for Boldin, I'm still not convinced Arizona really wants to trade him. Plus, if he's as good as everyone seems to think he is - meaning the lead guy on his own, without being surrounded by Larry Fitzgerald and even Steve Breaston - why hasn't anyone ponied up at least the first and third already?
But once again, all this goes back to my original premise: The Cowboys must be right on Williams.
Even if they are, that still doesn't seem to appease many of you. You want two Pro Bowl wide receivers, and fully believe the Cowboys must draft a wide receiver with their second-round pick. I'm not as convinced, unless one of those guys at the edge of the first drops into their laps at No. 1, or if they can move up with the help of one of their two fourths or three fifths high enough to get the guy.
But other than that, will whoever they could draft in the second round, and third for sure, be good enough from the outset to beat out Patrick Crayton or Miles Austin for the No. 2 spot - even No. 3 - if everyone stays healthy? The odds are against that if the playing field is level.
Plus, if the Cowboys are right about Williams, meaning he catches 70 passes for like 1,000 yards and five to seven touchdowns, then the Cowboys receiving corps will be just fine. Recall what Owens had last year: 69 catches for 1,052 yards and 10 touchdowns. Combine his stats with those of team-leader Jason Witten's 81 for 952 yards and four touchdowns, and the Cowboys top two receivers totaled 150 catches and 14 touchdowns.
How good is that?
Well, the Cowboys were one of only nine NFL teams last year whose two leaders in receptions totaled 150 catches. Problem is, everyone thinks Arizona with Fitzgerald (96) and Boldin (89) are the standard. The Cards aren't, and by the way, you would expect numbers like that when throwing on 630 of 998 total plays. That's 63 percent of the time - 10 percent more than the Cowboys did.
Some of the other teams with twosomes' totals significantly more than the Cowboys were Denver (195), Houston (185), Kansas City (182) and New England (180).
And when it came to touchdown receptions from the two reception leaders, Arizona again was tops with 23. But after that, only two other teams had their reception-leading twosome totaling more than the Cowboys' 14 touchdowns - Kansas City 17 and San Diego 15.
Plus, for those of you who think Crayton is not effective enough as the No. 2 guy if he staves off the Austin competition, consider this: In 2007, Crayton, as the fulltime No. 2 guy, caught 50 passes for 697 yards (13.9 average) and seven touchdowns. He basically was on that pace in 2008 until Williams was given the No. 2 role, ending up with 39 catches for 550 yards (14.1 average) and four touchdowns playing considerably fewer snaps.
And there needs to be a better understanding of what Crayton's 2007 numbers meant. When it comes to single-season receptions by the No. 2 wide receiver, only five guys in club history have totaled more than Crayton's 50 receptions of 2007: Terry Glenn 70 in 2006, Terry Glenn 62 in 2005, Joey Galloway 52 in 2001, Mike Renfro 60 in 1985, Drew Pearson with a career-high 55 in 1979 and Bob Hayes 53 in 1968.
When it comes to single-season touchdowns by the No. 2 wide receiver (total receptions), only four guys ever have totaled more than Crayton's seven touchdown receptions in 2007: Harper had a career-high eight in 1994, Mike Renfro eight in 1985, Drew Pearson a career-high eight in 1979 and Hayes 10 in 1967 and 1968. That means only Hayes, who by the way is heading into the Pro Football Hall of Fame this August, has ever as the No. 2 wide receiver, had more than eight touchdown catches. The others, just one more than Crayton had in 2007.
That's it.
So again, let's not bemoan the Cowboys receiving corps just yet. That is, if they are right about Roy Williams.
And please, let's not play this game: Well what happens if Williams is seriously injured? Well, what happens if DeMarcus Ware is seriously injured? Bradie James? Flozell Adams or Marc Colombo? Jason Witten? Terence Newman? Want me to go on?
This is not fantasy
