I really respect SoCalCoug's opinion and I feel like one can make a colorable argument that Williams is better than Harvey. However, I feel like SoCal and others focus on YPC like it's the sole determining factor in what makes a good running back. A lot of the people here who believe Harvey was a better RB (I am a part of that group), use an eye test. It's hard to quantify some of the things Harvey could do...whether it was his blocking ability, strength, falling down forward almost every single time he was tackled (to get those few extra yards), his reliability in short yardage situations -- and more importantly, in the red zone. Yes, Harvey's o-line was better and that plays a part in this -- but when BYU gets into the red zone these days, we all hold our breath. We don't expect Williams or Taysom to score. We hope they do. Contrast that with the fact that we always expected Unga or Tonga to score when we got it into the red zone. And if we are going to look at stats, we need to look at all stats -- not just YPC. Specifically, look at TDs. SoCal and others are focusing on comparing Williams' and Unga's sophomore years. Williams scored 7 TDs (all rushing). Unga scored 17 (13 rushing, 4 receiving). Some point out that Hill took carries from Williams. That's a fair point. However, Hill only scored 10 TDs. During Unga's sophomore year, Manase Tonga scored 8 TDs. Manase got a lot of touches in the red zone -- so Williams isn't the only one who had touches in the red zone taken away from him.

Ultimately, it's almost impossible to definitively state who is a better RB just using statistics alone, and frankly, any use of statistics (like I have done above) is just an exercise in confirmation bias. They are too close statistically with too many variables affecting those stats. Quality of the defenses each back faced, the abilities/deficiencies of their teammates (including QB and o-line), scheme (GFGH is designed for running the ball), etc.