OK, let me clarify my opening comments from yesterday's Q&A since I seem to have set off a firestorm by people claiming I am taking it easy on Pitt ...

1.) I did not say or even hint that Pitt WILL turn this thing around or that Pitt WILL get this together -- I simply said that looking at the schedule the Panthers play, which is not very tough, and the talent they have on their roster, Pitt CAN turn it around and do so rather quickly, so try not to panic until at least a few more games are played. Obviously, they need to play better and they also need to be put in better situations in order to win -- but it is not impossible.

2.) The teams that I listed which turned things around were simply examples of teams that came out of the gate slow with a bad loss but went on to have great seasons. Never did I say Pitt WOULD do the same thing, I simply said it is not unprecedented.

3.) I've been called everything from a Wannstedt apologist and homer to "the great defender of Pitt coaches." I suppose people failed to read the part where I wrote that it was clear that Bowling Green's coaching staff outcoached Pitt's or the three different stories I have written about how obscenely conservative the Panthers offensive game plan has been. I am not a columnist like Ron Cook, so I don't offer straight opinions like "fire the coaches," but I do try to offer fair and reasonable --and unemotional -- analysis. That's what we do here.

4.) By every objective measure it is clear this offensive coaching staff and philosophy are stuck so far in the prehistoric era of football that Fred Flinstone probably ran some of these plays when he was a quarterback at Bedrock High School but by the same token, did anyone catch Alabama, using the same playbook, mauling Clemson the other night? That tells me if you get the right offensive linemen (which Pitt doesn't have) and running backs (which Pitt might have) and you can physically impose your will on teams (which Pitt can't) that playing this power-I -- or whatever you want to call it -- style of football can be effective.

The problem Pitt has, however, is this: The coaches want the Panthers to be a power team, but they don't have the personnel and, to this point, the coaches have not made much of an attempt to change the philosophy to adapt to the personnel. Few teams in college have the kind of powerful and talented linemen to line up and consistently blow other teams off the ball. There just aren't that many top linemen around. In year one and two -- when you are trying to establish a new program, that is acceptable. In year four -- when you need to win games -- it is probably time to do something different. But again, while it is fashionable to fire coaches after every loss, there is some accountability that has to go to the players who turned it over four times, who dropped countless passes, who missed blocks. Any offense, no matter how it is designed, will fail if it is not executed properly.

Q: I've read and heard that Greg Cross has had an inconsistent camp. I am presuming that is the reason he wasn't on the field for the Wildcat offense against Bowling Green. Please correct me if I'm wrong?

Chris Sing, Uniontown

ZEISE: I don't recall ever reading or writing that Cross was inconsistent. I did say he wasn't terribly accurate throwing the ball but that isn't any revelation as Pitt coaches knew that when they recruited him. But he was very consistent in camp -- when he was in the scrimmages and ran the ball he was usually making a big play of some sort. As to why he wasn't used, I can't answer it. They had a package in for him and they were going to use him but I guess the coaches decided that the situations of the game didn't allow for him to play. I tend to disagree just because I thought the reason he was brought in was to provide that different look, that change of pace, that extra dimension and Saturday's game, once the offense stalled and got stagnate, would

have been a good time to give it a try, even if for just one series.

Q: Why did Pitt punt twice from inside their 40? We were the superior team, why do we play scared all the time?

Omar Sazst, Aliso Viejo, Calif.

ZEISE: Well, we've been through this one before. The philosophy of Dave Wannstedt is old school and still very prominent in the NFL. "You pass to score points, you run to win the game." "A punt is a good play." "You win the field position battle." "You must win the kicking game." All of it is very sound football strategy, but if you are too beholden to it you can become predictable and too conservative. Wannstedt said he didn't want to take some chances that early in the game and wanted to punt the ball down to "win the field position battle." That is just how he coaches and it is something that, even if you don't like, after three years of the same strategy it is something you just have to be resigned to accept and try to understand.

Q: Special teams quietly struggled on Saturday. Isn't the unit being coached by Dave Wannstedt this season? Is this another black mark for him?

Todd Reilly, Encinitas, Calif.

ZEISE: Yes, Dave Wannstedt is special teams coach but I don't think there were any major breakdowns or mistakes per se. Aaron Berry lost a punt in the sun -and it rolled to the 2-yard line -- that is a bad break but those things happen. Conor Lee hooked a field goal. Punter Dave Brytus was not very good. None of that had anything to do with bad coaching. Lee will make almost every field goal he tries this year. Brytus has been inconsistent since day one and needs to get better and Berry does a good job of catching punts. Sure there were a few breakdowns in blocking on a few returns, but that is typical first-game stuff. And they didn't give up a big return, either. I just think that it is a stretch to say the special teams played poorly because the units did do some good things and didn't have a big breakdown of any kind.