So what was different about our OL in games 1 & 2 vs games 3-9?
The answer is so obvious yet I don't think I've seen it mentioned. Patterson was UA in game 1 and still dinged up and way less than 100% in game 2. Add in missing a key cog of your unit with the rest of the OL (while very talented) not having played very many games together and it'sso clear. It's pretty common knowledge in football that the more games an offensive line plays together, the more they gel and begin to play better as a unit.
So in game 3 not only had the rest of the OL notched 2 more games together, they also added a near fully healthy Patterson back to the mix...Walla, suddenly an OL that looked high school level in games 1 & 2 looked like a quality college unit. Were they dominant like vs Clemson? No, but the comparison of game 3 to games 1 & 2 was night and day, and the OL then gained 5 more games together plus a fully healthy Patterson by the time we played Clemson.
This notion that the OL got better because of Pyne is just plain silliness...the OL performance was a stark difference vs Cal compared to vs tosu and Marshall games, but did Pyne play well vs Cal? Heck no, for most of the game he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn and was bumbling and fumbling too. His play was so bad we saw Rees for the first time literally lose his shit on national television. No other QB we've had has brought Rees to this point of frustration, yet with Pyne's subpar play the OL still made a vast jump. Why? Because the OL themselves actually got better not because Pyne is an OL whisperer and 'made' them better.
And I'm someone who isn't down on Pyne like many are...I think since the Cal game when the coaches have set him up for success with a good game plan he's played pretty well (disclaimer: I didn't watch the UNLV game) but the notion that "he" is the reason the OL has become dominant just doesn't hold water in my eyes.