Q: Dave Wannstedt stated that he has a young team that is a "year away" from really competing. Do you really think a team that is a "year away" would be struggling this much? The last time I checked teams that were a "year away" could win seven games and get to a bowl. See Cincinnati (2006) and Rutgers (2005).

Mark Schilajew, Huntingdon, Pa.

ZEISE: Of all the things coaches say, the one that usually makes me cringe the most is "we are a young team". That is usually code for "we aren't winning and we want you to give us more time to figure it out." Teams with young players have found ways to win games in the past, so the excuse is used too often as a reason things aren't going well. While I understand if you are young in certain areas - like the line on both sides of the ball - it is indeed tough to overcome, but there is never any excuse to lose on your home field to Navy, or get blown out by the likes of Connecticut or Virginia. This team, however, could be a year away and still struggle like it is because so many key players who will be playing next year are out right now. I mean, next year the starting defensive line could look like this - Fulmer, Romeus, Mustakas and Duhart. Two of those four aren't even playing right now. Getting Kinder back will change the receiving corps because it is clear without him this team has no go-to, No. 1, "we need a catch right now" kind of player. Oderick Turner can go back to being the deep threat and stop trying to fit into a role he's not a good fit for. And assuming Elijah Fields returns - you think that would be a big upgrade at safety, especially considering how desperately this team needs playmakers? The main question for next year's team is the offensive line, which, unless there are a few junior college tackles coming in that I haven't heard about, could be a real question. I'm not saying it is necessarily going to happen for Pitt next year, but I can clearly see some areas where the team should take a big step forward just because of returning personnel.

Q: I understand that Navy's offense presents problems, but why let them dictate the play? The entire game I had to listen to Lou Holtz say "you don't defend the option, you attack it!" I understand Wannstedt prefers to get pressure from his front four rather than blitz, but make an adjustment if it doesn't work. It was torture watching that defense line up in the same formation time after time. If they try to "defend" the spread options of Cincinnati and West Virginia they will lose by 50! Safety blitz, do something please. Thoughts?

Randy Kowalczyk, Mount Laurel, N.J.

ZEISE: I couldn't agree more, but unfortunately the philosophy of this defense is to have everyone fill the right gap and everyone who isn't supposed to fill a gap "read" and then "react". There is absolutely nothing aggressive about it, nothing that says or allows the players to "go get 'em" and nothing that has shown, in five years, any ability to adjust and divert from the game plan even after it has been proven to be ineffective against a certain offense.

The other thing is, the concepts of this defense are sound and it might work in the Big Ten or the SEC, where you see a lot more conventional, pro-style offenses - assuming you have the big-time defensive linemen it requires to have a chance -- but ask yourself this -- how many teams on Pitt's schedule play a conventional pro-style offense? So far, let's, see - Virginia and for the most part Connecticut. Now, let's look forward - Cincinnati is four-wide spread, Louisville is spread, West Virginia is read-option spread, South Florida is spread. That leaves Rutgers and Syracuse, which are pro-style (Syracuse is West Coast) offenses, meaning out of Pitt's 12 opponents, eight of them run some sort of "junk/gimmick" college offense. That tells me it is time to lose this obsession with playing a pro-style defense and move to something similar to what West Virginia does, which is to say a gimmicky, aggressive defense that negates a lack of big-time defensive linemen and puts an emphasis on speed and aggression. People who say the Mountaineers defense isn't good don't watch the games close enough. They give up some big plays, especially early, but as the games go on, that defense gets stingier and stingier because it is able to adjust to what the other team is doing - and the coaches aren't afraid to attack if need be. That's just what the college game has become these days - it is a much different game than the NFL is and Pitt needs to make some adjustments to its philosophy in order to catch up with the times.