There’s no empirical evidence to support your assertion this is a “WR friendly” offense. In the present case, the stats just don’t add up. We were told Smith would light it up. He’s never had a game with more than two passing tds as I recall.
Indeed, the offense was developed in the early 90’s as a triple option veer, where the first option was to pass wide, or essentially pitch, to a wide receiver, who would secure at least a short gain, provided a second wide receiver is capable and willing to block for you. The rest of your role in the offense is running patterns to create space for the running game, unless down and distance mandates you being a target. In which case, it doesn’t matter if the pass is complete or not, unless you are down more than two scores in the fourth quarter. The offensive philosophy is if it is incomplete, punting deep will flip the field and the advantage will be on the offense in the next possession. Of course, that assumption only works if two things are present: 1) the talent on defense to stop the other team using a recruiting budget at the bottom of the conference at a small school in a remote town with a history of racism, 2) the referees not applying the portions of the rule book that by design favor the offense. That’s why you see the team loosen up and move the ball the last two minutes of each half. We are no longer concerned about long term field position because the half is going to end. It’s a fool’s allegiance to an antiquated offensive philosophy. The very ideas that Malzahn challenged, (as well as others).