The "Coaching" versus player-ability argument...

[MajorMajors]

I've seen some comments lauding Coach Duzz for transforming the Pitt defense and doing it with the "same players" who often played poorly last season. I love what Coach Duzz is doing, but I don't think it's fair to say that he's doing this with the "same players" as House had.

--At corner, Avonte Maddox was a true frosh last season - he's certainly gained a lot from his experience and you would expect him to play better in his second year. Having L. Pitts lose some weight was a good call by the staff - his play appears somewhat similar to last season. One might expect him to play better in his last go around at Pitt.
--At Safety, Jordon Whitehead certainly wasn't available last season - and although he's a true freshman, he appears to be an exceptional one. Terrish Webb's play has been a pleasant surprise - even for the coaches, since he only started due to Mitchell's injury.
--At DE, Ejuan Price was not available last season. His play has moved Soto to a backup role. This is a significant upgrade as we saw against VT. And Rori Blair went from a true frosh to a sophomore - so you'd expect him to improve.
--The DTs are playing well - the more aggressive approach certainly seems to agree with them. But they also are all experienced juniors and seniors who would be expected to be at the stage where they "get it." Scarpinato is new.
--At LB, Matt Galambos should have benefited from all the playing time he got last season. Bam and Nicholas Grigsby were next in line guys with a good bit of playing experience.

No question that Coach Duzz and Coach Conklin have done a great job - I'm just saying it's not fair to say they are doing it with the same players - players should grow/improve every year in college.

What is really cool to think about is what this defense will look like when faster recruits, tailored for this system, come in, or the present freshman and sophs mature, and learn the defense. Let the hitting begin.

Go Pitt.

 

[#99HUGHgreen]

I've seen some comments lauding Coach Duzz for transforming the Pitt defense and doing it with the "same players" who often played poorly last season. I love what Coach Duzz is doing, but I don't think it's fair to say that he's doing this with the "same players" as House had.

--At corner, Avonte Maddox was a true frosh last season - he's certainly gained a lot from his experience and you would expect him to play better in his second year. Having L. Pitts lose some weight was a good call by the staff - his play appears somewhat similar to last season. One might expect him to play better in his last go around at Pitt.
--At Safety, Jordon Whitehead certainly wasn't available last season - and although he's a true freshman, he appears to be an exceptional one. Terrish Webb's play has been a pleasant surprise - even for the coaches, since he only started due to Mitchell's injury.
--At DE, Ejuan Price was not available last season. His play has moved Soto to a backup role. This is a significant upgrade as we saw against VT. And Rori Blair went from a true frosh to a sophomore - so you'd expect him to improve.
--The DTs are playing well - the more aggressive approach certainly seems to agree with them. But they also are all experienced juniors and seniors who would be expected to be at the stage where they "get it." Scarpinato is new.
--At LB, Matt Galambos should have benefited from all the playing time he got last season. Bam and Nicholas Grigsby were next in line guys with a good bit of playing experience.

No question that Coach Duzz and Coach Conklin have done a great job - I'm just saying it's not fair to say they are doing it with the same players - players should grow/improve every year in college.

What is really cool to think about is what this defense will look like when faster recruits, tailored for this system, come in, or the present freshman and sophs mature, and learn the defense. Let the hitting begin.

Go Pitt.

What we've seen (especially in the last two games) on defense is not what one would call "the kind of improvement one would typically expect from players who are now a year older." These kids are bringing it every play and they are in much better shape and in better position to make plays this year than they were last year.

When was the last time Pitts defense came close to having 7 sacks and 3 interceptions in a game while holding that opponent with a good running team to 9 yards rushing. These coaches are flat out coaching these kids up. Period.

Now, that is not to say these kids were not talented kids. Price and Blair where 4 star players. Whitehead is definitely a superstar in the making. But many of the kids have been here more than a year with not much change in their performance until this year. Look at Jarrett as an example. Did you think he was going to be the beast he is after what you saw from him last year. My point to you is that these are in fact (for the most part) "the same players" who one might expect would be a little better. But they are not just playing a little better... They are playing MUCH BETTER!

