Although he led the league twice in rushing, those were his only two 1000+ yard rushing seasons.

So? His 867 as a rookie were 2nd in the league. His 880 in 67 were third. His 856 in 68. Were 5th. So sure, if you're going to just say that 1,000 yards is some benchmark, then he was underwhelming. But if you actually bother to examine the era you would see that he was a top 3 back in yards for all but one season when he wasn't hurt, and that one season he was 5th. That's why, if you actually bothered to look this stuff up, you'd realize that between 1965 and 1969 (his rookie year to his injury), he lead the league in rushing. But he didn't get 1000 yards every year because he was shit. Of course.

You also conveniently failed to mention that that first year he didn't get 1,000 yards, he lead the league in rushing TDs with 14. As a rookie. That's why he was second in TDs from 1965-1969. He also led the league in yards per carry in that span among qualified Rushers.

Then we look at his return numbers, which of course you barely mentioned. He was second in kick return yards and first in both yards per return and tds in that span. He was 18th in Punt return yards and tied for 4th for punt return TDs in that span, despite being 48th in actual returns (he was 5th in yards per return). That's why he had 9,000 all purpose yards in that span, nearly 2000 more than 2nd place. He was also second in total TDs in that span.

here were just so many contemporaries of Sayers (or guys who had come before) who stack up favorably when you look at what they actually did on the field.

As we have demonstrated using actual context, you're talking out of your ass. He was the best return man in the game in that 5 year span, and the best running back in the game. That's why in the 5 years he was healthy, he was a first team all pro 5 times.

And you even had the fucking balls to put that under context. Get the fuck out of here with your bullshit.