You know, these are the sort of things that convince me that the lack of depth on the lines for Pitt are partially the fault of the whole frickin’ coaching staff, not just blaming it all on Walt Harris.
Wannstedt confirmed that redshirt sophomore Craig Bokor has returned to defensive tackle now that Gus Mustakas is lost for the season with a torn ACL.
Bokor started the season on defense but switched to offensive guard when freshman Chris Jacobson was lost to a knee injury.
This drives me insane. Bokor is simply an extreme example of it. Craig Bokor is a redshirt sophomore, and they have yet to keep him from one side of the ball or the other. Forget about simply learning positions along the O-line or D-line, they keep moving him back and forth. From Wannstedt down, the Pitt coaches stress the importance of learning the system of getting experience and being ready. I want to know how Bokor can ever be ready when he has to keep changing sides of the ball in his 3d year at Pitt?
At the start of training camp, they said, this time for sure he’s staying at DT on the D-line. In less than a week, after Jacobson went down, back to the O-line. Now, a month later, back to the D-line. His entire Pitt career this has been happening. Exactly how can depth be developed if the coaches aren’t willing to keep players at a position to learn it?
Part of developing players. Especially linemen and just about any “diamond in the rough” type player is keeping them in one position so they can learn, get experience and step in.
Switching him around has been bad for his development, no doubt. But he went into the season as the #6 DL, so he did not make the 2-deep. With McGlynn out at the beginning and Lumpy out for the year, Bokor was instantly in the 2-deep at guard, which is why they made the switch. Now that McGlynn is looking healthy AND playing mostly guard, and because Mustakas is injured, Bokor is back on D; the likelihood of needing him on D is now greater than that on O (you tend to roll DL, but not OL).
All the switching is actually a compliment to Bokor, the coaches think enough of his physical abilities that he is a legitimate option on either side of the ball in a pinch. He will eventually command a starting position at Pitt on one side of the ball or other (likely D), and another versatile underclassman will step in and become the swingman due to injuries.
I see your points but still disagree. yes, it is a compliment that Bokor is considered versatile and good enough to shift back and forth, but he isn’t being given any chance to stay and grow at a position.
We’ve been told (and mostly don’t disagree) that the lines were weak and lacked depth. That the fix would not be a short term thing, but would take time and patience. Player development and recruiting. The shifting of Bokor is nothing but short-term reactions (bordering on panic) that may fill the depth chart better this year but does nothing in the long-term for the depth. Something I thought was part of the plan.
I keep reading the coaches talk about how difficult it is for players to learn everything they need to know to play on the line. And how important chemistry is and knowing your teammates. In Bokor’s case, this isn’t moving him from end to tackle or guard. This is shifting him from side of the line to the other. A whole different mindset, coaches and teammates he is supposed to develop the nebulous “chemistry.”
Again, Bokor is a redshirt sophomore. This is his third year and they still can’t keep him on one side of the ball for more than a month. Exactly when do they expect him to be ready at this rate? That’s not developing versatility. That’s stupidity and waste. There isn’t that much time in a college career to keep moving him back and forth.
Look around the Big East at the teams that have the strong lines. None of the teams have had better recruiting classes than Pitt in past years, yet they continue to develop and play far superior lines. That’s coaching and development.
In a simplistic model for helping the team (Reed’s point) and a player, picture a standard x-y graph. One line represents a player’s potential/ability at a particular position. The other line represent’s the team’s needs at those positions. Ideally you want to put a player where the lines intersect. Where is potential is highest and the need is greatest. Not figuring out/identifying/keeping at the intersecting spot is not a help to the team or the program.
But you know even while I grumbled about Smith’s inept play as I watched the game, I was so impressed with the D line. While having said that I can readily accept the need to place Bokor back on the D line. The improved D line elevates the whole D’s play. The bringing in of fresh D linemen is a necessity to continue their level of play.
Finally, if the D line/D in general continues to play as they did at MSU, and continues to improve all that is need is for serviceable QB play.
This is a very minor personnel move that probably happens ten times more than we read about.
