The 3-2-1 Column: Decisions, decisions, decisions

MORE HEADLINES - News and notes from Thursday's practice | Spring camp video: Watch the quarterbacks and receivers in action | FREE: Narduzzi talks RBs, WRs and more | Recruiting: Pitt hosts a dozen prospects from a top Midwest school | Could Pitt's transfer WR play this year? | Recruiting: Top 2020 OL impressed with Narduzzi, Borbely and Pitt on visit

Quarterback decisions, redshirt decisions, official visit decisions and more - that’s what we’re thinking about in this week’s Panther-Lair.com 3-2-1 Column.

THREE THINGS WE KNOW

The QB decisions
By my count, there were nine quarterback-related decisions Pat Narduzzi made in 2017.

To wit:

- The decision to go with Max Browne as the starter

- The decision to replace Browne with Ben DiNucci against Oklahoma State.

- The decision to go back to Browne a week later late in the game at Georgia Tech.

- The decision to stick with Browne after that.

- The decision to use Kenny Pickett for one snap at Syracuse.

- The decision to use Pickett against N.C. State.

- The decision to not use Pickett against Duke, Virginia or North Carolina.

- The decision to switch to Pickett at Virginia Tech.

- The decision to stick with Pickett for the Miami game.

Since then, each of those decisions has been, with varying degrees of intensity, debated in Pitt circles. Did Narduzzi make the right call in going with DiNucci in the Oklahoma State game? Did he make the right call going back to Browne at Georgia Tech? And what about the series of decisions that started with Pickett playing one snap in the Carrier Dome before he came out for a couple drives against N.C. State and then didn’t see the field again until the penultimate game of the season?

Really, in the aftermath of Pickett’s play against Miami, even the decision to go with Browne at the start of the season has seen some reconsideration, at least from the outside.

For Narduzzi, that first decision - making Browne the starter - was relatively easy to make. It was after that when things got hairier.

“Max Browne was our best quarterback a year ago,” Narduzzi said Thursday. “He went down and we had to make decisions.”

I asked Narduzzi about the quarterback decisions on Thursday - and I asked offensive coordinator Shawn Watson about them last week, too - because I think they’re worth revisiting one more time. The coaches have had time to reflect on the 2017 season, to reevaluate everything that went on from start to finish, and make no mistake about it: the coaches spend a lot of time in the offseason evaluating the players and themselves.

Really, there probably wasn’t much to learn from the quarterback decisions. They aren’t likely to be in those situations again - you know, when the starter goes down and then the backup loses his helmet on the penultimate play of a game when you’re losing by a field goal, forcing you to send in your No. 3 QB for one snap that will burn his redshirt - so there might not be much in the way of practical applications for lessons gleaned from that scenario.

Once the season had ended, we discussed those nine decisions on the message board, ranking them from best to worst. Not surprisingly, the decision to use Pickett for one snap at Syracuse was the consensus worst. I would vote for the decision not to use Pickett against Duke, Virginia or North Carolina, but I think in both instances, there’s a disconnect between what fans/media observe and perceive on the outside and what the inner workings of a football team actually are.

For instance, it seems pretty clear to me what happened at Syracuse: Browne got hurt, making DiNucci the No. 1 and Pickett the No. 2. So when DiNucci had to come out, Pickett had to go in because Thomas MacVittie - who entered the game as the No. 4 - was not ready to go. Fans after the game said the coaches should have made the split-second decision to get MacVittie in when DiNucci’s helmet came off; I’m okay with the coaches saying they didn’t have time to do that, since they had about 15 seconds to make such a call.

As for not using Pickett in the Duke/Virginia/UNC games, I think another disconnect exists between the outside and the inside. I think it really did take some time to get Pickett up to speed in the offense, or at least to get him ready enough to play. Narduzzi and Watson both said there was a developmental process that took more time than those of us on the outside would imagine.

Ultimately, what’s done is done with the quarterbacks. Pickett worked his way into playing time at Virginia Tech and parlayed that into a starting gig against Miami, and we all know how that turned out. If you’re still twisted up about the decision to use him at Syracuse, consider this:

What if the coaches send in MacVittie that day in the Carrier Dome and spend the rest of the season starting DiNucci because they want to continue preserving Pickett’s redshirt? How would you feel in that scenario, particularly since it would probably mean Pickett and DiNucci would be in an alleged competition this spring?

