Not at all.
Is your contention that Benson can't be "a top starting RB when Conner is done" because he didn't have Emmit Smith's 900+ yards and 9 TDs in his rookie season? What was the point of listing Smith's numbers when you know that Smith had no legitimate competition at the RB position his rookie year, while Benson played behind Conner who had 1100 yards and 8 TDs?
Mainly because Benson wasn't a very good prospect coming out of college, and didn't show much in his limited playing time before he went down with an injury.
Bruh. Emmitt Smith was selected 17th overall. If Benson had that ability, the Cards would have been insane to keep him on the bench for Plodder James Conner. Benson couldn't stay healthy with just 69 touches (nice).
It's obviously impossible to prove a negative -- you know this very well. The responsibility is on the person arguing that Trey Benson could be as good as arguably the greatest running back of all time to provide some evidence that is the case. Because the counter-argument is fairly obvious.
Maybe we should start with the assertion that Trey Benson could still become the best running back in his draft class.
Bucky Irving started just three games for the Bucs last season and still managed to earn a lion's share of the carries over the course of the year.
And this isn't even arguing after the fact. There were plenty of concerns about the workload Conner was taking on throughout the year and people asking why Benson couldn't see the field more.
Benson couldn't unseat Emari Demercado, my dude. Let's pump the brakes on the hype train.