Enough about the Dallas No. 2 receiver
Certain storylines or team needs tend to gain steam in media coverage throughout the summer, whether it's warranted or not. Dallas' supposedly desperate need for another wide receiver is one of these stories. What all the hand-wringing fails to mention is that Dallas was awesome last year with Jason Witten and Patrick Crayton as secondary receivers behind Terrell Owens. How much better can the Cowboys get than finishing second in receiving touchdowns and second in yards-per-attempt?
Is Crayton a classic number two? No, he plays better in the slot. Just like other Donald Driver, Bobby Engram, and plenty other "starters" around the league. The local rag says Dallas will use Jason Witten out wide more often, which is nice. But Witten was already was among the league leaders at tight end in snaps out wide, so I'm not sure how much more he can play out there. He's a better tight end than wideout, and the matchups will be better inside. He's proven to be more effective there, like most tight ends.
Wide receiver is a relatively fungible position. That's why they are relatively low on the payscale and why teams like New England and Seattle can shuffle players in and out of their system with consistent success.
Dallas' two top receivers, Owens and Witten, can match up with anyone in the league. Crayton is a solid third option. Throw in Marion Barber and Felix Smith and Tony Romo has plenty of people to throw to. Receivers are a big strength for Dallas. Sure, it would be great if Sam Hurd or Miles Austin step up on the outside to contribute. This offense could be unstoppable. Just like it was last season.
Comments
Romo has plenty of weapons, you have to put him 3rd on the QB list, T.O. 2nd on the WR list and Witten 1st on the TE list. That is where they show up on ADP reports. Crayton might not make a bad WR3 in a 12 team league but I'd probably take a chance on somebody else.
Posted by: b roo | June 23, 2008 10:54 AM
Gregg,
I think your partially missing the point on this one. Dallas' offense was very stoppable last season. It was stopped in the playoffs, the only time that matters and that is why the media is obsessed with their number 2 receiver.
Fantasy-wise I guess you're right, probably won't affect Romo or TO's stats much but the real media isn't all about Fantasy FB its mostly about, you know, winning actual football games.
Posted by: Robert O | June 23, 2008 12:24 PM
I'd argue that Dallas did better against the Giants than one of the greatest passing attacks in NFL history. It hurt Dallas that T.O. wasn't at full strength but i dont think that game is a huge condemnation of their offense as a whole. They just got beat in a tight game by a peaking, championship defense.
Posted by: greggr | June 23, 2008 12:41 PM
Robert, I think winning 13 games is usually considered successful. Very stoppable? They got stopped once in the playoffs. Other than they were the 3rd offense in the league.
3/32 doesn't scream 'very stoppable to me'.
Posted by: Juegos | June 23, 2008 12:42 PM
I think you meant to say 'Felix Jones' and not Felix Smith. Do I sense some subliminal Kevin Smith love ?
Posted by: Shyam | June 23, 2008 03:48 PM
Juegos,
I was exaggerating to make a point. Granted, the Giants made the Patriots look even worse than they made the Cowboys look but the Cowboys did get stopped in the playoffs. They also laid one or two other offensive eggs down the stretch in the regular season last year.
I'm really not even saying that they would be any better with Glenn in the lineup. All I'm saying is that given the sputters down the stretch and in the playoffs last year it is a legitimate topic for the media to talk about.
The Cowboys definitely had a "great" offense last year and will most likely have one again this year, but is it a "championship" calibur offense? I guess we'll see...
Posted by: Robert O. | June 23, 2008 04:34 PM
Robert,
When we make arguments here we're talking about FF since this is a FF website. In the REAL football world, Dallas would've won that playoff game if Crayton hadn't dropped a big pass and quit on a route that would've been a TD. That's why I'm not real hyped about him. Dallas also could've won if Jacques Reeves hadn't been toasted on every single play of the Giants 50 second TD drive to end the 2nd quarter. That having been said; I'm not so sure Dallas would've beat the Pats in the Bowl like the Giants did.
Posted by: b roo | June 23, 2008 04:47 PM