You are missing what I'm saying. Or maybe I'm not explaining it well enough.
Guys who are being recruited for offense straight out of HS, are usually more established and known compared to a kid on defense. Why? The film shows them with the ball 90% of the time. You'll get varying opinions but playing receiver or RB - most think your either born with it or not. It's easy to project that position group and put a market value on it.
On the flipside, you can have a kid like Bryan Knight who was not skilled enough to play WR on an average football team at PITT when he was a freshman. However, he had the minimal size requirements for a 5 tech and had excellent speed for that position. There are so many DL who have a low price tag because while that position requires known measurables, many of these guys don't show it on film in HS because they haven't been coached up. The same can be said about defensive backs. Many times these players are stuck in a heavy run league and recruiters don't really get a chance to see them flip their hips, turn, and run. They don't see how well the backpedal, plant, and go. Hence, they have a much lower price tag coming out of HS.
If you talk to Duzz, he'll tell you his defense only requires 2 true DL. Where can you do that on the offensive line?
It's very true that it's hard to hide on defense compared to offense. But, where on offense can you take a kid who can't catch the damn ball at receiver or rb nowadays? It doesn't matter how fast they are. If they can't catch the ball, their useless. But, I can take that and possibly make him an NFL corner - see Darryl Green or even Ike Taylor.
Besides RB, where can I take a 5'10-6' 215lb kid who runs a 4.6-4.7 and play him on a P5 offense? I have a better chance of taking that skillset to LB or safety then anywhere else.
I used to be a huge Gary Patterson fan and all the TCU guys would say it's easier finding strong safeties and olb's then any position on the field. Why? You can find great athletes who don't have great size much easier then you can great athletes WITH size. Size is more overrated on defense then it is offense.
I just don't think I agree with offense requiring higher recruits than defense. Like I said - if anything, I always hear about how defensive linemen have to be much twitchier and that d linemen can be converted to o linemen but not vice versa. Not to mention converted tight ends that bulk up to play o line.
If you want to say receivers can be converted to defensive backs easier than the inverse, then okay. That one I'd agree with, due to needing to possess the ability to catch the ball.
But how many low-rated quarterbacks come about to be solid players because their intangibles/understanding of the game were so difficult to predict? Feels like a lot.
And then low-rated tight ends are always emerging to be big-time players.
Hockenson - very low 3 star.
Kittle - very low 3 star (2 on some places).
Fant - average 3 star.
LaPorta - low 3 star.
But Iowa knows how to develop tight ends.
I'd tend to agree with you that linebacker is a position where low-rated guys often surface as well.
What they're saying in that video is defense is more about measurables, whereas on offense you can scheme some things up to succeed in spite of them. Whether that's true, mostly true, or it's closer to a push, I'm definitely not seeing enough evidence that it's the opposite.
But the bottom line, and what my point was, is that Narduzzi isn't doing well enough on offense regardless of the reason: recruiting, coaching, development... whatever. And I can't be convinced that there aren't coaches who could do much better on that side of the ball... yes, even at Pitt.
