MORE HEADLINES - The Morning Pitt: What does Pitt need to do to beat Syracuse? | Narduzzi talks Syracuse, the fourth quarter and more | Underwood: "We have to find a way to execute better" | What did we learn from the Pitt hoops exhibitions games? | Capel: "I'm excited about where we are" | Pitt was part of a big month for Good Counsel DE prospect | The Morning Pitt: Still looking for answers

In this week's 3-2-1 Column, we're faced with more questions than answers. Why hasn't Pitt's offense been better? Where Is Gavin Bartholomew? Is Syracuse a rivalry? All that plus a preseason look at Pitt hoops and more.

THREE THINGS WE KNOW

The big question
The downside to producing a lot of content is, sometimes you repeat yourself.

So, when I do a daily video on YouTube, I write a “20 Thoughts” column on Monday morning and I write the 3-2-1 Column on Friday, well, there’s going to be some overlap. After all, there’s only so many things you can say about a team in a week.

And with this particular team, it feels like the topics are even more narrow because there’s such a big, glaring issue to tackle.

Of course, that big, glaring issue is the offense. It has been bad. We all know that. Even when it’s been good, it’s still kind of been bad.

“Hey, they’re running like crazy but they still can’t complete a pass.”

“Hey, they hit a bunch of long play-action passes, but they got 80% of their yards on five plays.”

That kind of thing. Still bad, even when it’s good, and the result has been at least three losses you can put squarely on the offense.

Granted, the defense gave up 31 fourth-quarter points to Louisville and North Carolina; that doesn’t help. But there’s no reason Pitt should have been clinging to such narrow leads entering the final 15 minutes in either of those two games. Ultimately, in college football, you win with offense.

It works the other way, too. You lose with offense.

Which we all know.

What is a bit more mysterious is what has to happen now. And this is the part where I repeat myself, because I’ve been saying it all week:

Pat Narduzzi has to find the source of the breakdown. He has to decide where the failure is coming from. He has to identify the fundamental flaw in this offense.

And, at the risk of being reductive, it comes down to two people:

The quarterback and the coordinator.

Sure, there are issues all over the place, but the heart of it all, the sputtering engine in this broke-down automobile, is one of those two. Kedon Slovis and Frank Cignetti share blame, but what Narduzzi has to decide is if there’s more blame to be placed on one or the other. And if there is, he needs to act.

The options for action look different depending on what conclusion Narduzzi draws. If it’s the quarterback, if Narduzzi feels that Slovis is not talented enough to play winning football, then it’s an easy act: change quarterbacks. Play Nick Patti.

If Narduzzi feels that Slovis is talented enough to play winning football, then the next move is a little more challenging. Changing coordinators midseason is not like changing quarterbacks, and I don’t think that’s a move Narduzzi would make. But if he’s convinced that Slovis can play better, then he needs to double-down the pressure on the coordinator.

To me, it’s one or the other: either the quarterback isn’t good enough or the coaching staff isn’t doing a good enough job. It’s clearly at least a little bit of both, but it’s Narduzzi’s job as head coach to figure out which side is carrying more of the blame - and make the necessary moves for improvement.

It doesn’t make any sense
And here we come to repeated point No. 2.

In fact, I’ve been hammering this one for longer than a week.

Look, if you’ve read this site for any amount of time, you probably know that I can rationalize a lot of things. Call it whatever you want, but in almost every situation when it comes to covering Pitt athletics, I tend to take as wide a view as possible. If something goes wrong, I look for every possible cause. If there’s an obvious answer, I don’t necessarily eschew it, but I do at least consider the possibilities before settling on my own conclusion.

So I’ve spent a whole lot of time over the last two weeks trying to answer this one question, and I just haven’t figured it out:

Why is this group of offensive players - players who have, almost to a man, a history of success in their individual efforts - why is this group of offensive players performing so poorly this season?

The first inclination when considering that question might be to apply skepticism to the premise. And that’s fine; you don’t have to take my word for it when debating whether these players came into the 2022 season with strong resumes. There’s plenty of data that can do the talking.

The quarterback is the Pac-12’s all-time leader in career completion percentage, having completed 68.4% of his 950+ passes in three seasons at USC.

One wide receiver was a freshman All-American last year. Another wide receiver caught 47 passes and six touchdowns last season. And a third receiver averaged 19.6 yards per reception in 2021.

The tight end was also a freshman All-American and one of the most productive players in the nation at his position on a per-target basis.

The offensive line had 100+ combined starts, and even the reserves had career experience.

