Should Coach Narduzzi be criticized for lack of QB development while at Pitt?

[lilspainishflea]

We never really opened it up with Peterman. He had barely over 300 pass attempts both seasons he was here, which is where Pickett was in 2018, when we were a notorious running team. By contrast, Pickett threw almost 500 times in 2021... although Narduzzi often clashed heads with Whipple over that; it definitely wasn't done at his behest.

Frankly, I think Peterman has been overrated a bit in hindsight. He was a solid cog within a good system. But that was a top 5 offensive line in the country, and that's what steered the ship.

Narduzzi definitely thinks running the ball is the most foolproof formula for winning. I think that's correct, but I also don't know how easy it is to pull off. If it were, everyone would do it because it wouldn't make sense to put the ball in the air if you didn't have to.

Peterman was insanely efficient - 10.1 AY/A which is elite - because of the running game, motions, and use of play action. The formations, use of pre-snap motion, and play calling was otherworldly. That offense was one of the best "run to set up the pass" offenses in recent college football history.

 

[lilspainishflea]

I think this is probably right.

It’s more about offensive system that minimizes what the QB is being asked to do, and so allows them to have a lot of success.

Dan Mullen didn’t really “develop” QBs in the sense that they were these fundamentally sound QBs that could play in another offense.

Moorehead is regarded as a pretty elite OC, and he struggled to do anything with Nick Fitzgerald or any of Mullen’s QBs after Mullen left for UF, because they weren’t fit to play in any offense but Mullen’s.

You see that a lot with the Veer and Shoot guys. Does anybody think both Brileses and Heupel just have an elite eye for QBs where they just constantly hit with them or are able to constantly develop whatever trash you give them?
No. They just have the most perfect college offense that even trash QBs can light up college football in.

Yeah it's kind of a double-edged sword for QBs who play in those gimmick offenses. Matt Corral ran RPO on almost every single play. But he was the worst QB in the entire country on 3rd and 7 because he's not actually a Quarterback, he's just a dude who makes one read and either hands it off or throws it. But he probably wouldn't even be in draft consideration if he played in a pro-style offense.

Hooker was kind of similar in Tennessee but he was also proficient (not amazing) at Virginia Tech. I think he's way more talented than Corral, but the NFL decided that both of those guys were pretty far from having a future as an NFL QB.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

Peterman was insanely efficient - 10.1 AY/A which is elite - because of the running game, motions, and use of play action. The formations, use of pre-snap motion, and play calling was otherworldly. That offense was one of the best "run to set up the pass" offenses in recent college football history.

He was definitely efficient. I just don't think he was special as much as he was a product of the system. I'm actually shocked that he and his career 39.4 passer rating are still in the league. Must be a heck of a locker room presence or something.

 

[cashisking884]

Hooker was kind of similar in Tennessee but he was also proficient (not amazing) at Virginia Tech. I think he's way more talented than Corral, but the NFL decided that both of those guys were pretty far from having a future as an NFL QB.

Yeah, the NFL hates all of these veer and shoot guys. The one constant you keep hearing from NFL people is that the QBs and WRs are mentally miles behind everybody else.

But that’s what makes the offenses so insanely elite in college. They are idiot proof. Things other offenses are based around: progressions, route running, hell even pass blocking technique, is not needed for the Veer and Shoot to light up teams.

The perfect college offense is one where you can learn the entire playbook in a couple of hours, and there’s not really even a “playbook.”

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

Peterman was insanely efficient - 10.1 AY/A which is elite - because of the running game, motions, and use of play action. The formations, use of pre-snap motion, and play calling was otherworldly. That offense was one of the best "run to set up the pass" offenses in recent college football history.

Greatest one year offense I’ve ever seen. Still miss it. The dude is wasted calling the Rooney Run scheme with the Steelers 😞

 

[thebadby2]

Interesting take on talent under Canada. Canada once said that anything over 3 yards was icing on the cake vs Clemson in 2016.

Personally - I thought Canada had such an interesting take on stressing the defense and he was able to do so with limited talent in the "grand scheme of things." He did a lot with less.

That’s how I see it. He found creative ways to utilize his players’ strengths and avoid their weaknesses. Weah, Henderson and Ollison were great examples of that.

Of course none of that would have been doable without that outstanding O line…..