Maybe everything works out for a reason.

The other freshmen who played
Of course, Pickett wasn’t the only freshman who played in 2017; in fact, he was the last Pitt freshman to make his debut. Five other freshmen saw the field for the Panthers last season, and all five of them made their debuts in the season opener against Youngstown State.

It looked like those guys would make significant contributions over the course of the season, too, at least based on the opener. Tight end Tyler Sear had a key 10-yard catch on a third-and-2 in the second quarter, and running back AJ Davis finished that drive with a touchdown run. Davis had a fourth-down conversion on that drive, too, and the coaches went to him on another crucial fourth down in the fourth quarter - a play that, if Davis hadn’t converted it, would have given the ball back to Youngstown State close to field-goal range with less than two minutes left.

So the future looked bright for Sear and Davis, at least in terms of the opportunities the coaches were going to give them. But things didn’t exactly play out that way. Davis didn’t play for the next three games and finished the season with 40 yards on 16 carries.

Sear played most of the rest of the season - minus a three-game stretch at midseason - but didn’t catch another pass.

In retrospect, it doesn’t quite look like Pitt got the most bang for the redshirt bucks of Sear and Davis. And it’s not a stretch to say it was probably a mistake to play them in the opener.

Now, for Sear, that mistake was rendered moot when Matt Flanagan got hurt against Virginia and missed the final three games; Sear was pretty much inevitable as a participant when that happened. But while running backs coach Andre Powell has said that he doesn’t think they could have gone through the season without playing Davis, it seems tough to make that case. Chawntez Moss was in and out of the coaches’ doghouse and missed half the games, but Darrin Hall and Qadree Ollison were pretty solid; both played every game and were reliable, even though coaches would probably shudder at the thought of having just two running backs available.

So why play Sear and Davis in the first game? At the start of the season, the coaches didn’t know Flanagan would get hurt or Moss would get kicked off the team; what was the reasoning behind using those two freshmen right out of the gate? And once they had played, why didn’t they get more usage?

One thing Pat Narduzzi said last season that stuck out to me was that sometimes coaches see freshmen in training camp and like their progress and think they can help the team right away - as long as they keep improving and developing through the season. They play those freshmen early with the expectation that they are going to keep improving; sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn’t, and when it doesn’t, then the coaches get reluctant to keep playing them.

That was the case with Amir Watts two years ago. He played in the opener against Villanova but then sat out four of the next seven games before injuries forced him into more action. Sear and Davis didn’t progress as the coaches were hoping they would, so their playing time dipped as the season rolled on.

Like Sear, Watts was forced into more playing time late in the schedule due to injuries, and both players improved as a result of the extra playing time.

Also among the other three freshmen who played last season were cornerbacks Jason Pinnock and Damarri Mathis; they rotated in sparingly early in the schedule and then in more involved roles after Avonte Maddox got hurt at Duke.

And then there’s Cal Adomitis, the great forgotten freshman who played. He was the long-snapper last season, playing in every game - the first Pitt freshman to play in every game of a season since Jordan Whitehead in 2015.

So it’s safe to say Pitt definitely got its money’s worth out of Adomitis. And I’d say the investment in Pickett was pretty well-spent, too. The others…that’s probably questionable. I think Pinnock and Mathis are better for having played, and Sear pretty much needed to play by the end of the season. Redshirting Davis might have made the running back position very thin, but they probably could have waited a bit on him and only used him if they needed him.

The proposed redshirt rule will be a good change
Following on that line of thought:

This summer, the NCAA will consider - and seems to be likely to pass - a rule that would change the nature of redshirts. Currently, a player burns his redshirt when he steps onto the field; the new rule would allow a player to participate in as many as four games and still be able to use his redshirt.

That’s a really interesting change on a lot of levels. In the case of a player like Davis or Sear or Watts, where the coaches have high hopes for a freshman but lose confidence a few games into the season, they can basically reverse their decision and sit the player without feeling like they wasted a year of his eligibility.

Similarly, if the coaches reach midseason and a player is practicing well, they can put him into a few games and, again, not feel constricted by the possibility of wasting a year of eligibility.

Plus, as Pat Narduzzi put it this week, a player can even appear in a bowl game as long as he plays in at least one game during the season, so the coaches might as well play everybody at least once, just to keep the door open for the bowl game.