I think that about covers it, and we didn’t even talk about the guy who is third in the nation in rushing yards. The expectations that were placed on this offense came from the individual performances of the players who were expected to contribute. Those players had done it in the past, and the expectation was that they would do it again.

This offense wasn’t counting on unproven high school recruits or transfers who had never played. It planned to rely on players who had done it at the highest levels in college football. The resumes were there. The production was proven.

And now their collective efforts have produced an offense that is averaging 25 points per game against ACC teams; an offense that scored one touchdown through three quarters against Georgia Tech; an offense that scored one touchdown through four quarters against Louisville; an offense that scored one touchdown in the final 43 minutes and 20 seconds against North Carolina.

An offense that has gotten stone-cold blanked in the fourth quarter in each of the last two games.

It just doesn’t make sense.

Pitt should have won the Coastal
Since I’m in a groove with offering disclaimers prior to every section of the column so far, I’ll do it again:

This one is a would-have/should-have. Or, according to some Twitter accounts, a would-of/should-of (parents, teach your kids that the phrase is “would have” not “would of;” I know how it’s pronounced, but it’s really not that hard).

Anyway, my would-have/should-have in this particular section of the column is that Pitt should have won the Coastal Division. And I’ll stand by that.

When you look at what the Panthers brought back from a team that won the whole conference last year, and when you look at how the coaches filled in the holes on the roster, I don’t think it’s crazy at all to suggest that this team very much should have claimed back-to-back division titles and put up a valiant effort in Charlotte against Clemson.

Yes, they lost generational talents at quarterback and receiver. But to replace them, the coaches brought in two transfers who had been successful at other schools and a refocused effort on a balanced offense that should have offset the losses of those two players, at least to some extent.

You weren’t going to replace the talent or production of Kenny Pickett and Jordan Addison, but you could still get good production out of the passing game while maybe relying on it just a little bit less if you have a strong running game.

That was the plan, and it made every bit of sense. Completely logical, not rationalized at all and totally based on proven history.

It should have worked.

Not to mention, the division looks as weak as ever. North Carolina is good because it has a great quarterback, but even the supposed-to-be-good teams like Miami have struggled this season, to say nothing of the expected-to-be-bad teams like Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech, who have lived down to expectations.

Pitt had the talent and the division lacked any intimidating competition.

Like I said, it should have worked.

But the plan got screwed up somewhere along the way. At some point in the process, some crucial point either in the spring or summer or maybe even during the season, something went awry. All the puzzle pieces that seemed to fit suddenly didn’t, and the whole operation fell apart.

I guess this is just my way of saying, all of those preseason predictions and prognostications - they weren’t off the mark. This was a team that had all the hallmarks of a winner and seemed poised to repeat at Coastal champs. If you listed this team’s verifiable attributes, you would say, that looks like a winner.

The fact that the results haven’t followed suit will leave Pat Narduzzi with some big questions to answer - for himself - this offseason.

Pitt should have won the Coastal this year. Maybe should have won the ACC. Maybe should have been in the playoff conversation.

And I know, I know: would-have/should-have in one hand and you-know-what in the other and see which one gets filled first. That little maxim applies in more ways than one right now.

TWO QUESTIONS WE HAVE

Where in the world are Gavin Bartholomew and Jaylon Barden?
Maybe the best Halloween costume I saw this year was one of my son’s fellow fourth-graders who dressed up as Carmen Sandiego. I was shocked to see that kids these days know about Carmen Sandiego, but I was also pleasantly surprised. I first saw this particular costume in action at a Halloween party on Saturday night, which I attended before coming home to watch Pitt’s loss to North Carolina.

At which point I went from asking ‘Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego?’ to asking ‘Where in the world are Gavin Bartholomew and Jaylon Barden?’

Supposedly, both guys were in Chapel Hill on Saturday night, but I’ll be damned if I could see them.

Obviously, I jest. Bartholomew played 55 snaps on offense at UNC, according to Pro Football Focus. He was purportedly even targeted on two passes. In looking back over the game, I found those two targets: one was a play-action attempt on first down in the third quarter that skipped across the ground before it got to Bartholomew, while the other was a first down attempt in the fourth quarter after UNC extended its lead to 35-24. The official box score lists one other target for Bartholomew, but I’m not counting that one since it was thrown out of bounds - a clear throwaway under pressure.

Two targets on 24 routes run. I know there are other mouths to feed (and we can talk about the paucity of pass plays overall), but two targets for a guy who was a freshman All-American last year? Two targets for a guy who has seven first downs and two touchdowns on 16 receptions? Nobody else currently on the team has more than one touchdown catch, but Bartholomew can’t buy a target right now. And it’s been happening all season: in his eight games, Bartholomew has seen more than two targets just four times.

