ShareThis Page
Pitt

Breaking down Pitt's loss to North Carolina and the rest of the season

Jerry DiPaola
| Saturday, Sept. 22, 2018, 9:36 p.m.
North Carolina’s Antonio Williams (24) runs against Pitt’s Dennis Briggs (20) during the first half of an NCAA college football game in Chapel Hill, N.C., Saturday, Sept. 22, 2018.
North Carolina’s Antonio Williams (24) runs against Pitt’s Dennis Briggs (20) during the first half of an NCAA college football game in Chapel Hill, N.C., Saturday, Sept. 22, 2018.

Pitt’s 38-35 loss at North Carolina on Saturday isn’t about how it reduced hopes for winning the ACC Coastal.

It’s about how it happened in a vacuum, with mistakes (one big one on special teams and several others in pass coverage), the disappearance of Pitt’s running game after halftime and no big stop after cutting the lead to three in the fourth quarter.

Unless coach Pat Narduzzi can get those things fixed, the ugly reality of the big picture will surface later.

Here are three thoughts:

1. It looked too easy

North Carolina quarterback Nathan Elliott tortured Pitt’s pass defense like his name is Mason Rudolph.

Elliott started the day with four interceptions and a total of only 356 yards and one touchdown passing in two losses. Pitt was just the tonic he needed, offering little resistance as Elliott threw for 313 yards, no interceptions and two touchdowns.

North Carolina amassed 486 total yards after missing four days of practice and one game due to Hurricane Florence.

Isn’t this a Pitt defense loaded with seniors? So how do we explain mistakes like the one in the first half that left running back Michael Carter alone in the secondary for a 31-yard touchdown? Or, another round of poor tackling?

Let’s assume Narduzzi shows up to work Sunday morning wearing a scowl and keeps it all day while watching video.

2. What happened after halftime?

Maybe some analysts will wonder why Pitt didn’t run as often in the second half, but that’s not the beef here.

The difference in rushing attempts was only six from the first half to the second (21/15), but the yardage total fell off a cliff (175/53).

The problem was lack of execution when opportunities surfaced. Before finally scoring its first second-half touchdown this season late in the game, Pitt had five possessions and three of them ended with minus-12 and minus-1 yards and a fumble by kick returner Maurice Ffrench that set up North Carolina’s decisive field goal. None of them had more than six plays.

Also, Pickett instinctively, but wrongly, caught one of his deflected passes..

“There are going to be some of those things that come up until he learns to manage a game properly,” Narduzzi said of his sophomore quarterback.

3. Looking ahead

After losing to a team victimized by suspensions and schedule disruptions, how many of Pitt’s eight remaining games (only three at home) can it win? Seven of the opponents are a combined 23-3. If that answers the question, look out.

Nothing that has happened this season is irreversible. But it should be a troubling to the coaching staff that a veteran defense that was supposed to give the young quarterback time to mature has allowed 876 yards in two losses.

Jerry DiPaola is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jerry at jdipaola@tribweb.com or via Twitter @JDiPaola_Trib.

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 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.

click me