Look at some of the players who were recruited by Pitt but many thought were not truly good enough to play at the D1 level (players looked at as filler scholarship recruits with barely any other D1 offers). Look how damn good some of the are looking. Did you honestly think Caprara would ever be good enough to start on this team and not be thought of as a weak link. I can honestly say I didn't. But man did he look good on Saturday. Do you honestly think House would have Caprara looking this good. Honestly?

Good coaches can make a dramatic difference in the level of play they get from their players. I remember when Brian Kelly was the HC of Cincinnati with a team made up of mostly 2 star (and some 3 star recruits). He not only beat Wannstedt's Pitt team (made up of mostly 4 and 3star players) but he beat everyone in the conference and won the Big East that year.

Very good coaches can help all of their players play a little bit faster... A little bit stronger... A little bit hungrier... A little bit nastier... Doesn't that sound like this year's defense?

There is a lot of season left... I love how our defense is playing... And I am absolutely going to give these coaches the credit they deserve for help the defensive players all play at a higher level.

H2P. Can't wait to see them to get more than 7 sacks against Virginia.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

We held vt to only 26 yards rushing last year, too.
Fwiw

 

[Jeffburgh]

It isn't all one way or another.

That said, you didnt have the players gushing over the defense last year like they are now.

The scheme overall, as well as coaching technique.

 

[ncyajleel]

Part of coaching is not only having the right players at the right position, but putting those players in a position to make plays. Defense isn't just reacting to the offense, defense has plays also that are designed to stop the offense, plays you create from watching the opponent's game film. So it is actually both. How many times have you seen great players on a bad team, or average players and a good coach on a good team. It's not really one or the other, it is both.

Fundamentals are a big part of it too, even in the college ranks. This defense looks more fundamentally sound than past defenses. They are not blitzing or trying to make tackles out of control, instead they are taking better angles and breaking down and driving through the tackle, not arm tackling. They are more disciplined, staying in their zones and staying home instead of just running after the ball or ball carrier, look at how many times they were able to stop that jet sweep Va Tech was using. They are not just running up field to make tackles behind the LOS, which creates holes and gaps for the offensive runners to get through. Instead they are breaking down and keeping the runner there until help arrives. They are aggressive and attacking plays instead of reacting to them. And a lot of it looks like they are making plays without thinking so much, allowing them to use their instinct. They look a lot more comfortable.

 

[pittzap]

We held vt to only 26 yards rushing last year, too.
Fwiw

And 265 yards passing.

 

[ncyajleel]

Last year VT only attempted to run the ball 22 times. I looked at the game notes on ESPN and it looks like they passed quite a bit in the first half, 17 pass attempts and only 8 run attempts, and got themselves in a lot of 3rd and long situations.

Then Pitt scored early in the 3rd quarter and went up 21-9, So Va Tech was pretty much forced to pass more.

And 265 yards passing.

 

[GENAC]

No question that Coach Duzz and Coach Conklin have done a great job - I'm just saying it's not fair to say they are doing it with the same players - players should grow/improve every year in college.

They should grow and improve every year, but defensive players weren't improving like they should in Chryst's three years. I don't know if we're seeing players improve as much as we're seeing a better system that requires less thinking and more reacting. The "we changed our defense every week" quote about House's defense last year says all you need to know about how poorly our defense was coached for the last two years.

 

[#99HUGHgreen]

We held vt to only 26 yards rushing last year, too.
Fwiw

True, but if you dig a little deeper...

Last year: 3 sacks (the only three tackles for a loss) and 0 INTs

This year: 7 sacks (11 tackles for a loss) and 3 INTs

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

True, but if you dig a little deeper...

Last year: 3 sacks (the only three tackles for a loss) and 0 INTs

This year: 7 sacks (11 tackles for a loss) and 3 INTs

that doesn't fit soufs idiotic narrative.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

We held vt to only 26 yards rushing last year, too.
Fwiw

We were also 3-1 last year. And the year before. So are we that much further ahead?

