The 3-2-1 Column: The run game, TE recruiting and more

MORE HEADLINES - Pitt commits eye early enrollment | Film review: The shovel pass | Breakdown: The RB position for Pitt in 2018 | Where did Pitt's hoops targets show up in the new Rivals150? | Revisionist history: Re-ranking Pitt's 2015 recruiting class | The June recruiting push: Comparing 2018 to previous years

What are we thinking about this week? The running game, tight end recruiting, transition classes and more. It’s all in the latest 3-2-1 Column.

THREE THINGS WE KNOW

Hall is the best option
We’ve had a fair amount of discussion this week about Pitt’s running backs, and a good portion of it has centered on the matter of who, at this point in time, is the best option to be the lead back in 2018.

And given everything we know right now, the answer seems pretty obvious:

It’s Darrin Hall.

Given what we know right now and barring a major breakout performance from a freshman or redshirt freshman in training camp, Hall will be the starting running back when the season begins in September. As well he should be: he has done more in the recent past than any other back on the roster, and that puts him in the lead position for starter’s carries.

The problem with Pitt’s running backs in 2018 - this could apply to the receivers, too, although that’s a different animal - is that there aren’t any real answers. Qadree Ollison has gone two full seasons since his last 100-yard game. AJ Davis was a minor statistical blip in the 2017 box score. Todd Sibley redshirted last year. Mychale Saladhuddin just got on campus a month ago.

So while Hall’s career numbers - a little more than 33 yards per game over three seasons - are less than remarkable, he has something that the other four backs don’t: recent success.

Of course, I’m talking about his three-game breakout from last season, when he turned a record-setting performance at Duke into a stretch that saw him rush for 486 yards and eight touchdowns on 72 carries (6.8 yards per carry) over the course of three consecutive weeks.

That trio of performances was outstanding and the best three-game stretch by a Pitt running back since James Conner went off for 603 yards and 10 touchdowns in 2014 (all three of those games were losses, incidentally). But how do you balance three standout games against 28 - i.e., the rest of Hall’s career - that were decidedly not standout?

Therein lies one of the big questions facing Pitt’s offense in 2018: were those three games simply a set of outliers or were they hints of his potential finally breaking through? Hall’s performance fell off in the final two games of 2018, as he rushed for 34 yards on 25 carries against the stout defensive lines of Virginia Tech and Miami. Even still, he finished his junior season with four career 100-yard games - the same number as Ollison has and four more than the other three backs combined.

Now, maybe Salahuddin is going to be a stud; his ranking as a recruit brings high expectations, since he was a four-star prospect and the No. 5 running back in the nation. But Davis was ranked similarly (four stars, No. 14 running back) and his freshman season didn’t move the needle. So expectations should be tempered until on-field performance can be measured.

Until Salahuddin or Davis or Sibley or even Ollison can prove himself to be a better option than Hall, the senior from Youngstown will continue to be the best option. And who knows? Maybe he can make his final 12 or 13 collegiate games look like those three big games from last fall. If that happens, Pitt’s offense could have a solid foundation to build from.

Ollison has a role
2015 seems like a long time ago.

The contrast in Qadree Ollison’s performance probably isn’t the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about the passing of time from 2015 to now. But when we’re talking about Pitt’s running backs and the outlook for Ollison in 2018, his redshirt freshman season is the biggest positive to bring up.

Ollison was the ACC Offensive Rookie of the Year in 2015 after rushing for 1,121 yards and 11 touchdowns while averaging 5.3 yards per carry. Those numbers include a huge 207-yard game against Youngstown State and 100-yard games against Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Duke and Louisville, but he topped 70 yards just three times in the other eight games.

And when James Conner returned - and Pitt added the Quadree Henderson jet sweeps as an element in the running game - in 2016, Ollison’s workload fell to virtually zero. He carried the ball just 33 times on the season, recording four or fewer carries in 10 of the 13 games and not having any games with double-digit attempts.

This past season, Ollison’s touches increased, but not by much. He had double-digit carries in three games and nearly reached the century mark in each of the first two games (91 yards against Youngstown State, 96 at Penn State). But he didn’t get more than seven rush attempts until the season finale and finished with just 398 yards and five touchdowns.

That season finale was worth noting, though. He ran better than Hall that day, the coaches said, so he got 14 carries (Hall had 10). And Ollison averaged 4.4 yards per carry against Miami - which is right in line with his career numbers against FBS competition: 300 rushing attempts, 1,318 rushing yards, 4.39 yards per carry.

That’s what Ollison has more or less shown himself to be: a grinding workhorse back who will pick up yards in small chunks but probably won’t break any long runs. Even in the 2015 games when he ran for less than 100 yards, he was still averaging 4.26 yards per carry.

