I'd somewhat against COD for personal reasons, but I'll say that because I have never played a COD game, I don't know all the intrinsic parts and details. I'd say that as far as RPG's are, COD probably does not offer a really in-depth system or experience. RPG's allow players to play as they wish to, in a world that is directly or indirectly affected by their choices. Rather, that has become the norm, and makes sense. COD doesn't have much Role-Playing elements at first glance. You can choose your weapons, and create a class that suits your way to play? It's roleplay, allowing you to create 'you' in the game, but comparing the shallow level of player accommodation to straight up role-playing isn't very good. Especially something of Skyrim level. COD lets you play a shooter campaign that has (as far as I know) one definitive ending, where your actions don't really do much to affect the world you live in (which is sad considering the supposed realism that the game states to have), you just go from place to place shooting things to fulfill objectives that are the only context for going out and shooting things, versus a game where if you're running low on cash, and a bandit jumps out at you, you can ill it, save his thigns, sell them, and continue on your way to an objective that YOU set for yourself.
I have to disagree with his statement only because comparing what is commonly classified as a 'Shooter' game to an 'RPG' game, and considereing some other worrying steps (such as marrying NPC's a la Fable 3 fame) are making Skyrim seem a little amorphous. I certainly hope his personal opinion will taint the larger frame and standards that we as a community hold for Skyrim and the Elder Scrolls series as a whole.
