I read an article a few months ago that talked about how cable and Bevell work very closely developing the gameplans together. Maybe Cable is better at making adjustments, but they are lacking in tape review and initial gameplanning. I am not one who blames cable for the OL. We used all of our money in other areas, so he had basically nothing to work with in aquiring new talent. There isn't really anything available anywhere near our budget in FA, and OL in the college game with the spread offense scheme has meant not much coming out of the draft. Or hands were tied in this area. Lets see what happens this off season with developing the OL and getting some guys in the system behind our starters coming up so we have them when we need them. I don't disagree with looking at metrics and athleticism and training them to be OL.
Having said that, the success in the second half of the season came more from utilizing short hot routes that go to intermediate if time allows in the pocket, with 1 or 2 longer routes as well to keep the defense spread out. The OL looked better because the ball was out in half the time for completions, and it forced defenses to defend the soft short zone and not send 5 or six in at the line. If you actually look at the line play, they made some improvement, not not as much as it appeared due to the passing strategy change.
Why guys making millions of dollars to see these things don't and a bunch of us slackjawed couch coaches do confuses me, but I could be completely wrong as well.