MORE HEADLINES - A LB from Florida visited Pitt this week | Get to know incoming freshman WR Jared Wayne | One new Pitt offer this week went to Georgia | Capel offered a prominent local standout this week | Who is Pitt targeting at tight end in the 2020 class? | Pitt hosted a four-star RB this week

In this week’s 3-2-1 Column, we’re thinking about good wins, bad losses, the NFL Draft and a lot more.

THREE THINGS WE KNOW

Showing up late
It’s funny: sometimes a Twitter conversation can be inspiration.

More specifically, a Twitter conversation can be the impetus for doing research and finding data to support or - more frequently - dispute a claim. I’ve certainly wasted my fair share of time on Twitter, but at least some portion of that was time spent off Twitter, looking things up and trying to find out if someone’s seemingly bad theory was, in fact, bad.

Spoiler alert: a lot of times, the bad theories really are bad, and I won’t lie, it’s kind of fun to disprove them.

Anyway, this happened again recently when someone started talking about Pitt’s performance in the fourth quarter of games under Pat Narduzzi. The theory was something along the lines of, “Narduzzi’s teams - and, by extension, Narduzzi himself - fall apart in the fourth quarter.”

I wasn’t sure about that theory, because at least from an anecdotal standpoint, it seems to me like Narduzzi has won his fair share of games in the fourth quarter over the last four seasons. So I went to the box scores for the last 52 games.

Here’s what I found:

When Pitt entered the fourth quarter with a lead over the last four seasons, the Panthers have a record of 23-3. When the score is tied after three quarters, Pitt is 0-2. And when the Panthers are trailing going into the fourth quarter, they are 5-19.

Now, 5-19 isn’t a great record, obviously, but my guess is you would find a similar records across the sport. It’s not a huge leap to say that teams that enter the fourth quarter with a lead usually hold onto that lead - and, on the flip side, teams that are trailing after three quarters usually don’t stage comebacks.

Just to see if that notion holds up, I looked at Boston College. I selected the Eagles at random because their record is similar to Pitt’s over the last four years (24-26 vs. Pitt’s 28-24), and also because they’ve had the same head coach for those four seasons. Plus, their media guide has game summaries readily available (something that wasn’t the case with N.C. State, who was my first choice as a comparison).

In the last four seasons, Boston College is 22-2 when leading after three quarters, 0-2 when tied and 2-22 when trailing entering the fourth quarter. So, for the most part, similar numbers to what Pitt has done. The Panthers have one more loss when leading after three quarters - 23-3 vs. Boston College going 22-2 - but we’ll get to those three losses in the next section (it’s also interesting that Boston College’s two losses-from-ahead have come in the last two seasons, when the Eagles have been improving, although part of that is likely due to the fact that they entered the fourth quarter with a lead just eight times in 2015 and 2016 combined. But we’re getting sidetracked here).

Overall, I think the record in the fourth quarter is pretty solid for Narduzzi. All five of the wins when trailing were against ACC teams, and three of them happened on the road. There was the Syracuse game in 2015 when Ryan Winslow threw a fake-punt pass to Matt Galambos in a huge situation. There was the Clemson game in 2016 - remember that one? - and there was the Duke game in 2017, when Pitt was running the ball like crazy but still trailed 17-14 after three quarters. Pitt also beat Duke and Syracuse in similar fashion at home this past season.

So yes, there were the three games Pitt lost when leading after three quarters, and we’ll discuss those in a minute, but getting at least one fourth-quarter comeback per season is pretty good, if you ask me.

Two bad ones
Now, about those three losses…

Here were the three games they lost despite carrying a lead into the fourth quarter:

2016 at North Carolina
2018 at Notre Dame
2018 vs. Stanford

I don’t think we really need to spend too much time on that 2016 UNC game, do we? Pitt was up 33-23 after three quarters; then the Panthers went three-and-out four times, gained one first down and scored three points on a field goal while the defense gave up four fourth-down conversions on back-to-back touchdown drives to end the game with a loss.

