It may be weird, but I don't think it's all that rare - where the perceived, consensus talent level of the player yields good/not great stats.
It's how we get these legendary players who's names live on forever, but when you do some research, you see other now-anonymous players who were just as productive or more so. But they weren't big AND fast. Their team went 4-7 instead of 10-1.
Barkley was only 'special' because he ran like a 180 lb back at 230 lbs. He had breakaway speed once he got to the 2nd level and he was a good receiver. So maybe what he wasn't great at were skills that are hard to identify, like manuevering through the line for 3 yards instead of 1.
I think of those aspects of a RB as the "Emmitt Smith video game conundrum." He was always productive, but by the attributes each player is broken down into and rated on, they don't add up for him. Not fast. Not a big tackle-breaker like a big guy. But you have to rate him highly....
Guys like Barkley are great, and they'll always get picked first, yet the guys like Emmitt chug along, out-producing them.
