Thankfully you're a football wunderkind, so you can educate us all how football was meant to be played; with 3 tight ends and 2 fullbacks.
That's not at all true...I favor an offense that can dictate the way a defense has to play us. I'm not particularly fond of fullbacks. I do like having several different TE's with dual capability, H-back/flex and standard los/ next to the tackle, skill sets. But they have to have the balls to lock up a will or Mike seal a DE...sadly we haven't had one of those for a while. I also prefer 220#-240# RB's that will destroy a blitzing safety and at least stale mate a blitzing LBer. on obvious passing downs....haven't seen one of those in a while either....We need to "over recruit" the offensive line positions due to a long running deficiency at those positions, simple as that. Everything else will fall into place.....BTW, everyone who thinks 4.3 speed is so important needs to realize that the difference between 4.3 and 4.7 over 40 yards is around an arms length, so the bigger, stronger guy still wins.
So...instead of everyone pissing and moaning about not getting enough 5 star offensive all stars I say this, let's get our numbers right across the board....then let the strength staff forge them into big time CFB level players....at that point trust our coaching staff to design a balanced offensive scheme, 50-50, 60-40 run/pass, that lessens the needs of having to have a Joe Montana QB, Jerry Rice WR or Walter Payton RB to be a consistent top 10 football team.