The coaches wanted to find someone who could turn a four-yard run into a 14-yard run more frequently; that might not be Ollison, but he’s usually good for the four-yard run, and there’s a time and place for that kind of running style. So even if Hall or one of the younger backs is the No. 1 this season, Ollison could still be valuable in four-minute drills when he can use his size and grind out yards while running down the time.

He also showed last season that he could fill in at the H-back/fullback position. With George Aston out, the coaches turned to tight end Matt Flangan to play there; when Flanagan got hurt, they went with Ollison, and he seemed to do well at that spot.

An emergence from Salahuddin or Davis or Sibley could mean a lot of sideline time for Hall, but Ollison has probably shown himself to be useful enough to stay in a rotation of snaps at tailback and fullback.

Numbers are good
While it’s not ideal to have as many questions as Pitt has at running back, the Panthers do have numbers, and that’s a good thing.

Right now, Pitt is projected to carry five scholarship running backs in 2018. That’s a healthy number, and they’re not just bodies filling spots. Three of the five backs are former four-star prospects, and the other two had some top Power Five offers.

So while the combined career production of the running backs amounts to 2,731 yards and 30 touchdowns, these players were viewed to have some talent earlier in their football careers. Two of them haven’t set foot on a field in a college game yet, and a third has just 16 career rushing attempts, so the jury is very much out on those three players. And the two seniors have a pretty solid floor, albeit with what appears to be a limited ceiling.

But with the numbers Pitt has on the roster, there are a lot of options. Hall will get the first shot; if he can’t provide the kind of explosive plays the coaches are looking for, then they’ll see if Ollison can do it. Or Davis. Or Sibley. Or Salahuddin. With the new redshirt rules, which would allow Davis or Salahuddin (or even Hall) to play in four games and preserve a potential redshirt, there’s no reason not to try all five and see who sticks.

Ultimately, a whole lot of the success the running backs experience or don’t experience will depend on how effective the offensive line is; if that group up front does its job, then life gets easier for Hall and the rest. That part remains to be seen, but either way, it’s good for the coaches to have a stable of backs to work with and choose from as the line tries to gel.

TWO QUESTIONS WE HAVE

Is Pitt finally solid at tight end?
In terms of recruiting news, this was a pretty quiet week for Pitt. The biggest news came on Wednesday, when Fort Lauderdale (Fla.) Cardinal Gibbons tight end Nikolas Ognenovic announced his commitment - to Kentucky.

Pitt was the other top option for Ognenovic, who was part of the official visit weekend that produced a total of 10 commitments. That’s a loss for Pitt because the coaching staff was still recruiting him, but for the first time in a long time, a tight end recruit turned Pitt down and the response has, with good reason, been largely indifference.

Because, as foreign as this may seem to be, Pitt actually appears to be relatively solid at tight end. For whatever reason, that position has been a recruiting black hole for Pat Narduzzi’s staff over the last four years. In the 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 classes, Narduzzi and company have signed a total of three high school tight end prospects - and they were all in the same class (2017).

The staff lost Nick Bowers to Penn State in the 2015 class, missed on everyone in 2016 and failed to replace Matt Alaimo after parting ways with him just before the early signing period last December.

In lieu of high school recruits, the coaches have loaded up on non-traditional additions at tight end over the last few years, taking a transfer (Chris Clark) and a graduate transfer (Matt Flanagan) to supplement the numbers at the position.

That was how things started for this year, too, with Will Gragg joining the roster as a grad transfer from Arkansas and Travis Koontz committing as a JUCO prospect. Then the coaches took a commitment from Jason Collier, a 6’7” 275-pound monster from West Deptford High School in New Jersey who could move to offensive tackle but is being recruited, at least for now, to play tight end.

So with Gragg (with two years to play starting right now), Koontz (three years to play two) and Collier (five years to play four) joining the trio of players from the 2017 class…I don’t know how to say this, but the tight end position might actually be kind of set for a little while.

2018: Will Gragg, Tyler Sear, Charles Reeves, Grant Carrigan
2019: Gragg, Sear, Reeves, Carrigan, Travis Koontz, Jason Collier
2020: Sear, Reeves, Carrigan, Koontz, Collier
2021: Reeves, Carrigan, Koontz, Collier

Assuming nothing changes, they’ve got at least four scholarship tight ends locked in for the next four years. Now, we know some things will change. One or more of those tight ends could move to offensive tackle; that seems likely to happen. So if you take one off the list for each of those years, that cuts the numbers down - but it’s also likely that Pitt will get a tight end recruit in the 2020 and 2021 classes, so that should balance those position moves and keep the numbers up.

