So we were going to jump from rankings in the 90s to rankings in the 50s? I doubt it. And the caveat of improved play calling makes it more unlikely. That’s not something that develops over night.
Looking at the whole isn't really useful at this point though. Right now our focus can't be teams like UGA or ND or Clemson if they return to their top form. Eventually sure, but right now those are Ls and have been for a while, predating Collins. You can go back and look at the offensive performances under Johnson his last several years and while some look better, most of the better looking ones are propped up on defensive/ST scores or short fields and late scores. The offense wasn't really a threat to those types of teams. Better than what we have now sure. Better in a meaningful way? Not really.
The important thing at the moment is performance against the middle of the pack teams. That is how we're going to get back to a bowl game. This year we scored 30 or more against 5 of our ACC opponents and 21 against a 6th. One of the two we didn't was against Clemson with a back up QB. Now there were some non offensive factors for sure, and we still need to improve, but IMO there was enough shown against that group to believe keeping continuity with Patanaude might outweigh the benefit of rolling the dice on an OC if we improved the defensive side. If we don't improve the defensive side, I don't think a new OC is really going to make that much of a difference.
IMO offensively, the playcalling was unremarkable but also hindered by inconsistent OL play, inexperienced, relatively, QBs issues going through progressions and reading the defense, and an unremarkable WR group. I think if we could have made a significant step forward, again with focus being on the middle of the pack teams, next year. I think a homerun OC hire could also further that effect for sure, but I also worry that just a marginal upgrade might not be worth the lack of consistency for this next year.
