Dude. Come on man. I don't care about organizational dynamics. I totally see what you are getting at but to me this is a systemic problem that permeates the coaching culture (even if that means subliminal finger pointing). At best he is offering a generic statement that easily can be misconstrued (which I think is your point), but at worst it sheds a very unflattering light on the collective mindset of the coaching staff. They seem lost, even to the casual fan, they seem stumped to figure out an identity.
That is coaching. That's not fans overreacting. It's a coaching problem.
I get where you're coming from as well, but I think he'd be opening himself and his compatriots to some negative outcomes if he'd been brutally honest in a public interview. I've got some background below to explain my reasoning a bit more tactfully than I had originally.
Olson's an old pro who has a varied career with several stops as offensive coordinator in the league. He's been successful in spurts. Runs a healthy amount of PA, ton of experience. He's worked with Waldron before - in fact, he held the same job as Waldron. He was the Rams QB coach in 2017, Waldron was in 2019. Waldron was the pass game coordinator in 2019, as well. (In 2020, he got the QB coach designation removed... which, uh... kinda sounds like a demotion. I didn't know that until now when I was referencing their coaching histories.)
They've got similar offensive ideas, though. Both love 11 personnel at their core, both thrived under McVay and McVay kept keeping them around (Olson only left the staff for a stint as the Raiders OC), etc.
The reason I bring up this previous working relationship is that I think it's fair to assume that Olson came here because he has a decently synergistic rapport with Waldron. He would've assisted elsewhere if not. To me, that allows us to read into the comments as a tacit admission that he
knows there are identity issues with the offense. I'm sure Waldron knows this too. To be any more forceful with that admission wouldn't just cause reputational damage to Waldron, it'd implicate every other assistant on the staff, whether above or below Olson. If my team at work had run into performance issues and I'd been put in a position to have to make a statement to an outside source (which wouldn't happen, but let's hypothesize) I wouldn't criticize my company and state my personal issues and fixes for systemic problems - I'd acknowledge what we're focused on solving as a unit to show intent and handle it internally from there.
Criticisms,
as well as his personal solutions as an experienced OC currently serving as a lower assistant, should be kept in-house - this is a basic tenet to protect the organization's reputation. The right move for him is just to acknowledge what they want to fix as a collective unit. The nitty gritty can be hashed out in meetings, where it'll actually contribute to change. Sure, he could make a more forceful statement about what they'd like to do to fix the issues, but can he actually speak on behalf of the entire offensive staff when providing his solutions to issues? If he can, what good does it do to provide that information to the media? It'd give the impression of a plan being present, but it could just as easily provide the impression that there's a chemistry issue on staff.
We should probably just assume that these guys, who've devoted their lives to coaching and have had enough success to reach their current stations on merit, do have an idea of what they'd like to do to fix our issues. Whether or not they have the tools, skill, or talent to fix those issues is another question. I'd lean no, but Olson DEFINITELY can't say that.
I like the approach of "we know what our issues are, and we're trying to fix them." It's the best answer a positional coach could give in this situation.