I know, I know, and I apologize for even typing out that 45-word sentence. It probably stings just to read it. And I don’t intend to dwell on that game any longer. Instead, it’s the other two I’m interested in. Because as you look at four years and 52 games under Narduzzi, Pitt has just three instances of losing a game after entering the fourth quarter with a lead - and two of those three happened last season.

But the year isn’t the only thing those two games share, is it? If you followed along last season (or listened to the last podcast), you probably know where I’m going with this:

It was the offense.

Pitt had leads in both of those games. Slim leads, but leads all the same. At Notre Dame, the score was 14-12 after three quarters; in the Sun Bowl, it was 13-7. In both cases, you were probably glad Pitt was ahead, but you also likely had a lurking sense of dread, knowing that the Panthers had led their opponents - who each possessed some talented offensive weapons - hang around and stay in striking distance.

Both the Irish and the Cardinal made Pitt pay, but it wasn’t like either team poured it on in the fourth quarter. Notre Dame and Stanford scored one touchdown each; in both instances, Pitt’s defense gave up one big play - a 35-yard pass at ND, a 49-yard pass in the Sun Bowl, followed by a fluky fumble - and committed a bad pass interference penalty.

But it was the offense that did the Panthers in. Of course, the unit had struggled all game: going into the fourth quarter with 14 points or less isn’t exactly controlling things, but there was no final-frame magic to be found. The Panthers gained just 66 yards in the fourth quarter of the Notre Dame game and only 53 in the Sun Bowl. They also had two missed field goals, which is not unimportant, but the offensive failures ultimately did them in.

Some offense, just a little more than Pitt got, could have been the difference in a pair of games that were decided by a combined total of six points.

We all know that, of course. We know that’s what led to the dismissal of Shawn Watson as offensive coordinator, too. Get a little more from the offense in those games, and Pitt’s got a 9-5 record instead of 7-7. Plus, the Panthers would have a really strong road win over a top-five team on their resume.

The ones that got away
Taking that last topic a step farther got me thinking about some of the games from the last four seasons that Pitt would probably most like to have back. Those two I just mentioned are on the list, for sure, and I would add last year’s game at North Carolina, as well.

I know it’s tough to narrow down the losses to UNC since there are so many to choose from, but that one is really, really bad. The worst of the bunch. Worse than 2015, when Shakir Soto grabbed enough of Marquise Williams’ facemask to earn a penalty but not enough to actually pull Williams down, allowing the big UNC quarterback to heave a 71-yard touchdown pass to - who else? - Ryan Switzer.

It was worse than 2016, which we already talked about. And it was worse than 2017, an ugly affair at home that started with UNC returning a kickoff for a touchdown and only went downhill after that.

No, 2018 was the worst of them all because the 2018 UNC team was the worst of them all, a terrible team that went 2-9. Of all years, last year should have been the time Pitt finally beat Carolina. And yet…

On top of the bigger picture, there’s the matter of the Panthers’ season record. Beat North Carolina, which any respectable team would have done, and Pitt would have bumped the season record to 8-6. Throw in those other two games I mentioned when the Panthers just needed a little bit of fourth-quarter offense, and now you’re looking at a 10-win season.

That’s how close Pitt was to double-digit wins last year: a little fourth-quarter offense and a respectable performance against a terrible two-win team.

Those games against Notre Dame and Stanford do belong in this category of games that Pitt would like to have back. Like I said earlier, a win over the Irish would have been huge as a road victory against a top-five team. And beating Stanford - a game that was maybe the most winnable of any loss Pitt suffered last season - would have done wonders for the mood of the fan base entering the offseason.

All three of those games - North Carolina, Notre Dame and Stanford - could have and should have gone Pitt’s way, which would have given 2018 a whole different look. What’s crazy is, they all probably go down as being among the top five games that Pitt would like to have back in the Narduzzi era and they all came in one season.