I understand that you’re not going to pepper your tight end with 10 targets every game (although I kind of think you’d get some good results if you did), but for him to average less than three targets per game is borderline criminal. It’s not putting the ball in the hands of a guy who ranks no worse than third among your receiving targets.

And then there’s the curious case of Jaylon Barden. I’ll be the first to say that I’m always reluctant to harp on personnel decisions. Coaches have a whole lot more information than we do when it comes to the choices they make about who they play and when they play them. They base their decisions on practice and meetings, and they play the guys they feel they can rely on.

If Barden - or any player - doesn’t get on the field much, then the coaches must have their reasons, regardless of what I think that player might be capable of doing. That’s fine.

But here’s what I don’t get:

Multiple times this season, from the first week until this most recent week, Pat Narduzzi has talked up Barden and his potential and what he can add to the offense. Things got really over the top last week when Narduzzi said that Barden would start against North Carolina.

Unequivocally, with no caveat or disclaimer offered, he said it:

“Barden will start.”

That’s a direct quote.

Not only did Barden not start, but he didn’t play a single snap. Not one. The quote about Barden starting was weird - why would Narduzzi announce a starter like that? - but to go from saying a player would start to not using that player at all…I just don’t get it.

The official logic offered, both by Narduzzi on Monday and receivers coach Tiquan Underwood on Tuesday, was that Barden’s expected role was based on Bub Means not being available, but when Means was able to play, it cut into the opportunities for Barden. Which, okay, I guess that makes sense. But Means played 34 snaps - not one of those could have gone to Barden? He was good enough to start in place of Means but not good enough to take one rep in relief?

It’s just weird. And it has been that way all season. After the opener against West Virginia, Narduzzi said the coaches had to find a way to get Barden more involved. The result was that Barden went from playing seven snaps against WVU to playing nine against Tennessee. He actually played 11 at Western Michigan, but the workload dropped after that: three snaps against Rhode Island, four against Georgia Tech, none against Virginia Tech (he wasn’t even dressed), 11 at Louisville and none at North Carolina.

Beyond snaps, he’s not getting any looks in the passing game. Barden was targeted on two passes against Tennessee, but has had the ball thrown to him just once since then (at Louisville). Barden has caught all three passes for a grand total of 19 yards - not exactly an ideal usage for a player whose biggest strength is speed and getting downfield.

I know the coaches have their reasons and their rationalizations for their personnel decisions. But to ignore Bartholomew in the passing game and to make Barden a ghost despite talking a bunch of times about how he can help…

Like so many things right now, it just doesn’t make sense.

Is Syracuse a rival?
No. The answer is no. Syracuse is not a rival.

There. That takes care of that one. Let’s move on to the prediction.

Oh wait, I’m being told that we shoot for 500 words or so in each section of the 3-2-1 Column, so let’s stretch that one out a bit.

Syracuse is not a rival, but…

There are a few things worth noting in the series between Pitt and Syracuse. For starters, Pitt has played Syracuse 77 times. There are only two teams the Panthers have faced more than that: West Virginia (105 games) and Penn State (100). And Pitt’s longest current streak of annual games against one opponent is also Syracuse, as the two teams have met every season for the last 67 years.

So there’s some consistency there and some familiarity, which should breed contempt. Except it hasn’t.

Pitt is 42-32-3 all-time against Syracuse, so at the outset, it seems like a competitive series. But the Panthers have won eight of the last nine, 15 of the last 17 and 18 of the 22 games played in the series since 2000. So it hasn’t been very competitive recently.

And it wasn’t really all that competitive before that. Syracuse pretty much owned the 90’s and late 80’s, going 14-1-1 against Pitt from 1984-99. But that came after the Panthers won 11 in a row from 1973-83.

So while the overall record is competitive, each team has gone on long runs and there hasn’t really been much back-and-forth in the series.

The one thing I’ll say for the Pitt-Syracuse “rivalry” - I don’t think anyone ever actually used that word before the ACC more or less foisted it on the series - is that there have been some pretty interesting games in the last decade.

Take 2013 for example. Pitt won that one 17-16 on an Aaron Donald blocked extra point.

Or 2015, when Pat Narduzzi’s inaugural season hype reached an apex after he called a fake punt from midfield that saw the punter throw a pass to a linebacker, eventually leading to a game-winning field goal with time running out.

