I mean, I guess. But getting lots of YAC is directly a result of making the right read and making a great throw. How many short throws do we see where the receiver has to stop and can't make much of a play?
Of course.
I'm skeptical of any "rating" that dings a quarterback for making great plays. I'm not skeptical of my eyeballs. Haskins is uber accurate, can wing it all over the field, makes great reads and great throws, and has 25 TD passes. McSorley isn't as accurate, but throws it deeper, and also runs wonderfully and is 6th in the conference in rushing. Who knows how things will shake out, but from what I've seen they are clearly the top two.
I think this conversation is suffering for lack of clarity.
The original graphic (QB ratings) clustered Hornibrook, McSorely, Haskins and Patterson at the top of the conference (in that order), and it was based on grades for every throw (accounting for difficulty, situation, and read). Haskins isn't really getting dinged at all (he's getting praised, albeit less than you seem to like). Also, I doubt YAC dominates that rating.
The last graphic I posted (avg depth of target) does put Haskins toward the bottom of the conference, but why would anyone read a list like that and swear that it's good to be on top and bad to be on bottom. "Average depth per target" isn't a rating. No one's skill is being measured there. It's just posted for context.
What context was it posted for? The point was raised that Haskins is feasting on high YAC plays. Good for him and good for OSU. There's nothing bad about that. However, there is a remaining question - What happens when OSU finally faces a defense capable of taking away short and intermediate passes? And although this "average depth per target" context can't answer that question, it is relevant insofar as it reminds us that we just don't know the answer yet.
