What does that have to do with my post? I was very clear that schemes were different, and TDs was never in the discussion. Where this all started was my saying that Grimes #3 stats were because (in addition to scheme) the stable of other WR's that also got touches. We used 3 primary WRs in 1996 and Allen at TE was lightly used. We used 6-7 guys consistently and made Pitts the center piece of the offense. That's not debatable. That's math. When those yards came, where things were score-wise, etc. has no bearing. This may come as a surprise, but I wasn't putting last year's team on par with '96. The yards being distributed and the role that played in a second-tier WR's production is what was in question.
Btw, no need for the face palm. Yes, I know I was embellishing a bit and using over-the-top speech that I'd hoped no one would question. But I just thought "esteemed colleague" sounded so much better than "junior associate". Noted for future reference though.