With all that has been out there for basketball the last couple weeks, I’ve let a lot of football stuff slide by out of time constraints. Not to mention, just not being in the right frame of mind to even begin focusing on it.
I’ve skipped even posting about the last couple of Q&As from Paul Zeise. His one from 2 weeks ago talked about Darrell Strong needing to step up this year or never with Nate Byham coming in, impact freshmen, expectations for 2006 — 7-5 or so, and there was this comment about Pitt’s offensive philosophy.
Q: What college or pro offense is Matt Cavanugh’s offense modeled after and what parts of Walt Harris’ schemes has the Panthers retained?
Zeise: It isn’t modeled after any offense — it is the West Coast offense in its purest form, as if Bill Walsh himself had drawn it up and were calling the plays. Cavanaugh pretty much scrapped the Walt Harris offense in its entirety, although there were some concepts of the vertical passing game that were retained, and started from scratch. I think the comfort level among the players in the offense now that they are in the second year will be a big factor and a reason they will play better and more consistently.
You know, I read that two weeks ago and I felt a little confused by that. I just assumed it was because I was too much in b-ball mode. But I’m still finding that a bit unclear. Pure West Coast offense? Scrapping everything, but retaining some “concepts” of Harris’ vertical passing game? Is that anything like visualizing the deep pass but not really doing it? I hope the players do have a better comfort level because that explanation doesn’t do much for me.
Zeise also indicated that there was better chemistry between the players coming back as opposed to this past season. A theme he repeats in this past week’s Q&A.
Q: There seems to be a trend of Pitt players letting their individual agendas bring down team chemistry following a successful season. It happened in 2001, 2003 and 2005. Am I off base with this?
Zeise: I think there is something to that with a lot of teams. Once you have success, guys start to forget what it was that brought them to the top of the mountain — teamwork, hard work, chemistry, accountability. Individual agendas start getting in the way, egos get involved and it can fall apart quickly if a team isn’t focused.
That being said, I think there is more to the collapse each year than just egos and individual agendas. The 2001 team was done in by an ill-fated attempt at running the spread offense. The 2003 team found out rather quickly just how good Gerald Hayes, Torrie Cox, Brian Guzek and Brian Beinecke were because they had nobody to replace them and thus the defense was terrible.
Last year, I do think there was a big problem with chemistry and accountability and a lot of individual agendas, but there were some personnel issues as well. I don’t think the running back spot ever got settled, there were some issues at center and guard, the defensive line was just not very good, etc. etc.,
Why do we never hear about these “chemistry” issues during the season? Regardless of whether it’s football or basketball. It’s always the following season that ominous word is released that people — who are now gone — had their own agendas and that sabotaged the team. Just once, I’d like to read about some of these problems before it is old news.
The rest of the Q&A discusses position battles at WR, what redshirt players will be expected to make immediate contributions and line questions (always line questions).