 

[steelcurtain55.]

Wisconsin has now completely gone away from the “bunch the box and run over teams” offense. And they weren’t exactly playing in the SEC. Imagine trying to make that against actual Top 15 recruiting classes on a yearly basis? Will Muschamp went through 2 SEC jobs trying to figure that out.

I've seen them start to transition into a more wide open offense in recently. But, during the 90's, the SEC was not necessarily king. The B10 and the B12/8 were the top conferences. I remember PSU recruiting top 5/10 classes routinely in that era, loaded with NFL defensive picks and they still couldn't stop Wisky running the ball. Wisky never recruited like OSU, Michigan, or PSU during that time. I'd venture to say that even MSU recruited better under Saban in the late 90's when they were getting Parade All Americans. Yet, Wisky kept winning.

And I don’t think your academies example is entirely correct.
The academies do structure their style of play around shortening the game and not getting into a track meet.

They do want to shorten the game for sure. But, most of that is because of the inability to stop people.

And some of that is because of their defenses. But it’s also because of their offenses. They realize they can’t score at will either.

I can't speak for Air Foce, but being around the Army/Navy staff too many times to count, they believe(d) that scoring wasn't an issue. Army/Navy were extremely comfortable in 1 to 2 score games. When they got down by more then 2 scores, the game was pretty much out of hand because the defense couldn't get stops and teams took the air out of the ball.

Now, to your point, that could be an offensive athlete problem too.

There is some truth to that as well. The playbook can't be extensive offensively because most of these guys are PSAC/FCS type players.

It should be noted that the service academies are changing their offenses as well. Army is going to a completely shotgun offense. Navy is going to start phasing it in and will probably be completely shotgun soon.

Monken is coaching for his next job. He knows 99% of the power 5's will not run the triple option from under center. You saw what happened with Kenny Niuamatolo when he was basically offered the AZ job but the QB protested.

Newberry at Navy is truly experimenting this year. His leash won't be very long at Navy if he doesn't do what Kenny did in terms of success. If they struggle on offense, which they will, he will be back to under center.

Calhoun is the only academy coach who has been 100% under center for 2.5 years straight. It shouldn't be a shocker they've been by far the best academy in that time.

Army experimented with the run/shoot at times in the past 30 years. They were terrible. As soon as they hired Monken and went exclusively under center - they became relevant. Navy was in the same boat prior to hiring Paul Johnson.

 

[steelcurtain55.]

Greatest one year offense I’ve ever seen. Still miss it. The dude is wasted calling the Rooney Run scheme with the Steelers 😞

I don't think that is it.

Kenny P threw the ball on average 37.5x/game.

Internally, they know he isn't good enough to be throwing the ball that much. Hell, he threw the ball more then Trevor Lawrence did as a rookie. Ben averaged 17 passes/game as a rookie. The problem is the OL was terrible.

I also don't think the fly sweep they way Canada used it in college is as effective in the pros as it is in college. The hashes in the NFL keep the ball in the middle of the field unlike the college/hs game where the ball is on the hash 70% of the time.

 

[thebadby2]

Hard to develop multiple QB's when you have a great one for 5 of your 9 years at a program.

Not so great for 4 of those years. But much of that wasn't his fault.

Watson was a historically bad OC at Pitt.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

Not so great for 4 of those years. But much of that wasn't his fault.

Watson was a historically bad OC at Pitt.

In fairness to him, Watson had absolutely nothing to work with. In 2017, the line was bad, the quarterbacks were bad, and the running backs were bad. Remember that Syracuse game where we kept rotating the backs just to try and get ANYTHING going? There was such a disparity between Whitehead and the rest. Hall finally started to break out a little at the end.

And then in 2018 we flat our couldn't throw the ball. There was no time, and Pickett wasn't very good (except for in spots). In the second half of that Syracuse game, Watson just said, "Screw it; I'm done even trying to throw the ball with these guys." And that's what changed our whole season around and won us the Coastal.

 

[thebadby2]

Peterman was insanely efficient - 10.1 AY/A which is elite - because of the running game, motions, and use of play action. The formations, use of pre-snap motion, and play calling was otherworldly. That offense was one of the best "run to set up the pass" offenses in recent college football history.

