Here is a three week late start for the Pitt Blather’s “Monday Morning Quarterback” series.  There was so much going on with the new staff and the QB competition and rotation through the first three games I forgot to start writing these.  If you remember the MMQB format is three points of Positives, three Negatives and then Notes.) Here goes.

(This is the first article in a weekly series of articles entitled “Monday Morning Quarterback”.   I will try to post them two days after the football games are played so as to have our wilder emotions under control by then. It will be my take on the positives and the negatives we saw happen and a chance for commenters to agree or disagree and to add their own thoughts.) 

A few things stuck with me Saturday afternoon as I left a Blather friend’s house after watching Pitt’s 17-13 win over Virginia Tech in Blacksburg.  First was that it is very nice to get a conference win any way we can get it, and that is just what we did.  Second is that no matter how a game turns out, good, bad, or middling, Pitt fans find things to worry and complain about.  Check out the Game Thread posts if you don’t believe that.

I say this because I watched the game with three new friends who are long time (suffering) Pitt fans who, to a man, are convinced we’ll be a 8-10 win team this season… yet they were also sure, down to Pitt’s victory formation out of the huddle, that we were going to lose that game.  Imagine that, Reed, who predicted 6-6 season and a close Pitt loss against VT calming those guys down off the ledge in the 4^th quarter and assuring them we were going to come out with a win.  Life is strange, eh?  Of course, watching our balls to the wall defense kick the Hokies’ collective asses at every turn help my confidence we’d win a bit also.  Which leads us to…

POSITIVES:

1.  We may be seeing a rising and complete 180 degree reversal from the 2014 team in that we are currently relying on our defense to win games for us and that is what they are doing… with an excellent shut down effort on Saturday.

I say currently because as good as the defense looked yesterday, and make no mistake it did in every area, it’s to be seen how we will do in the future given the sloppy conditions of play yesterday and the fact that throughout the second half of the game our defense was going up against a one-armed 2^nd string QB…

“…and a sore shoulder for Virginia Tech quarterback Brenden Motley, who was sacked seven times, hurried three other times, threw three interceptions and completed only 45 percent of his passes (9 of 20).  “We feel we can get after the quarterback, no matter who it is,” Narduzzi said.”

So it is kind of hard to look at our defensive effort on Saturday and feel we’ll automatically replicate that every week.  But then again we do have some solid reasons to feel it could turn out to be a consistent defensive result each week.

The impact we had on VT’s QB Motley above is exactly what we have been doing in terms of sacks and pressure on the QB since the season started. We are getting better at it and in all facets of the defense from week to week. There is no doubt about that and here are some scary stats for the University of Virginia’s offensive coordinator to ponder during game prep week.  After four games we rank:

2^nd nationally in Sacks Made with 19 total and 4.25 per game.

4^th in Rushing Defense with 71.0 yards per game allowed at a 2.46 yards per carry average.

4^th in Total Defense with 233.8 yards per game allowed and…

12^th in Passing Efficiency Defense with a rating of 98.00.

That is as good a start to the season as any we have had in my memory except perhaps for our defenses of the early 1980s.  Wouldn’t it be nice that in 30 years we’ll be looking back on this 2015 defense and saying those same things?  Wait a minute, I’ll be dead.

2.  We broke out of the ‘where are the turnovers?’ phase with three interceptions in the game. This is in no small part the reason we hired Josh Conklin as our new DC.  His teams at FIU led the country in turnovers gained and after our poor showing in that category last year we really need this to be a strength for us this season.  Against VT we won the turnover battle by a 3-1 score and that helps immensely especially in a close game.

Given those defensive stats above and the intense pressure we put on the VT quarterback, opposing OCs will see the Panthers putting defenders in the box to stop the run and realize there is nowhere to hide except to rely on a passing game and hope we falter there. This may not be a bad scenario for future offenses except for the fact that they now have to think twice about passing the ball also.

Here is what the defense has done overall in our first four games:

* = Average Yards per Carry is around 4.0 nationally and Average Yards per Completion is around 12.5 nationally.

From that table we can see two main things. Our rushing defense has been pretty consistent and stingy over all four games and very good against the two Power Five teams.  One problem we have with our rushing defense is that we have given up rather a lot of TDs on the ground once the opponents get into our Red Zone.

