I definitely believe you, but my concern isn't whether it's different, it's whether it's effective. Mick has changed the offense numerous times to try to match personnel but I think very few can say that they worked.
Seriously? I think the offensive struggles under Mick is a pretty legitimate concern. Mick has shown he can change his offense, but implies that it's been effective, which is pretty hard to argue that his offense has been effective.
I think it's a bit mature to say that this team has the size and skill that no other team before under Mick has had. Yancy was pretty damn big and pretty damn skillful for a big and the offense wasn't great with him either. Then when he left everyone said it would open up the lanes, but guess what, the offense wasn't great after that either. I'm hopefully on the young guys but they are unproven, just as Jermaine Lawrence was unproven. Personally I think the 4 and 5 spots are going to be their biggest weakness this year so I don't see how it's going to help the offense.
My point isn't to knock Mick. I love him, but I don't love the way his offense has performed and think it's a legitimate concern for this year as well considering one of UC's best scorers in history is gone.
Good observations LH. I agree with what you've said. I would argue that our offense "must" be way better because our losses on defense were extreme. SK, JJ, and TR were as good as it gets defensively. I don't see this squad being anywhere close to last years defensively. The difference has to come on offense. Hopefully, the gains on offense will negate what we've lost defensively and we hopefully end up with a net gain overall.