That first two-point conversion and Narduzzi's TOs

upj87

Head Coach
Nov 5, 2003
10,119
6,275
113
Am I crazy, or did I see Baer and Jacoby playing defense on the first two-point conversion attempt by Duke? Seemed like it may have caught us by surprise and we had an odd mix of base defenders and the extra point (of the kicking variety) team out there. I'm surprised we didn't call a timeout.

... Which leads me to how insane it was that we called two timeouts on that final defensive possession (before the 4th and 18 and before the two-point conversion). First off, we have to lead the universe in calling timeout before third and long or fourth and long and still giving up the play anyway. This has been going on for a long time now.

Second, that just shows you where Narduzzi's head is at. Once again, we were going all in on defense. I think, with 52 seconds left, most coaches would be content with "rolling the dice" (i.e. not calling timeout) on 4th and 18 (in the red zone, no less, where the boundary is like having at least one more defender on the field) and preserving the timeouts for an ensuing field goal attempt... Especially against a bad pass defense. But I truly believe we would have ran the ball and played for overtime if Duke had converted the two-point try. That's kind of insane to think about in modern football. 47 seconds is a lot of time.

Now, you can argue that Slovis' interceptions basically left him with no choice but to play that way. But man... It's just depressing that we have to use that approach in week 12. But I'll say this: If that's the level of trust you have in Slovis and you still elect to bring him back next season, you get what you get.
not to mention both timeouts were taken with the clock already stopped...my beef was a TO should have been taken after one of the running plays on Duke's final possession to save more time for Pitt if Duke had tied the game...
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2021
6,314
5,180
113
not to mention timeouts when the clock was not running...

not to mention both timeouts were taken with the clock already stopped...my beef was a TO should have been taken after one of the running plays on Duke's final possession to save more time for Pitt if Duke had tied the game...

Exactly. I was saying the same thing at the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Upg bobcat

NCanton Panther

All Conference
Sep 22, 2001
5,984
3,227
113
Guess what. As soon as that QB decides to run, he also could have a convoy of OL with him. Its a shame that you really don't understand football.
I’d have to disagree with you big time. If I had my defense set up properly, the QB taking off on a run needing 18-19 yards on a short field of 18-19 yards would have been the last thing I would have been worried about, I don’t care what convoy of OL he had with him.

Again, if my defense is set up properly, I like my chances very much if the QB takes off on a run.

You have 5 eligible receivers to account for and that would have been #1 priority for me when setting up that defense. To the point that I wouldn’t have had 4 guys rushing the passer or doing nothing at the LOS.
 

Joe the Panther Fan

Lair Hall of Famer
Jul 6, 2001
39,126
18,612
113
I don’t agree with him but Elko stated where his head was on the 1st 2-pt conversion. He said he didn’t like the idea of going to OT because of their inability to run the ball so he played to win it in the 4th Qtr. But even with that mindset, I would have kicked the PAT on the 1st TD and left it for the 2nd TD to attempt the 2-ptr to win. At least then, you could evaluate at that point and assess whether your preference was still to go for the win or OT.


I think that's the right way to do it. I get not wanting to go to overtime. But going for two the first time actually makes it more likely that you are going to overtime. If you kick after the first one and then go for two after the second one then you aren't going to overtime.
 

NCPitt

Lair Hall of Famer
Mar 12, 2009
52,952
21,026
113
I’d have to disagree with you big time. If I had my defense set up properly, the QB taking off on a run needing 18-19 yards on a short field of 18-19 yards would have been the last thing I would have been worried about, I don’t care what convoy of OL he had with him.

Again, if my defense is set up properly, I like my chances very much if the QB takes off on a run.

You have 5 eligible receivers to account for and that would have been #1 priority for me when setting up that defense. To the point that I wouldn’t have had 4 guys rushing the passer or doing nothing at the LOS.
So 7 guys covering 5 isn't enough?

Look, I agree its likely that a QB run wouldn't succeed. But is it that much more unlikely than letting a RB run free for 20 yards? Leonard is Duke's leading rusher on the year. He isn't some stiff. Shadowing him was a good call.
 

NCPitt

Lair Hall of Famer
Mar 12, 2009
52,952
21,026
113
The only reason why you think I made your point is because you don't understand it.

No surprise there.
So the RB wasn't free for 20 yards? No one saw him but they would most definitely have seen Leanord, who is a better runner than the RB. Got it.
 