3.  We have found an identity based on what has actually happened on the field rather than on reputations and what we hoped would happen. I’ve been a wait and see fan with Pitt football ever since 1974. That is my outlook because I and many, many other fans have been through so many coaching changes it’s hard to count (not really, it’s been 11 not including Haywood).

Because of that constant coaching staff churn a lot of us pull back from high initial expectations because we have had our hopes dashed over and over. What we want is a HC who really wants to be at Pitt and who wins a few more games than we lose each year.  Throw in a Conference championship every so often and we’ll feel that Pitt football in on a firm footing.

While we may not meet all the above criteria right away, Narduzzi is a rookie HC after all, when we win a close game in a conference opponent’s back yard in his fourth game of his HC career… that’s comfort making for us fans and drives energy into our players.  As an example the Tribune Review weights in with two articles on the game and DiPaloa’s first piece is an overview of how the game played out and how happy Narduzzi and the players were with the victory.

The first words from Pitt coach Pat Narduzzi after the 17-13 victory over Virginia Tech came in the form of an apology to reporters. “Sorry I’m late, guys,” he said, clearly pleased with the result of his first trip into ACC country. “There was a party in the locker room.”

Excuse Pitt’s players for rejoicing and singing the school fight song, with two-thirds of the season to go. Try not to pour cold water on the celebration by pointing out that Pitt is 3-1 (1-0 ACC) for the third time in three years. (And we know how those previous seasons ended.)  But the team deserved to carry a good mood onto its charter flight home Saturday night after it did something most observers believed was impossible as recently as nine months ago:  Win with defense.

Folks, I believe the last time we heard of the Pitt football guys locker room having a celebration like that was after the 13-9 game in Morgantown.  And that was a last gasp win over a long time rival after a poor season’s showing by our Pitt team.  This time its four games into a season and, I think, shows that the kids are fully realizing that a nice season might well be on the horizon.

NEGATIVES:

1.  Our poor passing game. First and foremost we have look at the passing game against VT and how it sputtered over the course of 60 minutes. Peterman himself was inconsistent and while his stat line may look adequate as this: 9/15 for 110 yards (60%), 1 TD, 0 INTs, 12.2 ypc and 7.3 ypa and was sacked four times it was obvious watching the game he wasn’t as sharp as he played in earlier games earlier in the season

I’m not sure why that happened exactly but I think it was partly due to the head scratching offensive play calling and to poor OL pass protection. Those may be some reasons but they shouldn’t be excuses. A D1 starting QB should play a better game than we saw Peterman play on Saturday. (More on the QB in the Notes section)

The bottom line is that Peterman played a serviceable game and produced about the bare minimum we should expect a winning QB to have and we need better than that to keep winning conference games.  If he can’t rise to the occasion then make the switch back to Voytik whose has shown he can move the ball downfield with his passing.

2.  Voytik didn’t get called on to throw the ball. In his post-game recap Jerry DiPaola touches on the fact that Voytik didn’t throw any passes yesterday but he doesn’t take the opportunity to delve into why that didn’t happen, as every fan and Pitt football follower thought it should have.

Basically, the role Chad Voytik played in the win yesterday was as a change of pace substitution, a approach that paid off dividends in the first half.

“Offensive coordinator Jim Chaney developed a package of run plays for Voytik that caught Virginia Tech looking the other way in a 17-13 Pitt victory.  Given five opportunities to run the read option, he gained 37 yards, including a 26-yard scamper on the game’s second snap that led to a field goal. It was similar to last year’s Virginia Tech game at Heinz Field when Voytik ran for 118 yards in a 21-16 Pitt victory.”

“Voytik didn’t throw a pass, but his running ability has given opponents two quarterbacks to spend time preparing for during the week.  “The (defensive) guy didn’t line up right and didn’t execute the first run,” Virginia Tech defensive coordinator Bud Foster said. “Then, one (run) popped out on us a little later.”

But the real truth is the fact that our passing game wasn’t so good yesterday that a few attempts and completions from Voytik would have broken any sort of passing rhythm Peterman had because he didn’t have one.  .

