If you want to use the justifications he uses in the article for why we're not yet at the point under Richt of beating Clemson, Bama, or even LSU, I may be able to get on board a bit, given where we were when Golden was fired (though I still think that getting blown out by Clemson like we did last year and by LSU this year shouldn't happen). To me, where this argument falls apart is the fact that our offense is clearly struggling against teams that do not have nearly as many talented players, whether it's UNC or Pitt last year, or having trouble establishing the run early on against Savannah State or our complete inability to move the ball against UVA or BC.
Whether you base if off of recruiting rankings, or the eye test, or the would they trade their roster/certain players with us test, there is simply no justification for our poor offensive results against those teams that is based on talent of our players. You can't point to recruiting rankings as to why we aren't good enough to beat Clemson or LSU, and then ignore them when we say that a lack of talent is the reason we struggle with Pitt, BC or UVA.
In his third year at Miami, and his 18th year as a head coach, Richt has to be able to find ways, through scheme, play calls, rotations, etc., to get his best players ready to play, get them on the field, and put them in the best position to win. He knew Rosier's limitations, the OL's limitations, the other player's limitations, coming into this season. He also knew the strengths of his players coming into the season. Can anyone say that we're doing things on offense specifically to minimize our weaknesses and emphasize our strengths? Against teams with less talent, we shouldn't be counting on all 11 guys to execute perfectly on every play to have a chance to score.