Well put. Exactly my view of it. And Peterman's real talent was never with his arm, it was his intelligence and his ball-handling--Canada realized that and exploited it.

I'll never forget the poster on this board who posted rght after Canada was hired that he ran into Canada at the airport before he had even arrived at Pitt, and Canada told him "as long as Nate Peterman stays healthy, we're going to score a ton of points". And he delivered on that big time. Narduzzi deserves a lot of credit for trusting Canada and letting him have free reign with that offense.

Whatever his failures may have been elsewhere, Canada painted his masterpiece in that one season at Pitt.

 

[cashisking884]

He was definitely efficient. I just don't think he was special as much as he was a product of the system. I'm actually shocked that he and his career 39.4 passer rating are still in the league. Must be a heck of a locker room presence or something.

There was a lot of Air Raid and Veer and Shoot to it to it in that the offensive playbook was actually very small. Which I loved. Canada used a ton of motion to hide the playcalling. But he basically called the same few plays over and over again.

So the offense was more about getting really good at just a few things. Combine that with the fact that it was more of a read than progression offense, and Canada had a really good college oriented offense.

Whipple’s offense in 2021 was good. But even it didn’t rank at an absolute *elite* level in the analytics.
And it still didn’t feel like a perfect college offense that was going to produce year after year like an Air Raid. It felt like it just had some real high end pieces that probably weren’t going to be around year after year (which we saw in 2022), but needed those pieces year after year to have anything close to that level of success.

Canada’s offense didn’t feel like it needed that level of talent to produce results, because of how perfectly geared to the college game it was. We haven’t had anything close to that since.

 

[cashisking884]

Well put. Exactly my view of it. And Peterman's real talent was never with his arm, it was his intelligence and his ball-handling--Canada realized that and exploited it.

I’ll give him some credit. But I don’t think this is really true.

It’s that Canada’s offense was so simple, it didn’t need an intelligent QB.

It’s like Leach or Briles. They aren’t constantly landing intelligent guys. But their offenses are so dumbed down, that the average QB on the street can understand it and execute it to a pretty high degree of success.

Canada was a lot like that. A few plays that create simple “If A then B” reads. And then use misdirection and shifting to create spacing in the passing game for the QB, and leverage numbers in the running game.

 

[thebadby2]

Yeah, the NFL hates all of these veer and shoot guys. The one constant you keep hearing from NFL people is that the QBs and WRs are mentally miles behind everybody else.

But that’s what makes the offenses so insanely elite in college. They are idiot proof. Things other offenses are based around: progressions, route running, hell even pass blocking technique, is not needed for the Veer and Shoot to light up teams.

The perfect college offense is one where you can learn the entire playbook in a couple of hours, and there’s not really even a “playbook.”

Agreed. And those offenses are all based on the Mike Leach principle: spread the field, get your fastest players the ball in space as many times as you can, and let them score touchdowns. Beautiful in its simplicity.

 

[thebadby2]

I’ll give him some credit. But I don’t think this is really true.

It’s that Canada’s offense was so simple, it didn’t need an intelligent QB.

It’s like Leach or Briles. They aren’t constantly landing intelligent guys. But their offenses are so dumbed down, that the average QB on the street can understand it and execute it to a pretty high degree of success.

Canada was a lot like that. A few plays that create simple “If A then B” reads. And then use misdirection and shifting to create spacing in the passing game for the QB, and leverage numbers in the running game.

That offense depended on a lot of accurate quick pre-snap read and recognition on Peterman's part, and he was also responsible for timing the snap and controlling the tempo of the offense. That offense was built on tempo and rhythm, and keeping the D off balance and on its heels. When it was humming as it did against Clemson, and PSU before Dooz/Canada took their foot off the gas pedal in the second half, it was a thing of beauty.

So IMO the QB job under Canada required plenty of intelligence, just not in the sense that he had to memorize a 6 inch playbook or 50 route trees.

 

[steelcurtain55.]

Canada was a lot like that. A few plays that create simple “If A then B” reads.

The majority of the modern passing attack in virtually every offense is an "if then A to B read."

Case in point -

1. All quick game (3 step under center, 1 step gun) is isolating one defender.

2. "Mesh" (3 step gun / 5 step under center) in modern terms reading the overhang. If the overhang runs with the rail, you're hitting the drag coming across the field. Sure, you have a gift route on the post or whatever you tag it but the actual progression is isolating one defender.

