So you agree it was eventually proven to be an infusion of talent. So then how can you credit the “coaching scheme change” for the improvement instead of crediting the improvement to the “eventually proven talent upgrade” that became obvious at the end of the year? That’s what the whole original discussion was about, that it was ultimately predominantly that added talent (whether expected or unexpected) that led to the improvement in record in hindsight rather than the coaching.
And even if you completely take the unexpected out of the discussion, just adding an MVP level talent like Faulk, in and of itself I would consider a significant talent upgrade. If we add davante adams or prime Adrian Peterson to the bears this year, I think most people around the league would say we’ve upgraded our offense significantly no matter how good the other unknowns on our offense are.
See my post above in creating a hypothetical situation that is similar to those “unexpected talents” that were the rams. I agree with TL1961 here.
Let’s agree to disagree on the rams example, but I think each side has dug in and not going to budge at this point, and we’re really just arguing semantics at this point.