Bo wasn't a two-sport "star" when he won the Heisman, and it hardly figured into the voting.
Chuck COULD tuck it, and on occasion, he did. He had an exceptionally quick release, and some definite beef on his OL. His backs, through his career, featured Eddie Phillips, Owen Gill, Ronnie Harmon, David Hudson, Norm Granger, et. al. He had no game-breaker deep threat on a consistent basis, but Early, Robert Smith and someone else occasionally made a game-breaking play.
Similarly, Rudock can tuck it and, on occasion, has done so. He has decent release, some decent beef on the OL, and his backs are certainly showing themselves to be capable, although his FBs are just glorified TEs, whereas Hudson and Granger were good ball-carriers and pass-catchers out of the backfield. Game-breaking receiver-but-not-yet-consistently-doing-it? Check. Good possession receiver who can make the occasional big play? Check.
Biggest difference is that Long had GREAT TEs who were good for a couple big plays a game. The potential is there now, but it hasn't manifested yet.
Biggest similarity is that both had KF as a coach in some capacity.
Have to correct you on Bo Jackson. He was as much of a legend in baseball as he was football in college. He's pretty much the only guy that was bigger then his hype. And he had alot of it. He lost either all of or most of his SR yr of baseball eligibility due to a shady deal with the football draft. He accepted a plane ride visit to Tampa and the NCAA stripped him of it. Bo says the Tampa people checked with NCAA first and either never did or lied to him about what they said cause he was worried about it before even going. He held a grudge against them the rest of his career. Told them not to draft him cause he'd never play for them after making him lose his sr yr of baseball.