Above you said Tebow was a bad comparison because he didn't win the Heismann as a Freshman.
But Winston also did, so now you are making bad comps in saying he is singular. As I pointed out, their game is nothing alike, but since you made a somewhat pedantic distinction about the Freshman Heismann, unless you want to play switchy changey with the distinction that was important to you a few posts ago, he isn't unique.
Every QB is different from every other QB in the history of the game at some level, but that is a trivial distinction. Of far greater importance, imo, is you can find patterns and identifiable similarities in attributes and traits, for good and bad. Imo, stating there has never been another QB like him in the history of the league is way over the top. There have been many QBs that could both run and pass at a high level. Such as Tebow (at least in college, in the NFL was another story). Again, when they won the Heismann won't be as important as their similarities in game, for his pro projections. If differences with some of his predecessors are more of degree than kind in nature (Tebow also threw for 3,000+ yards, and ran for close to 1,000 yards, if not the same year), than the whole Johnny Singularity argument loses steam.
You may be failing to account for the fact that stats and accomplishments from different eras often reflect, as much as differences in talent, differences in OPPORTUNITY. What is more likely. In two of the past three years, coincidentally, Manziel and Winston are two of the greatest college QBs in history? Or simply a mundane reflection of their playing in an era of inflated passing stats which saw them better positioned to succeed at a high level early.
I can't go along with your method or some of the distinctions you are trying to make (Johnny Singularity), if you are completely abdicating the ability to simply look at QBs and observe their MANY obvious comparisons IN TERMS OF GAME AND SKILL. I'm saying his college game may not translate, and you are saying he was a great college player. That is exactly the point I think you are missing. If college success or winning Heismanns has effectively almost nil predictive power in projecting NFL success, so what if he did some good things (like his predecessors) earlier, if they are earlier good things that don't matter?
To cut to the chase, one of the easiest and most direct paths to refuting your rationale would be to point out that, by your criteria, Manziel was a better prospect than Andrew Luck at a comparable stage of development, because he won the Heismann as a Freshman, and was a better runner. But that is obviously nonsense. Luck was drafted #1 overall, and Manziel went in the 20s. Manziel's college success, great as it was, is completely meaningless, if he can't translate those skills to the NFL. QBs being unable to sniff his jock in college, means basically nothing, if he can't sniff Luck's jock as a pro. Again, since college success often doesn't translate to pro success, college jock sniffing is completely beside and misses the point.