This piece is so fundamentally flawed it deserved its own post. You know the old axiom that numbers can prove anything. True, only insofar as no one looks closely. That was the plan behind this Bob Smizik column.
All is not well at the University of Pittsburgh where the football team has lost four of five games with two of those defeats coming against teams the Panthers were expected to beat, if not dominate. Pitt has been so disappointing it wouldn’t be shocking if it lost to Big East Conference lightweight Cincinnati (2-2), when the teams meet tomorrow at Heinz Field.
Not surprising, fingers are being pointed in every direction, with an abundance of them directed at first-year coach Dave Wannstedt.
This column is on record as considering Wannstedt an excellent hire and that opinion won’t change after five games.
Clearly, though, something is missing at Pitt, and Wannstedt and his staff must share at least some if not a majority of the blame.
Good start. I agree completely.
But in one area where Wannstedt is receiving much criticism, he is not to blame.
The notion persists that Wannstedt is attempting to run an offense that doesn’t fit his personnel.
The belief is he’s too married to the run, while his personnel, after years of playing for Walt Harris, isn’t geared to play that style. He’s asking linemen, the theory goes, used to doing nothing but pass protecting to open up holes for his runners.
That is nonsense.
At least he didn’t say “complete and utter nonsense.” So this is going to be one of his pieces where he challenges assumptions. What does he have?
Under Harris last season, Pitt ran the ball 52 percent of the time.
Under Wannstedt this season, Pitt is running the ball 50 percent of the time.
That’s right, Wannstedt is passing more than Harris.
Hmmm. Technically he is correct. According to the final 2004 stats, Pitt had 448 rushing plays out of 862. So far in 2005 in 5 games, Pitt has 176 rushing plays out of 348. Maybe we should look a little closer at the individual numbers for 2004:
RUSHING GP Att Gain Loss Net Avg TD Long Avg/G ----------------------------------------------------------- KIRKLEY,Raymond 10 154 595 35 560 3.6 6 36 56.0 MURPHY,Tim 8 88 349 15 334 3.8 1 37 41.8 PALKO,Tyler 12 129 469 330 139 1.1 3 43 11.6 FURMAN,Marcus 11 37 136 20 116 3.1 0 16 10.5 MASON,Brandon 5 17 52 12 40 2.4 0 12 8.0 GRAESSLE,Adam 12 1 7 0 7 7.0 0 7 0.6 CAMPBELL,Kellen 9 3 6 0 6 2.0 0 4 0.7 PHILLIPS,Mike 12 1 5 0 5 5.0 0 5 0.4 FLACCO,Joe 3 6 14 14 0 0.0 0 6 0.0 DELSARDO,Joe 12 1 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 ACIERNO,Justin 10 1 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 STRONG,Darrell 12 1 0 2 -2 -2.0 0 0 -0.2 McKILLOP,Chris 11 1 0 2 -2 -2.0 0 0 -0.2 McCRAY,Darren 11 2 0 5 -5 -2.5 0 0 -0.5 TEAM 9 6 0 25 -25 -4.2 0 0 -2.8 Total.......... 12 448 1633 460 1173 2.6 10 43 97.8
and 2005:
RUSHING GP Att Gain Loss Net Avg TD Long Avg/G ---------------------------------------------------------------- KIRKLEY,Raymond 5 54 284 16 268 5.0 1 55 53.6 STEPHENS-HOWLING 4 30 163 5 158 5.3 0 30 39.5 MURPHY,Tim 5 20 96 4 92 4.6 1 43 18.4 JENNINGS,Rashad 2 20 73 3 70 3.5 0 10 35.0 PETTIFORD,John 1 7 51 0 51 7.3 0 26 51.0 FURMAN,Marcus 3 2 9 0 9 4.5 0 7 3.0 CAMPBELL,Kellen 5 2 8 0 8 4.0 0 5 1.6 TEAM-Pittsburgh 3 2 0 4 -4 -2.0 0 0 -1.3 PALKO,Tyler 5 39 84 161 -77 -2.0 1 10 -15.4 Total.......... 5 176 768 193 575 3.3 3 55 115.0
As you can see, both also include Tyler Palko’s runs — which include sacks. Palko was sacked 40 times last year and 19 times so far in 2005, so let’s take those numbers out of the totals and add them to passing attempts. I’m going to make an assumption here based on the type of QB Palko is, that on about 2/3 of the remaining running plays from Palko in each season, he had dropped back to pass but was forced to scramble for zero or some positive yardage. I’m adding those to the passing attempts as well. The remaining numbers, I’ll keep in the rushing attempts. So, rather than go by passing attempts, I’ll go by what I’m calling passing plays versus running plays.
Passing plays (pp) = pass attempts + sacks + 2/3 of remaining QB rushes
Running plays (rp) = rush attempts – sacks – 2/3 of remaining QB rushes
Year —– total plays = passing plays + rushing plays
2004: 862 total plays = (414 + 40 + 59) + (448 – 40 – 59) [862 tp = 513 pp + 349 rp]
2005: 348 total plays = (172 + 19 + 13) + (176 – 19 – 13) [348 tp = 204 pp + 144 rp]
Interesting. Based on this in 2004 Pitt called pass plays 59.5% of the time and intentionally ran 40.5%. In 2005, Pitt is on pace to call for the pass 58.6% and run 41.4%. That is a very small difference between years. Admittedly, the sample size is very different for 2005. Maybe Smizik has a point?
Of course, statistics can be misleading, and Pitt’s passing numbers this season are a bit skewed because it got so far behind Rutgers last week and did almost nothing but pass in the second half.
Good point, maybe the numbers from Rutgers shouldn’t be counted. Here are the Rutgers numbers. Palko was credited with 10 rushes, 5 of which were sacks:
RU game: 84 tp = (59 + 5 + 3) + (25 – 5 – 3) [84 tp = 67 pp + 17 rp]
A whopping 79.8% of the plays were passing plays. How does that change things?
2005 (less RU game): 264 tp = 137 pp + 127 rp
Suddenly Pitt is a lot more balanced looking with only 51.3% of the tp being pp.
And I’m not saying, balance is a bad thing. I’m just saying that Smizik’s numbers don’t work — either deliberately or because of ignorance.
But that’s not the point.
“That’s not the point?” He throws out misleading numbers, implying that the offensive styles are the same, but that isn’t the point?
The point is this: Wannstedt has made no major offensive change at Pitt.
Harris ran a variation of the West Coast offense. Wannstedt runs a variation of the West Coast offense. The Harris offense and the Wannstedt offense might not be brothers, but they’re cousins.
Again, huh? Yes, the West Coast offense is a ball control offense — and Harris to be sure did not run the traditional version. But just because Coach Wannstedt runs a ball control offense, does not make it a WCO. Harris was pass first, he may have wanted to run more (and more effectively) but he was definitely of the tradition of pass to set up the run.
Coach Wannstedt is a run-first, power-running perspective. He may want balance, but the run is the more important thing to him. Don’t even pretend that they are similar offenses, philosophies or that the systems haven’t changed much.
In fact, Smizik offers no other proof of his assertion of “no major offensive changes.” In fact, he then goes into cataloging the problems Pitt has had on offense, and trying to allocate blame to players and coaches.