I think the optimism is bourne out of two things: 1) This 3-1 feels different because it involves two P5 teams on the road, one is ranked and we very could have (should have) beaten them 2) the defense is attacking and causing big splash negative plays and turnovers. Something we haven't seen as much over the past few years.

 

[pittdan77]

According to the board....

Last week: Lose to Iowa in a close one......same old Pitt.

This week: Win with defense for the first time in ages......VT stinks.

Iowa, for the moment is a top 25 team that Pitt had a chance to beat late. At Iowa. While VT isn't exactly an offensive juggernaut, the fact that the defense was able to play up-tempo, aggressive football, and keep VT on their heels late, has something to do with the scheme and the coaching. To try to argue otherwise is foolish. These kids are starting to believe they can win the game on their own and that's a big, big deal.

 

[heybandguy]

What we've seen (especially in the last two games) on defense is not what one would call "the kind of improvement one would typically expect from players who are now a year older." These kids are bringing it every play and they are in much better shape and in better position to make plays this year than they were last year.

Now, that is not to say these kids were not talented kids.... They are playing MUCH BETTER!
YES.

Do you honestly think House would have Caprara looking this good. Honestly? On or about the 12th of never!

These kids are playing better - a year of experience, and better coaching. Like last year when the wheels kept coming off, there was plenty of blame to go around for Pitt's failures. Right or wrong - House was the target of much of the criticism, and deservedly so. This year there is plenty of credit due to players and coaches being on the same page, trusting each other, and working diligently for improved results. If Pitt can get more consistency on offense and the defense continues to progress - look out.

 

[ncyajleel]

You have to look at who is making those statements, then it makes sense.

According to the board....

Last week: Lose to Iowa in a close one......same old Pitt.

This week: Win with defense for the first time in ages......VT stinks.

Iowa, for the moment is a top 25 team that Pitt had a chance to beat late. At Iowa. While VT isn't exactly an offensive juggernaut, the fact that the defense was able to play up-tempo, aggressive football, and keep VT on their heels late, has something to do with the scheme and the coaching. To try to argue otherwise is foolish. These kids are starting to believe they can win the game on their own and that's a big, big deal.

 

[Pittx9]

In the pros, it's mostly the players. In college, it's almost all coaching. Not only by their schemes, but good coaches bring in good players, which in turn makes their job easier. But look at Urban Meyer. Before he even got recruits at Bowling Green and Utah, he already started winning, because he is a good coach. (That really pains me to say, never liked the guy, does anyone else remember the Walt/Meyer interview before the Fiesta Bowl?)

 

[pittpitt]

If you're comparing 2015 to old Pitt teams based on having the same 3-1 record or beating the same teams or even some similar defensive stats, you're missing the point.

The reason most fans are hyped right now is that the feel of the team is different, specifically we feel like we're a 60-minute team, not a 45-minute team. If anything, I feel the results would have been better if all four games went another 10-15 minutes. In the past, our late-game feeling in a tight contest was hang on for dear life. This year I felt calm going into the 4th quarter with Iowa and I felt calm throughout the 4th with VT. Last year, we were outscored in the second half 10-7 vs. VT and 17-3 vs. Iowa, and both were at home. This year on the road we outscored VT 7-6 and Iowa 17-10. In the past our D wasn't making adjustments as the game went on. This year they are, and it's changing how fans feel about our possibilities later in the contests. If Pitt keeps this change going, the students might even stay until the end.

 

[Pittx9]

If Pitt keeps this change going, the students might even stay until the end.

Maybe we should play Sweet Caroline AFTER victories. Then the students will definitely stay!

 

[ncyajleel]

Right on!

If you're comparing 2015 to old Pitt teams based on having the same 3-1 record or beating the same teams or even some similar defensive stats, you're missing the point.

The reason most fans are hyped right now is that the feel of the team is different, specifically we feel like we're a 60-minute team, not a 45-minute team. If anything, I feel the results would have been better if all four games went another 10-15 minutes. In the past, our late-game feeling in a tight contest was hang on for dear life. This year I felt calm going into the 4th quarter with Iowa and I felt calm throughout the 4th with VT. Last year, we were outscored in the second half 10-7 vs. VT and 17-3 vs. Iowa, and both were at home. This year on the road we outscored VT 7-6 and Iowa 17-10. In the past our D wasn't making adjustments as the game went on. This year they are, and it's changing how fans feel about our possibilities later in the contests. If Pitt keeps this change going, the students might even stay until the end.

