I have been very conflicted about writing more about Pat Bostick getting inserted into the Navy game at the very end. I’d rather move on to the Rutgers game. The problem is, I haven’t stopped thinking about it, and the answer given has not resolved the issue in my mind.

As soon as it happened, I was confused by the decision. The annoyance quickly followed, but not at seeing Bostick in there, or at Wannstedt’s decision, per se. I was annoyed because, despite, a fantastic performance by the defense. Despite McCoy absolutely shredding Navy’s defense. Despite seeing Baldwin being used as a real deep threat. Despite an aggressive game plan. Despite all the good, that decision at the end of the game was going to turn into a major topic and distract from all the good stuff.

Coach Wannstedt’s answer after the game hardly cleared anything up.

Heading into the season, coaches were adamant that the plan would be to redshirt Bostick, thus preserving a fifth year of eligibility for him, and let Bill Stull hold the starter’s job for this season and next. Under that plan, Bostick would then have two years of eligibility to be the starter once Stull graduated but now that he’s played in a game, he will only have one. Theoretically, though, he could take a redshirt next season and still have two seasons, but that seems unlikely at this point.

Wannstedt was cryptic in his answer about Bostick’s redshirt.

“We’re trying to win games and [Bostick] is our back-up quarterback right now and if something happens to Billy [Stull] he has to go in and play,” Wannstedt said.

When asked a follow-up question about whether he was concerned about preserving Bostick’s redshirt, Wannstedt answered sternly, “No.”

So, a coach known (and liked in the media) for being open and transparent suddenly becomes tight-lipped, and gives a coachspeak answer and won’t explain. And answer that goes against all private statements and implied statements by Wannstedt and other coaches to all those who cover Pitt football. No, that won’t cause a lot of arched eybrows and questions.

Take Paul Zeise in his Q&A from yesterday.

Personnel decisions are often second-guessed and most of the time for the wrong reasons . But the decisions to not play Elijah Fields — for even one snap — and to burn Pat Bostick’s redshirt so he can hand off three times and take a knee (and then explain that he needed to “get some work”) are both puzzling — and that is being kind. Bostick was supposed to be the franchise quarterback — in playing him for three meaningless snaps you’ve basically told him and the world that he is no longer regarded as that because if he was, you’d want him to have as many years of eligibility to be the starter as possible. And the bottom line is this — if you don’t think that he is the guy for the future, that’s fair. And if you think Tino Sunseri is — and he might not be — why burn his redshirt — especially for a guy like Bostick who has done everything they’ve asked, who works hard and who doesn’t embarrass himself or the program? Why not tell him that you’re not sure he is the guy and give him the option to transfer somewhere (like a Division I-AA program) and have his three years of eligibility remaining intact. Those three snaps did nothing to “get him ready” in case Stull goes down so it just smells like a “not-very-well thought out” plan.

A beat writer is around the team and coaches all season. It’s rather obvious no one saw this decision coming.

You know what that does. It creates conspiracy theories, hypothesis, rumors and speculation. And not just here and on the message boards. Even a columnist from one of the papers sees it as the most compelling thing coming out of the game and joins in the decoding of the deeper meaning.

The second point has more long-term ramifications. Evidently — and Wannstedt will deny this from now until the end of time — the Pitt staff doesn’t believe Bostick is their guy for the future. If Wannstedt felt otherwise, he never would have played Bostick, the starter as a freshman last season by default after Stull’s hand injury in the opening game, until he absolutely had to play him. That would be pure lunacy. Wannstedt likes Bostick as a quarterback better than Cross and Smith, but …

Fair or not, these are the conclusions a lot have reached.

Now to be fair to Coach Wannstedt, I’ve never heard or read explicitly that Bostick would be redshirted. Some have written that before the season, Wannstedt appeared on Joe Bendel’s radio show and said words to that effect, but I can’t confirm it.

This is about as close as Wannstedt had come to the issue — and obviously he left a lot of wiggle room — prior to the start of the season.

The topic of Pat Bostick being redshirted this season has been brought up but we will not make that decision this week. We’ll do what we have to in order to win this first game. We’ll take things one week at a time concerning our backup quarterbacks. Obviously we’ll have a plan should something happen to Bill but that wouldn’t be revealed until that situation occurred.

And that plan wasn’t unveiled until game six? In his Rutgers preview press conference, he did address the Bostck situation. Sort of.

On Pat Bostick as the primary reserve at quarterback:

“Well, the way our season’s been to this point, we haven’t really had an opportunity for any other quarterback to play. The discussion was, and is, that we’re trying to do everything we can to give our team the best chance to win this year. I think if Pat’s going to be the backup quarterback and if Bill got hurt on the first snap, then we’d expect Pat to go in. He’s got to have some playing time. We haven’t had him take any snaps in a live game since last year so that was the thinking behind putting him late against Navy. It wasn’t the redshirt thing or anything else. The decision to name him the back-up was based solely on what gives our team the best chance to win. He won’t necessarily see action every game. We’ll see how every game unfolds. He felt good about getting in there. In practice, he takes the back-up reps and he’s prepared to play so nothing’s really going to change with his status.”

I know, Pitt’s riding high and questioning success seems excessively negative, but Coach Wannstedt’s decision-making and the explanations — especially regarding back-ups is maddening.

This seems a lot like the way he responded to using Greg Cross. First, declaring there is/was a plan to use him, then explain how things just haven’t worked out to in the game to do the things they wanted.

Putting Bostick in there for one series where his only duty is take the snap under center without fumbling, firmly place that ball in Sharriff Harris’ stomach without fumbling the exchange and then get out of the way. Repeat two more times and run off the field to let the team punt.

I’m sorry, I know I didn’t play the game. I just don’t see how that helps him or the team. Yes, he hasn’t seen live game action since last season. That series hardly does much to change it. The explanation and reason just don’t match the actions.

I’m glad that Bostick is apparently happy with the explanation Wannstedt gave him. That’s nice. It still doesn’t change anything regarding the situation. It isn’t fair to Bostick, since it now subjects him to a whole new set of swirling rumors — almost all negative. It was all something that could have been avoided, and it all falls at the feet of Wannstedt.

Finally, go check out Part 1 and Part 2 over at Cat Basket as DPJ tries to make sense of this. Some excellent stuff.

Wow. A fantastic performance by Pitt. The coaching staff called a great game. And I guarantee, the biggest buzz is going to be questioning why Pat Bostick was put in the game to hand-off to Shariff Harris.

I don’t know why Coach Wannstedt chose the scrub time of this game to burn Bostick’s redshirt. I don’t know why, if they wanted to wisely take out Stull and others, Greg Cross wasn’t at least put in there for some reps.

I do know there are going to be a lot of questions and second-guessing after a game, where otherwise there would be none.

I’ve had a few hours to sleep on it. Haven’t looked at the media yet. This was a great game for Pitt. Not just because they won — though that was a huge part of it. It was how they did it. Without playing a perfect game.

They made mistakes. They screwed up on special teams. They turned the ball over a couple times. Stull threw some horrible passes. Mistakes were made. Yet, instead of retreating into conservatism and everything Wannstedt has usually done, he let the team stay aggressive and keep attacking. The defense kept going after Grothe. The offense still threw the ball — downfield.

The players responded. Their energy was excellent the entire game. It was the sort of effort and game Pitt fans have been wanting to see. It’s not about making the offense more “exciting” or something it isn’t. It is seeing Pitt use the players in ways that takes advantage of their skill sets rather than just jamming them into the system regardless of fit.

I suppose that’s what it comes down to with Coach Dave Wannstedt. We all know it on some level. Some are comfortable with it. Others not so much. Still others frustrated, because they believed he might change and adapt.

Right now, I’m at the point where I acknowledge it. Wannstedt’s actions — playing those who he thinks knows the system best regardless of their talent and ability to actually execute, fearing mistakes to the point of paralysis on developing the talent behind the starters, preferring to hire coaches to whom he has the deepest ties to and won’t challenge his assumptions (classic groupthink), sticking with one system and game plan regardless of the talent rather than adapting the gameplan and system to the talent, and playing not to lose (and yes, I know I’ve left stuff out) — all say he isn’t changing.

I thought for myself that Wannstedt was capable of adapting. That while he would stick to his basic priniciples of what he believes, he could tweak and adjust things as a head coach at college. That Wannstedt would be Pete Carroll-esque with more than just having similar enthusiasm and energy.

Instead, it is rather clear that Wannstedt has followed the path of Al Groh and Chan Gailey. Playing somewhere around mediocrity. Really, Wannstedt has been a less successful, but more engaging version of Al Groh. Groh has been a great recruiter to his alma mater. He has sent lots of top talent to the NFL. At the same time, he has never gotten too far in a conference not that different from the Big East in strength (I know, worse). In his best years, Virginia has been a top-25 team, and he’s had a couple sub-.500 years (along with this year). The team has averaged 7 wins or so a season, 5-3 in conference most years, and has been 3-2 in 5 bowls. It doesn’t look like it will ever get much better there.

