You're right...as a rookie, Gurley didn't even see the field for the first several games, had 10 less carries, and produced a little bit more results in rushing (229 for 1,106yds 10 TDs vs. 239 for 1,088yds 3TDs)...all the while running behind that Rams O-line. So which is it? Is it that Gurley showed up as advertised for a highly touted rookie RB? Or is he overrated and McFadden is just as good as an RB and "Still has it" (did he ever really have it?)? Or is this really just a telling story about the differences in O-lines they ran behind?
So let's get down to brass tacks: Do you think Gurley wouldn't have benefited much behind the Dallas O-line than running in St. Louis? I ask that, because that's indirectly what you are stating in your position.
No one is saying that Zeke could break records behind any O-line he runs behind. What many are saying is that, behind this great line, he should make a decent splash immediately. He can pass protect, he can catch, he obviously can run and he is smart (Wonderlic of 32...unheard of for an RB). There's no reason he can't be a 3-down back from the first snap of the season. Unless an injury/Moly happens, it seems like a pessimistic stance to say that he definitely won't hit 1,200-1,400 yds his rookie season. I'd be completely shocked if he didn't.