10-31-2012, 02:31 PM
It's probably most fair to say that the ability of the offensive staff to scheme and develop is undetermined. They can do a reasonably good job with really good talent,* and they have (well, I guess this is the argument, really) done about an average job with average talent. You can basically make an argument for just about anything you'd like with two data points, so we'll see. It's possible 2011 was all Andrew Luck...but then it's possible it wasn't. I don't know, and more importantly, you don't either.
* Let's not forget here that while the team was really talented, there were more challenges than the romantic version would have you believe: the offensive line evolved from a weak spot (remember how many times Luck got hit against Duke?) to, yet again, a strong spot. And the 3 TE thing was one of those necessity-is-the-mother-of-invention type deals for a pretty weak pair of wideouts. So I give credit to the coaching staff for doing a pretty good job there.
I do think coaching critics of the offensive staff tend to underestimate how much talent we lost (because they only talk about Andrew Luck) and overestimate how much game-ready talent we have. Though, again, it's not as if the staff has done a fantastic job.
* Let's not forget here that while the team was really talented, there were more challenges than the romantic version would have you believe: the offensive line evolved from a weak spot (remember how many times Luck got hit against Duke?) to, yet again, a strong spot. And the 3 TE thing was one of those necessity-is-the-mother-of-invention type deals for a pretty weak pair of wideouts. So I give credit to the coaching staff for doing a pretty good job there.
I do think coaching critics of the offensive staff tend to underestimate how much talent we lost (because they only talk about Andrew Luck) and overestimate how much game-ready talent we have. Though, again, it's not as if the staff has done a fantastic job.
