[stupac2]

Why are receiving yards hard to weigh in?  They're valuable in the NCAA and they're valuable in the NFL.  Emmitt Smith caught 515 passes, one year caught67.  Marcus Allen caught 587 despite Davis sitting on him, including three years ina row of 60 or more.  Payton caught 492.  Barry Sanders caught 352, even Franco harris caught 309 from spray-armed Terry Bradshaw.  Herschel, 512.  Adrian peterson, 236.  Even John Riggins caught 250, with 36 in his rookie year.

Don't kid a kidder.  The ability catch the damn ball is important for receivers, tight ends and RUNNING BACKS.

Right, but there are lots of different ways to catch the ball. All running is pretty much the same (yeah there's plenty of nuance and things like sweeps but it's still mostly the same). A RB can run wheel routes, can split out wide, can be a safety valve in the flat or up the middle, they can do a lot of different things and it's hard to say how you should factor that in to their running stats and then compare it to a RB who wasn't asked to do those things.

And, again, remember that I AM NOT SAYING THAT MCCAFFREY IS THE WORSE RB. I do not believe that. That is not something I believe. That is a thought whose presence in my mind is hypothetical and fleeting. Have I been clear enough on this? I want to make sure that I have been clear enough about this because apparently I haven't been.

What I am saying is that the lazy pundits/voters who just look up stats will see the Henry had more rushing yards and that Cook/Elliot/Fournette had more yards per carry and vote for them (it doesn't help that they will think (AND AGAIN I DO NOT THINK THIS, THIS IS WHAT LAZY PEOPLE WHO DON'T ACTUALLY LOOK AT NUMBERS WILL THINK) that McCaffrey faced soft, weak, Pac-12 wimpy defenses). That's what I am saying.

[stupac2]

Why are receiving yards hard to weigh in?  They're valuable in the NCAA and they're valuable in the NFL.  Emmitt Smith caught 515 passes, one year caught67.  Marcus Allen caught 587 despite Davis sitting on him, including three years ina row of 60 or more.  Payton caught 492.  Barry Sanders caught 352, even Franco harris caught 309 from spray-armed Terry Bradshaw.  Herschel, 512.  Adrian peterson, 236.  Even John Riggins caught 250, with 36 in his rookie year.

Don't kid a kidder.  The ability catch the damn ball is important for receivers, tight ends and RUNNING BACKS.

Right, but there are lots of different ways to catch the ball. All running is pretty much the same (yeah there's plenty of nuance and things like sweeps but it's still mostly the same). A RB can run wheel routes, can split out wide, can be a safety valve in the flat or up the middle, they can do a lot of different things and it's hard to say how you should factor that in to their running stats and then compare it to a RB who wasn't asked to do those things.

And, again, remember that I AM NOT SAYING THAT MCCAFFREY IS THE WORSE RB. I do not believe that. That is not something I believe. That is a thought whose presence in my mind is hypothetical and fleeting. Have I been clear enough on this? I want to make sure that I have been clear enough about this because apparently I haven't been.

What I am saying is that the lazy pundits/voters who just look up stats will see the Henry had more rushing yards and that Cook/Elliot/Fournette had more yards per carry and vote for them (it doesn't help that they will think (AND AGAIN I DO NOT THINK THIS, THIS IS WHAT LAZY PEOPLE WHO DON'T ACTUALLY LOOK AT NUMBERS WILL THINK) that McCaffrey faced soft, weak, Pac-12 wimpy defenses). That's what I am saying.