Plus, the coaches will probably keep an eye out for more recruits to add to the 2019 class, which will provide further insurance against a position move.

Which was the best transition class?
Earlier this week, we did a re-ranking on the 2015 class - you can read that here - and that got me to thinking about transition classes.

You know what a transition class is: it’s when a coach gets hired and has the task of finishing a recruiting class in about a month or so. It’s a unique animal, with the new coach working to hold onto the inherited commitments while also trying to fill in whatever pieces he can find to address obvious holes on the roster. And the new coach has to do all of that in a relatively short period of time.

So Pat Narduzzi was hired in late December 2014; he had until the first week of February to convince the 12 kids who had committed to Paul Chryst to stick with Pitt, to evaluate the roster and find what holes needed to be filled and then to find guys to fill those holes. Oh, and he’s also trying to build a coaching staff and move his family and do all the other things that come with taking a new job.

As you can imagine, that can be a bit of a scramble drill. Todd Graham definitely had it worst; he had roughly two weeks to build an entire recruiting class, since just about everybody who was committed to Pitt in the 2011 class had left by the time he was hired in January 2011.

That class was thrown together in a short period of time, and the results showed it: Graham signed 21 recruits in February 2011, and five of them - Lafayette Pitts, Nicholas Grigsby, Isaac Bennett, Khaynin Mosley-Smith and Artie Rowell - finished their eligibility at Pitt.

The other 16 completely washed out, most of them leaving after just a year or two at Pitt.

11 months later, Pitt was doing the transition class again when Chryst was hired to replace Graham in December 2011. Chryst held onto 11 of the recruits who had committed to Graham, but he didn’t exactly “lose” the ones who went to other schools; he turned away a number of prospects who, for a variety of reasons, didn’t fit what he was looking for.

The result was a 16-man class, and the results weren’t too far off from Graham’s transition class: six of the 16 finished their eligibility at Pitt. That’s a better percentage (37.5%) than Graham’s 5-for-21 (23.8%) but only getting 11 “full careers” total out of two classes…that’s not good.

The book is still being written on Narduzzi’s transition class. At 15 recruits, it was smaller than Graham’s or Chryst’s first classes; so far, seven of those 15 have left the program ahead of their eligibility expiring, although that group does include two early departures for the NFL.

If we’re comparing those three transition classes, Narduzzi’s group probably gets the edge. It included Jordan Whitehead and Quadree Henderson, as well as Dane Jackson, Darrin Hall, Rafael Araujo-Lopes and Saleem Brightwell among players who have made an impact, plus Anthony McKee, Tre Tipton and Ben DiNucci.

To be fair, though, Narduzzi inherited the most solid situation out of those three new coaches. When Graham was hired, things had completely fallen apart and he had to build a recruiting class in two weeks. Chryst inherited a decent-sized class, but he had to replace a number of those players.

Chryst’s transition class did produce JP Holtz, Mike Caprara, Adam Bisnowaty and Darryl Render, as well as Ryan Lewis and Chad Voytik; that’s a pretty good, albeit small, group.

ONE PREDICTION
Pitt will rush for 2,500 yards this season

Okay, that’s kind of a random number. But the bigger point is that I think the running game will be relatively strong for Pitt in 2018.

While I have a lot of questions about the running backs individually, I think the group collectively can put up some decent numbers. I also think Kenny Pickett is going to be a factor in the running game, and with the him and the backs, plus the threat of things like shovel passes to George Aston or Tyler Sear, I think there will be opportunities for Maurice Ffrench and/or Shocky Jacques-Louis to make plays on jet sweeps.

All of it, I think, will add up to some decent rushing production. Last year, Pitt had a rushing total of 2,143 yards in 12 games. For comparison, the Panthers hit 2,926 in 2016 and set a post-1970 record of 3,243 in 2014.

So 2,500 isn’t an outrageous number. In 2017, there were 35 teams in college football who rushed for at least 2,500 yards.

I don’t know how that 2,500 will break down, but I think it’s an attainable goal and one that Pitt should shoot for. Building the offense off the run - in a variety of forms - is probably this offense’s best plan of attack. Let Pickett make plays with his feet and give him option plays that allow him to get out of the pocket and either throw on the move or tuck it and run. He’s a dangerous player who can force a defense to commit - and then take advantage of that commitment.

Pitt can’t play scared with Pickett; Shawn Watson had to use his sophomore quarterback’s weapons. If he does, it should result in a pretty good rushing total for Pickett and open things up for anyone else who carries the ball. Get the defense keying on Pickett and then use that emphasis to get the rest of the running game going.