Sorry I didn't get to answer this (excellent) response sooner.

In short, I'm not looking at the performance of the Irish from 2005-2008 and drawing a conclusion; I'm thinking more in the abstract here. What is Charlie's ideal mix of players?

(And that's why I also rubber-stamped the five OL; while I think you're right that they played a major (THE major?) role in the offensive woes of the actual Irish, I'm more interested in the variety of the skill positions, because I believe that that's where offensive systems truly differ from one another.)

If we look at 2005 as (perhaps) the closest Charlie has come to fielding an ideal mix, I think we can get a hint of what he would like to do. And just comparing his mix of packages with those of other teams, it seems to me that Charlie's system requires simply more skilled players than others.

the running game is and wanted someone who could focus on improving run blocking. Latina might be better at developing pass blockers than run blockers.

If OL is really ad the core of Weis' offense, why did he let Latina stick around for 4 years when he clearly wasn't getting the job done? Did Charlie legitimately think it was a talent/depth issue at first? If so, what changed his mind about that? Could something in his coaching style have been preventing Latina from doing what he was capable of?

Let's return to the chicken/egg argument that has been ND football since 2007.

If you have a limited OL, does it matter how many RBs, FBs, TEs, WRs, your system needs?

The OL was good in 2005, but either by coaching or talent, there were some holes. Either by coaching or talent, they did not control the LOS like "good" OLs. It's been downhill ever since. Can you say, for certain, that Charlie's offense requires all of the pieces you note or has it seemed that way because either by coaching or talent (including youthful inexperience), the flexibility in the skill position had to disguise the shortcomings on the OL?

I ask in earnest, because I truly don't know. I don't know if Charlie's scheme requires 1-2 RB, 1FB, 2-3 TEs, 3-4 WRs, all of whom are high-functioning players (i.e., not one can be marginal) or if it has appeared that way for the past 3 and perhaps all 4 years because he's had to cover for OL deficiencies.

This is not an excuse or shifting blame to Ty, etc. However, if I had a suspect OL, I think that one way I'd try to mask that would be to use multiple TE sets. I would throw a lot of screens. Or, I would go to 4 (or 5) WR sets.

From what I remember of the Patriots teams, they did have some marginal skill position players (not QB, obviously). Sure, they had FBs and multiple TEs, etc. but they mostly had a very good OL. So, it may have been a case of out-cutesying himself the past couple of years, but it's at least plausible that his "system" is more dependent on OL competence than having excellence (thus, flexibility) at all of the skill positions you list.

It's possible I've misread your post, I'm not sure if you're listing positions that are just required to be present, versus required to be good to excellent. If you meant, positions that just need to be fielded, it doesn't seem to me like an offensive system that is overly burdensome on a roster any moreso than other systems. Rather, I think you've probably just shortchanged the other systems some. For example, some passing spread offenses still have TEs designed into parts of their offense and have players at those positions on roster. Same with full-back. They might not play as much, but the positions exist for limited purposes.

Lou sure had a bevy of TEs, RBs, FBs, WRs that played in various formations at various times. In fact, the list you put might perfectly fit Lou's offensive requirements as well, save your description of the QB.

or any "pro" system in college.

It occurs to me that part of the breakdown the last couple of years could be resulting from the personnel demands and requirements of the system that Charlie likes to run. Spesh and Pat and I have emailed about this before, and I'd like to throw it out to the group for consideration.

We know that the system is a good system, at least in the way it's been implemented in the pros. But what does the system demand, position-wise? Here's a working list.

QB - somebody smart and quick-thinking, with some size to hang in the pocket
1-2 RB - somebody who can catch and pick up blitzes as well as run the ball
1 FB
2-3 tight ends, with at least two pass catchers in there
3-4 receivers, two of which can also block downfield

That is a lot to ask from a college roster. And if you are missing any piece of that puzzle, your flexibilty is hampered. (See "Devolution of an Offense", e.g.)

What do other offenses ask of their personnel?

In typical passing spread offenses, you eliminate the tight ends and the fullback. Your requirements list looks like:

QB - quick thinker/thrower, wheels can help. Size not an absolute.
1-2 RB
4+ receivers

What about option football, both spread and triple?

QB - definitely need to be able to run. Passing is a bonus.
1-2 RB
1 FB
perhaps a tight end, depending on the flavor
2+ receivers, that's it

So the question is, does Charlie handicap himself by asking too much of a college roster? Do the number of pieces you need to develop and maintain (2-3 TE, 3-4 receivers) make you too susceptible to a crippling deficiency if you're missing even one piece of the puzzle?