Some guy named Connor Byrne wrote an article for RealFootball365.com yesterday touting Eric Moulds as a target for the Dallas Cowboys in free agency. This hinges on Moulds being released by the Buffalo Bills. It also hinges on the Dallas Cowboys' brass collectively losing their minds.
Byrne's first error is easily identified. From the article:
The statement that Eric Moulds is one of the game's elite cracks me up. Show me one person - besides Connor Byrne - who thinks Moulds is still one of the league's elite receivers. In fact, he may never have been among the elite. Yes, he has 3 Pro Bowl appearances, but really, Eric Moulds as one of the elites? On par with Owens, Moss, Harrison, Holt? If he's still one of the elites, why would he only command $3-5 million?
$3-5 million for what would be at best a third-receiver option is not economical; it's average bordering on expensive. I would argue that Patrick Crayton would produce basically the same numbers or better than Moulds, and is a whole lot cheaper.
Another lame argument can be found in this paragraph.
Gee, doesn't that sound familiar? Let's pretend it's the 2005 offseason and make a slight adjustment to those sentences.
Why Dallas? It's simple. They need another solid target in the receiving game, and Peerless Price has a solid relationship with the aforementioned Bledsoe.
That one worked out so well, let's do it again!
Now the closer from Byrne:
Without question he would be a key ingredient? Somehow, I have lots of questions. Like: Could he beat out Crayton for the 3rd receiver role? Does Dallas really want another aging receiver who looks to be on the down-side of his career? Couldn't $3-5 million dollars be spent much more effectively? For $3 million would you rather have Moulds or Adam Vinateri? Which of those two players would be more key in winning a Super Bowl next year?
Next week's article from Connor Byrne - How I'm secretly Eric Mould's agent (the inside story).