Now we can really be distracted because we are dealing in the realms of rumor, theories, suspicions, gossip and fantasy.
Pat pointed out that Stanford has interest in Harris and has, indeed, contacted Pitt about talking to Harris. I mentioned that Pitt might be perfectly willing to let Harris bolt for another school. What I’m trying to figure out whether the Stanford AD, who first hired Harris to be head coach at Pacific in 1989, is also the same guy who fired him in 1991.
I can’t disagree that Willingham would be a great hire. Problem is, I don’t see it happening. Washington seems a much more likely destination, considering that university’s image problems and desire to win and have a guy that will bring instant credibility, hiring a known quantity who has had success in the PAC-10, and — based on previous hirings — far more willing to crack open the checkbook. Sorry, we can talk about how Pitt would have paid Howland and then Prosser top dollar, but until someone is actually cashing the check it is just speculation and hope. Besides, it goes deeper — to paying the assistants good money. Pitt has shown little willingness to spend the money in that area.
This offseason is going to be a coaches’ market. Job openings at at least 2 SEC schools (Florida and Ole Miss, plus possibly LSU) 2 PAC-10s (Stanford and Washington), 2 Big 11s (Indiana and Illinois), Mountain West (Utah and BYU), and I’m sure I’m forgetting some. That doesn’t bode well for Pitt getting a name guy, unless he is a Pitt alum.
As for Pat’s criticisms of Walt, first let me point out that both WVU and BC are both still ranked in different top-25s. ND was ranked in the top 25 when we beat them (as was WVU). I can’t disagree that Pitt had some struggles. A couple squeaker wins that were almost as embarrassing as if Pitt had lost. The UConn humiliation. The Syracuse collapse. At the same time, there has been great improvement from the team we saw struggle against Ohio U and Nebraska to the last 2 games. That can’t be denied. Nor can the fact that this was a rebuilding year, where we didn’t go into the season expecting much.
This actually allows me to bring up a great piece of analysis on Harris the coach. I’ve been holding it for a few days trying to figure the best way to integrate it. Thanks, Pat.
Another important and timely topic at the tail-end of another college football season is the standing and legitimacy of the sport’s coaches, who are tagged with an assortment of labels, some good, some not-so-good; some deserved, some undeserved. After this particular weekend, one can’t help but notice two particular case studies of sideline sultans who have littered their careers with mistakes, but are nevertheless vastly underrated and underappreciated for what they do on a regular basis in their profession.
Walt Harris — and —before the offseason of scandal in Boulder — Gary Barnett endured withering, blistering criticism for their abilities as head coaches.
Ironically enough, this piece was posted before both were named coach of the year for their respective conferences. I’ll do my best to skip the Barnett analysis since it really isn’t germane.
When it comes to the on-field performances of their teams, Walt Harris and Gary Barnett have been crucified. With each passing year, I’ve wondered why this has been the case; after this past weekend, my instincts — which didn’t see the bad coaching the folks in Pittsburgh and Boulder have perceived (and especially not in Barnett’s situation — have been proved correct. It’s time to clear the air with respect to these two coaches, and solely on the football merits.
…
The knocks on Walt Harris, as best as I can decipher them, have been poor play calling and a lack of motivational skills. These two deficiencies have translated into a much more general frustration among Pitt fans because of the fact that, in a piss-poor Big East, the Panthers have not been able to seize firm control of the conference and recall the glory days of the late 70s and early 80s.
The team has played flat from time to time, but I’ve never had a hard time with the motivational issues. As for the glory days stuff. I suppose some are drowning in that still, but I didn’t grow up in Pitt country, and really didn’t care that much about college football growing up. I got to Pitt in ’88 so the “glory days” was merely a Springsteen song at that point.
Upon reflection, Harris’ play calling does leave something to be desired: last year, with a meal-ticket receiver in Larry Fitzgerald, Pitt’s head coach did not maximize the benefits that were waiting to be gained. In the biggest Big East games of the past few seasons, Harris has come up very small as an offensive guru against the defenses put forth by West Virginia and especially Miami. His strategic approaches in certain situations have been nothing short of baffling, even while he can find tremendous grooves in his play calling on many other occasions. Harris is ultimately an up-and-down play caller whose offenses are accordingly erratic. That’s the dimension of truth in the criticisms leveled against him.
