The offense isn't so bad... we are rushing extremely well. The stats, 200+ rushing yards per game, do not support the claim that our runs up the middle aren't effective. It sometimes seems that way watching, and definitely was at some times, but the offense is expanding a little from games 1 and 2 and racking up the rushing yards.
We are exhausting defenses at the end of the game. The philosophy is definitely different than Taggart. Taggart would have scored 50+ probabaly all 4 games so far, instead we are scoring 40+ though we scored less than 40 against Stony Brook.
My conclusion with what I have seen so far is that this offense is designed around ball control, field position and endurance. This can work so long as the defense gets stops to win the field position battle.
Dropped passes are huge problem. But I think the offensive line play is a bigger one with respect to how this offense operates. If our line lacks depth we are going to lose the endurance battle. We have the backs to cycle them and keep them fresh against tired line backers and lineman, but if our own line doesn't hold it can cause the whole strategy to collapse.
Remember last year against Temple we had 355 yard of offense. Last night we had over 400. Last year we scored only 30 on Temple... and our defense sucked. So can we really be upset about scoring 43 - 7?
This team with the improved defense may be more complete than 2016. Stop the sloppy offensive penalties and 2017 may be a special year too.