I agree with the OP about our disappointing D. Getting big-boyed by a bottom-feeder like Pitt is no fun to watch. Looking at the bigger picture, however, it's clear that expectations are running ahead of team talent.
Even with a few upstart freshmen playing, we have glaring deficiencies all over the field. Two of the three offensive skill positions - WR and RB - are bottom of the ACC, as are two of the three defensive positions - secondary and LB's. We have one good cover corner and our run support is inconsistent. Our secondary problems have been masked by a good DL and a potent pass-rush. But realistically, we can't expect to win consistently in the ACC with holes at multiple skill positions on both sides of the ball.
As far as this game goes, it was not on Dungey. Yes he got stripped and made a poor decision at the end. But the 37 points we scored came mostly from his playmaking, not talent at the RB or WR positions. With a big fast RB and a speedy receiver, in this scheme, we'd have scored 50+. And with one or two decent LBs, Pitt would have scored one TD. Instead, like Clemson, they just stepped on us - on multiple drives with no passing. On all but two plays during those drives (one by Armstrong and one by Trill), our LB's got blown away and our safeties either couldn't stop - or couldn't catch - their big runners. Ollison, alone, ran for almost 200 yards with an 8 yard average. You're not going to win giving up numbers like that, especially with one playmaker on offense.
Are these problems scheme (Ward) or talent? I think it's the latter. Meanwhile, as Babers re-stocks the skill positions, I will enjoy seeing Dungey compete. Probably a 6-6 season and a marginal bowl. Not only has he been fun to watch, it's amazing what he's able to accomplish with a limited running game and pretty much no one to throw to. Howard and Neal did what they could. But at the end of the day - like many other positions - they're too small and too slow to put us over the top.