Jonathan Baldwin and Greg Cross, as much as anything else have been representative of the frustration fans are realizing in Season 4. Maybe they don’t live up to the hype. Maybe they do. We just don’t know. When asked about them every week, it’s the same thing.

Q: Paul you said “on this offense Jonathan Baldwin, LeSean McCoy, LaRod Stephens-Howling and Greg Cross are the only four who are genuine playmakers” Why is it that only one of these four players gets a chance to play?

ZEISE: Well, we got to see three of the four Saturday against Syracuse — and not surprisingly they all made key plays. I mean, Dave Wannstedt conceded the bubble screen to Jonathan Baldwin on third-and-9 was basically a safe play that is designed not to get a first down in that situation but just get a few yards of field position and avoid a negative play. But Baldwin broke a tackle and made some nice moves to get to within a few feet of the first down and that enabled the Panthers to go for it on fourth and then continue to the game-tying score. The situation with Greg Cross is puzzling and frustrating — I can’t quite figure out why this kid was recruited if he is not going to be used. And if they are waiting to use him this week against South Florida, that is a terrible idea because the Bulls strength is this — speed on defense. So Cross won’t be the fastest player on the field and he won’t be able to run wide or make people miss, which means it is not a good week to try and bring him out to showcase his talents. In fact, the only way you have a chance to beat the Bulls is if you man up and try to beat them the old fashioned way — by pounding them with a power run game and keeping their offense off the field. And let’s not forget that for the fifth week in a row, Jonathan Baldwin is allegedly — according to the coaches — in line for more playing time …

[Empahsis added.]

The coaches are saying he should play more (and to a lesser extent similarly with Cross), yet they don’t. Which they then justify by saying that it was because the game situation dictated against it. A tight game, and they couldn’t risk the mistakes. The usual. Legitimate and utterly reasonable statements. And at the same time complete and utter crap.

Never mind that in at least the Buffalo and Syracuse games it never should have been that kind of game. You can’t legitimately argue that the across the board talent and depth at Pitt versus those two teams was close. And in Syracuse’s case, it definitely wasn’t any sort of advantage on the coaching. So either the players aren’t doing the job (other than not turning the ball over) or the coaches aren’t.

There’s no real development of the players behind the starters. It’s just about improving their conditioning and learning the playbook.

There was a point made about Wannstedt’s style that resonated with me.

…And, we are always one hurt thumb away from disaster.

That fits with Coach Wannstedt after a lot of disappointing seasons at Pitt and the pros. It was the injuries. They couldn’t “catch a break.” Too much of other things to overcome. A coach that leaves no margin for error for anything to go wrong — and something always does — is bound to fall short.

The one thing definitely lacking from Pitt to this point is the offensive “big play.” When a 36-yard pass play between Bill Stull and Oderick Turner in the Buffalo game is the longest play of the season followed by a 28-yard shuffle pass to LeSean McCoy versus Iowa, well you just tell yourself that this offense wasn’t geared towards the big play. Of course, when you then read the coach talking about the wide receivers and McCoy needing/getting close to the “big play,” it can be a bit frustrating.

This has led to the question of why McCoy hasn’t taken a direct snap from the Wildcat formation to this point. To say nothing of the limited appearances of Greg Cross.

He’s not much of a threat when he’s on the bench and, given starting quarterback Bill Stull’s struggles against Iowa, Wannstedt is being asked why the ball wasn’t in Cross’s hands more. Pitt had seven three-and-out possessions during the game, including six in a row at one point.

Stull was 11-of-25 for 129 yards and an interception. Cross was sacked for a 10-yard loss on the only other play he had the ball.

“We do have a series of plays for him other than the two we ran last week,” Wannstedt said. “We’ll see how things unfold. He’s been practicing and doing everything since Day 1 in camp.”

McCoy also hasn’t been used out of the Wildcat this season, even though defenses are stacking the line of scrimmage to contain his running. The sophomore has 242 yards in three games, down from 347 yards last season — even though he wasn’t a starter at the beginning of that season.

Of course, the issue of how, when and frequency with the use of Greg Cross is the center of the debate on Pitt using the Wildcat offense. It apparently didn’t help when the Miami Dolphins used it with great success to blow out the New England Patriots.

The instant success of Cross, coupled with the Miami Dolphins unveiling the Wildcat for six plays that accounted for 119 yards and five touchdowns in ending the New England Patriots’ 21-game regular-season win streak Sunday, has only opened Cavanaugh to more second-guessing.

Yet, Cavanaugh stood by his convictions Wednesday that Bill Stull deserves to be Pitt’s starting quarterback, that Cross will be used when situations allow and the Wildcat isn’t the answer to what ails an offense that ranks last in the Big East in rushing yards per game (123.3).

After spending 25 seasons in the NFL as a player and coach, Cavanaugh believes the Wildcat isn’t going to last long in the league.

“If you pull that out of nowhere – much like our Michigan State game last year – it’s tough to adjust to. It sounds like (the Dolphins) got some big plays out of it,” said Cavanaugh, who spent 11 seasons as an NFL assistant coach, eight as an offensive coordinator. “I’m sure it’s not going to be the rage. I’m sure every team in the NFL has asked for a copy of that game and is going to watch it and start preparing for it. I’m sure that’s what Miami wanted to do, spring it on somebody and make them prepare for it.”

I’m going to assume Cavanaugh was asked about it’s potential impact in the NFL. The problem I see, is his dismissal of it for college as well. Like Wannstedt, he seems to be treating it more as a gimmick that might occasionally surprise an opposing team. Not as something that can be utilized productively in the course of a normal offensive scheme and gameplan. I find that disheartening.

Although Pitt hasn’t unveiled the Wildcat this season, Cavanaugh didn’t dismiss the notion that the Panthers could use it when the time is right. Where LeSean “Shady” McCoy took the snaps out of the unbalanced formation last season, Cross is more likely to handle them this time. But Cavanaugh warned that the Wildcat won’t replace the West Coast as Pitt’s base offense, mostly because of the physical pounding the quarterback endures.

“I would think the best way to do that is with a real athletic quarterback who you don’t mind running the football because he’s going to get hit – a lot – but he’s got the ability to pull the football out and throw it,” Cavanaugh said. “I think (Cross) is probably more adept at running the Wildcat right now. He’s more of a good runner. You expose your quarterbacks to hits that Shady’s used to taking, not a quarterback. If you’re going to do it and you mix it in for four or five snaps a game, you do it. If it becomes a bigger part of the offense, you’re probably better off with a back.”

Yeah, and the spread will never catch-on in the college game. It’s just a gimmick. Again, this is about using the players on the team and their talents in a way that provides the best opportunity for success.

While I have been very critical this season about Wannstedt, one area he deserves credit for has been the play of special teams. Wannstedt has been directly coaching that area. I’ve been very happy with most of the coverage on kickoffs and punts. To say nothing, of successfully attacking the kickers and punters.

He said the units are seemingly starting to get comfortable with some of the changes he has made to their schemes — such as the new spread-out punting formation, which enables the coverage units to get down the field quickly and has led to quicker punts — but there are still too many glitches for his liking.

“The kids are working hard at it,” Wannstedt said. “Our kickoffs have been the best they have been over the past two weeks, certainly the best since I have been here, and that goes for where we are kicking too, hang time and distance.

“We’re close on our kickoff returns — two of them last week, we were one block from breaking them. So we just need to keep working on our fundamentals and keep improving.”

The kickoffs have indeed improved, largely thanks to redshirt sophomore Luke Briggs, a walk-on. The Panthers tried out several players for the kickoff position and began the season with Conor Lee, but Briggs has stepped in and excelled.

But Lee and punter Dave Brytus have, as Wannstedt said, also been excellent and that has been a big boost for the special teams units.

Lee has made all eight of his extra-point attempts and three of four field-goal attempts on the season while Brytus has averaged 43.8 yards per kick, has kicked directionally well and was named the Big East special teams player of the week this past week for his performance in a 21-20 win against Iowa.

The one area of concern, though, has been punt returns.

While some blame Berry for not breaking one longer than 12 yards through the first three games this season, Pitt coach Dave Wannstedt is more concerned with Berry catching the ball and getting good field position.

“Aaron Berry hasn’t really had much of a chance,” said Wannstedt, who’s coaching the special teams since Charlie Partridge left for Wisconsin. “It’s not like he’s catching the ball and he’s got nothing but field in front of him. He’s had people down there too fast. We’ve got to work on our hold-ups.”

