I have not stopped long enough to consider names. Perhaps I cannot offer any right away but I am curious also.
Why must there be some sort of upgrade? Should Kellen Moore be considered some sort of offensive football protege that the sport has never seen? Moore can be replaced by any qualified candidate with: a) a good resume, b) the ability to have players execute optimally, and c) make adequate in-game adjustments to what opposing defense presents quarter by quarter. The test is always the communication between coach and players. The relationships that are solidly on the same page are usually the most successful.
As far as I am concerned, Moore could improve his offensive playcalling by being more dependent on playaction, set up via the run game, than (sometime extended) misdirection trick plays. The goal of any offensive minded coach is to create positive gains every down no matter how explosive their scheme may be. It should always be preferable to have your offense to implement a scheme with a higher percentage rate of achieving 2nd-&-short and 3rd-&-short to convert first downs more easily and sustain drives, than try outwitting the defensive coordinator running east/west sideline-to-sideline.
Are members supposed to just think Kellen Moore is the only option at the position? What happens if Moore does move on? It does not automatically mean Mike McCarthy takes over. The vast majority of NFL coaching staffs do not have glaring holes if positions can be filled adequately. Is the offense doomed if Moore leaves? Just trying to get a better perspective of what members' expectations should be in a fictional scenario.