Preview! Preview! Pitt Game by Game, Part II

So we restart the game-game review of the Pitt Panthers.  They were 4-2 after 6, and (spoiler alert) they finished 6-6 which means they went 2-4 coming home.  Let's look.

Game 7:  @Navy 21, Pitt 21

Navy ended the season 7-4.  This is one I am sure Pitt would be glad to have back, given they had a lead and Navy lost to UT and WKU.  Pitt was up 21-14 with 8 minutes left in the game and then gave the Midshipmen 10 points in the last 8 minutes and lost the game on a last second field goal.  Pitt had the ball between scores with the game tied, but went 3 and out.

They did a decent job with the Navy option, holding them to 4.7 yards per rush.  The stats were pretty even, with Pitt having the game's only turnover, but I'd say they played them pretty even.  Pitt did struggle to run the ball against Navy.

Tom Savage was 20 of 23 for 202 yards and 2 TDs.

Game 8:  @Georgia Tech 21, Pitt 10

Georgia Tech finished 7-5 for the year.  They did it by putting a pretty big hurt onto the Pitt offensive unit.

Pitt's running backs had 19 yards in 14 carries.  Savage was sacked 5 times for 32 yards.  Taking sacks out, they had only 200 yards of offense to show for 42 passing attempts, which is not going to get it done, especially when you aren't running the ball.

Interestingly, playing Navy and Georgia Tech back to back is like a double play, since they both play the triple option offense.  Pitt did not have the same success with Tech's attack, as they averaged 5.2 yards a rush and decent yards when they did pass.

Even so, the game was close until the last minutes when Georgia Tech scored to ice the game.

Game 9:  @Pitt 28, Notre Dame 21

A win over Notre Dame makes anyone's season, even if this wasn't exactly the Four Horseman.  The game was tie entering the final quarter.  ND threw 2 pics in the quarter, the 2nd of which dumped out Pitt on the ND 5, and from there the Panthers engineered a scoring drive for the winning TD.

Notre Dame outgained Pitt by 101 yards for the game, but had 7.2 yards per play as compared to 4.7 for Pitt.  The Panthers were +3 for the game in turnovers, marking a significant part of the advantage.  ND also had a lot of big passing plays, but overall a low completion percentage.

Ray Vinopal had both INTs for Pitt.

Game 10:  North Carolina 34, @Pitt 27.

This one had to sting pretty bad, too.  The game was tied with about 5 minutes left and Pitt punted and UNC had a 61 yard punt return for the winning score...and it was the 2nd PR TD of the game.

They wasted a 100 yard day by James Conner (with 1 TD), and a 300+ yard game by Savage.  In addition to the poor punt coverage, Pitt hurt themselves with 7 sacks for 86 yards.  For a number of games, they appeared to have this under control, but the Tar Heels had open season on Savage.

On defense, they held UNC to 5.2 yards per play, which is average.  It would only have been 20 points allowed if they had covered punts.

Game 11:  Pittsburgh 17, @Syracuse 16

Bowl eligibility was narrowly achieved as the Panthers took a 17-16 lead and then hung on through a scoreless 4th quarter to get their 6th win.

Syracuse missed a 4th Q FG and stalled out their final drive on the Pitt 36.

Pittsburgh struggled on offense, getting no running game going.  Savage was 28 of 41, but that was for only 213 yards, and with 3 sacks deducting 25 yards, that left them with 193 yards of production on 44 pass plays, which is not very good.

Syracuse outgained Pitt by 68 yards on similar plays, but were unable to convert that into 2 more points.  Oh, and an early blocked XP made a difference.

Game 12: Miami 41, @Pitt 31

This one was probably not as close as it appears.  The U led 31-10 at halftime and Pitt never got the score within 10 points in the 2nd half.

By the end, Pitt had actually outgained Miami, but 2 turnovers to none for the Hurricanes helped to negate that advantage.

They had a big day on the ground, with Bennett gaining 141 yards on 21 carries.  Savage was 24 of 43 for 281, with only 1 sack and 1 INT.

Their early start was caused, according to their coach, a fumble on a kickoff, a blown coverage on defense and some untimely penalties, though they finished with only 4 for the game.

----

They have not played since November 29.

That's the story.  A couple games they could have won, a couple they could have lost. They certainly appear inconsistent on offense and sack-prone, while their defense had their games in both columns as well.  We will look at the aggregate numbers late as we get closer to the game, but for now this was the narrative of the Pitt season.