Uhh... so stupid. I said I wouldn't but they dragged me in...
UM Team Statistics (2015 season on left, 2016 season on right)
Scoring: Points/Game 27.8 34.3
Scoring: Games - Points 13 - 361 13 - 446
First Downs: Total 249 261
Rushing: Yards / Attempt 3.68 4.54
Passing: Rating 136.29 149.64
Passing: Yards 3602 3564
Total Offense: Yards / Play 5.91 6.43
Time of Possession / Game 29:55.15 27:58.77
3rd Down Conversions: 34.97% 36.26%
4th Down Conversions: 72.22% 46.15%
Red Zone Success: 81.67% 81.48%
Passing offense rank in 2016 (by yards): 27/128
Rushing offense rank in 2016 (by yards): 93/128
Overall offense rank in 2016 (by yards): 53/128
So overall, Mark Richt, in his first season calling plays in 10 years managed to improve the offense in most statistical categories. Was Mark Richt a perfect play caller (or even a great play caller) last season? No. Were there occasional head-scratching calls on offense last season? Yes. Were we mostly a middle of the pack offense last year? Yes. But is Mark Richt a "poor play caller?" The evidence from last season seems to suggest he is not.
And as an afterthought, to [MENTION=9406]hesskilla[/MENTION], not all criticism (even honest criticism) is constructive. Constructive criticism generally includes tips and suggestions for improvement. For example, "hey [MENTION=17246]Ice Cube[/MENTION], people might not think you were being an obnoxious troll if you included more support for your arguments. Maybe if you included specific examples of perceived instances of CMR's poor play calling or offensive statistics from last season to support your argument, you'd get a better response and people wouldn't think you lived under a bridge in Switzerland."
So while I agree with you that nobody is above constructive criticism, I don't think any of the above criticisms of CMR or the players addressed can be considered "constructive." And most of it can't even be fairly considered supported or well-reasoned.
Those stats do not tell the Entire Story, Smart Guy. We were coached by Phucking Al Golden in 2015. Richt was supposed to be better. Yet, the difference in 2016 was only marginal as whole. Kaaya looked like he took a step back in 2016. BK never looked comfortable...although he had good stats. Why?
1. Richt was better (than James Coley, FYI, the offensive coordinator calling the plays in 2015). That is indisputable.
2. Other than wins and losses, no stats tell the entire story, tough guy. But I came with
some factual support for my argument, instead of just my limp d1ck in my hand. Evolve or GTFO.
3. Brad never looked comfortable because, despite his intelligence and arm talent, he is an immobile statue of a QB with issues below the waste and our offensive line did a below average job of protecting him most of the year, which clearly got to Brad at times. For better or worse, he is the precise type of QB college football (and coaches like CMR) has moved away from.