We have a lot of time between now and Pitt's next game to dissect and analyze the Panthers, so let's take a quick review of the Buffalo game:

The good: The offense played a little better, particularly in the second half. I thought LeSean McCoy ran with more of a sense of urgency and the receivers played much better than they had the previous week. Bill Stull also made some better throws. On defense, Elijah Fields was an upgrade at safety and I think the secondary was pretty solid once he was in there (the one bust on the touchdown, by the way, was a blown coverage by Eric Thatcher, not Fields). Also Conor Lee got back on track and punter Dave Brytus got back on track a little bit. Also, the play-calling for the most part was more creative, mixed it up well and kept Buffalo guessing a little bit more than the week before.

The bad: The defensive line got manhandled by Buffalo (which begs the question: What will happen when Iowa's line gets hold of them?) for the first three quarters. The outside linebackers (and this is not a shock given what has happened with injuries) looked absolutely lost at times. Getting off the field on third down was also troublesome. And on offense, the deep throw attempts were laughable -- they had no chance of working.

The ugly: With about three minutes left, the Panthers had the ball second-and-3 at the Bulls' 24 and they held a 24-16 lead, meaning a field goal for the most part ices the game and trying to run as much time off the clock is priority number one. But on second and three, they threw a sideways pass to the fullback and and on third and three they tried the same thing to their blocking tight end -- even though they never seem to connect on those passes -- and both passes were incomplete thus stopping the clock for Buffalo (and not forcing Buffalo to use timeouts to do it). The play selection also left the ball on the hash mark, whereas running it twice would have put it in the middle of the field (and may have even gotten a first down given how McCoy was running at that point). Lee made the field goal and Pitt held on to win, but these are the kinds of things, game managemant details, that can be the difference between winning and losing.

OK, let's get started ...

Q: What is the coaching staff's aversion to playing the younger talent (ie. Ransom over all the other lb'ers)? There seem to be several options I have considered, a) loyalty to upperclassman, b) young players are not smart enough to learn their assignments, c) players were overrated as recruits or d) coaches don't seem to be able to coach up their younger players. How do other schools across the country seem to be able to untilize freshmen in multiple roles but Nix can only play limited minutes and Baldwin is only able to run a fly pattern once or twice a game?

Erik Mabus, Dover, Del.

ZEISE: I think this is really rather simple and we've been through it before -- everything we know about Dave Wannstedt's football philosophy can be summed up in a few words "always err on the side of caution." That is just how he is built and what he believes in. It is why his teams are always so seemingly conservative, it is why he punts twice from inside the 35 against Bowling Green and plays for field goals and field position -- that's just what he believes in. And the extension of that is when it comes to personnel -- he favors experience because theoretically experienced guys make fewer mistakes. But that's an NFL thing too, as you don't, in the college, have the luxury of reloading with experienced guys since you only have them for four years (or five). I do think it is puzzling what is going on with both Baldwin and Lucas Nix but by the same token, it isn't anything that is new or that we haven't come to expect. It is just one of those things -- if you look at the coach's football philosophy, it is easy to understand why he's hesitant to green light freshmen playing time.

Q: It seemed like Buffalo took advantage of Pitt's inexperience at both OLB spots in the passing game. Do you see any changes to cover up this weakness, and will Shane Murray be back for Iowa?

Mark Schilajew, Huntingdon

ZEISE: Shane Murray was expected to be back for Iowa originally so hopefully he is still on track for that. If he is, that solves one issue as he is a very smart football player, understands his position and is usually always where he is supposed to be. As for the other side --- unfortunately Greg Williams is just going to have to learn by fire. There is no real easy way to shield or protect an outside linebacker, except, a guy with his skill set should probably be rushing the passer a whole lot more than he is. He'll learn, he'll get better as he plays more. But you are right, Buffalo did do a good job of taking advantage of the inexperience at this position. But Pitt made enough plays to win the game and now the Panthers have two weeks to try and get these linebackers prepared for Iowa.

Q: I was at the game on Saturday and was disappointed in the lack of pass rush and overall lack of penetration by the defensive line. Was the Buffalo OL considered to be good or did this group not play well?

Steve Conner, Monroeville

ZEISE: Yes, I agree -- particularly in the first three quarters -- the defensive line didn't do much to disrupt the Bulls. I thought in the fourth quarter the defensive line came alive and broke through a little bit, but it sure did take a long time for them to get started. Some of that was a simple as Mick Williams (ankle) not playing --- I know he played a few snaps but he didn't start and was clearly not 100 percent and didn't play much -- but some of it was the Buffalo line doing a great job of keeping the Panthers defensive line at bay. Hopefully for Pitt's sake it is not a trend, but like the outside linebackers, I think Jabaal Sheard and Greg Romeus will continue to improve as they settle into their positions so the defensive line should be OK for the long haul. Also, Gus Mustakas got back into the mix a little bit and made a few plays, so I think it will come together.