 

[pittpitt]

Maybe we should play Sweet Caroline AFTER victories. Then the students will definitely stay!

THIS!
Like certain schools that make a big deal about their band playing the fight song after a big win (I think Tennessee and USC do this), if Pitt played Sweet Caroline after a win, not only would students stay until the end, but older fans wouldn't all hate it as a tradition. We'd have a unified celebration that wasn't just posting pictures on Twitter of COL's lights later that night. Fans would come up with chants and paint signs for it which would keep cheering ramped up throughout the 4th, much like for free McDonald's or Taco Bell coupons at an NBA game (where you get them if the home team wins, or scores over 100, or whatever). It's a shame it would take this to keep the stands loud throughout the 4th, but playing it before the 4th has become an extremely divisive issue with it being the climax of the game for students and what ultimately makes other fans hate the students.

 

[Pittx9]

Did you see Narduzzi's letter someone posted in another thread? Said this Saturday there will be a new 4th quarter tradition. Anxious to see what it is.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

that doesn't fit soufs idiotic narrative.

It fits it fine.. Much better defense this year.

My narrative is that pointing to a single stat is pretty meaningless and lacks context.

Like saying the defense gave up 27 and only generated 1 sack against Iowa... Doesn't paint a full picture of the physical style of defense we played.

Bad assumption, I'm encouraged by the coaching so far.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

We were also 3-1 last year. And the year before. So are we that much further ahead?

I think the optimism is bourne out of two things: 1) This 3-1 feels different because it involves two P5 teams on the road, one is ranked and we very could have (should have) beaten them 2) the defense is attacking and causing big splash negative plays and turnovers. Something we haven't seen as much over the past few years.

I get that and don't disagree...
Before donating to the shrine...i'd like to see a few seasons on sustained suCcess.

Even Dave and Walt had a few good games.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

In the pros, it's mostly the players. In college, it's almost all coaching. Not only by their schemes, but good coaches bring in good players, which in turn makes their job easier. But look at Urban Meyer. Before he even got recruits at Bowling Green and Utah, he already started winning, because he is a good coach. (That really pains me to say, never liked the guy, does anyone else remember the Walt/Meyer interview before the Fiesta Bowl?)

Totally disagree on this. A guy like Meyer is the EXTREME exception, not the rule.

 

[Pittx9]

Totally disagree on this. A guy like Meyer is the EXTREME exception, not the rule.

Maybe a bad example, but the way college players come in and out every 4 years (sometimes less), you need a good coach to maintain a good program. In the NFL, you have a franchise QB and you're set.

 

[#99HUGHgreen]

Did you see Narduzzi's letter someone posted in another thread? Said this Saturday there will be a new 4th quarter tradition. Anxious to see what it is.

Hey, maybe the players will get together in the 4th qtr in front of the empty student section and sing another Neil Diamond song that also just happens to have absolutely nothing at all to do with Pitt Football and will contribute in no way to getting the players fired up and in the right football frame of mind.

Maybe the problem wasn't that the students chose a Neil Diamond song to sing at games but rather that they chose the wrong Neil Diamond song. A more appropriate song choice of his for the students and everyone else to have sung for the past 20+ years would have been Song Sung Blue. At least it has the word "blue" (one of the primary colors of the team) in it and (when you listen to the lyrics) it really does match the way we've all felt in our relationship with past Pitt teams (lead by some real winners).



All kidding aside, I am quite excited to see what new tradition Pitt will be introducing in the 4th quarter. I hope PN had a hand in the it, because then it might actually involve doing something that causes the crowd and players to get fired up... Which will help lead to more victories.

 

[Pittx9]

With Narduzzi's enthusiasm, I wouldn't be surprised if he rips his shirt off and rides around on a live panther pumping up the crowd. This guy wants to win more than any coach I've ever seen, I love it!

