Pitt notebook: Savage says miscommunication led to INTs
Pitt quarterbackTom Savage said Tuesday “some communication stuff” led to his two interceptions against Florida State, but he added the ultimate blame sits with him.
“I'm not going to get into that,” he said. “Obviously, the ball is in the defenders' hands so it's my fault and I'll take full responsibility for it. Just blame it on me. It's fine.”
• Savage said the interceptions didn't sap his confidence, “Even after the picks, there was never, ‘What the heck am I doing out there?' I knew what happened on all of them. I know how we could adjust and improve from there.”
• Offensive coordinator Joe Rudolph said the passing game had its moments. “He did some great things,” he said of Savage. “There are some times where we can make better decisions and be smarter.”
• Savage's arm strength is impressive — a trait that will get him noticed by NFL scouts in his last year of collegiate eligibility — but he said there is more to playing quarterback. “It's kind of cliche to say, but you have to move the chains and get first downs.”
• Tyler Boyd had only five scrimmage touches, but Rudolph is impressed by what the freshman wide receiver can do with the ball in his hands. “The one cut on the jet (sweep) was a pretty nice play,” Rudolph said. “If there are opportunities to do things like that, you have to take advantage of it. But it has to be within our scheme. But I wouldn't hesitate to put the ball in his hands. He opens it up from ‘that could be a good play' to ‘that is a good play.' ”
• Rudolph will continue to use freshmen Boyd and running backJames Conner in key roles. “There is no one with wide eyes, kind of like, ‘Whoa, me? I'm in?' They are ready to go.” Conner said he was more nervous in high school. “I hope the bigger the stage, the bigger I play.”
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.