Wannstedt said Berry’s sure-handedness and willingness to stay in harm’s way is what separates him from other return candidates, such as receivers Derek Kinder, T.J. Porter, Aaron Smith and Aundre Wright.

“He’s the most consistent at catching the football — trust me on that,” Wannstedt said. “The thing that is most important to me is having a guy back there that will field the ball. That’s the No. 1 thing: you want to catch the ball.

“We have a lot of guys that might be faster than Aaron or maybe better with the ball in their hand. But LaRod Stephens-Howling can’t catch punts. I’d love to have him back there, but he’s never returned punts. That’s the other side of the coin.”

It does seem, though, that Berry is thinking too much back there. Looking for exactly the right place to run, rather than just taking off. Seems to be a theme. Players trying to think about what they are supposed to do overruling their own abilities and instincts.

I wonder if the coaches have pushed a little too much on that. Making them worry too much about mistakes, and making it that much harder to have the big play.

Back when Wannstedt was with the Dolphins, he used the gimmick of hanging lobster traps to warn his team of  the danger of “trap” games. It, uh, didn’t work. Kevin Gorman noted that Wannstedt may dislike “gimmick” plays, but loves “gimmicks” to try and get his team’s attention (less charitable people have referred to it as “dime-store psychology“).

And sure enough, we find out that he’s gone back to the “trap” gimmick.

Q: How do we avoid the dreaded “let-down game” this weekend against Syracuse? The Orange are not a good football team, but the Carrier Dome isn’t always the easiest place to play.

ZEISE: Well, I think the coaches are very aware of it because there are mouse traps hanging around the hallways at the practice facility and players are talking about the “trap game”. But from what I’ve see of Syracuse, if Pitt can’t win this one it is time to tear up the blue prints and start over because the Orange, and I’ll be polite, are an awful football team. And given the circus that is surrounding the athletic director talking publicly about firing the head coach and the fact that they are actually already talking about replacements, it is in even worse shape than before. The Orange haven’t recruited well in recent years, Greg Robinson is clearly in over his head, has no solutions and doesn’t have a very good plan, and it has all come crashing down on them. In short, I can’t see Pitt losing this game. I said at the outset of the year and I still believe this is the worst team the Panthers play. But Pitt is 18-22 in its last 40 games with losses to teams like Ohio, 2006 Connecticut and Bowling Green, so the Panthers should not be overlooking anyone.

[Emphasis added.]

I don’t think Pitt is going to lose, but would I be getting too negative if I’m already thinking that Pitt will be coming out against Syracuse a little tight?

The Church Brew Works made All About Beer’s 125 places to have a beer before you die (in the world) list. I really have to get back there some time. ESPN.com’s Big East reporter/blogger Brian Bennett was in Pittsburgh for the game and was smart enough to go there that night.

I’ve been to places before that used to be old churches, but this was something different. This still looks exactly like a working house of worship, except for the huge vats of microbrew beer. Very cool place, especially for someone who spent 12 years in Catholic school. As Homer Simpson once said, “Mmm…sacrilicious.”

He also listed Dave Brytus as BMOC on special teams in the Big East this week and Mick Williams for defense. The Big East agreed with him about Dave Brytus, naming in special teams player of the week. On defense, though, they gave it to Scott McKillop.

Cat Basket wants to see more of Greg Cross — not get called for more plays — just out on the field more.

The disappearance of Cross for most of the game made Paul Zeise’s ugly list. In “Bad” is it any surprise that the return of conservative play calling the minute Pitt had an 11-point lead?

The idea that a 14-3 lead in the first half is something worth trying to protect — as opposed to extend — is a little frightening.

Especially while still in the first half.

The booing by the fans at the end of the first half seems to have become a topic of debate.

Q: What the heck is going on with all this booing from “Pitt fans”? I watched the game at a bar with a few people from Pitt and was embarrassed by the fans who need a reality check. I mean, the team was beating a pretty good Big Ten team at half time and getting booed running into the locker room. What is wrong with these people?

ZEISE: I agree. In fact, if I had not been at the game and just based the outcome on my e-mails I would for sure thought they had lost the game given all the negativity and the venom directed at the coaching staff. I don’t get it — yes, the coaches didn’t make every play call they should have and yes, they gave up on a few possessions when they got into second and long by getting very conservative — but Pitt did win the game.

Let me repeat — Pitt won a game against a BCS conference team (time will tell how good this team is obviously, but it seems like a good team with some good players) with a big crowd at home on a beautiful sunny afternoon on national television. What is there to be angry about? …

Sigh.

The booing was not at the players but the playcallers. I would think most people understood this. This was in the midst of the 5 straight 3-and-outs. While letting the clock run out at that point at the end of the half was defensible given the field position, that was as much a carry-over from Pitt’s previous series.

With 1:21 left, Pitt started on its own 20 after Iowa had missed a 35-yard FG. Pitt’s plan was to go into the half by running LaRod Stephens-Howling straight ahead impotently to burn the clock. Iowa and Kirk Ferentz seemed to surprise Wannstedt by immediately calling timeout. Which they did on each play since he had all 3 timeouts left. Pitt didn’t do anything to counter. If anything, Wannstedt seemed stunned that Iowa would be that aggressive. As if it violated the book on how you play football.  Instead sticking with another run straight into the defense and a 2-yard pass. All, very safe and took all of 18 seconds. Again, for those in the stands, it was seeing the reversion to Bowling Green conservatism at the end of the half. That had some small booing, but mainly muttering and looks of disgust in the stands.

Luckily, Brytus had a solid punt and no return yards. Iowa fell a yard short and had to punt. Pitt had 2 timeouts and 17 seconds from the Iowa 20. Yeah, the likelihood of anything happening was really low, but to simply take the knee and run off the field was so typical. The fact that Pitt didn’t even try to move the ball on the prior possession along with taking the knee was too much for most fans. That’s when the booing really hit. I didn’t blame them at all. I was too disgusted to bother booing.

Pitt was lucky to be leading 14-10 when they could easily have been down 17-14. Yet the coaching staff had played  most of the second quarter like they had built a big lead.

And you know what? That was what really helped color a lot of the negativity, despite the win. A strong perception that this is what we will see. A coaching staff that is so afraid of mistakes and so conservative that it will paralyze the team at the first opportunity.

In a way, it made things more frustrating since Pitt actually took some chances. They did learn from the BGSU game to go for it more on 4th down rather than punt inside the 35.

In fact, all three of Pitt’s touchdown drives were extended when, at some point, Wannstedt made the decision to go for it on fourth down instead of punting or attempt a long field goal.

And the third time he went for it on fourth down — it was a fourth-and-one at the Iowa 30 in the third quarter — the Panthers were trailing 17-14 and could have easily opted to try and tie the game with a 47-yard field goal.

“We felt like we would have to be aggressive, go for it,” Wannstedt said. “Where we were at on the field we were just out of field goal range and we felt good about the down and distance. I think most of them were 2-yards or less and in that situation I don’t feel bad about going for it but when it gets up to three or four yards, then you are rolling the dice.”

Must strictly follow formula. No deviation allowed.

The thing to remember about all the second-guessing and just plain doubting of the competency of Coach Wannstedt and OC Cavanaugh, this is not about losing to Bowling Green and struggling with Buffalo. This is about 3+ years of questions that over which everyone has been biting their tongue, or trying to avoid the issue by saying that they trust Wannstedt in the long term. Waiting for a payoff.

That trust is gone, as that payoff looks as far away as ever with Wannstedt. That is why Zeise is getting nothing but questions about the competency and decisionmaking.

…On the flip side, Dom DeCicco is a player with good potential as well, so while he struggled the first two weeks, he’s a guy that you don’t give up on and it doesn’t sound like coaches will. In fact, I think Wannstedt said they are “co-starters” — which, by the way, based on e-mails — is another one of those things about this staff that drives people to levels of frustration I have not seen before. People ask “why is it so hard to make a decision and stick with it?” One is the starter, one is the back-up, both may play, but one has earned the start so what’s so hard about just saying it? This team has more “co-starters” and “special packages for players” than any team I have ever covered — which means both will get to play.

And the sad thing about all the “special packages,” they never get used. It’s like they do them in practice just to make the player feel special.

Q: I’m glad they won and opened up the offense a little more. But I thought Dave Wannstedt said we would see more of Lucas Nix and Jonathan Baldwin? I didn’t see much of either — what happened?