If I was filling out the rest of that particular top five, I would look back a bit. I would definitely go back to Blacksburg in 2017 and give the Panthers another shot - or four - at punching it in from the 1 (or give Jester Weah another go at getting into the end zone in the first place). Win that game and the 5-7 season turns into 6-6 and a bowl game. It wouldn’t be a good bowl game, but it would be a bowl game and potentially a winning record. Given how close that game was, I’d say that’s probably one of the ones Narduzzi would like to have back.

And for the fifth game in this group, I’d go all the way back to 2015. Week Three, to be precise, when Narduzzi took the Panthers west to Iowa. That game was a long time ago, but do you remember how that went down? Pitt was down 24-17 when Nathan Peterman led the team on a 75-yard drive to tie the score with less than a minute on the clock.

In the final 50 seconds or so of the fourth quarter, Iowa was only able to drive 31 yards, but somehow the Hawkeyes’ kicker got every bit of the ball with a booming 57-yard field goal to win it in regulation. That could have been a huge win for the Panthers: get that one and they’re 3-0 with a pretty clear path to 7-0 (they won four in a row after the Iowa game).

Get to 7-0 with their schedule to that point, and Pitt would have been in the top 20 and probably even the top 15. They probably still wouldn’t have beaten North Carolina at home on Thursday night or Notre Dame at home the next week and would have dropped in the rankings, but even if everything else played out the way it did, they would have won nine regular-season games and possibly missed out on playing a road game against Navy in the Military Bowl.

TWO QUESTIONS WE HAVE

What have been the best wins?
Okay, enough of the negatives, but let’s stick with the trip down memory lane.

We talked about the games that got away; what about on the other side? What are the best wins of the Pat Narduzzi era at Pitt?

No. 1 is pretty obvious, right? Do we really need to spend much time detailing why the Clemson game in 2016 was such a huge one? I doubt it, so I won’t.

But yeah, it was big. The biggest win of Narduzzi’s tenure and one of the biggest wins in school history. That pretty much says it all. So let’s talk about four others that qualify.

There was the Miami game in 2017, of course. Another No. 2 team in the country with a perfect record suffering its first loss of the season at the hands of the Panthers. And the context of the whole thing as a home finale for a 4-7 team that was reeling from a pretty rough season just makes it even bigger. That win was the boost Pitt needed, the right note to end things on, and it created a lot of optimism for Kenny Pickett and what he might be able to do for the Panthers over the course of his career.

While Miami’s goodness has come into question - the Hurricanes are 7-8 since that game - there’s no denying that Pitt’s win to close the 2017 season was strong and one of Narduzzi’s best.

I think another of Narduzzi’s best wins have come in the most recent season. I would start with the Syracuse game. The Orange weren’t ranked when they came to Heinz Field on Oct. 6, but they were 4-1 and fresh off a near-miss at Clemson the week before. Syracuse lost to the Tigers 27-23, but a lot of people in college football - or at least around the ACC - were proclaiming a lot of things about the Orange.

Pitt, on the other hand, was reeling. The Panthers went into the Syracuse game on a two-game losing streak, having gotten blown out by UCF the previous week and lost at North Carolina the week before. Add in the Penn State loss a month earlier, and you had a team that was 2-3 and not looking very good facing a team that was quickly becoming everyone’s darling with an explosive offense.

It didn’t seem to be a good matchup for Pitt on a lot of levels. But the Panthers made plays on both sides of the ball to push the game into overtime and then came up another big play to clinch it. Say what you will about Syracuse’s schedule, but a 10-win season in a Power Five conference is a 10-win season in a Power Five conference, and the Orange finished the year ranked No. 15 in the Associated Press and coaches polls. That counts as a good win.

I would also point to the win at Virginia as one of the good ones. The Cavaliers were ranked No. 23 when Pitt came to town, marking their first appearance in the AP poll in nearly seven years. It was a Friday night in Charlottesville, and despite the rain, the crowd was lively for the prime time national TV audience. Pitt had a little momentum; the Panthers followed the Syracuse win with a near-miss at Notre Dame before outlasting Duke in a shootout at Heinz Field.

With Virginia Tech and Wake Forest both looking like patsies, Pitt could put itself right in the hunt for the Coastal title by beating Virginia. Could the Panthers rise to the challenge?