As for motivational skills, well, one can only look at Rod Rutherford and now Tyler Palko and conclude that Harris coaches quarterbacks who bust their butts to play for him. If Harris has a weakness in relationship to quarterbacks and his teams in general, the player-development part of the equation is what’s lacking. For all the blood and guts Rutherford and Palko have spilled on Heinz Field in the service of the Panther program, the two signal-callers could not be confused with well-taught quarterbacks. Rutherford has already graduated, while Palko — in his (and Harris’) defense — is still young and learning; but nevertheless, Rutherford — a playmaker because of his courage (and the saving ability of Fitzgerald to turn prayers into points) — did not use his brain very well on the field. Even at the end of his senior season, he made poor decisions, a reflection of poor technical growth. That is what reflects negatively on Harris in relationship to his quarterbacks: it’s his lack of precision in teaching, not his motivational ability.
This is not news. In either case. We know all too well about the questionable play calling. It’s what has led to derisive comments from the stands about Harris being an “offensive genius.” The Fitzgerald faults, well just go back to his final game, the Continental Tire Bowl.
As for the teaching the QBs, this seemed very familiar to me. Go back over a year to the ND game and this exchange:
Lee: He [Jones] is running right through us.
Me: We’re just trying to hit him, not actually tackle.
Lee: That’s all on the coaching. Fundamentals.
Me: It’s like Harris can coach talent, but he can’t teach.
Lee: FIRE HARRIS!
It isn’t just me. That is what this analysis is suggesting, right?
And beyond those two fairly limited criticisms, one thing has to stand out that casts Harris’ head coaching job in a very positive light: the Boss Panther has made a lot of the talent at his disposal in the Steel City. What Harris does on gameday with his Pitt teams has been impressive and substantial. Certainly in 2004, and very possibly in 2003, Harris’ overall assemblage of position-by-position talent was less than what existed at other Big East programs. Yet, Harris had his teams in the thick of the conference race each year, and this season, he’s likely to get a BCS bowl, even if his team loses at South Florida on Saturday (he has a vote in the coaches’ poll, while competitor Paul Pasqualoni of Syracuse does not). For a great many Panther fans, the fact that Pitt has not become a colossus has overshadowed the fact that, with the talent at his disposal, Harris has pretty much made lemonade with lemons.
Let’s concede that he has maxed out the talent, but somehow this is ignoring the fact that Harris recruited these guys. He “shopped for the groceries.” In college football, recruiting is half of the job for a head coach. What he is saying, then is that Harris is failing to do the job on recruiting and is not a great play caller or teacher of the fundamentals. What he is doing is maxing out the talent, though. And this is in defense of Harris?
In the midst of all the criticisms lobbed at Harris, many observers of the Panthers, including Pitt alum and ESPN studio analyst Mark May, clearly and constantly betray their irritation with the state of the program and the level of performance from the team each Saturday. The calls for Harris’ head are loud and fierce each year in Pittsburgh. But if Harris is panned for the way his team plays each Saturday, his critics are — yet again — missing the boat. It’s not Saturday that’s the problem at Pitt. If anything, it’s the offseason, in which Harris has not been able to recruit the kind of talent Majors and Sherrill brought into the fold in the program’s salad days. Harris the recruiter is often the victim of the success enjoyed by Harris the motivator and offensive schemer. What Harris does in terms of his larger offensive concepts, and also with respect to his ability to inspire great effort from his players, enables Pitt to succeed. This is true even though situational play calling and player development both lag on Harris’ overall portfolio. The good things Harris does are always overshadowed by the bad, and that’s a part of human nature that has dogged Pitt’s head coach throughout his tenure.
Perhaps now, after almost certainly gaining a BCS bowl berth, people will give Walt Harris and second look and, while not letting him off the hook for recruiting and player development, will still appreciate the fact that he does more with less than other Big East coaches.
Actually, this pretty much mirrors the criticisms we’ve had at PSB. Maybe that’s why I liked it so much.
