Unmitigated disaster! This is what happens when
- Thread starter NCLee
- Start date
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Even if you say, ok every team has a season like this, the question becomes how do you fix it? We dont have a QB for next season. The young WRs cant beat out a subpar group of vets which is a terrible sign. The same can be said for the offensive linemen.
I agree we won't be very good next year. Probably going to take until at least 2025 to get back on the upswing.
But... Kent State, Youngstown State, Boston College, Syracuse, West Virginia, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Cincinnati, and Georgia Tech should offer an opportunity to at least be bowl eligible.
I hope 2024 isn’t as ugly as this season. Not a ton of reason to believe it won’t be however.
Much friendlier schedule though I’ll say
Cincinnati? They surpassed us with a whole new team. But yea, that schedule sucks. Could go 6-6 but what does that mean. I think this is the beginning of the end for Narduzzi. 4-8 this year. 6-6 next. Maybe 6-6 the year after. When do you pull the plug?
I’m not willing to write off Veilleux until he’s had a couple opps to start and play, with starter reps in practice through the week, at least as much as Jurkovec got. A couple quarters thrown in cold up against a hopeless deficit, against a ranked team that our defense couldn’t stop, isn’t enough sample size (or conditions) to conclude anything.
The problem is Coach Boo Berry isn’t going to give CV those opportunities at all, to the bitter end, as long as his Jerky Boy is healthy enough to trundle out there. Because that’s what he promises these transfers, after all.
So CV might suck or he might not, but how the hell are we to know? How can Duz even know?
The problem is Coach Boo Berry isn’t going to give CV those opportunities at all, to the bitter end, as long as his Jerky Boy is healthy enough to trundle out there. Because that’s what he promises these transfers, after all.
So CV might suck or he might not, but how the hell are we to know? How can Duz even know?
Maybe we can play in a lower ACC division with Cal, Stan, BC, Wake, GT, UVa, VT, etc
That sets up an interesting question. If we finish anywhere from 1-11 to 3-9 this year and follow that up with a similar performance, would that cost Narduzzi his job? If it doesn’t, his seat would be scorching.
Even at 1-11 this year, he gets next year. If he goes 1-11 to 3-9 this year and has the same record next year, he probably still gets 2025 but could be fired after 2025 with 5 years left on the contract.
It’ll be awhile. As long as he doesn’t, gasp, tweet or say something ‘controversial’ again, like the time he shockingly said ‘thug’, I think he’d get as much time in the job as he wants. Hey he won something, once. But mostly it is because it is just easier. Hiring football and basketball coaches is hard, and expensive.
He cant have 3 losing seasons in a row. If he has losing seasons in 23, 24, and 25, there's no way he gets 26. Heather would have to eat that contract.
Certainly won’t write him off either - but I think what we saw should put to rest that we have a dramatically better option *right now* that they were “refusing to play”
He’s not good yet, not by a long shot.
Neither is Yarnell either frankly.
But both are already better than Jurk, and Jurk is outta tahn in three months. With the season already effectively over as far being anything meaningful, playing Jurk is preposterous as this point.
I'm honestly thinking of what would be more annoying:
1) Firing Narduzzi after a few down seasons, going mostly 7-5 (or worse) in the subsequent years, and having to hear for the next 40 years from fans - in an "I told you so" fashion - about how firing him was the worst thing we ever could have done and how we were on the verge of becoming a national powerhouse if we'd have just stuck it out a little longer.
2) Keeping Narduzzi after a few down seasons, having him return back to his 7-5 (or worse) average, and things mostly being like they are now (some fans liking him and pontificating about stability; many recognizing his style sucks).
I honestly think I would choose #2. Dixon was done here, but I'll always have to hear about how we should have kept the coach who was bringing in guys who couldn't have started for CCBC by the end.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
I'm with you on #2 but Duzz has been flexible enough to change. Pitt sure wasn't a "run first" team with Pickett a couple of years ago.
The thing about his "style" that I think drives him is that Pitt isn't going to have the luxury of having great QB's and I think it makes him want to lean towards the run. Last year was a pretty ideal mix for him, QB struggles aside, and it yielded a decent result. Obviously better if the QB play is better. What I need to see is if Pitt could actually bring in the athletes to run a more pass heavy style of offense.
