[Goose]

IIRC, Wilson had to break a jersey tackle on his way back to the LOS, so does that mean that Pitt's defense had him accounted for?  If so, then that means the playcall was bad but that Wilson was good enough to make a play and salvage the situation.

No, it doesn't mean Pitt's defense had him accounted for. They did not have contain on the right side of the field, and that is why he easily got the first down. End-around plays like that one require the end to run deep behind the QB. Linemen that get penetration may have a shot at making a play, but since they aren't expecting the end-around (you hope) they probably are too shallow, aiming at the QB. The runner has to outrun them if they get close. The linemen that are so far up the field are completely out of the play if you do get around them. It worked out that way.
No offensive play is immune to excellent defensive execution. The defense may be fooled and out of position, yet one guy can blow up the play by superior play and/or effort. Sometimes the defensive player is in the wrong place schematically, which turns into the right place against the offensive play that is actually run. Football plays are often looked at as chess moves. In some ways, the analogy is good, but in chess, the rooks can never move diagonally. In football, they usually don't but sometimes do.

I felt that was the case many times during the game -- terrible playcalling salvaged by player athleticism and skill.

You could be correct that the playcall was terrible. OTOH, all plays require player athleticism and skill. If they didn't, I would be a great football player. Call whatever plays you want and a team that has less athleticism and "skill" is going to lose 95% of the time. Plays that allow your players to use their athleticism and skill to best advantage is what we want to see called. Sounds like that is what you are describing.

[Goose]

IIRC, Wilson had to break a jersey tackle on his way back to the LOS, so does that mean that Pitt's defense had him accounted for?  If so, then that means the playcall was bad but that Wilson was good enough to make a play and salvage the situation.

No, it doesn't mean Pitt's defense had him accounted for. They did not have contain on the right side of the field, and that is why he easily got the first down. End-around plays like that one require the end to run deep behind the QB. Linemen that get penetration may have a shot at making a play, but since they aren't expecting the end-around (you hope) they probably are too shallow, aiming at the QB. The runner has to outrun them if they get close. The linemen that are so far up the field are completely out of the play if you do get around them. It worked out that way.
No offensive play is immune to excellent defensive execution. The defense may be fooled and out of position, yet one guy can blow up the play by superior play and/or effort. Sometimes the defensive player is in the wrong place schematically, which turns into the right place against the offensive play that is actually run. Football plays are often looked at as chess moves. In some ways, the analogy is good, but in chess, the rooks can never move diagonally. In football, they usually don't but sometimes do.

I felt that was the case many times during the game -- terrible playcalling salvaged by player athleticism and skill.

You could be correct that the playcall was terrible. OTOH, all plays require player athleticism and skill. If they didn't, I would be a great football player. Call whatever plays you want and a team that has less athleticism and "skill" is going to lose 95% of the time. Plays that allow your players to use their athleticism and skill to best advantage is what we want to see called. Sounds like that is what you are describing.