Zeise: C’mon man, what are you talking about? Baldwin had one ball thrown his way (sort of) and Lucas Nix played two plays — what game were you watching? Joking, of course, but you are right, it is puzzling. But like I have said several times this week the answer is in the philosophy — “err on the side of caution.” The Baldwin stuff is frustrating to fans, but at least the rationalization is somewhat logical and that is — it takes a lot more to get the ball to a receiver than just whatever the receiver does. I feel he’ll get some chances here soon and they have put him out there some, but it just hasn’t worked out yet. The Lucas Nix one is far more troubling. Clearly there have been points in both the first and second games where Joe Thomas has not gotten the job done and a change was not only warranted, but probably needed. So why not throw him in there for a few series to see how he plays and to get his feet wet. If the thinking was — “we are going to do everything in our power to preserve his redshirt” — well, then why did you play him for two plays and blow his redshirt? And now the Panthers are going to face much better competition from this point forward and he has a total of two plays of experience going for him. It really makes no sense at all, so the best I can tell you is that hopefully these two are a part of the plan for the rest of the season and aren’t going to go down as a just a couple more blown redshirts.

They can talk to Dorin DIckerson about that.

Then there was a whole Q&A dealing with the fallout of Cavanaugh’s statements about (not) using Greg Cross.

Q: Do you know if Wannstedt has considered that with a bye week to practice, and not having to show the “wildcat package” yet in a game, that it might be a good time to let Iowa have a full taste of it? Do you think this is a possibility? Or do you think he has not even thought of that?

Zeise: Well, not just go all the way and make this the Greg Cross edition! I think I touched on this a little bit — that perhaps the coaches were “hiding” or “trying to hide” the Cross “Wildcat” package. I don’t know if I buy it because it doesn’t really mesh with statements Wannstedt and Cavanaugh have made about using first-year players in tough situations. I mean, let’s forget about the fact that, like I said, it has already been used many times in a game (albeit with LeSean McCoy playing the role of Cross) and thus is on tape for all opponents to see — why if you truly do worry about the mistakes a first-year player might make, do you wait until the middle of a tight game with a Big Ten opponent to let him get his feet wet? Like I said, the frustration from every writer of just about every e-mail I open these days is the same about the same kinds of issues, be it personnel decisions and/or strategic decisions. I understand it, but I really think a lot of it would go away if the team would just win some more games and stop making close games out of games that should be blow-outs.

I was mildly surprised that Kevin Gorman essentially defended Cavanaugh/Wannstedt’s decisionmaking with Cross.

I, for one, understand Pitt’s hesitation (now bordering on trepidation) in using Cross. He’s new to Division I-A football. He hasn’t taken a snap in a major-college game. If the Panthers use him in the wrong situation and he fumbles or throws an interception – like Pat Bostick did on his first two snaps against Grambling last year – it could prove disastrous.

And I appreciate Cavanaugh’s honesty in the matter. He goes to great length to explain the decision-making process and the situations that would be beneficial for Cross to make his debut. Of all Pitt’s coaches outside Dave Wannstedt, Cavanaugh continually draws the most criticism, yet rarely if ever steers clear of meeting with the media and answering for it.

Which doesn’t answer the question of why you would recruit a JUCO QB if you have that kind of fear. It’s not like you can let him sit for a year or two to learn and get ready. If you bring in a JUCO, it’s use them or waste a scholarship.

It seems to be the main reason for defending/rationalizing Cavanaugh’s explanation is that he actually spoke about it. Fine. I can understand that, since it helps Gorman and the local media. Especially after years of ex-DC Rhoads not talking or commenting whenever things went wrong on defense. It’s admirable, but that’s not enough.

Ultimately, he’s too talented to leave on the sidelines, unless Pitt is considering giving Cross a redshirt, which I’ve been told it is not.

The one thing I wouldn’t do is play Cross just to appease the fans.

Which is where me and Wannstedt seem to agree.

Say what? That’s a BS strawman. It isn’t about appeasing the fans. This is about Cavanaugh admitting he probably screwed up in not using Cross. Then not being coherent about when if ever Cross will actually play. It’s Wannstedt just dismissing Cross and the whole reason he was recruited as part of some “gimmick.”

The fans disagree with Wannstedt/Cavanaugh. Yes. The explanations they have offered have been a crock. It isn’t about “appeasement” it’s about idiotic coaching and personnel decisions that have reached the point where no one has any trust and belief that the Pitt coaching staff knows what it is doing.

It was just a very strange post by Gorman defending the Pitt coaches personnel decisions. He touches on Fields and Baldwin.

Cavanaugh also promised that Baldwin “will, eventually” become a bigger part of the offensive game plan. He certainly was in for more plays against Buffalo than he was for Bowling Green and, even if he still doesn’t have a reception the Panthers have passed his way a handful of times.

Hate to say I told you so, but I did warn that Baldwin wouldn’t be ready for superstardom right out of the gates. He had a steep learning curve as far as understanding both the position and the playbook, but his immeasurable talent will ultimately force Pitt to use him on a consistent basis.
…
But with experienced receivers such as Derek Kinder, Oderick Turner, Cedric McGee and, yes, T.J. Porter ahead of Baldwin on the depth chart, it’s not going to be easy, especially if games are close as the first two.

“We also got T.J. Porter back last week; we wanted him on the field and he responded,” Cavanaugh said, “so (Baldwin) won’t be the focus, but he’s certainly put himself in the position to get on the field more and get in the rotation and, hopefully, have some opportunities.

“We need to get him some balls.”

The same way Cross needs to get some touches? See, I have a hard time with this, with regards to Baldwin. I don’t think he is the next Larry Fitzgerald, but he is a huge talent who could have a big impact on the offense.

I know that Pitt coaches can justify by talking about not knowing blocking schemes well enough or routes. It just doesn’t wash. Especially after watching guys like Turner and McGee run poor or the wrong routes the first couple of weeks.

Really? Someone thought this would be a question that has any relevance?

Wannstedt was asked on Monday’s Big East conference call what qualities were necessary to become an NFL coach and whether he had any interest in returning to the league where he was coach of the Chicago Bears and Miami Dolphins and won a Super Bowl as the Dallas Cowboys’ defensive coordinator. “No, I’m done after this,” Wannstedt said. “I’ve had enough.”

I suppose it isn’t about him returning to the NFL as a head coach. That’s never going to happen. Still, to be asking Coach Wannstedt about anything related to coaching in the NFL given the way he’s been coaching at Pitt, seems a bit of a stretch.

Another highlight from his weekly media phone call is that he thinks the team has room to improve. Ya think?

“The exciting thing about this is that we’re probably about 60 to 70 percent of where I believe in my heart we should be as a football team, and that’s exciting,” Wannstedt said. “If we were sitting here and we had played as well as could have and never turned the ball over and we were 1-1, you’d say to yourself, ‘Jeez, is this it?’ But our team has such a long way to be able to grow.”

Oh, grife. He’s sticking with the turnovers are the thing theme. The part that has me most worried is that what I saw on the sidelines of the Bowling Green game did turn out to be true.

The biggest improvement between the first and second week, Wannstedt said, was how his team handled adversity. Pitt led 17-14 against Bowling Green at halftime and never scored again. The Panthers were up just 10-9 over Buffalo but controlled the second half.

“In Week 1 at halftime, everybody’s looking at each other and the look was worth 1,000 words,” Wannstedt said. “Basically it was, ‘How can this game be close?’ And we go out and we press and we turn the ball over.

“This week we were only up one, but there was a lot of energy in the locker room and a lot of excitement to get out there and play the second half and not really look at scoreboard.”

And, um, where were the coaches in all of this? Especially in the first game. Apparently not reaching the players. Not getting them to just play. Instead, I guess Wannstedt feels/felt the players need to figure these things out for themselves. Wannstedt was just there as some sort of Yoda-figure, “Yinzeselves figure it out you must.”

No, seriously, what is the role of the coach in these situations? This seems to be the spot where the coach who trumpets his experience at all levels of football would be at his best. The guy who recruited these kids. Someone who (at least in hindsight/revisionism) is saying he could see their confusion an doubt. What’s his accountability, responsibility? And most importantly, what the hell was he trying to do about it in that game?

I know, I know. It’s done, it’s over. Let it go.

So naturally that lackluster win over Buffalo was an important thing, and the Bowling Green loss will be treated as a blessing in disguise. Right?

“I would say, without a doubt that because we got beat by Bowling Green, we came to the realization that we’ll get beat again if we don’t go out there and play for 60 minutes,” Wannstedt said at his weekly teleconference yesterday. “We haven’t proven that we’re a good football team yet and we’re just trying to win a game. The interesting thing is, if we had come out flat in the opener, you could say, ‘OK, they were reading the press clippings,’ but that was not the case. We came out and we were hitting on all cylinders, and then when we hit some adversity, we didn’t respond the right way.”

It also helped that Buffalo isn’t that good.

The offense has faced a lot of criticism, and deservedly so. The players know they need to do more on offense. Even if they parrot the words of their coach.

