Big thanks to “Pittpanther14” if he’s a reader or just had the same issue on his own for asking the question in Zeise’s chat.

Pittpanther14: I was confused by your article today. Is there a difference between applying pressure / run blitzing vs just keeping 8 or 9 men in the box?

Paul Zeise: There is but the bottom line is it starts up front. This whole nine men in the box thing is nice — but if your big guys get blocked one on one, which was happening, your nine men no longer have a big advantage in outnumbering the blockers — and all you really have is a lot of guys close to the line scrimmage who are forced to chase a running back down the field. If you can’t win the battles up front, all of the rest is really irrelevant in a lot of ways.

Um, okay. Sure.

While on Chat transcripts, this from Mel Kiper, Jr. (ESPN Insider).

Jade (Duquesne, PA): Hello Mel, What round to you think Tyler Palko will get drafted in 2007 or will he get drafted at all?

Mel Kiper: I think he’s had a good year. He’s a great year. I had a chance to meet him when he was a freshman. He’s been there and had good coaching. He’s a tough kid. He’s got a chance on Day 2 of the draft. How high, it depends on how he finishes out. They could be a large factor on how things finish out. They play WVU still.

Hmph. You’d think showing the ability to thrive in two different style systems would be a big plus in showing his ability to grasp and run any offense.

A very unsatisfying article talking to Pitt’s DC Paul Rhoads about stopping the run (or Pitt’s failure to do so in key games).

The Pitt Panthers (6-2, 1-2) will play South Florida (5-3, 1-2) Saturday at Tampa, Fla., and the Bulls operate out of a spread formation that features an option-style rushing attack mixed with conventional power rushing plays.

Traditionally, that’s the kind of offense that has caused the Panthers fits. A common theory is the Panthers don’t “run blitz” enough and they need to use more stunting and line games. By extension, the Panthers’ philosophy of staying in a base defense and trying to win individual battles up front instead of committing extra players may be sound, but it isn’t practical because they don’t have the players to do that.

Pitt defensive coordinator Paul Rhoads said such a theory is based on the incorrect assumption that the Panthers haven’t been mixing it up or applying pressure.

Now, I may be being purposefully dense, owing to my bias against the DC, and I’m willing to concede the possibility, so please correct me in the comments if you disagree. Perhaps he means more than just “run blitzing” and such when he means “applying pressure.” Perhaps, his definition of “applying pressure” is meant to include putting more men up to stop the run.

I just don’t see it in the entire discussion. My sense is that the entire focus of the article is more about run blitzing and attacking. There seemed to be nothing about just committing ot put 8 or more men in the box to stop the run. Nothing.

Instead, Rhoads just talks of applying pressure in key points. That it has worked fine for 6 of the games. Just not the two where the team had a good rushing attack made to look like they were a juggernaut.

And god help us, he was quoted as saying, “Overall, we were bending but certainly not breaking…” in reference to the Rutgers game. Mainly in reference to the first half. A half, where I felt that Rutgers hurt itself at the end of drives more then Pitt stopped them. A half where Rutgers held the ball for more than 18 minutes. You know, something that might have contributed to wearing down the defense in the second half.
I have to take my daughter to class around noon. If Zeise is doing his online chat today, someone ask him to clarify this. Whether Rhoads was claiming that “applying pressure” included bringing more players closer to the line to stop the run.

Pitt apparently wasn’t messing around last night. They didn’t even let CMU think there was going to be a chance, even in an exhibition game. It was 16-2 Pitt with barely 5 minutes off of the clock. It was such a lopsided affair, that the only thing that seemed worth discussing was who actually started.

Jamie Dixon unveiled a starting five for the first time last night in an exhibition game against Carnegie Mellon. And, while it is far from set in stone, the lineup he started was different from what many had expected.

Dixon started seniors Aaron Gray and Levon Kendall at center and power forward, junior Mike Cook at small forward, senior Antonio Graves at shooting guard and junior Ronald Ramon at point guard in an easy, 103-45 victory against the Tartans at the Petersen Events Center.

Coach Dixon downplayed the whole thing, saying he has no real decisions about the starting lineup for the regular season. He made it very clear that just because a player starts doesn’t mean he will have the most minutes (see, DeGroat, John, 2005-06). Still, the noted that Dixon’s history suggests he favors starting the upperclassmen even if they don’t play too much.

There were plenty of substitutions.

All told, 10 players saw action in the first 10 minutes of the game, and Dixon used seven different lineup combinations in the first 11 minutes. No one played more than 23 minutes. Eight players saw at least 17 minutes of action.

“We spread the minutes out,” Dixon said. “Everybody got to get comfortable out there, which was good. There were a lot of good things out of it, but we’ve got a long way to go.”

Three other players saw at least 10 minutes of action and walk-ons Geoff Rizk (1-1) and Maurice Polen (0-5) each got 5 minutes.

Only thing of any concern was poor 3-point shooting in the 1st half.  Still, it was a nice warm-up and no one was injured.