 

[pittzap]

We were also 3-1 last year. And the year before. So are we that much further ahead?

I think the optimism is bourne out of two things: 1) This 3-1 feels different because it involves two P5 teams on the road, one is ranked and we very could have (should have) beaten them 2) the defense is attacking and causing big splash negative plays and turnovers. Something we haven't seen as much over the past few years.

I know Va Tech is no offensive juggernaut this year, but I'm cautiously excited about the defense because of this comparison:

Va Tech has played OSU, Furman, Purdue, and ECU before Pitt. They averaged over 440 yards/game - ~210 rushing and ~250 passing - they gave up 7 total sacks (1.75/game) and averaged 36 points per game.

Against Pitt they had 100 total yards (83 on one drive) - 9 rushing and 91 passing - 7 sacks and scored 13 points.

So, while they can't be confused with a high flying offense, they have been able to move the ball a little bit; even if they should be moving the ball against some of those teams, not every offense does that.

Let's hope our defense can play like this week in and week out.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

There is no question that a good coach - or a bad coach - can have a huge impact on a program. That's why they are paid so much money. Also, in college especially, systems are huge factors in a team's success or failure. It's no coincidence that even a relatively mediocre coach like Mike Leach's offenses score a zillion points everywhere he goes.

However, to me it still comes down to talent - at least in most instances. I can't tell you how often I watch games in which the more talented team makes a zillion mistakes and still wins because they are just that much more athletic than their competition.

For example, Les Miles is considered a great coach and he is definitely a great identifier of talent and recruiter. However, as a game day coach, he is a flat out buffoon. He makes a solid four or five mistakes every single game. His teams make many more mistakes during each and every game. But LSU wins most of the time because their athletes are superior to most of the teams they face and in most cases they are VASTLY superior.

 

[pittdan77]

Well, how's it going in Wisconsin these days?

 

[#99HUGHgreen]

There is no question that a good coach - or a bad coach - can have a huge impact on a program. That's why they are paid so much money. Also, in college especially, systems are huge factors in a team's success or failure. It's no coincidence that even a relatively mediocre coach like Mike Leach's offenses score a zillion points everywhere he goes.

However, to me it still comes down to talent - at least in most instances. I can't tell you how often I watch games in which the more talented team makes a zillion mistakes and still wins because they are just that much more athletic than their competition.

For example, Les Miles is considered a great coach and he is definitely a great identifier of talent and recruiter. However, as a game day coach, he is a flat out buffoon. He makes a solid four or five mistakes every single game. His teams make many more mistakes during each and every game. But LSU wins most of the time because their athletes are superior to most of the teams they face and in most cases they are VASTLY superior.

Does a less talented coach with more gifted players win over a more talented coach with less gifted players?

Not always.

Winning depends on a number of factors including the talent level difference between the coaches facing off, the talent level gap between the players on the two different teams, and the ability the coaches have for getting the most out of their players.

Brian Kelly (a more talented coach) when coaching Cincinnati (less gifted players) beat Dave Wannstedt (less talented coach) and his Pitt team (more gifted players). DW clearly had more gifted players (recruits with more stars), yet it wasn't like he had Alabama level players. Additionally, we all know (at least I think we all do) that Dave (and his,staff) didn't really understand how to make adjustments during a game. I always remember one game when a reporter asked him at halftime what he needs to do differently in the second half to get back in the game...After looking like a deer in headlights for about 5 seconds he responded, "you know... The things is, we just, we just... we just need to get better."

The answers to the following questions will help determine the outcome of a ball game more than just the simplistic notion of one team having a more talented coach or one team having more talented players:

How many more mistakes does the less talented coach make than the more talented coach?

How prepared is the less talented coach (or more talented coach) for the team they are playing?

Which coach has his team more focused and determined to win each play?

How close to a players full potential can the more talented coach get each of his contributing players to play?

Does the less talented coach know how to make in-game adjustments?

What is the difference in the level of skill and strength of the players on the two teams?

 

[pittdan77]

Does a less talented coach with more gifted players win over a more talented coach with less gifted players?