It’s frustrating that we’re not scoring,” Pitt junior tight end Nate Byham said. “I don’t feel that we need to score 48, 50 points like Florida. We just need to execute and put up our mid-20s and 30 points. That’s how we are. We have a great defense. We can play and win games with 27 points, 24 points, with the defense that we have.

“That’s not our problem. If we just execute like we should be and learn the game schemes of the other teams, we should be able to put up big points. We’re not setting a goal for how many points we need to score. We’re going to score as many points as possible. It’s just that we have a lot of confidence in our defense that they’re not going to give up a lot of points.”

There is some credence to the basis of Byham’s beliefs. The Panthers are 5-2 when holding opponents to 20 points or less and 0-6 when giving up 41 points or more. But Pitt is winless when it gives up more than 21 points, and the Panthers have done so 11 times in their past 18 games.

That last bit is damning. It would be nice to hold teams to under 21 all the time, but come on. You also should be able to win some games when the other team scores 24, 27 even 30 points.

Coach Wannstedt?

Yet Pitt coach Dave Wannstedt has remained steadfast in his philosophy that the Panthers will control the clock by running the ball and rely on their defense to shut down opposing offenses.

“Scoring has gone up significantly the past few years,” Wannstedt said of the Bowling Green game, in which the Falcons scored two of its four touchdowns after recovering fumbles. “We know that, but we also didn’t help ourselves (Saturday) by creating short fields for our offense. We got one turnover, and we turned it over four times, which is eliminating four possessions. We can’t turn the ball over.

“It is the difference between winning and losing.”

So scoring is up, but that’s not a big deal? There’s nothing to change but the execution. I hate to do this on so many levels — referencing Skip Bayless, dredging up more past, mainly referencing Skip Bayless. A hat tip to reader S.N. for sending me this article written just after Wannstedt had quit the Dolphins in 2004.

As a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, I closely followed Dave’s final two Bears teams. Nearly every conversation I had with him began with, “Geez, we can’t get a break.” His creativity began and ended with, “This week, we’ve just got to run the ball and play defense.”

Disturbing familiarity.

Bowling Green was 4-4 in the redzone on Saturday. On 3 of the 4 TD drives, the Falcons had to go 52 yards or more. They never had to settle for a field goal. The defense may have had decent numbers with regards to total yards allowed, but they weren’t that impressive. But for the ineptitude of the offense, they would be getting more flack.

The offense, though, no one can defend it as it is.

By every objective measure it is clear this offensive coaching staff and philosophy are stuck so far in the prehistoric era of football that Fred Flinstone probably ran some of these plays when he was a quarterback at Bedrock High School but by the same token, did anyone catch Alabama, using the same playbook, mauling Clemson the other night? That tells me if you get the right offensive linemen (which Pitt doesn’t have) and running backs (which Pitt might have) and you can physically impose your will on teams (which Pitt can’t) that playing this power-I — or whatever you want to call it — style of football can be effective.

The problem Pitt has, however, is this: The coaches want the Panthers to be a power team, but they don’t have the personnel and, to this point, the coaches have not made much of an attempt to change the philosophy to adapt to the personnel. Few teams in college have the kind of powerful and talented linemen to line up and consistently blow other teams off the ball. There just aren’t that many top linemen around. In year one and two — when you are trying to establish a new program, that is acceptable. In year four — when you need to win games — it is probably time to do something different.

Hey, at least Matt Cavanaugh will talk after a bad performance by his unit and actually take some responsibility.

Cavanaugh said yesterday that in retrospect, the criticism of him was justified because he clearly didn’t have his best day as a play caller. He said the Panthers did make some key mistakes — like the four turnovers — but he admitted he needed to do a better job of putting together a more aggressive game plan to make teams pay for bringing pressure on every play.

“It was a combination of play calling and execution,” Cavanaugh said. “I understand some people’s vision of what a big play is and that is when the ball is thrown 40 yards down the field. But we can make big plays other ways, and I need to give the guys a few more opportunities this week to see if we can make a few. Scoring a lot of points comes with execution and good play calling and we were lacking in both the other day.

“I am accountable for this, too. It has been like that since day one around here — I have never pointed fingers at any player and players haven’t pointed fingers at the play calling.”

Cavanaugh said he spent some time Saturday after the game reflecting on what went wrong. He said he knows he made at least one key mistake in the sequence before the half but also second-guessed himself on the way he called plays the entire second half.

He said Bowling Green was basically daring the Panthers to throw deep a few times, and he didn’t try to take advantage of it.

And he even admitted that he really screwed up the play calling at the end of the 1st half. Hey, after most of the week of Head Coach Wannstedt going with a “not my fault,” “we were playing for field position,” and “we just didn’t execute,” Cavanaugh admitting that he actually screwed-up is a breath of fresh air. It doesn’t excuse it. Especially in the first game when there should be no excuse not to be well prepared and truly ready for what an opponent will do. But at least he is copping to some real mistakes on his part.

LeSean McCoy even took blame for his game.

McCoy said the Falcons “had my number,” that he got “frustrated” and “started doing my own thing” and wished he could have back the fumble late in the second quarter that led to the game-tying scoring drive.

“I was a little impatient, trying to see if it would open up a little bit,” McCoy said. “I kind of got out of the strategy of the game plan and started doing my own thing a little bit, trying to get a little extra.”

Naturally Wannstedt defended both as his guys, but with this for McCoy?

On McCoy: “Shady just needs to run where he’s supposed to run, block when he’s supposed to block. He’s still learning. This is his second year of playing in college. I think because of the publicity that he gets, the perception is that he’s been around here playing for three years. He’s still learning every day and every game. The key is to improve week to week.”

Inexperience is the excuse? Still learning? I would have accepted, simply “trying to do too much,” but not that. That’s more crap, and another thing that has really come to bother me with Wannstedt as head coach at Pitt. If a player is not a redshirt junior or better, he seems to feel they lack the necessary experience and that is the built-in excuse. Not the coaching, teaching or responsibility of the player. Just too darn little experience.

This is college in 2008. Not 1968. Not 1978. Not even 1988. The days of being able to redshirt a player, load up with 100+ scholarships and build deep experienced players has been done for years. It isn’t the pros. In an ideal world you have players with lots of talent and experience. Reality is different.

You aren’t going to have many players with a lot of experience that are on the high talent. Odds are they are gone by their junior year. That’s why the CFB Coaches want to eliminate the redshirt and give a flat 5 years of eligibility. It gives them more flexibility with the use of players. If they redshirt a player who suddenly blossoms, they will lose him as a redshirt sophomore. Not getting enough use of them. McCoy is almost certainly gone after this year, inexperience is the one excuse that won’t wash.

This AP article points out, again how Pitt under Wannstedt is just not winning games.

“We have something to prove,” tight end Nate Byham said. “We definitely have something to prove, especially after this loss, but the ability is there for us to play with anybody.”

That’s the ongoing story line at Pitt: The Panthers can beat anybody, but they do so all too infrequently.

And that is why the frustration and anger after last week continues to fester. It’s nice to say, time to let it go. Time to move on and focus on Buffalo. It’s another thing, to simply try and ignore last week. Especially when it seems very obvious that things aren’t changing.

I thought things might be moving on, but Coach Wannstedt’s overall performance as Pitt head coach has continued to be a high topic of discussion. It is no longer about how effed up Pitt was against BGSU.

As has fairly been pointed out, the Falcons are a good team. They adjusted their game and beat Pitt. Pitt did not perform well on the field. There were some questionable decisions by the coaches. It does happen.

The issue, though, is not — and I don’t think it has been for the last couple of days — been about that game. It’s more that this is one more example on Coach Wannstedt’s shaky performance as a coach.

When Pitt released its game notes and depth chart (PDF), there was little change to it other than at linebacker where there are injuries.

Pitt coach Dave Wannstedt said if starting linebackers Shane Murray (knee) and Adam Gunn (concussion) — both are listed as “day-to-day” don’t play against Buffalo, the Panthers will use either senior Austin Ransom or redshirt freshman Tristan Roberts for Murray at weak-side and redshirt freshmen Brandon Lindsey or Greg Williams for Gunn at strong-side.

This is it. Other than at his press conference reiterating that they need to get a couple guys some more time. Continually falling back on “it just didn’t work out/unfold/etc. that way,” excuse.

On playing time of freshmen Lucas Nix and Andrew Taglianetti:

Lucas will play for sure. We need to get him in the game. Last week we were looking for opportunities, and it just never came up the way the game unfolded. He will play this week regardless. We need to get him on the field and get him some playing time. (Andrew) Taglianetti was on field goal block, punt return, punt team, and kickoff team. He didn’t play any defense – I really didn’t expect him to play any defense. Right now we have Irvan Brown and Elijah Fields alternating in at the safety position. He’ll continue special teams and then we’ll go from there.

