Remember when Antonio Brown had five catches (or more) for 50 yards (or more) in 35 straight games?
Brown was proud of that "record," and was spoon-fed extensions in inappropriate situations to keep it alive in fashion that was far from organic.
It was utterly meaningless. Those numbers weren't scintillating, nor did they matter.
The "record" was convoluted. A way to get Brown's name mentioned and feed his ego.
Now the same thing has been done on behalf of James Conner. (I doubt he cares, or asked for it.)
In their team's first five games of a season, only two running backs have ever had multiple games of 100 yards rushing, 50 yards receiving and two touchdowns rushing: James Conner now, and Jim Brown in 1963.
OK. So what?
That's just a contrived way to get Conner's name in the same sentence as Jim Brown's. It's artificial.
It ignores Conner being invisible (albeit seldom given the ball) against Baltimore and Kansas City, and fumbling victory away against Cleveland.
In Jim Brown's first five games in 1963, he had 787 yards rushing and 10 touchdowns.
This season, Conner has 342 yards rushing and five touchdowns.
The comparison really shouldn't be made. Jim Brown is the greatest football player ever.
Conner had a fine game yesterday. He's been inconsistent, but has certainly been an acceptable starter. He may yet be great.
But let's keep the pedestal vacant until then.