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.
Hillgrove then asked him how he established his philosophy and where it was developed. DW replied, “#1 defense in the NCAA 2 years in a row at Miami. #1 defense in the NFL at Dallas. It works.” He then talked about how well the defense played against Rutgers except for a handfull of plays where mistakes and missed tackles changed the outcome.
What this shows me is that, rather then changing the defense to suit the players, the philosophy is, from the head coach on down, our defense does things this way. Maybe in 2 years the players will match the system. In the meantime, growing pains. So it may not be Rhodes’ fault entirely.
Well that’s frustrating. On many levels. It’s that sort of attitude of only doing things one way, that got him the reputation as a bad head coach in the NFL. Not adjusting to the opponent, forget in the game itself.
It was that sort of thing that was irritating abou Walt Harris as well. The gameplan is fine. There is no problem with it. All is well. There is no need to change it.
It’s also a disservice to the present players because it doesn’t put them in a position to win or make plays in these games.
That’s hilarious. I read the post on the front page and came here to leave a comment specifically about Wannstedt on the show last night.
I’ve never seen Wanny get that irked before and it showed me that he appears to think that there’s not a problem. I thought it was rather funny that he mentioned the success the defense had in the past. What about last year? What about this year? Because it’s worked elsewhere, does that mean it should work here and in every circumstance?
If it’s worked before and it’s not working now, it appears to be a personnel issue. He did the same thing with the offense in general, trying to turn them into a running team when our strength last year and this year has started with the play of Tyler and the WRs.
From a PSU Bloggers Roundtable…
“2. What is to blame for the offensive struggles — the coaching staff, offensive line, quarterback, wide receivers? And yes, one of the choices is “all of the above”.
I know it sounds like a broken record coming from Paterno, but inexperience is a big part of it. They move the ball well but they always find a way to kill themselves with a penalty, a missed block, a bad throw or a dropped pass. They are just playing sloppy and you have to blame that on the players. But the coaches aren’t exactly saints either. Play calling has been suspect this season. It seems they have dumbed down the play book to a dozen plays they run over and over. I hate to say it, but maybe the Pitt fans were right and Anthony Morelli can’t run the offense.”
Love those last two lines.
And from the Hometown News at Liberty U. (Home of Rashad Jennings, ex-PITT RB:
“When Rashad made his decision and enrolled at Liberty in January, many assumed his longing for home was a cover for a dustup with new Pitt coach Dave Wannstedt over playing time and a positional change. The on-field issues played a minor role, but family was the overriding factor in Jennings’ decision.”
So, he wasn’t totally unhappy here, and the rest of the article goes on to say he’s glad he made the decision – it appears that he is thinking of the Ministry after college.
The coaching staff has said that everything hinges on the D Line to win the one on one match ups. Well, that hasn’t happened against quality O lines, and I don’t think it will magically happen in our last two games – understandably with the young guys and little depth that we have. But it’s weird that he and Rhodes can see the problem, discuss it in public, and not scheme something to make up for the obvious shortcoming. Maybe they will surprise us with something new, but I kind of doubt it.