On Elijah Fields’ playing time:

We have packages where he’s a major player, where we think we can take advantage of some things. Just the way the game unfolded, we had three or four possessions of their normal offense and then they went to the swinging gate and the totem pole, two different offenses. One that I’ve never seen and one we use on field goal, and they hit a couple plays on us and because of some of the things they did it really didn’t give us a chance (to put Fields in defensively).
…
On not playing Gregg Cross against Bowling Green in retrospect:

I don’t know, it’s easy to look back and say maybe. We do have that ready to go, you’ve seen it work, seen it in practice. Even though we were behind and not scoring points, we felt like we had some opportunities to make some plays with what we were doing. To answer your question, that is a little package (featuring Cross) we do have. The situation just didn’t come up when we felt he would have made a difference.

Unbelievable. That set J Jones at Cat Basket off on a righteous rant worth reading in full.

The biggest indictment of the program and Wannstedt that has come out is the lack of change in the two deep. One position, right tackle, obviously needs to be changed but the official announcement is no change. Wannstedt has said that Lucas Nix needs to play this week no matter what but he has stated that before, remember his interviews before the Bowling Green game. Joe Thomas played the worst game of anybody on the offense but it appears that wasn’t enough to lose his starting job. This is indictative of Wanny’s entire reign here and I would expect not to see Nix unless we are in garbage time.

Make sure you go there to read the whole thing. He discusses the arrogance of Wannstedt. It’s a good point, because when Wannstedt says the things, he tends to do in a congenial way. A manner that is disarming, but is rife with condescension. He talks of his experience and how he has his way of doing things and how they have always worked (and then hopes no one realizes he’s talking 20 years ago or so).

If you have followed Wanny’s head coaching career in Chicago and Miami, then you should know this is the choppy point. Last year, the fan support was eroding — and then forestalled by the WVU win — but the media was still with him. Give him more time they said. Why? Because Wanny is so darn likable. Everyone wants him to succeed who is in contact with him.

Then this season has started with more of the same. Guess what’s happening to the media backing?

Make no mistake: The mess that was that game and the mess that is the Pitt program are on Wannstedt.

The man lost me Saturday. I really hate to say that because I’ve spent a lot of time and energy defending him. I eagerly endorsed his hiring — and Harris’ exit. I urged people to give him a fair chance through those first three tough seasons. I was convinced he was going to bring Pitt back and take it to heights Harris never could.

Not anymore.

What will be interesting to see is how many Pitt fans Wannstedt has lost.

Joe Starkey devotes his column to how Wanny is losing the fans.

Those weren’t samplers. Those were hard-core supporters, sick of watching Pitt underachieve under fourth-year coach Dave Wannstedt.

I asked Wannstedt on Tuesday if he thought the boos and heavy post-game criticism were justified or an overreaction to the first of 12 games.

I liked his answer.

“It was pretty justified,” he said. “I mean, let’s be real.”

I would, except there was no admission of responsibility from Wannstedt in the whole answer.

On whether or not the fan reaction was justified:

It was probably justified. I mean, let’s be real. We expected to go out there and play good and win the game, so when people are disappointed they are going to express it. And that’s part of the business you know, got to be able to handle that. You know how I feel about this school, I love these kids, and my focus now is getting ready for Buffalo. I believe in these kids, I know we have a good football team, I know we have good players. We just have to keep pressing forward.

Pressing forward. Just time to move on. These things happen.

Even in Buffalo, they have noticed as their team gets ready.

Wannstedt’s four years into his dream job and it’s been anything but dreamy. The Panthers have lost 13 of their last 18. Last Saturday they blew a 14-point lead in a loss to Bowling Green. This week’s game against the University at Buffalo amounts to a must win if Wannstedt’s to have any realistic shot at staying on the job despite signing a contract extension prior to this season.

The natives are restless. The Panthers are 13-point favorites. And if UB seems like the ideal foe for the moment consider that Bowling Green, its Mid-American Conference East brother, also went in as a 13-point underdog. Clearly Pitt’s in no position to take anything for granted.

Pitt’s Wannstedt era has rung discordant from the get-go. The Miami Dolphins were 1-8 when he “resigned” as head coach in November 2004. The Panthers quickly came calling but Wannstedt turned them away, unsure that he was ready to get right back onto the sidelines, even for his alma mater. He reconsidered soon thereafter and by Christmas was named the new coach. (One of the other finalists, by the way, was Bo Pelini, who beat out UB coach Turner Gill for the Nebraska job after last season. And Wannstedt once interviewed Gill for a vacancy on his Dolphins staff. Small world, coaching.)

It’s perplexing that Wannstedt has yet to have a winning season.

…

Wannstedt makes it sound like Pitt’s in transition, or retooling after a successful run. Neither shoe fits. He’s been at it more than three years. He has the athletes. Now what he needs are wins.

Yup.

Paul Zeise takes the defense that there is still plenty of football to be played this season. Yes, there is, but this isn’t about one game. Trying to pretend that the anger and frustration all arose out of one loss is bull. This has been building. Yes, other teams have recovered.

Teams have rebounded from ugly early season losses in the past:

• Michigan last year lost to Division I-AA Appalachian State and finished the season 9-4 and beat Florida in the Capital One Bowl.

• Wisconsin in 1999 lost to a terrible (3-8) Cincinnati team but finished the season as Big Ten champions, went 10-2 and beat Stanford in the Rose Bowl.

• Florida State in 1989 lost to Southern Mississippi in its first game and finished 10-2 and destroyed Nebraska in the Fiesta Bowl.

• Northwestern in 1996 lost to an awful (3-8) Wake Forest team and rebounded to finish 9-3 and play in the Citrus Bowl.

• In 1995, Northwestern lost to Miami (Ohio) in the second game of the season – and finished 10-2, Big Ten champs and played in the Rose Bowl.

• In 1993, Boston College lost to a terrible Northwestern (2-9) team and finished the season 9-3 and went to the Blockbuster Bowl.

• And though it was five games in, who can forget Virginia Tech losing to the greatest team ever compiled … Temple (2-9) … in 1998 and finishing 9-3 including a destruction of Alabama in the Music City Bowl.

Here’s the difference. The coaches on those teams. Lloyd Carr, Barry Alvarez, Dave Barnett, Tom Coughlin and Frank Beamer were the coaches on those teams. Dave Wannstedt has never drawn comparisons (or success) to them.

Also, consider that these coaches were actually capable of making real changes to their game or approach (well, maybe not Carr) — even if they wouldn’t necessarily admit it. Frank Beamer, just this week after losing to East Carolina, scrapped plans to redshirt sophomore QB Tyrod Taylor and return to the two-QB system. Why? Because it helps the team and it is more important than pride and trying to prove he knows best.

There’s only so much rehashing and teeth gnashing that I can do over one game. At least as far as discussing how many versions of excrement that game was and the performance from the coaches to the players.

The excuses/revisionist history from Coach Wannstedt has had me ready to kill.

• — Bill Stull goes from being a guy in the system who knows it and has been everything they wanted from the position to being inexperienced and only playing his first full game.
• — The line was coming along and the talent and depth was improved to still being a work in progress that isn’t there.
• — Pitt was playing for field position, because the defense was doing well. In the first quarter? Afterall, nothing could possibly change from there. Adjustments never happen.
• — The players weren’t tired in the second half. Which means they had to have been poorly prepared and coached to be that out of position so often. (P.S., it’s not a good sign when Coach Wannstedt is feeling defensive about what Lou Holtz is saying on TV.)

Those were just a few off the top of my head. I’m sure there are more I’m forgetting where the storyline from the coaching staff suddenly shifted.

There is no doubt that what deflated Pitt and encouraged BGSU was completely on Coach Wannstedt.

Rather than take a shot at the end zone on third down, Pitt opted to let 25 valuable seconds tick away before calling time out with three seconds left. Conor Lee’s 37-yard field goal put Pitt ahead, 17-14.

It’s a decision that cost Pitt the game, its preseason ranking and possibly its season.

Brandon, a progressive offensive mind but not one to be confused for former Bowling Green head coach Urban Meyer, certainly wondered what Pitt was thinking.

“Our guys at halftime said, ‘Coach, they ran the clock down. Why did they do that?’ The kids said (Pitt) should have gone for it,” Brandon said. “Our guys at halftime felt confident.”

Brandon also hinted that offering constant motion and gimmicks confuses Pitt’s defense, whether the opponent is Bowling Green or South Florida.

Read between the lines, and it’s not difficult to deduce that Bowling Green thinks it’s not to difficult to out-coach Pitt.