Not always.

Winning depends on a number of factors including the talent level difference between the coaches facing off, the talent level gap between the players on the two different teams, and the ability the coaches have for getting the most out of their players.

Brian Kelly (a more talented coach) when coaching Cincinnati (less gifted players) beat Dave Wannstedt (less talented coach) and his Pitt team (more gifted players). DW clearly had more gifted players (recruits with more stars), yet it wasn't like he had Alabama level players. Additionally, we all know (at least I think we all do) that Dave (and his,staff) didn't really understand how to make adjustments during a game. I always remember one game when a reporter asked him at halftime what he needs to do differently in the second half to get back in the game...After looking like a deer in headlights for about 5 seconds he responded, "you know... The things is, we just, we just... we just need to get better."

The answers to the following questions will help determine the outcome of a ball game more than just the simplistic notion of one team having a more talented coach or one team having more talented players:

How many more mistakes does the less talented coach make than the more talented coach?

How prepared is the less talented coach (or more talented coach) for the team they are playing?

Which coach has his team more focused and determined to win each play?

How close to a players full potential can the more talented coach get each of his contributing players to play?

Does the less talented coach know how to make in-game adjustments?

What is the difference in the level of skill and strength of the players on the two teams?

Should ask James in State College how having all of that 4 star talent, and a 5 star QB, is going?

 

[Pittx9]

Should ask James in State College how having all of that 4 star talent, and a 5 star QB, is going?

I'm sure he'll be calling the FAN soon. Seriously what a paranoid loser.

 

[pittpitt]

As much as some fans want to poo-poo how many stars recruits have because so-and-so was great and was only a 3-star player, but certain 5-star players didn't pan out, the fact is the stars do give a pretty good sense of how much room for error a coach has. Coaches who are maniacal about details and can make smart adjustments during a game don't need much room for error, so they can be pretty successful with recruiting classes that aren't loaded (think Meyer at BG/Utah, Chip at Oregon). Some other coaches need a lot of room for error because their planning and adjustments aren't good (think Franklin at Ped State, Kiffin at Tennessee/USC).

The few coaches who are 1) at a program that affords them easy attraction to good recruits, 2) can recruit well themselves, and 3) are maniacal about details, can create juggernauts that remain great year after year (Sabin at LSU/Bama, Meyer at Florida/OSU). We'll have to see where things end up with Narduzzi, but if he can recruit well and be a smart planner & adjuster, then Pitt being a less attractive location for recruits than neighboring OSU, PSU, and VT will not be too big of an impediment to our success (like MSU has managed despite being situated near Michigan and OSU). But consistently having multiple 4* and 5* players does provide some room for error for any coach.

 

[pittdan77]

As much as some fans want to poo-poo how many stars recruits have because so-and-so was great and was only a 3-star player, but certain 5-star players didn't pan out, the fact is the stars do give a pretty good sense of how much room for error a coach has. Coaches who are maniacal about details and can make smart adjustments during a game don't need much room for error, so they can be pretty successful with recruiting classes that aren't loaded (think Meyer at BG/Utah, Chip at Oregon). Some other coaches need a lot of room for error because their planning and adjustments aren't good (think Franklin at Ped State, Kiffin at Tennessee/USC).

The few coaches who are 1) at a program that affords them easy attraction to good recruits, 2) can recruit well themselves, and 3) are maniacal about details, can create juggernauts that remain great year after year (Sabin at LSU/Bama, Meyer at Florida/OSU). We'll have to see where things end up with Narduzzi, but if he can recruit well and be a smart planner & adjuster, then Pitt being a less attractive location for recruits than neighboring OSU, PSU, and VT will not be too big of an impediment to our success (like MSU has managed despite being situated near Michigan and OSU). But consistently having multiple 4* and 5* players does provide some room for error for any coach.

Don't disagree. I was only pointing out (with a little fun) that some programs get plenty of quality recruits and run the poor kid's career's into the ground.

 

[9nationalchampionships]

LOCK CONKLIN IN LONG TERM NOW!!!!!!!!