There’s a lot to like in this rule. I like taking some of the pressure off the decision-making when it comes to playing freshmen or not playing freshmen. Coaches have talked about being right on the edge of sending a guy in but deciding to hold back; that seems like an unnecessary decision to have to make, or at least an unnecessary factor to have to consider.

And I think Narduzzi made a good point when he said that the rule would also create a carrot for freshmen who are toiling away on the scout team early in the season: “Keep working hard and show us you’re ready to play, and maybe we’ll get you some playing time here and there” - again, all without having to worry about blowing a redshirt.

Looking at specific examples, if this rule were in place, Damar Hamlin would be a redshirt sophomore right now rather than a junior, since he only played three games as a freshman in 2016. The coaches might have also decided to shelve Quadree Henderson in 2015 after he was a non-factor in the offense (although if he reached his four games during the season, he wouldn’t have been available to return the opening kickoff for a touchdown in the bowl game against Navy).

Overall, I think this looks like a pretty good potential rule change, and Narduzzi endorsed it as well. The coaches get another year out of guys who played sparingly as freshmen, and the players don’t have to see their eligibility wasted because of coaching indecision.

TWO QUESTIONS

Who will play this year?
Naturally, any time we talk about freshmen seeing the field, the mind wanders to the incoming class, so let’s go there in this space:

Which freshmen from the class of 2018 will play for Pitt in 2018?

(We’ll keep it to just freshmen to take out seemingly obvious options like Chase Brown or Ricky Town - I think the coaches will try to get Town some snaps against Albany.)

As I look at the class, it seems like Mychale Salahuddin is the most obvious option. Pitt has depth at talent at running back, but Salahuddin is very talented and there’s no question that running backs coach Andre Powell is looking forward to seeing him join the competition.

To be honest, no one else jumps out. I thought Shocky Jacques-Louis would have a chance, but he has been limited throughout spring camp, so I’m not sure about that one anymore. The defensive backs - Erick Hallett, V’Lique Carter, Marquis Williams and Judson Tallandier - are probably good enough to contribute, but there’s a ton of depth there, so they shouldn’t be needed.

Similarly, a guy like Devin Danielson could be good enough, but the defensive tackle depth is impressive, and as long as Shane Roy, Amir Watts, Rashad Wheeler, Keyshon Camp and Jaylen Twyman are healthy, he shouldn’t be needed.

I’m not quite as confident about the depth at defensive end, although Charlie Partridge said on Thursday that Patrick Jones has made a lot of strides; if that’s the case, Pitt can go four-deep with Jones, Dewayne Hendrix, James Folston and Rashad Weaver. Again, barring injury, they should be okay without needing Kaymar Mimes, Noah Palmer, Habakkuk Baldonado or John Morgan (maybe Mimes, Palmer or Baldonado could get on the field at tight end? Probably not, since the coaches like the three-deep they have there).

I’m really struggling to find another freshman who seems like an obvious option to play. Maybe the depth really has been rebuilt to the level that Pitt won’t need to play a half-dozen freshmen this year. Then again, I wouldn’t have guessed Jason Pinnock and Damarri Mathis would play like they did last season, so there are always surprises.

I guess if I had to pick one other freshman to play, I would go with one of the defensive ends. But that’s just a guess.

What to make of spring camp praise?
One guy we all expected to see in 2017 was Paris Ford, but that didn’t happen after his enrollment was delayed due to academic issues. Now, with those issues and a season on the scout team behind him, Ford is apparently lighting it up in spring camp.

We’ve heard throughout camp that he’s been a playmaker in the secondary, working on the second team at cornerback and making life very difficult on the opposing quarterbacks and receivers.

That’s all well and good, and obviously it’s a positive development for a defensive backfield that is quickly becoming one of the strengths of the team, but it also ties neatly into a discussion we have every year at this time:

How much does spring camp matter?

More to the point:

How much does a player’s performance and the coaches’ praise of players’ performances in the spring matter?

The list of previous winners of the Ed Conway Award, presented annually to the most improved player in spring camp on each side of the ball, is an interesting study in how spring camp carries over to the season. Last year, the winners were Jaryd Jones-Smith and Elijah Zeise; Jones-Smith bounced in and out of the starting lineup, while Zeise seemed to improve over the course of the season.

