Percy Harvin once caught 87 balls in a season? Was he good? No he was a gadget. It's why he couldn't even top 1000 yards with that many catches.
I guess that's what I'm saying. Some receivers aren't good but get a good number of receptions because the coaches scheme up just getting the ball in their hands.
Shit Wes Welker is on that list multiple times. Was he an Uber talented guy? No he just had a QB that threw him a ton of short easy passes. He was a decent WR in the perfect scenario to get a lot of catches.
Percy Harvin isn't on that list. He had a couple decent seasons where the Vikings made a concerted effort to feed him the ball. I never said this was the be all end all, in fact I specifically said it wasn't and sometimes needs context.
Welker? Good Christ. He was among the better receivers of his generation.
You can cherry pick seasons here and there and most stats have anomalies.
Again, look at the list. The top 50 reception seasons are almost all from top receivers of their eras.
If you don't get open on a consistent basis you really aren't a good receiver and receptions generally reflect that. As I've said several times, it's not a perfect stat but it's a pretty telling one.
This discussion started with talking about the most useless stat in sports.
You offered up receptions as an example of a useless stat. It is far, far, far from a useless stat.
And in fact, when you look at the all time reception seasons leaders, there's a pretty strong correlation between receptions and receiver quality.