They did, of course, knocking off a ranked team on the road. It was Narduzzi’s third win over a ranked opponent at Pitt, with two of those three wins happening away from home, and I think it stands as one of his best wins.

For the fifth choice in the rundown of Narduzzi’s best wins, I would let you pick. I can narrow it down to a four-game stretch in the first half of the 2015 season: at Virginia Tech, vs. Virginia, at Georgia Tech and at Syracuse. I would probably rule out the Virginia game since Virginia wasn’t very good. The other three, though, make for a tough call.

Virginia Tech was memorable because it happened on the road and saw the defense make multiple stands in the fourth quarter to close it out. Georgia Tech was also on the road and was won with a 56-yard field goal from Chris Blewitt. And Blewitt won it again the next week in the Carrier Dome with a late field goal to beat Syracuse.

I probably lean toward Syracuse out of those three, mostly because of Narduzzi announcing his intentions with the program by running that fake punt, but all three games served as some kind of notice that things were going to be different. Winning each of those three games in the fourth quarter (even the Virginia game had some late heroics to seal the win) seemed very foreign to Pitt; it just wasn’t what the Panthers did, even against four-win teams like Virginia and Syracuse.

Except with Narduzzi on the sidelines, Pitt did it. Those were important games, and I think one of them deserves a mention.

I would also say the Wake Forest game this past season gets an honorable mention; everyone reading this knows a Pitt fan who went into that game saying, “Well, here comes the same old Pitt - they have a chance to really win something but they’ll blow it.” And we all know that didn’t happen, so that game’s notable.

Oh, there was also that second game of the 2016 season. I guess that one probably gets a nod, seeing as how it was a win over a Power Five nonconference opponent and all, right?

Is Pitt's success in the WPIAL going to trend up?
It gets talked about every year:

Can Pitt keep the local talent at home?

Numbers are cyclical, of course, but here's what they look like. After signing seven WPIAL and City League recruits in the class of 2016, Pitt signed four in 2017, five in 2018 and just one in the most recent class (Aliquippa receiver Will Gipson).

That's a drop in the 2019 class, obviously, but that number doesn't tell the whole story. Pitt only offered eight WPIAL and City League prospects in the class of 2019, and by the end of the cycle, not all eight of those were committable offers (it was probably more like five or six, tops).

Still, only getting one local prospect isn't good, no matter how well you fill in the class with recruits from Florida. So that annual question about keeping the local talent at home seems to be more pressing this year, even if the numbers aren't that much greater overall.

So far, Pitt has offered six recruits from the WPIAL and City League: Norwin quarterback Jack Salopek, Woodland Hills tight end Josh Rawlings, Mars offensive lineman Michael Carmody, Central Catholic defensive lineman AJ Beatty, Westinghouse defensive lineman Dayon Hayes and Aliquippa linebacker Zuriah Fisher.

As it stands at the end of April, I think Pitt is in better shape with that group right now than it was with the 2019 WPIAL class at this point last year. Last spring, I looked at the WPIAL targets and didn't see many who seemed to be leaning toward Pitt; in fact, the one WPIAL target the Panthers landed wouldn't even get an offer for another seven months.

This year, I see a different picture. Pitt's in good shape with Salopek (pending offensive coordinator Mark Whipple's in-person evaluation on Thursday), Rawlings, Hayes and Fisher. Beatty and Carmody seem like they'll be tougher, but Beatty was very positive about Pitt when he got his offer and Carmody has made multiple visits with the Panthers since January.

And looking ahead, Pitt has four offers out in the WPIAL for the 2021 class and already looks to be in strong shape with at least three of those sophomore prospects.

I think the days of Pitt "locking down the WPIAL" are long gone, and barring some sustained high-level success, I don't know if a hit rate above 75% is realistic (unless the coaches adjust their idea of what level of player merits an offer). So the in-roads the staff has made in Florida are still wise and will continue to provide a bunch of players in every recruiting class going forward. Ideally, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Maryland, Virginia and New Jersey will contribute to the cause as well, taking further pressure off the local and in-state recruiting.