The staffs at Ohio, Connecticut, Navy and Rutgers probably think the same thing.

As LeSean McCoy said,

“It would have been nice to get a touchdown but, you know, we follow the leader (Wannstedt),” McCoy said.

While what Pitt did only gave BGSU encouragement.

Following Saturday’s game, Brandon and his players fielded myriad questions from Pittsburgh beat writers looking for fodder to lampoon Wannstedt. Brandon said the Falcons were energized by the Panthers’ cautious play calling at the end of the first half. Linebacker John Haneline said he relishes opportunities like Saturday, when he lined up against Pitt’s no frills I-formation, which is outdated in today’s college game.

“It’s my favorite thing to play [against],” Haneline said. “They’re going to knock you in the mouth. You have to knock back.”

Again, what goes back to the coaching concerns the personnel. As many have pointed out, despite Dom DeCicco struggling at safety. Joe Thomas looking like a human revolving door. The offense stagnanted and predictable. Potential playmakers and young talent were no where to be seen on the field.

As for changes to the starting lineup, Wannstedt said he is not ready to panic after one game, but he said Lucas Nix and Baldwin need to be on the field more because they are two of the most talented players on the team.

Nix has been pushing starting right tackle Joe Thomas for playing time since training camp and was supposed to play against Bowling Green, but he didn’t mostly because the Panthers were locked in a tight game with few opportunities for making changes. But the coaches believe Thomas has underachieved since training camp began and Saturday apparently wasn’t his finest hour, either. Wannstedt said game situations won’t dictate Nix’s playing time this week.

“We need to get Lucas Nix into the game and get him some playing time,” Wannstedt said. “We’re just going to have to put him in and let him play. Whether we are winning or losing or it is a close game, we need to get him in there. And the same thing with Baldwin; he needs to be in there and play a little more.

“Those are the two players who need to get more playing time, but nothing else will change because we just made a few mental mistakes, and they can be corrected.

Uh, what? So are we getting, “The system is fine. All is well. If the players just do what we tell them it will work. The coaching was sound.“?

The Panthers were criticized for punting twice inside the Falcons’ 35 and played for a field goal instead of a touchdown at the end of the first half.

Wannstedt took exception to the criticism and said that the Panthers were — and always are — obviously trying to score a lot of points — they just weren’t very successful at it. He said that was due to lack of execution and a lack of protecting the football.

“I’m not sure what you mean, full throttle?” Wannstedt asked rhetorically. “I mean, you’d like to think with our backs we’d be able to make a few big plays running the ball. We have to be able to generate some big plays, but, if you look at it, our longest play from scrimmage was only 17 yards.

“You are not going to score a lot of points doing that. Our offensive line is a new group, and we are taking that into account [in play-calling] and our quarterback was playing his first full game of his career, but we know that we are going to have to score more points to beat anybody, especially against some of these spread teams.

“Scoring has gone up significantly the past few years, we know that, but we also didn’t help ourselves by creating short fields for our offense. We got one turnover and we turned it over four times, which is eliminating four possessions. We can’t turn the ball over; it is the difference between winning and losing.”

I’m sorry. This is pathetic. No responsibility or accountability from Coach Wannstedt. He simply says they need to get some players more game time.

He doesn’t explain why they didn’t see the field in this game when needed. Except for Greg Cross which he excuses as saying that in the second half when Pitt was trailing, they needed to pass not run. Because, you know, they were trailing by all of 3 points for a significant portion.

Elijah Fields, one of the teams most athletic and high ceiling players never saw any action against a spread. The kind of offense, I would say Fields would thrive against.

I admit, right now I don’t think there is much Wannstedt could say to make me feel positive. That said, he’s given me no reason to believe he sees any problems other than the players not executing well enough.

Apparently because they were at fault. No issues with the coaching, preparation, game plan or motivation.

The one constant of Wannstedt at Pitt has been his slavish devotion to experience over talent. He continually bemoans positional weakness wherever there isn’t a senior or upperclassman.

This is college. Every team has issues of inexperience. Pitt is actually one of the most experienced teams in the country in terms of returning starters. Yet, it still doesn’t have enough experience. It is up to the coaches to get the players ready and to take advantage of what they can do. If you can’t adapt your system even a little to the players you have, then this will be the continual outcome.

Disappointment and excuses that the players are making mistakes.

So Pitt piled up 393 yards yards of offense and held BGSU to 254 and lost. That gives Wannstedt the excuse that the turnovers were what did Pitt in. That’s a load of crap.

142 of Pitt’s total yards were in the 1st quarter. Pitt had 0 turnovers. They failed to capitalize on a BGSU turnover inside the BGSU 40 — 3 yards and a punt from the 34. Pitt also punted from the BGSU 35 when a drive stalled out.

Pitt finished a drive started just before the end of the 1st quarter with a TD. That was an additional 36 yards. So Pitt had 178 of their 393 total yards on offense in the first 19 minutes of the game and had 14 points to show for it.

As for the Pitt defense that held the “high powered” Falcons to only 254 yards. Of course the Falcons were lacking their starting tailback, who was suspended for the game, but that’s just quibbling. The numbers, though are skewed by a strong 1st quarter by the defense where BGSU was held to only 6 yards. That means BG had 248 yards the next 3 quarters to Pitt’s 251.

Pitt’s offense simply struggled against a less than solid BGSU defense. Delude yourself any way you want, but Pitt’s offense never was proactive. The playcalling was predictable and poorly executed. It panicked, but it sure wasn’t able to dictate anything.

In the second quarter, Pitt had it’s first turnover. At the BG 48. BG went 52 yards and scored to tie the game. BGSU had 125 yards of offense that quarter on just two drives.

Pitt had dominated time of possession nearly 2-1 in the first half (19:51 to 10:09). They had a yardage advantage of 234 to 131. Turnovers were equal. The score, however, was only 17-14 Pitt.

Here’s something that stood out in the 2nd quarter and continued into the 3d quarter. The Pitt defense let BGSU go 7-11 on 3d downs and 1-1 on 4th downs. Any shock that BGSU scored 20 points in those two quarters? The Pitt defense just could not get off the field.

As someone who cheered when Rhoads left, and argued that yards alone don’t tell the whole story, this game was more of the same. New DC Phil Bennett has preached the need to create turnovers. Pitt’s defense had at least two balls bounce out of their arms. BGSU actually put the ball on the turf two additional times but recovered their own mistakes. So, yeah, there are plenty of problems still on the defense.

I said before this season started that the time for excuses was done. That there could no longer be the inexcusable losses. You know what, it seems even the beat writers feel that way.

Enough with the excuses.

Pitt got outcoached and outplayed by Bowling Green Saturday. It’s that simple. Point the finger at who you will, whether it’s the coaches or the players, but it doesn’t change the final score:

Bowling Green 27, Pitt 17.

I can pinpoint pivotal plays in the game, which I’ll get to later, but this game was an obvious sign that Dave Wannstedt’s football philosophies aren’t in tune with the college game. With all due respect to Bowling Green, the Panthers were outmaneuvered by an inferior opponent.

The excuses from last year don’t even apply when Pitt’s experience was supposed to be one of the reasons they would be better.

It was the kind of offensive output that plagued the Panthers last season — but last season they had to play two freshmen quarterbacks.

That wasn’t the case Saturday, yet the offensive game plan was every bit as conservative as many last year, lacked imagination and, most importantly, failed to put any pressure on the Falcons’ defense.

For instance, the most explosive receiver in Pitt training camp was freshman Jonathan Baldwin, and he showed that again Saturday when he blew past the Falcons’ defense on a deep pass.

But Baldwin played sparingly and had only one other ball thrown his way.

Then there was Greg Cross, the athletic junior-college quarterback who was recruited to pump some life into the offense and be a change-of-pace player. He had a package of plays drawn up for him and is an exciting player and was expected to contribute.

Cross, and his spread-formation package, stayed on the sideline the entire game.

And McCoy, who clearly wasn’t on his game, rushed 23 times for 71 yards and also had a critical fumble. McCoy was replaced early in the game by LaRod Stephens-Howling, who is quicker, and Stephens-Howling produced 71 yards on only seven carries — but he only had one carry after the half.

But beyond the players, Panthers offensive coordinator Matt Cavanaugh didn’t have a great day either, as the offense was too predictable and didn’t take many shots down the field. That’s especially questionable play-calling considering Bowling Green coach Gregg Brandon admitted they basically were daring the Panthers to throw the ball over the defense the entire game.

What does that say when beat writers who depend on access to do the stories seem willing to suggest there is some real frustration about Coach Wannstedt after only one game?

After calling Wannstedt “our coach” at Big East media day July 29, Pitt athletic director Steve Pederson was silent Sunday. Pederson didn’t return phone calls seeking comment a day after No. 25 Pitt lost to Bowling Green, 27-17, at Heinz Field.

