“Play calling”, sorry but trying to assign either coach credit for successful play calling without consideration to the QB’s talent and execution is missing the point.
The comparison of the skill sets between O’Connell and Cunningham are vastly different from one another. O’Connell threw the ball 47 times last night and ran for minus 36 yards. If Brohm and Satterfield exchanged QBs, does anyone believe the play calling would not be reversed?
Jeff‘s as good as any QB and passing game coach in college football, which qualifies him as terrific OC. However, there is very little balance in the Purdue offense between run and pass. Some of that is about the opponent, but take a look at the number of passing attempts vs rushing and you can see that Jeff is following his own offensive philosophy and using the strength of his QB to throw the football.
Personally, I prefer Satterfield’s approach to offensive football, establish emphasis on a physical running game first, and if you are blessed with a QB who can read the field and throw consistently ….. you have a chance to execute a 50/50 balanced offense that can compete with anyone. Malik was injured and less than 100% for most of this season, and losing two talented and experienced WRs to transfer made it difficult to meet preseason expectation.
There are few college football teams where one cannot find a certain series where “play calling” looks great, as the players executed perfectly. I can recall when UL enjoyed a few successful offensive series against a very good Clemson defense, but was it a result of superior play calling or execution?
When O’Connell threw those two interception, was Jeff’s play calling responsible for the consequences, or was that on execution? I think the latter.