Joe the Panther Fan

Lair Hall of Famer
Jul 6, 2001
39,126
18,612
113
So the RB wasn't free for 20 yards? No one saw him but they would most definitely have seen Leanord, who is a better runner than the RB. Got it.


When a running back is out in the pattern the defenders who are not responsible for guarding him don't pay him a lot of attention. When the quarterback runs the ball all those defenders no longer have responsibilities to guard anyone else, because none of them can score, so they can all go to the quarterback.

That's why we should have been in a zone with four or five guys strung out along the goal line and the other guys defending deeper in the end zone. Then ALL of those guys would have had eyes back to see what was happening, not having their backs turned to the way that they got beat.

It was a completely moronic way to defend that situation. Which was born out by how it played out. We had no one, literally no one, in position to stop a pass to just short of the goal line. The fact that you are defending something so completely moronic says a lot about what you know and understand about the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCanton Panther

PittPharm2002

All Conference
Dec 21, 2021
5,357
2,629
113
You make my point. The RB was free for 20 yards and no one picked him up.
So despite a defensive timeout to set up -
We left a linebacker to defend the entire field prior to the end zone and our entire secondary covering receivers in the back of the endzone

If your point is that despite having time to set up and we dialed up an insanely stupid defense - nobody but you is arguing
 

steelcurtain55.

Sophomore
May 6, 2017
2,986
1,873
113
As for the 4th down defense, it was basically 11 on 10. Kamara was neither rushing the passer nor defending the goal line. That made no sense. I hope that was more of a player just doing something on his own than an actual assignment, haha.

Zero need to shadow a QB on 4th and 18 in a zone. Dumbest thing I ever heard. To a point where I can't imagine that was his assignment.

We weren't shadowing the QB by assignment.

We were in a version of 2 man. Man across with both safeties free protecting the back end.

It appeared we had some kind of hi/low bracket.

We used to call it cover 8 in the red zone.

It appears to me like we had a high rat and low rat player.

Very sound. The problem is Dennis is probably playing either 2 deep or he's not using what we like to call a ping pong technique between #3 and the QB. He's got his eyes to wrapped on #3 and loses sight underneath. He needs to pass off #3 earlier and poach the back earlier.
 

snaphook297

Redshirt
Dec 19, 2020
972
712
93
65
Pittsburgh
Am I crazy, or did I see Baer and Jacoby playing defense on the first two-point conversion attempt by Duke? Seemed like it may have caught us by surprise and we had an odd mix of base defenders and the extra point (of the kicking variety) team out there. I'm surprised we didn't call a timeout.

... Which leads me to how insane it was that we called two timeouts on that final defensive possession (before the 4th and 18 and before the two-point conversion). First off, we have to lead the universe in calling timeout before third and long or fourth and long and still giving up the play anyway. This has been going on for a long time now.

Second, that just shows you where Narduzzi's head is at. Once again, we were going all in on defense. I think, with 52 seconds left, most coaches would be content with "rolling the dice" (i.e. not calling timeout) on 4th and 18 (in the red zone, no less, where the boundary is like having at least one more defender on the field) and preserving the timeouts for an ensuing field goal attempt... Especially against a bad pass defense. But I truly believe we would have ran the ball and played for overtime if Duke had converted the two-point try. That's kind of insane to think about in modern football. 47 seconds is a lot of time.

Now, you can argue that Slovis' interceptions basically left him with no choice but to play that way. But man... It's just depressing that we have to use that approach in week 12. But I'll say this: If that's the level of trust you have in Slovis and you still elect to bring him back next season, you get what you get.
Tied with pop Warner for wins at Pitt . Not sure you have the credentials to criticize a legend
 

NCanton Panther

All Conference
Sep 22, 2001
5,984
3,227
113
So 7 guys covering 5 isn't enough?

Look, I agree its likely that a QB run wouldn't succeed. But is it that much more unlikely than letting a RB run free for 20 yards? Leonard is Duke's leading rusher on the year. He isn't some stiff. Shadowing him was a good call.
7 guys covering 5 obviously wasn’t enough, especially when they were only covering 4.
 
Oct 25, 2021
6,314
5,180
113
We weren't shadowing the QB by assignment.

We were in a version of 2 man. Man across with both safeties free protecting the back end.

It appeared we had some kind of hi/low bracket.

We used to call it cover 8 in the red zone.