3. "Smash" - (3 step gun / 5 step under center) isolating the corner. If the corner drives the hitch, hit the corner route and vice versa.

4. "Curl/ Flat" (3 step gun / 5 step under center) isolating the overhang. If the overhang drives on the flat, hit the curl - and vice versa.

5. "Shallow Cross" (3 step gun / 5 step under center). You're looking at the dig to shallow cross. The "C" part is the RB on the swing.

6. "Drive Concept" (3 step gun / 5 step under center). You're isolating the LB's. If the LB's drop on the dig, hit the shallow underneath and vice versa.

7. RPO's are A-B concepts.

8. Sprint out concepts are A-B.

9. Play action is pretty much an A-B unless it's predetermined by the booth.

With all that being said - how hard are triangle concepts - really? I wouldn't have a ton of them but 3 sound triangle concepts like "Spot" or "Snag" are really easy. Most good HS QB's can run them pretty easy.

 

[steelcurtain55.]

So - Canada's offense was a mix of pro-style mixed with Mark Speckman's "Fly Offense."

Canada's base run scheme was -
1. Inside Zone
2. Gap (Power/Counter)
3. Outside Zone (TB or Slot)

His method of attack was mimicking what triple option teams do without running the option. Triple option teams make you defend 3 phases - dive/keep/pitch with moving the point of attack in multiple ways. You always have to have someone on each of these phases in a disciplined manner to be successful in it's defense.

When Canada met with Speckman he wanted to learn how Speckman made teams play assignment football with the fly sweep. The fly sweep was the constraint play that in all honesty was a good play if it got 5 yards because it had the potential to go 80 if it's not defended well. So teams always had to have a someone defend the fly.

1. This made the secondary predictable because there are only so many coverages you're going to run vs any type of fly or pitch play. Most teams played roll cover 3/6 or some type of quarters. Cover 2 is dangerous because of where the contain player is (CB).

2. It made off tackle defenders get nosey and forgetting their main responsiblity was spilling the ball outside. Instead, many DE's would chase the sweep and Canada would run his gap schemes underneath - power, power read, power shovel.

3. It made the interior defenders like ILB's run the alley and got them displaced vs. zone and gap.

But, one thing I loved about Canada's philosophy was he used to be a tempo guy while at NIU. He said they broke many offensive records but failed to get over the hump as a team because the defense could not keep pace with the offense. Canada's solution was similar to what Lew Johnston (famous HS VA coach) employed with shifting, trades, motions, etc.

1. It stressed the defense in the same manner that hurry up offenses do. You had to get lined up and adjusted in a hurry.

2. It caused confusion in alignment.

3. he ran unbalanced which displaced defenders out of the box or put defenders in the box.

4. he could get more hats at the point of attack then you had defenders.

5. it allowed him to make subtle wrinkles that were inexpensive to install but could yield huge results.

Overall - I think the guy left so much on the table when he left PITT. He could've spent a few years at PITT and landed a huge gig at a power 5 had he stayed. Instead, he chased the big $$ and made a big mistake. Canada will tell you to your face that he made a mistake.

 

[steelcurtain55.]

Huh? I'm not sure how the two are related, unless you're making an argument that the defense is getting less practice reps against a good passing scheme (but it doesn't sound like you are).

That's not the point I'm making even though there is some truth to that. Navy used to spend the majority of spring ball servicing their defense by running a ton of gun spread stuff.

The fact that the service academies rack up running yards but can't stop anybody doesn't exactly prove a correlation. They recruit mostly lesser athletes and are able to catch certain defenses off guard running a system that few do anymore.

Sure it does - the academies rarely have good defenses statistically speaking, even though Air Force finished #1 in the country last year I believe.

The academies like most schools not named Bama, Georgia, OSU, Clemson, etc struggle to land talent on defense. Except it's a profound difference between what Army/Navy land on defense vs. what even a low level FBS school like Rutgers or Purdue lands..

The offensive system is literally structured to make the most at the point of attack so they don't play behind sticks.

If Georgia, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, etc. wanted to dedicate themselves to running the ball more this season, I'm sure they would fare well against most teams on their schedule and their defenses would still be stout.

