The other thing I can't agree with is the D had anything to do with the Cards only being able to put up 20 pts on offense. You can't put up just 20 pts and expect to win a game unless you are playing a bad team offense or have a stellar defense. So while the D wasn't giving us a good chance to win by allowing 38, the offense didn't do enough even if the D had kept a couple scores off the board.
The time of possession was split basically down the middle. If our D was giving up clock chewing drives every time where we only had the ball for 15 or 20 mins then you could say the D impeded the offense. But our whole goal this year was the fix the offense first and foremost, hence our draft and hiring.
Is it a work in progress, of course. Better than last year, how could it not be. But is it anything special so far, no.
My biggest concern is not KM. I think he can be serviceable, and perhaps he can even be as good as advertised with the right pieces around him. My bigger concern is that KK turns out to be who a lot of thought he would be. Someone who is committed to a simplistic, rigid offensive philosophy that does not translate to the pro level where you can't exploit big talent gaps and lack of complex defensive schemes by overloading the defense with wide receivers on nearly every down.
The great teams are out there playing chess on offense. We are lining up, telegraphing each play and expect they cannot defend it. Sometimes it does pay off for chunk gains, no doubt. But it's kind of like the person playing the slots banking on the jackpot to be what puts them ahead at the end of the night.
If Murray had more time would the results be better, I'd hope so, but I still don't think they would rival the output of the better offenses today.