I believe Fergie's stubbornness played a part even though stubbornness might be a harsh word because the great man created an empire at OT. Times were different, the market was different and domestic leagues still had tactical idiosyncrasies and little particularities which had to be respected to a certain degree, if someone wanted to succeed. In this sense, i don't think that money was really ever an issue. But questions about adaptability were always prominent. This led Ferguson to two things: a) cement the 442-ish tactics and b) go after PL proven talent in most cases.
And it worked a treat because we became the best team in England in the early '90s by playing some wonderful football on the way. Then we were absolutely blessed with the class of '92 emerging through the academy ranks. It truly was a sight to behold, breathtaking end-to-end stuff from a side that thrived in the chaos of transitions. But it was also against the norm of continental football which leaned more towards solid organization & security in the defensive third of the pitch and favoured tactics with enough bodies in the midfield. We had a great side but we almost always set ourselves to play with a 2v3 disadvantage in the midfield and we put too much faith in our attacking prowess in order to win matches. Which was the best way to win a marathon like the PL but not exactly the smartest thing to do when we were facing teams that could match our attacking abilities (like RM with Ronaldo, Raul Zidane and co.) or surpass them.
In the end, Ferguson was the greatest team builder in the history of football and probably in the history of all sports. And like all managers of this category, he lived and died by his principles. He had a fetish for tactics with two forwards, he always believed that the best way to create chances was when you had the ball in the wide areas and, despite all the moaning on the Caf, his midfield combos were never about control & domination. They were about transitions. That is until he woke up one day and realised that a single CL trophy would not be enough for his legacy. This admission led to tactical alterations which he, later on, mentioned that he didn't like but thought of them as necessary and, subsequently, to the two most solid consecutive European campaigns this club has enjoyed in its history.
Then Barcelona happened...
The answer to your question OP is, for me, a deafening yes. Throughout the CL era (which coincides with our rise to prominence in England) and until 2008, in 13 campaigns from 93/94 up to 06/07, we won a grand total of 7 knock-out ties (93/94 Honvend, 96/97 Porto, 98/99 Inter, Juventus, 01/02 La Coruna, 06/07 Lille, Roma). After winning the treble, we won one KO game in 7 years. Let that sink in for a moment. That is when we arguably had one of the best squads of our entire history.
The counter-argument to this is that the astonishing longevity Fergie achieved may have not been possible if he had been willing to make concessions to his beliefs. After all, he shaped the club in his own image, he set the standards everyone else had to follow and he was pretty adamant about how football should be played. Now, because i've seen others mention it, i don't believe in DNA-malarkey or any other metaphysical nonsense. Liverpool went to the 04/05 final because in the age of "snuff out all spaces in your third, let the opponent self-destruct on the ball and hit on the counter", Benitez set his team to defend a one-goal lead with 8/9 men in their box in Turin and then, in the SF, he beat Mourinho in his own game by turning 180 minutes of football into a "whoever gets one goal will win the tie" deal. For better or worse, Ferguson would rather lose a hand than do the same in his prime. And so would Pep nowadays. I can't think of any other manager in 2019 who has lost so many KO games simply because he never adjusts his tactics to his opponent. But the quality of the football he produces is really something else. Same thing with Fergie.