I'm more concerned that history doesn't even qualify as context, and in OJ's case particularly so, since he became - uh - "unpopular" later in life.
His 1973 accomplishments should stand out in NFL history as the singular measure of RB greatness. What he did in 14 games with a good but not great team with a good but not great QB is incomparable. When someone else hits 2000 in 14 games we can talk.
I love your comment "I don’t know why people are having a hard time with this, stating facts of numbers." I had a statistics professor in college who said "statistics don't lie but liars can statistic." Numbers can be presented to support pretty much any argument you want to make.
But it's not a big issue. On to New England.