Izzy Abanikanda is not going to play Saturday. That's not official-official, that's me-official. And I would rather lose to Miami than win with a not-100% Izzy. This isn't that former agricultural college down the pike a few hours, this is the University of Pittsburgh and we don't play like that. Head coach Pat Narduzzi said whether Abanikanda--or any other player--plays or not is 100% up to the team medical staff and the coaching personnel have zero input. That is how it should be.

My frustration with Abanikanda not playing therefore has nothing whatsoever to do with the player or the medical staff. It does have to do with the offense and the offensive play calling.

The two skill positions most vulnerable to injury are quarterback and receiver. Football fans and analysts will agree that the one play with the highest risk of devastating injury is the receiver over the middle. The QB gets hit on the majority of offensive plays, far more often than any receiver does, and any running back. Both receiver and QB frequently do not have the defense even of anticipation--on throw-hit and catch-hit plays they are looking away from the tackler at the ball. The QB is stationary and is not uncommonly blindsided. The running back always has the defense of anticipation. He gets hit on every play he carries the ball but he can see the hit coming and lower his shoulders. Not so the receiver over the middle. He often has a tenth of a second after catch until collision. He can't prepare himself. What makes the receiver over the middle play call so dangerous is equal and opposite physics. The QB is a statue at his most vulnerable. The receiver however is almost always going with momentum directly into the path of the tackler, with opposite momentum. Izzy Abanikanda was "dropped," was "blasted", on two slant routes coming out of the backfield.

The running back out of the backfield was institutionalized in tackle football by the West Coast Offense which about obsoleted the running back position. The West Coast is a move toward positionless football: quarterbacks who run, running backs who receive, it's more and more androgynous. In short yardage situations the West Coast calls for little dink passes to receivers, sometimes playing the receiver position, sometimes running backs used as receivers. Abanikanda ran the ball 78 times this season; he was a receiver 13 times. He was used as a ball carrier exactly six times more frequently than as a receiver. I take it on faith that that is a normal ratio for whatever scheme Mark Whipple operates but it's too small a ratio. Why do you have receivers? How many times was Tony Dorsett used as a receiver?

This is my problem. Izzy Abanikanda is a special back, he is only a redshirt freshman, he has three years left at Pitt. 78 rushes in seven games is far from overuse of a running back. But when you have a special talent, when that special talent gets hit 78 times (and with Izzy many more than that because he's so elusive) why are you sending him out of the backfield on little dinky slants over the middle where he is guaranteed to get "dropped" and "blasted"?  How about a pass to him in the backfield where his momentum is taking him horizontal to the vertical tackle? Why send him into congested defenses where his momentum and the tackler's are going to be equal and opposite? Why, especially, do that at the end of the third quarter when he had already been "dropped" on a similar play and by the same tackler at the end of the second quarter? Or pass the ball to your damn receivers! You got a "free and angry" one in Melquise Stovall tailor made for West Coast dinks. Does Melquise run the ball too? No, of course not, he's a receiver. Exactly! Then don't send Izzy on slant over the middle to get "blasted."