Wannstedt also is in danger of losing support from his players.

Whether it was a sign of disappointment or dissension, only LeSean McCoy knows. But the Pitt star sophomore tailback placed his displeasure with the way the Panthers ended the first half squarely on Wannstedt.

“We stick with our coach,” McCoy said when asked about Wannstedt’s decision to let about eight seconds tick away before calling a timeout to kick a field goal for a 17-14 halftime lead. “Whatever our coach calls, we try to execute. It would have been nice for us to get a touchdown, but we followed our leader, you know?”

What remains to be seen is whether the Panthers will continue to follow Wannstedt. The coach now returns to the hot seat after being rewarded with a three-year contract extension through 2012 last Dec. 1, hours before the Panthers stunned then-No. 2 West Virginia, 13-9.

There’s a bit of the conventional wisdom from Gorman that Pederson would be proactive on coaching changes, but I already made that counterpoint. And sure enough, Pederson is giving the always valuable “vote of confidence” in Wannstedt.

After previously saying Wannstedt had finally figured out the college game, it was back to basics.

Twice, the Panthers were inside the Falcons 35 facing a fourth down, and, on both occasions, Wannstedt chose to punt instead of go for it.

Then, the Panthers drove to the Falcons’ 20 with 37 seconds to play in the first half — and played for a field goal despite having two timeouts left (they used one to stop the clock after getting the first down).

Pitt then threw a short pass on first down, ran up the middle (setting up the field goal) for 1-yard on second and allowed 27 seconds to tick off the clock before Wannstedt called the final timeout and sent out Conor Lee to kick a field goal on third down as time expired, giving the Panthers a 17-14 lead.

Wannstedt explained that the play calling before the half was necessitated by the fact that he didn’t want the Panthers to make a mistake — throw an interception, take a sack, fumble the ball — and squander the opportunity for three points.

And, as for why he didn’t go for it at least once on fourth down, Wannstedt basically reverted to his time in the NFL and brought up the field-position game.

Even if Pitt goes 7-5, it won’t cut it this year for the fans. It means there was at least one more season with an inexcusable loss. The knock on Walt Harris as head coach was that he only beat the teams he should — and only rarely pulled the big win. Wannstedt, with one exception, has struggled with winning the ones he should.

Looks like Pitt can expect to see Bowling Green do a lot more passing and utilize their “slash” player in the backfield. The starting tailback Willie Geter was suspended for the game.

Three players have been suspended one game for a violation of team rules, a university official confirmed yesterday. Freshman receiver Adrian Hodges of Jacksonville, Fla., and sophomore running back Willie Geter of Miami will not travel with the team to Pittsburgh for Saturday’s season opener. Junior cornerback Robert Lorenzi, who is out for the season with a broken leg, will undergo his suspension when healthy.

According to a police report, Hodges was arrested Tuesday for misuse of a credit card, and Lorenzi, of Concord, Calif., was cited for the same offense yesterday. Both are scheduled to be in court Wednesday.

According to the report, Hodges and Lorenzi found a credit card in the parking lot of a convenience store and used it to make $550.68 in purchases at various stores in the early morning of Aug. 1. Geter, who was expected to start Saturday, is also mentioned in the report but has not been charged.

Poor actions by the players. Strong and swift response by the school and team.

That news completely overshadowed the main story in the article which was all about the BGSU defensive line gearing up to try and stop LeSean McCoy.

Only 10 teams in the country were worse than BG at stopping the run in 2007. Add that to the fact McCoy is drawing comparisons to Tony Dorsett, and the Falcons are sure to face a considerable challenge Saturday at Heinz Field against the 25th ranked Panthers.
…
“He’s one of the top running backs in the country,” BG defensive tackle Michael Ream said. “But our defensive line is pretty good too. If there are no holes for him to run through he’s not going to get his yards.”

For now, Ream’s notion that BG is solid up front is still in question. Of the Falcons’ 13 games in 2007, nine times an opposing rusher eclipsed the century mark. Ironically, BG was able to hold star backs Javon Ringer (Michigan State) and Jalen Parmele (University of Toledo) to below 100 yards, but that fact cannot overshadow BG allowing almost 208 yards per game on the ground. Stopping the run has been a weakness during the Gregg Brandon era, but last year was especially troubling.

Now if Geter is out, the Falcon defense has more pressure on it.

As for Pitt’s defense. This becomes an interesting test. It’s all been about stopping the run. The Falcons really look like a team where they have to fear the pass. I expect BGSU to use the run — mainly on roll-outs and some option tosses to Turner — to try and keep the defense honest.

One of the things I never quite grasped was the mocking Coach Wannstedt came in for at the end of his first year back at Pitt. The debacle that was the Backyard Brawl that year had a sideline interview at the half asking what Pitt needed to do to get back in the game. “Get faster,” was Wannstedt’s response.

For some reason, many on the outside saw this as an indication of Wannstedt’s overall cluelessness about the game. I think most Pitt fans recognized that Wannstedt was not talking about the game in particular at that point. The game, that was already out of hand — and with H.B. Blades injured — not going to get better. What he was talking about was the program and team — but specifically the defense — needed a lot more speed.

Whether it was to contend with the proliferating spread offense. Or just the way college football was becoming. Oddly, within a year of that statement there began the whole meme about the speed in the SEC and the plodding, slow athletes in the Big 11. Conflicting styles and speed was winning nearly every argument.

Whether it was Wannstedt recognizing the trend or just because his defensive philosophy has always been about generating speed on defense it probably doesn’t matter. Pitt’s defense was anything but in the first couple years.

Last year Pitt began showing it, but the lack of depth and execution was glaring. Especially the mindset and execution. The Navy game was the worst demonstration of the problems with the execution and a defensive braintrust that just could not seem to understand where to adjust against Navy’s triple option.

The theory that Wannstedt effectively took control of the defense from DC Paul Rhoads after the Navy game is still just that. It’s an attractive one. Don’t get me wrong. As a long-time member of the anti-Rhoads base, I find it very appealing and believable. It’s unlikely, however, that we’ll ever know. And really, all that matters is that Rhoads is gone.

Keep in mind, however, that 10 days later, Pitt still gave up over 350 yards in offense. 3 Cinci turnovers in the 4th quarter were the reason Pitt was able to take the lead and hold on to the win. The point being, the defense remained inconsistent and prone to giving up big plays and yardage even if it was statistically strong.

I was thinking about the speed on defense for the past week after this article on “tweeners” and moving kids one spot back on defense.

And those “tweeners” — like safety Elijah Fields, who is 6 feet 2, 225 pounds and runs the 40-yard dash in less than 4.5 seconds, or defensive end Jabaal Sheard, who is 6 feet 4, 250 pounds and runs the 40 in about 4.7 seconds, are the type of players every defensive coach covets.

“Offenses have gotten smart, and they are putting more skill-position players out there and making you cover them all,” Bennett said. “It has completely changed the way we have to recruit.

“Now, we’ve got to find those what I call hybrid players to play linebacker — kids who are smart and who are fast and maybe played other positions in high school.”

Bennett said the spread offense is the “passing version of the wishbone” because the concepts are pretty much the same: The offense spreads the defense out and reacts to where the numbers favor the offense. If there are five defensive players in the box, the offense will likely run the ball. If the defense decides to put a sixth or seventh player into the box, the offense will react with a pass.

The concept of putting “hybrid” players on the defensive side of the ball is not new, especially not to Pitt coach Dave Wannstedt, who has been building defenses this way for nearly his entire career.

It’s all about creating exploitable mismatches whether on the offensive or defensive side of the ball.

As for Elijah Fields, specifically, he has an incredible opportunity before him. The NFL has been evolving in its own way. Fields is in a system, paired with his own ability that will get him to the pros. Especially as a safety in today’s game.

The safety position is evolving to match increasingly complex playbooks, personnel packages and presnap adjustments. Versatility—not size—is the key. Today’s top safeties (think Ed Reed and Bob Sanders) have to match up with freakishly athletic tight ends and barracuda-quick slot receivers while still providing run support and zapping receivers on crossing routes.

Coaches can mask some of the deficiencies of a pass-challenged safety with Cover 2 schemes, but that pulls an enforcer off the line of scrimmage. The Cover 3 is an alternative, but not every DB is comfortable in zone, where spacing and discipline require constant vigilance. Plus, spread sets, motion, no-huddle and playaction still can create (or mimic) scenarios that force a safety to match up one-on-one with a slot receiver or downfield burner. And with refs throwing illegal-contact flags more than ever, there’s no margin for error.

He seems to be catching on the big picture of his future. I hope he gets how close it actually is.