To anyone with reasonable objectivity it has been. But we're 12th in the national in total defense and, after we give up about 13 max to Virginia Tech, we'll probably be about 45th in scoring defense. When you play in a conference with inept offensive talent and emphasize stopping the run, the numbers allow for some fanangling.
I'm choosing 2 as well. Chances are whether we keep him or ditch him we are still a program that makes a middle tier Bowl most years. If we fire him and do that there will be a loud portion of the fanbase that glorifies the Duzz years, only focusing on the 2021 season. There are STILL people who lament the loss of the great Dave Wannstedt, as if his tenure wasn't mediocre.
I would always take #1 if the guy in the seat is not doing the job. It irks me to hear -"who are you going to get that's better?" - that's so freakin' defeatist that it makes me want to smack someone.
I agree in general, but my Pitt fanhood just can't take multiple decades of this again, lol. Like h2p_5150 said, there are so many people who are convinced that we would be at some magical height if we ha kept Wannsetdt - a dude who couldn't beat UConn or own a G5 conference with P5 talent.
I want Narduzzi to have at least five more years, including this one, so he can either return to prominence or people can get this storybook notion of him out of their systems.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Well, like I said before (here or in another thread) there is a different idea of how to run the athletic department than there was ten years ago so I don't see a hair-trigger response anytime soon. More likely to be a discussion over what the program needs to succeed. I think the school is still trying to figure out where it stands with the NIL stuff, too. History with the Golden Panthers is still pretty fresh in a lot of peoples head. At some point, everyone around the program, fans included, need to decide if Pitt wants to be for real or not and figure out how to get the money flowing or just accept what's coming. Duzz can only do so much in that regard and any good coach isn't going to want to work at a program that can't provide NIL funds to compete.
The season is 4 weeks old. Wait till we are actually 3-9 before bitching about 3-9. If that happens there will be plenty of time to bitch. I can actually see 6 or 7 wins.
My opinion is that his style protects the floor but lowers the ceiling. Like, we'll have success running the ball and throwing off play action against Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, etc. You can get away with that in the ACC and be bowl eligible most seasons. But like we saw in 2018, there's a big difference between "ACC successful" and "nationally successful" with that style.
And I feel the same way about his defense, honestly. We haven't stopped the best of the best with it; we've stopped the dredge ACC teams that can't throw the ball effectively. It's an okay strategy in the ACC, because you'll probably shut down Syracuse, whose quarterback throws a football like it's shot put. But when we face the better QBs - at least the ones with any respectability at OL and WR - forget about it. The only reason 2016 stuck out like a sore thumb was because of the QB's we faced. We didn't "fix" much, other than improving out pass rush (which isn't nothing, obviously), as much as we benefitted from not playing QBs who were as good.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
That sums it up very well. You just articulate it better. I don't necessarily think it's a terrible way to approach things but it's not the norm in college anymore. Not sure it's sustainable, either. Cignetti isn't the right guy, either, and that doesn't help.
Yeah, I don't think Cignetti is the guy no matter what we want to do. As a former o-lineman, even if we want to be a predominantly running team, is there something to be said about getting to the line of scrimmage quickly and playing downhill? With Cignetti, it just feels like we're going out of our way to self sabotage any and all momentum. We huddle up, we drain the play clock... it's just such the opposite of what UNC did, tempo-wise. I can't imagine the o-line loves playing like that (being down in their stances longer, etc.).
I mean, that's aside from the scheme itself, which evidently is confusing as hell for collegiate athletes to pick up.
You could also say the offense hasn't done the defense any favors either.
It's been below some recent years, but still above average. Certainly not atrocious, that's reserved for the offense.
In the era of the transfer portal and one free transfer, there are very few excuses for a team not to be better after a bad season.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Love running in an up-tempo offense as a player on the line. Was great at AF when we went no-huddle and called plays at the line. Especially fun playing at altitude and watching DL-men who couldn't get subbed out gasp for air.