Those two seemed to have some carryover, as did previous winners like Jester Weah in 2016, TJ Clemmings in 2013 and 2014 (he won twice) and Ryan Turnley in 2012. But then there are winners like Greg Cross in 2010, when he went on to catch one pass for one yard in five games played, or Pat Bostick in 2009, when he ended up redshirting.

So spring praise doesn’t always translate to fall performance, but does that mean we should ignore it altogether?

As always, the correct answer is in the middle.

For starters, we can all acknowledge that coaches probably aren’t going to be too critical during their public press briefings. Sure, Andre Powell will say a player needs to step it up if he feels like that player needs to hear that message, but on the whole, comments from coaches tend to be more positive than negative.

But there are also varying degrees of praise, and while it’s usually smart to have some discretion in choosing which praise to “believe,” I think that when you hear a coach be a little more effusive than usual, there’s something to take from that. In my experience, coaches aren’t likely to be negative about a player, but they also won’t go too over-the-top with the praise for a player who doesn’t earn it.

Some coaches will use press briefings as a chance to motivate players, but they don’t often tend to do so by giving extra praise; usually they’ll say something like, ‘He’s doing well, but he needs to be more consistent.’

So when we hear praise for Ford or the linebackers or even the offensive linemen - there has been some positive talk about those guys from time to time - I wouldn’t totally dismiss it.

ONE PREDICTION

The new official visits won’t change much
Have you heard? Football recruits can take official visits right now.

This is a pretty significant change to the recruiting calendar, and it’s really a companion piece to the new signing period that was started last year. Recruits were able to sign during a three-day period in December for the first time in 2017, and along with that, the NCAA decided that recruits can now take official visits in the spring.

The official visit period runs April 1-June 24, so roughly three months’ worth of available weekends. Recruits still can take only five official visits and schools can still only host 56 official visits, but instead of those visits being confined to the fall and the winter, there’s a new three-month stretch when they can happen.

There are upsides and downsides to this, of course. For the coaches, it means busier weekends in the spring. Those weekends were already commodities since the assistant coaches spend much of April and May on the road evaluating recruits and spend June conducting prospect camps; now the weekends - when the assistants could be at home with their families - have a new recruiting obligation to schedule around.

For the recruits, it means potentially using one or more of those five official visits quite early in the process. A lot can change between June and January, and there will likely be more than a few recruits who burn through most or all of their official visits in the spring and then have limited options when the winter arrives and their available scholarships have changed (if schools fill up at their positions, for instance).

It’s not all downside, though. Recruits who are set on making an early commitment will now get to do so with a few official visits to compare, as opposed to the past when they could only take unofficial visits. Granted, you can see a lot of what you need to see on an unofficial visit, but an official visit is still a superior experience.

The reality is, the new official visit period probably won’t change much. I talked to linebackers coach/recruiting coordinator Rob Harley about it this week, and his take was basically that they’ll wait and see what the impact is, but for the most part, he expects the spring official visits to be taken by players who are serious about committing early, while most recruits, in his estimation, will probably save most or all of their official visits for the fall and winter.

I don’t think this will impact Pitt’s annual June recruiting push, either. Pitt tends to get a bunch of commitments in the sixth month every year, and those commitments are usually spurred by visits to campus; if anything, the new official visit period could bring even more recruits to campus - kids from Florida or Georgia, for instance, who might not be inclined to spend out-of-pocket for a visit - and potentially increase the number of commitments.

Overall, though, I expect this year to be like previous ones: Pitt will get a couple commits prior to June, land a half-dozen or so in that month, maybe one or two over the summer, hit a quiet spell through the fall and then finish strong in December and January.

The thing I’m really going to be watching for with the introduction of the spring visit period isn’t so much with Pitt as it is on the national level. There will be recruits who take three or four or five official visits this spring and commit to a school with the intention of signing in December. But that signing period will roll around and some of those recruits will find out they don’t have a spot or there will be a coaching change that alters their commitment status, and they’ll have to restart the recruiting process with few or no official visits available.

They’ll still be able to visit schools, but not as official visits, and that changes things. This shouldn’t be a regular occurrence, but it will happen, I’m sure, and it will be interesting to see if the fallout - even from just a few instances - leads to any changes to the recruiting calendar.