In 2005, Troy Williamson had 24 receptions, 372 yards, and 2 touchdowns. In 2006, Troy Williamson had 37 receptions, 455 yards, and 0 touchdowns. Oh, yeah, and according to Wikipedia he had 11 drops.
How does Topps interpret this course of Williamson's career? Just check out the back of his 2007 Topps Chrome to fine out:
"Vikings offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell predicted that Troy would be a bigger part of the team's new West Coast offense in 2006, and indeed he was. The second-year wideout with the game-breaking speed was third on the team in receiving yards, including the first 100-yard game (six catches for 102) of his career in a Week 2 win over Carolina."
The back of sports cards is like Garrison Keiler's Lake Wobegon: all the players are above average. Where do we even start? Williamson was a bigger part of the team's offense, because he increased his numbers by 13 receptions and 82 yards (but didn't score a TD)? That we're supposed to be impressed that he ranked third on the team in receiving yards? Third!?! Yep, I pulled out the exclamation point/question mark/exclamation point for that one. It is quite a feat for a starting wide receiver to rank third on his own team in receiving yards.
Well, let me step back here a second. Bevell predicted Williamson would be a "bigger part" of the offense, not a better part of the offense. Williamson was on the field more, and he did drop all those passes. He definitely was a bigger part of the offense in 2006 than 2005, just not in a good way. Actually, in a negative way. He was a bigger part of the offense, and that's probably why the offense was so bad. So yes, Williamson did have an impact on the Vikings' offense in 2006, in the same way that VD can have an impact on your sex life.