It appears to me like we had a high rat and low rat player.

Very sound. The problem is Dennis is probably playing either 2 deep or he's not using what we like to call a ping pong technique between #3 and the QB. He's got his eyes to wrapped on #3 and loses sight underneath. He needs to pass off #3 earlier and poach the back earlier.

I don't pretend to know the terminology, but I'm still not seeing the need for whatever Kamara was doing on that play. He was hanging out by the LOS. He clearly didn't take the back out of the backfield, and he didn't rush the passer. This lead me to assume he was spying the QB through process of elimination. Maybe he wasn't; maybe he was keeping an eye out for an end-around to the right tackle. Maybe he was on a blitz so delayed that he won't start rushing until next week. Either way, what he was doing seemed to serve little purpose.

Play starts at 2:23. When Leonard moves right, Kamara moves with him. When he moves left, Kamara moves that way. You sure he wasn't spying the QB?

 
Oct 25, 2021
6,314
5,180
113
Tied with pop Warner for wins at Pitt . Not sure you have the credentials to criticize a legend

When I was young, my parents bought me a Pop Warner football. I used to tee it up and kick it through trees in the backyard. My only hope is that one day I can buy a Pat Narduzzi football for my grandchildren. Granted, it will probably come equipped with a 35-pound weight inside to ensure it can never be thrown, but it will still be cool.
 

Gunga_Galunga

All American
Jan 12, 2017
6,518
8,194
113
I don't pretend to know the terminology, but I'm still not seeing the need for whatever Kamara was doing on that play. He was hanging out by the LOS. He clearly didn't take the back out of the backfield, and he didn't rush the passer. This lead me to assume he was spying the QB through process of elimination. Maybe he wasn't; maybe he was keeping an eye out for an end-around to the right tackle. Maybe he was on a blitz so delayed that he won't start rushing until next week. Either way, what he was doing seemed to serve little purpose.

Play starts at 2:23. When Leonard moves right, Kamara moves with him. When he moves left, Kamara moves that way. You sure he wasn't spying the QB?

The way they were aligned Kamara had to take the back. He either needs to blitz and force the back to pick him up, or he needs to cover him once he releases into the pattern.
 

NCanton Panther

All Conference
Sep 22, 2001
5,984
3,227
113
I don't pretend to know the terminology, but I'm still not seeing the need for whatever Kamara was doing on that play. He was hanging out by the LOS. He clearly didn't take the back out of the backfield, and he didn't rush the passer. This lead me to assume he was spying the QB through process of elimination. Maybe he wasn't; maybe he was keeping an eye out for an end-around to the right tackle. Maybe he was on a blitz so delayed that he won't start rushing until next week. Either way, what he was doing seemed to serve little purpose.

Play starts at 2:23. When Leonard moves right, Kamara moves with him. When he moves left, Kamara moves that way. You sure he wasn't spying the QB?

I’m with you big time. I also won’t pretend to know the terminology. But that doesn’t change the fact that Kamara’s actions sure looked like that’s what he was doing. Whatever he was doing, him and 3 other DL at the LOS was a waste of resources.

And I may not know the terminology like Steel, but I’d still question Steel’s claim of the defensive scheme being sound on that play.
 

PittPharm2002

All Conference
Dec 21, 2021
5,357
2,629
113
We weren't shadowing the QB by assignment.

We were in a version of 2 man. Man across with both safeties free protecting the back end.

It appeared we had some kind of hi/low bracket.

We used to call it cover 8 in the red zone.

It appears to me like we had a high rat and low rat player.

Very sound. The problem is Dennis is probably playing either 2 deep or he's not using what we like to call a ping pong technique between #3 and the QB. He's got his eyes to wrapped on #3 and loses sight underneath. He needs to pass off #3 earlier and poach the back earlier.
It’s not very sound to have all the coverage in the back of the end zone and only a lb before the end zone
There is no justifying it
 

steelcurtain55.

Sophomore
May 6, 2017
2,986
1,873
113
It’s not very sound to have all the coverage in the back of the end zone and only a lb before the end zone
There is no justifying it
Head In Hands GIF by Australian Survivor
 

steelcurtain55.

Sophomore
May 6, 2017
2,986
1,873
113
You sure he wasn't spying the QB?
Kamara is having a brain fart.

In 2 man - he's got #2 to his side or #4 away.