Or 2016, when the two teams combined for 137 points to set an FBS record for scoring in a regulation game.

Or 2017, when Max Browne’s injury led to Ben DiNucci’s chin strap breaking, which led to Kenny Pickett making his college debut.

Or 2018, when a 2-3 Pitt team broke a two-game losing streak by upsetting a ranked Syracuse team at home in overtime. That game, incidentally, was the first of five consecutive ACC wins that led the Panthers to the Coastal title.

That 2018 game set the bar high for consequential Pitt-Syracuse games, and the next three years didn’t quite live up to it. The 2019 game saw Pitt jump out to a 24-6 lead at halftime only to go into a hole offensively and get outscored 14-6 in the second half, barely holding on for a 27-20 final. The 2020 game was in the Covid season, when most things don’t count. And last year’s game was mostly notable for Pitt’s efforts to stay healthy ahead of the ACC Championship Game that was coming the following week (although that trip was the onset of a flu bug that ran through the team ahead of the big game in Charlotte).

Here’s one other thing about the series: since Pitt and Syracuse joined the ACC, they have faced each other nine times. Five of those nine have been one-score games (and that doesn’t include the 76-61 game, which wasn’t a one-score game but definitely felt like it could have gone either way).

So, no, Syracuse is not a rival. But the Orange and the Panthers have produced some pretty interesting games over the years.

I guess I’m saying that the juice is worth the squeeze when it comes to this series.

ONE PREDICTION

The starting five
Flipping to hoops for the final section here.

Pitt wrapped up its exhibition season on Wednesday night by thumping Edinboro. That followed the previous thumping of Clarion, so we can safely conclude that if Pitt played in the PSAC, the Panthers would likely set records.

But they don’t play in the PSAC. They play in the ACC. And it remains to be seen how this new roster, this approach the likes of which Jeff Capel has not taken before, will fare in that particularly challenging conference.

We won’t find out the answer to that question for another month or two. Pitt’s ACC opener is a random one-off at N.C. State on the first Friday of December; the Panthers fully jump into conference play at Syracuse on Dec. 20.

Between now and then, Pitt will play 11 non-conference games, with some challenging matchups mixed in among the regular run of should-be wins (although we’ve all learned in the last few years not to take anything for granted).

I’m not ready to make season predictions just quite yet; we’ll do that on Monday ahead of the season opener against Tennessee Martin. But I’ll make a few predictions about the lineup, though.

My first prediction is that the starting lineup on Monday night will look like this:

Nelly Cummings Jamarius Burton Greg Elliott Blake Hinson Fede Federiko

That’s not too much of a leap, since that was the starting lineup for the exhibition game against Edinboro. And with John Hugley (a sure starter) out for at least that game, if not more, it’s pretty much a lock that Capel will go with that group of starters. The depth will also look familiar to the dozens who watched the exhibition games: Nike Sibande and Nate Santos in the back court, Jorge and Guillermo Diaz Graham in the front court.

Once Hugley and, to a lesser extent, Will Jeffress return, it will get a little more interesting. There’s enough depth in the back court to stick with a three-guard lineup pretty much all the time, but when Hugley and Jeffress are available, somebody is going to get squeezed. My guess is that will be the Diaz Graham twins; their skill set and ability are enticing, and I think the coaching staff really likes their ceiling and potential, but they’re also pretty raw. Federiko needs strength, too, but he’s at least a little further along than Guillermo Diaz Graham, who is the other top reserve at center.

So my guess is this team will be able to run nine-deep on a pretty regular basis. I think all five guards will get consistent minutes; Hugley and Hinson will be mainstays on the court, too. And then you’ll need backups to give those two forwards a bit of a break.

If nothing else, this team will have a bit more depth beyond what we’ve seen in previous seasons.

We’ll see how the rotation comes together, but so much of this team’s success is going to ride on the effectiveness of how Capel and his staff addressed the shooting. It looks - admittedly, without a single real game played - it looks like this team will be better at shooting three’s than previous Capel teams. Guys like Elliott, Santos and Hinson are capable shooters and, almost as importantly, they’re willing shooters. They’ll take shots if the opportunity presents itself, and they seem to be good enough that opponents will have to respect it. That’s key, of course, because the more of a threat Pitt can present from outside, the less opponents will be able to focus on Hugley.

That’s how this whole thing is supposed to work. Strong leadership and guard play from Cummings and the veterans in the back court, a dominant presence under the basket from Hugley and enough shooting on the outside to lessen the appeal of double-teaming Hugley.

That’s the plan. We’ll see if it works.