Please check your own BS. The relevant circumstance was game day, and "circumstance" is quite simply intended and understood to mean under any plausible set of conditions for the day on which the game was played. By quoting "any" and asserting it applies to the entirety of the time continuum is transparently misleading and argumentative for the sake of propping up your own mistaken arguments. Unless I can't read, your statement "What people are saying is coaches couldn't change anything sufficiently that we could beat Temple on a day when our OL couldn't get anything done" is a statement best encapsulated by "we couldn't beat Temple that day under any circumstance, with our personnel under any scheme." Classically, you refer to what "others say" as if to give your view more import than it substantively deserves and disassociate yourself from a ludicrous proposition. Unless your contention is we could not beat Temple under any circumstance that day, which is precisely where we started.
What anyone with a decent amount of actual football experience knows is scheme does matter and you find ways to play to exploit things either through your strength, the opponent's weakness or by changing pattern. Temple was prepared for precisely what we brought to the table, and they teed-off on it. AK did not suddenly become a poor runner with no vision. They were attacking the gaps with reckless abandon because they knew we were terrified to throw. When we did throw we were behind the chains and they came after us. Boyle can't read past a 1st or maybe second option and cant read coverage well. You need to be throwing early in the series when the DBs and LBs have to play honestly against the run. There was nothing to lose that day except a chance to win, and that's what they threw away because they feared turnovers more than losing and ended up doing just that.
