Id' say the talent distribution is probably best analyzed by how the NFL drafts and then pays players, which is a lot more even than the Heisman. Some positions are more important than others, namely quarterback. The biggest issue with the Heisman is how it defaults to offensive skill position players over defensive players pretty much no matter what.
Also, isn't part of the reason QBs are so valued is that there is only one you use in a given season (if everything goes to plan)?
You need more than 1 RB.
You need more WRs/TEs than RBs.
You need 5 OL.
Etc.
.
Is QB important because of its scarcity? Sure, he touches the ball on every play, but each pass-rusher could beat his blocker every play and sack the QB, no? In theory.
I've created teams for my Whoa Nellie game where the team has passed fewer than 10% of the time...I'm going to have a hard time valuing the QB so highly there.
But more so, as we discussed on another topic, the NFL is radically more even across the board than college football. I'm not sure what they value can be applied to an individual college football season. Remember, even the NFL draft is based on what the players MIGHT become as much as it's about what a player has already done.
I don't care if a RB runs a 4.8 in the 40, if he rushes for 1,800 yards vs a good schedule, he's a (college) badass. He'll go undrafted and never play football again, but for a college award, he's worthy.
I'll never understand this inability or unwillingness to separate college and pro, when valuing players. They are 2 completely different animals.