3.  Our offensive play calling and personnel substitutions. OC Jim Chaney missed a golden opportunity to make future opponents believe that each of our two QBs could both pass and pick up yards on the ground and then have to game plan for that. That was a real misuse of talent in that situation and I think it is Chaney’s way of thinking that he’ll spring a few passes by Voytik in the Virginia game next week and take their defense by surprise.

It wasn’t only the QB rotation that was bobbled by Chaney but also the way he called so many running plays for the QB who isn’t the ‘running QB’ on the team. The Pitt fans who I watched the game with and I were dumbfounded that we kept seeing Peterman get the snap and take off running every which way.  Chaney didn’t limit Peterman’s running plays to QB sneaks or a once a half QB keeper but fully integrated those rushing plays into the game plan.

It felt almost like Chaney didn’t have a clue as to what each QB’s skill set was and/or refused to use each of them to full advantage.  Rumors and speculation aside, I don’t really believe that Jim Chaney is undercutting one QB or calling plays to highlight another QB’s range of skills… at least I truly hope that isn’t the case.

But I do have to say that I felt that might have been the case when I watched Voytik run the ball every play he was in,  then watched Peterman, who needed more early throws to get into a groove for confidence and comfort out there, get so many run calls.   Looking back to the Pitt’s series in the 1^st half of this game we see Peterman running the ball seven times (not counting sacks) and passing the ball seven times.  Ridiculous.

Nate Peterman should not ever have seven called runs in a half or even a full game…never. I’ve said that Peterman can run the ball but that meant he could scramble and pick up yards or gain ground on a surprise run every so often. Pitt cannot try to make him Tim Tebow, which by the way, he resembles in other aspects of his life.  Let’s hope he doesn’t do any weird actions after a good play.

My thought is you do whatever is necessary to put points on the board in a hostile stadium against a conference opponent, and that is backed up by the thin margin of victory we had.  I don’t think Jim Chaney did what he could have and should have done… unless he thinks 17 points is a good number.

NOTES:

Here are the official VT game stats and info from the Pitt media department issued Saturday evening.  Here are Pitt’s cumulative season stats also. These are found on the Pitt Media Dept.’s  Pitt LiveWire website were everything that has to do with Pitt Football, and the games in particular, are found.

We have had a lot of debate and discussion on here about the two QBs we have playing right now.  One thing I have noticed in my conversations about this is Pitt fans tend to think that Peterman is some older QB who had experience at Tennessee and brought all that with him to Pitt.

That isn’t the case at all.  To refresh memories Peterman and Voytik were in the same recruiting class and the fact is that Chad Voytik has a full season plus a half game of a bowl game of experience as a starting QB on Peterman.  Peterman had a hand full of passing attempts before coming to Pitt.  So I think that when criticizing Peterman for his body of work in these 2.5 games he’s played it is helpful to compare what the two player’s at the approximately the same stage in their Pitt careers, with identical 3-1 records.

What this shows is at the approximate same stage in their first starting season( less three quarters for Peterman) the two players have about the same statistics. This is with Voytik having that full half of the ’14 bowl game under his belt also.

What does it mean?  To me it is not to pass final judgment on Peterman’s worth until he has a lot more playing time under his belt.  It took Voytik about six full games before he hit any sort or stride last season so I’ll give Peterman at least the same.  It doesn’t matter at this point who, what or why Peterman is here and playing for us. What matters is that since the OC’s decision has been made how well he plays from here on out and the same goes for Chad Voytik.

I like to see a QB get a strong foundation of playing time early on so that they can get acclimated to their new situation, new teammates and new coaches. Voytik was lucky enough to be the only viable option at QB last year and it helped him a lot to know he was going to be the starter the next game come hell or high water.  Peterman doesn’t have that luxury here as Voytik is more experienced as he is, but he deserves a chance to grow like Voytik.

I didn’t really write above about what I see as one of the main offensive problems and that is the current state of the OL play. Our running game really sucked Saturday and except for those two nice Ollison runs we had 44 carries for 44 yards. 4 of those carries were sacks for (-35) yards so it panned out to be 40 carries 79 yards at a 2.0 ypc clip, again minus the two long runs. We just can’t rely on long running plays for that part of our offense to be successful.  As happy as I am about the defense that is how worried I am about the offense going forward.

Next week: Pitt vs. Virginia at home.  Pitt just announced a 12:30 game start for GT thus, just like UVa, the game will be on the ACC network.