RH, I think a lot of the argument put forward by yourself, Gnostic and others relates to a lack of structured attack, a set of patterns of attacking play.
My understanding of Deans approach is that most of the gameplan is around setting a structured platform that unlocks the attack. That the attack itself is what happens when gifted players seize an opportunity and exploit it, not as one player but a freeflowing group. This is quite different from for example running width because you know you won't be able to set a platform.
I think many here would argue that is no pattern at all. Certainly Eddie Jones would! But the more appropriate question to me is how will the platform be set, and will that platform unlock opportunities that our players will use well?
Last year we saw a disappointingly static effort. Our forwards frequently struggled to cohere and they were playing far too narrowly. Offloads would rarely come off, and Genia would often wait so long for the line to re-arm he could have hatched an egg! But improvements were real. Confidence was built. Depth was built.
As usual we aussies seem to concentrate so much of the debate on which backs we play, when the real battle is how will our forwards set a platform that our backs can work from and what kind of platform will it need to be?
edit - to be clear a platform is not just forwards, it's how backs set up off the play too. Forwards is my emphasis because I think that is the biggest challenge.
The guy hasn't had a lot of luck injury wise. 