You can tell if they were in typical solo/special coverage (PITT's answer to TRIPS), he would be lined up to the boundary. There is rarely ever a time all 3 LB's are lined up on the same side.

I'm assuming he thinks the RB is staying in to pass block.

The breakdown begins and ends with him.
 

NCanton Panther

All Conference
Sep 22, 2001
5,984
3,227
113
It’s not very sound to have all the coverage in the back of the end zone and only a lb before the end zone
There is no justifying it
This has been mentioned by Joe, you and others countless times. I’m only somewhat in agreement, by far not my biggest complaint with our defense on that play.

Yeah, we had 7 guys in the end zone. But Duke had 4 guys spread out across the middle to back of the end zone. 4 of our 7 were literally within arms length of if not right in top of those 4 receivers. Two others were I think properly positioned facing the play and within close enough proximity to assist against a pass to any 2 or 3 of those receivers.

Dennis was obviously the 7th. I think he’s one of our plus defenders but hard to explain why he reacted so slowly to that RB coming towards him to make the catch.

But my biggest beef is rushing 4 defenders, or 3 plus whatever Kamala was doing. No way I have him setup on that play near the LOS, should have been roaming the field positioned about the 10-12 yard line, with primary focus on the 5th and last eligible receiver. 5 eligible receivers in that play and all 5 of them should have been addressed by 8 defenders back. I like my chances big time if the QB dumps off a short pass or has to take off on a run for 18-19 yards with 8 defenders seeing the play and able to react.
 

Gunga_Galunga

All American
Jan 12, 2017
6,518
8,194
113
Kamara should have taken the RB who released late. Dennis covered someone into the endzone and it's a tough ask for him to hand off and cover the other RB. Re-watching it's clearly Kamara who blew that coverage.
 

steelcurtain55.

Sophomore
May 6, 2017
2,986
1,873
113
But my biggest beef is rushing 4 defenders, or 3 plus whatever Kamala was doing. No way I have him setup on that play near the LOS, should have been roaming the field positioned about the 10-12 yard line, with primary focus on the 5th and last eligible receiver. 5 eligible receivers in that play and all 5 of them should have been addressed by 8 defenders back.

https://insidethepylon.com/football-101/glossary-football-101/2015/11/02/itp-glossary-2-man/

This is where fans want to blame coaching and not players.

He is just fine setting up where he is. He's got an Omaha call where's bumped into a "00" because of the trips call matched with where the back is. He's playing essentially 10 yards off the RB in his base alignment. He needs leverage. Playing 20 yards makes his job harder.
 

NCPitt

Lair Hall of Famer
Mar 12, 2009
52,952
21,026
113
When a running back is out in the pattern the defenders who are not responsible for guarding him don't pay him a lot of attention. When the quarterback runs the ball all those defenders no longer have responsibilities to guard anyone else, because none of them can score, so they can all go to the quarterback.

That's why we should have been in a zone with four or five guys strung out along the goal line and the other guys defending deeper in the end zone. Then ALL of those guys would have had eyes back to see what was happening, not having their backs turned to the way that they got beat.

It was a completely moronic way to defend that situation. Which was born out by how it played out. We had no one, literally no one, in position to stop a pass to just short of the goal line. The fact that you are defending something so completely moronic says a lot about what you know and understand about the game.
You, too, then should be a coach since you know more than the Pitt coaches who collectively earn $millions to make those decisions.

We had players in zones with no offensive players around them. Yet the RB was the ONLY player on the entire field between the 2 and 22 yard lines. Yet every one of the 7 defenders missed him. Funny how that works.

Duke.jpg
 

NCPitt

Lair Hall of Famer
Mar 12, 2009
52,952
21,026
113
So despite a defensive timeout to set up -
We left a linebacker to defend the entire field prior to the end zone and our entire secondary covering receivers in the back of the endzone

If your point is that despite having time to set up and we dialed up an insanely stupid defense - nobody but you is arguing
My point is that player execution was poor. Lots of people agree that Dennis screwed up.
 

steelcurtain55.

Sophomore
May 6, 2017
2,986
1,873
113
That's why we should have been in a zone with four or five guys strung out along the goal line and the other guys defending deeper in the end zone.

We are in 2 man. We are man underneath with safety help over the top. We are +2 in coverage.

It was a completely moronic way to defend that situation.

Tell me you don't understand coverage without telling me you don't understand coverage.
 

steelcurtain55.

