing the color of all your opinions to red doesn't magically make them become facts or help them make any more sense for that matter. Frankly, I have no idea what you're trying to say with your "real world math" point is the first place.

Let me try to run some "real world math" past you. If your offense can't score but 3 points in the first half while your opponent's offense scores 21 points in that same half, your offense (possibly with the help of your defense or special teams) is going to have to score at least 19 more points in the second half than your opponent's offense in order to win. That's some really world math for you.

As for my response to your opinion that it's a fantasy to think running Ollison more in games would have produced better results:

Let me just lay this on you...

Every game Ollison got more than 12 carries, Pitt won.

That's right. The three games Pitt lost, Ollison got the ball 12 or less times.

How many carries did Ollison get in the ND game? Only 12.
How many carries in the North Carolina game? Only 10.
How about the Iowa game. 4 carries.

That my friend is no fantasy.

Oh... And how many carries did Ollison get in last week's big 31 to 13 win against Duke? Answer: 26

I changed the color to differentiate my responses within quoted text, it carried over, I was working on my tablet which is harder for me to work on.

Point stands, the cause is the three top 10 teams they played were better teams, and Pitt couldnt just ram the ball down their throats like they did at duke.

You are spinning around trying to blame Chaney for that.

Im done here, I tend to lose my civility when dealing w people who refuse to be honest, "my friend."

 

[#99HUGHgreen]

I changed the color to differentiate my responses within quoted text, it carried over, I was working on my tablet which is harder for me to work on.

Point stands, the cause is the three top 10 teams they played were better teams, and Pitt couldnt just ram the ball down their throats like they did at duke.

You are spinning around trying to blame Chaney for that.

Im done here, I tend to lose my civility when dealing w people who refuse to be honest, "my friend."

The thing you seem to be missing is that I was being completely honest. I responded to your take on the matter with rational and unemotional responses which I was easily able to support with facts. Sorry that I just don't agree with your particular opionons and objections on this matter. Maybe you'll want to rethink what it means to be objectively "honest" and how that is different from just having your own "personal take" on something with which you want others to agree.

Regardless, There is no need to get mad or stressed out about it. Enjoy the day and the rest of Pitt's season. I know I will.

I'm sure we agree on many other thoughts related Pitt football... Just not this one.

Cheers.