The thing is we don\’t know. I don\’t know if he\’s that good or not. I do know that if he is even a 3d string back-up he needs a position to develop. After 3 years, the coaches should have a better idea. At this point, he is an underdeveloped player at all positions. A jack of all trades, master of none. First week of camp — DT. Less than a week later OG. Less than a month after that back to DT.
If there is an area where I am getting concerned about the Wannstedt coaching/development; it is an indecision about where to play some players. College players are not going to be at school for more than 5 years at most. There has to be a better idea of where you want them to play and at some point you have to stick to it.
Bokor, as I said, is an extreme example. I\’m also thinking about JUCO players like Lowell Robinson who has even less time and the coaches couldn\’t make up their mind about which side of the ball to play him all of last year.
This can\’t be excused as figuring out the college game. Wanny spent years in college coaching. He knows this, and this is his third year running things at Pitt.
While I can clearly see your points, I must say that most programs have a handful of guys that get “stuck” into this role. Furthermore, this type of situation is not just associated with football. It happens in most sports where there is continuous fluidity with personnel etc….Injuries, performance issues, discipline/classroom issues, off the field problems, just to name a few, are variables that can wreak havouc with your original lineup. Sometimes this type of scenario can end up being a positive or a potential negative to that person’s playing days. I am sure we all can provide examples of players who have had success operating in this fashion but also point to many players where it has been a detrement. I think it also depends on a player’s personality. Some guys can make a silk purse out of the situation, while others will wither. Just my thoughts? Right or wrong.
Excited to see the Panthers come back home. Even though the loss last week was unacceptable and the game was very ugly, I was proud of the team and I can see some small signs of improvment with not only personnel, but dare I say it, coaching.
“Hail to Pitt”
College coaches switch player positions frequently. Usually it is with an eye squarely on the depth chart, and occasionally it is because they see a skill set in the athlete that would transalte better at another position. I don’t think DW switches players all that much. Pinkston, Murray, and Dickerson are switches that have unambiguously helped the team. Bokor, Robinson, A. Smith, and Martin are the only other ones I can think of. Of this second group, I think the first two are depth chart switches, and the latter two are development switches. So, in my (worthless) opinion, only two players in three years have been hurt from a development standpoint due to position switching. I strong suspect that neither one of these guys would start tomorrow if he had been at one position during his entire Pitt career (I don’t think Robinson would play over Thatcher/Phillips/Chappel or Turner/Pestano/Porter/McGhee/Williams, nor would Bokor play over our top 4 DL or Davis/McGlynn/Thomas). I think Robinson is pretty much a special teams guy. Switching positions has likely set Bokor back in terms of when he will eventually solidify a spot in the 2-deep, but he wouldn’t be in it yet even if he had spent every practice at the same position. He’s the poster child for “take one for the team,” but contrary to your insinuation that the coaches stunt too many players by switching, I think he’s the only one, for legitimate reasons, and it won’t have much of an impact on the team at any point (none at present).
The latter could be my own distortion, but I’d nevertheless like to believe I’m not the only one (aside from the editor (to one extent or another)) who sees the need for accountability on both sides of the ball (not just the players, either).
So instead of making excuses for, and singling out, individual players, what else would-you/ could-you otherwise attribute to the “lack of depth on the lines for Pitt.” Or, rather: why is it so outlandish to consider the current circumstances (esp. O-Line) the “fault of the whole frickin’ coaching staff, not just blaming it all on Walt Harris…” That’s the question.
Don’t think for a second, either, that I wish DW and his coordinators (all his staff) to fail. The opposite would be true. Still, though, I find it increasingly difficult to ‘give benefit of the doubt’ to this regime in its third year.
They’re not newbie’s FCS
HAIL TO PITT!!!
How funny is it SU tried giving the game away…
The ‘lack of depth’ that you mention is certainly due to the lack of talented underclassmen able to play in the two deep – and if you look at how the coaches have been able to rotate in on the defensive line (and that is the main reason PITT’s defense has improved, no let down from worn out DL in the second half) you’ll see out of eight players there are five sophomores and freshmen – add in Sheard and it’s even more unbalanced toward the younger kids.
Instead of a fault of the coaching staff that’s a real positive result from a tricky situation – give credit where it’s due – to the coaches who identified these talented kids, recruited them and got them ready to play at such and early stage.