But if Pitt can get half of those six currently-offered WPIAL and City League targets, that would be a positive step - and a sign that maybe the Panthers' reputation locally is improving.

JUST ONE MORE THING

A few more actually…

- The 2019 NFL Draft started last night, and it wasn’t a surprise that Pitt didn’t have any players selected in the first round. There weren’t any expectations of a first-round pick; Qadree Ollison and Darrin Hall, the Panthers’ top draft prospects in this year’s class, will probably hear their names called over the weekend.

- Pitt has now gone five consecutive drafts without having a first-round selection, dating back to 2014 when Aaron Donald went to the Rams at No. 13 overall. The Panthers have had 25 players taken in the first round all-time, dating back to Mike Ditka going at No. 5 in the 1961 Draft. The hottest streak, of course, was the early 1980’s, when Pitt had six players taken in the first rounds of the 1981 and 1983 Drafts. If you include 1984 and 1985, the number grows to nine - nine first-round picks in five years.

- Those Drafts from 1981-85 were just ridiculous overall. 12 Pitt players were drafted in 1981. Three went in 1982. Nine in 1983. Six in 1984. And five in 1985. That’s 35 players over five Drafts. Granted, there were more rounds in the Draft back then, but even if you just take the players who were selected in the top seven rounds, there were still 26 total picks from Pitt in those five years (including the nine first-round picks). What a collection of talent.

- Fast-forward a decade and things thinned out a bit. After a strong start to the 1990’s - 17 players taken in the 1990-92 Drafts - Pitt players didn’t hear their names called much. Alex Van Pelt was the only Panther to get drafted in 1993 and none were taken in 1994. There were six Pitt players selected in 1995 and 1996, including Ruben Brown, who went at No. 14 overall in 1995, but then things really fell off a cliff.

There were no Pitt players drafted in 1997, 1998 or 1999, and 2000 (Hank Poteat) and 2001 (Kevan Barlow) only saw on Panther drafted in each year. From 35 picks in five years to two picks in five years - that’s how things declined for Pitt’s pro prospects in a 20-year period from 1981 to 2001.

- There was an uptick in the early 2000’s, as Walt Harris’ middle-years recruiting produced some NFL talent and Dave Wannstedt picked it up from there. Pitt produced first-round picks in 2004 (Larry Fitzgerald), 2007 (Darrelle Revis), 2008 (Jeff Otah) and 2011 (Jonathan Baldwin) and 11 total selections from 2009-11. Then came a drought. In the turmoil of coaching changes and player departures and poor evaluation/development, the Panthers got shut out in 2012 and 2013 - the first time since 1999 that they didn’t have a single player selected in a Draft.

- The drought ended, of course, with Aaron Donald going in the first round of the 2014 Draft, and Pitt has had at least one player taken every year since then. That’s a total of 14 players over five years - not quite the early 1980’s (or even 2007-11, which had 17 players selected) - but still a decent output and reflective of some stability in the program under Paul Chryst and Pat Narduzzi.

- What does the future hold? Ollison and Hall should both hear their names called this weekend, but what about next year? Pitt’s 2019 roster is projected to have 13 seniors, 19 juniors and 16 redshirt sophomores (who would be draft-eligible after the season). Of the seniors, there are some intriguing options, like Maurice Ffrench, Dane Jackson and Damar Hamlin; I wouldn’t be surprised if those guys get picked.

In the junior class, I’m not sure if anyone jumps out as being likely to go for the Draft. At least, nobody jumps out right now: a big 2019 season from someone like Rashad Weaver or Jason Pinnock or Taysir Mack could change some minds, but I’m not sure if anyone else is really on the cusp like those three. And I don’t see anybody among the redshirt sophomores who would be one to watch, largely because not many of them have done anything yet.

So there are some decent prospects for Pitt to have a couple players drafted over each of the new few years. I think a guy like Weaver or Pinnock could work their way up to first-round candidacy with two really good seasons. Those seasons would obviously have to be truly exceptional, but I think they have the physical makeup and potential to get there.