Sophomore
May 6, 2017
2,986
1,873
113
My point is that player execution was poor. Lots of people agree that Dennis screwed up.
Dennis is fine. He's got all of #3 unless they have some kind of funky 2 RAT players. The reason they you know they don't, is Kamara never settles in the under middle hole.

Kamara is lost in the sauce on this one.
 

PittPharm2002

All Conference
Dec 21, 2021
5,357
2,629
113
Frustrating isn't it to think it was a scheme issue instead of execution .
Not nearly as frustrating to watch another 3rd and long defensive timeout result in another failure to stop and execute

So seems the coaching for the scheme and situation fails
 

PittPharm2002

All Conference
Dec 21, 2021
5,357
2,629
113
We are in 2 man. We are man underneath with safety help over the top. We are +2 in coverage.



Tell me you don't understand coverage without telling me you don't understand coverage.
Tell me you think defending the back of the end zone is more important than the front without telling me
 

steelcurtain55.

Sophomore
May 6, 2017
2,986
1,873
113
Not nearly as frustrating to watch another 3rd and long defensive timeout result in another failure to stop and execute

So seems the coaching for the scheme and situation fails

I guess when a RB fumbles the ball, the coaching failed for the technique and situation that presented itself.

Stop being a clown.
 

steelcurtain55.

Sophomore
May 6, 2017
2,986
1,873
113
Yep
They back of the end zone was very well covered
Front -
Not so much
Advantage Duke Offense vs Pitt defense
are the 4 detached receivers in the endzone? - yes

Is PITT supposed to have someone covering #4? - yes - this would've been on the coaches had we lined up in 4 down but we didn't. We lined up with 3 down. The guy responsible for #4 doesn't do his job. If he does his job, no one is talking.
 

Upg bobcat

Freshman
Oct 14, 2019
1,414
799
113
Based on watching Pitt for years, I'm guessing that even if Kamara tries to the cover the running back, the back gets past him, Leonard probably still gets his pass to him right before the goal line, and Duke still scores.
 

steelcurtain55.

Sophomore
May 6, 2017
2,986
1,873
113
Based on watching Pitt for years, I'm guessing that even if Kamara tries to the cover the running back, the back gets past him, Leonard probably still gets his pass to him right before the goal line, and Duke still scores.

So no matter what - the coaches have to basically be perfect and account for hindsight in advance?
 

NCanton Panther

All Conference
Sep 22, 2001
5,984
3,227
113
are the 4 detached receivers in the endzone? - yes

Is PITT supposed to have someone covering #4? - yes - this would've been on the coaches had we lined up in 4 down but we didn't. We lined up with 3 down. The guy responsible for #4 doesn't do his job. If he does his job, no one is talking.
Like many others in this thread, I‘ve had my back n forth with you on our defense on that play. But unlike many others in this thread, I have no major problems with where our back 7 were on that play aside from what I think was Dennis’ slow reaction to the RB. So I think I’m mostly in agreement with you on those back 7.

I still don’t agree with you on Kamara though/where we had him positioned on that play or what his focus was ir should have been. That’s pretty much my sole dissatisfaction with the play. You’re putting that primarily on his execution. Based on his positioning and lack of focus on the RB, I think a good bit of the blame goes on scheme/coaching.
 
Oct 25, 2021
6,314
5,180
113
Based on watching Pitt for years, I'm guessing that even if Kamara tries to the cover the running back, the back gets past him, Leonard probably still gets his pass to him right before the goal line, and Duke still scores.

I was surprised to see him hanging with Duke's receivers a few times in coverage.

... And also a bit depressed that they kept getting their receivers matched up with a LB.
 

Joe the Panther Fan

Lair Hall of Famer
Jul 6, 2001
39,126
18,612
113
Tell me you don't understand coverage without telling me you don't understand coverage.


I understand the coverage just fine. Man coverage in that situation is stupid. Even your high school coach should know that. Man coverage leaves you in a situation where one guy does something stupid and you get scored on. And that's exactly what happened here.

Any time it's 4th and 18 from the 19 and you end up in a coverage with zero guys in coverage closer to the line of scrimmage than three yards deep in the end zone your coverage is dumb. We were doing a great job covering the back of the end zone. Had Duke needed to run the ball out of the back of the end zone that would have been just fine. But most people, even high school assistant coaches, understand that they don't need to get to the back of the end zone, only the front of it.