Sure - they can recruit whatever the heck they want. The academies cannot. However, the academies can statistically perform extremely well offensively when they're physically outmatched, yet they play a very physical brand of football.

It's the same reason Urban Meyer had Paul Johnson on speed dial in how to level the playing field while at Utah and later go above and beyond while at Florida. Urban has been quoted that he would absolutely go under center and run the veer if it wouldn't have such a negative impact in recruiting.

But, as we saw with Pitt in 2018, it's tough to score a lot of points running against the more athletic/talented defenses. You can beat up on a lot of teams you're better than that way, but it's tough to beat the ones who are as or more talented than you are (Penn State 51-6; Clemson 42-10; Miami 24-3; Notre Dame 19-14) doing things that way.

We finished #85 in rushing offense. We weren't good running the ball period. We finished #69 in total defense. We weren't really good there either. We finished 7-7. Army/Navy/Air Force have FCS/PSAC type guys that usually finish top 5 in rushing offense and not really good on defense - yet they usually win against a schedule where everyone outrecruits them. I don't care what scheme you run on offense but if you're running the ball extremely well, you probably are going to win most of your games.

 

[pittdan77]

Calhoun is the only academy coach who has been 100% under center for 2.5 years straight. It shouldn't be a shocker they've been by far the best academy in that time.

Air Force is going to have a great defense this year. Been a while since AF could boast a defense this good. Made the top 25 last time.

 

[MajorMajors]

So - Canada's offense was a mix of pro-style mixed with Mark Speckman's "Fly Offense."

Canada's base run scheme was -
1. Inside Zone
2. Gap (Power/Counter)
3. Outside Zone (TB or Slot)

His method of attack was mimicking what triple option teams do without running the option. Triple option teams make you defend 3 phases - dive/keep/pitch with moving the point of attack in multiple ways. You always have to have someone on each of these phases in a disciplined manner to be successful in it's defense.

When Canada met with Speckman he wanted to learn how Speckman made teams play assignment football with the fly sweep. The fly sweep was the constraint play that in all honesty was a good play if it got 5 yards because it had the potential to go 80 if it's not defended well. So teams always had to have a someone defend the fly.

1. This made the secondary predictable because there are only so many coverages you're going to run vs any type of fly or pitch play. Most teams played roll cover 3/6 or some type of quarters. Cover 2 is dangerous because of where the contain player is (CB).

2. It made off tackle defenders get nosey and forgetting their main responsiblity was spilling the ball outside. Instead, many DE's would chase the sweep and Canada would run his gap schemes underneath - power, power read, power shovel.

3. It made the interior defenders like ILB's run the alley and got them displaced vs. zone and gap.

But, one thing I loved about Canada's philosophy was he used to be a tempo guy while at NIU. He said they broke many offensive records but failed to get over the hump as a team because the defense could not keep pace with the offense. Canada's solution was similar to what Lew Johnston (famous HS VA coach) employed with shifting, trades, motions, etc.

1. It stressed the defense in the same manner that hurry up offenses do. You had to get lined up and adjusted in a hurry.

2. It caused confusion in alignment.

3. he ran unbalanced which displaced defenders out of the box or put defenders in the box.

4. he could get more hats at the point of attack then you had defenders.

5. it allowed him to make subtle wrinkles that were inexpensive to install but could yield huge results.

Overall - I think the guy left so much on the table when he left PITT. He could've spent a few years at PITT and landed a huge gig at a power 5 had he stayed. Instead, he chased the big $$ and made a big mistake. Canada will tell you to your face that he made a mistake.

Reading your posts like this is why I wish the Pitt coaches would have some “Chalk-Talk” sessions for fans who would love to better understand offensive and defensive strategies…

I think it was Coach Gottfried’s staff who used to do some “Chalk-Talks” at local high schools. Things like explaining who the QB was keying on, running the film back and forth to show how the plays developed…
I took my son and he loved it - so did I…. Wanny had a few “Chalk-Talks” too.

Go Pitt.

 

[HailToPitt725]

This has been fun to read through, especially the statistical breakdowns. Thanks for all who’ve contributed. Interesting to hear the varying opinions.

 

[Will K]

His worst hires ever are Cignetti and Watson