What does Crawford offer?

His a good player , just hugely over paid .

needs to take a paycut

He's an under-rated solid player...but we are so deep on the d-line that I'm surprised the Cowboys didn't take the savings and move forward.

Also, when you look at his career sack numbers, I think he outplayed his stats. Throughout his career there have been a lot of almost-sacks that dont actually count for anything, but it forces the ball out.

While some people dog the guy, he seems to have a lot more supporters these days. I think people are starting to appreciate how steady he is, even if not game breaking. I also think 10M feels a bit smaller in 2019.

People forget that he got this contract because he was a young versatile player who was showing growth every season so he looked like he was probably worth it. Then he plateaued around 2016, and yeah he isn't worth what he is getting paid now, but as a solid leader, a versatile player, and a decent enough talent it isn't worth trying to restructure him/cutting him when we are good with the cap. If we needed a cap casualty, sure cut him, first or second one out. But as it is, no point in getting rid of him.

Crawford is a $5M-6M player getting paid $9M. Overpaid, sure, but nowhere near deserving of the hate he gets on here.

If Collins leaves in free agency we are going to need Crawford to start in front of Trysten Hill. So pay cut or not he's a keeper.

We'll be drafting another DT in the early rounds in 2021.

MCMetal69 said:

My only complaint about Crawford is that he's simply overpaid but does everything that's asked of him and more...................He's just not worth a $10.1 million dollar cap hit which is the number he's costing..............................

Click to expand...

The cost to keep him is 7M.

The other 3.1M is a sunk cost that hits the cap with or without him on the team. That 3.1M was used to create cap space in previous years to pay other players.

JBond said:

Why cut a team leader? We don't need the cap relief this season. It's not like you are paying his game checks.

Click to expand...

Cap space saved this season rolls over to next season.

Not "needing" cap space in a current season is not a good method of making roster decisions with regards to the cap.

He is either worth the 7M is costs to keep him or he isn't regardless of current cap space.

I can afford a 10 dollar Coke but it's not worth it to me to pay 10 dollars for a Coke.

He offers you another piece, this year, in our quest for six...

We need players now..

Bob-Lillys-War said:

His a good player , just hugely over paid .

Click to expand...

I truly believe if he was making only $2.5M less there would never be any discussion about him. I mean he's been he's been a much better player than La'el the last two years and he's just barely getting paid less than La'el and he's not brought up even 10% as often

He’s a serviceable rotational type- who has the flexibility to play DE and DT. And he’s much liked among the coaches ( Marinelli) and teammates
So I contribute that to how much the coaches (Marinelli) and teammates love and are endeared to him, and they have successfully sold that to management team.
Although I think we could get another vet Kerry Hyder to play a similar role than what Crawford does.

But If Tyrone has to start outside at DE again, then that’s a down side for us. The OTs are able to handle and manage him comfortably and he’s not the factor he is there
than what he does on the inside nickel rush, where he seems more productive in spots.

I do not like when he has to start inside at 3 tech, because of yet another injury to Maliek Collins, we give up too much size and also brings more wear and tear to Crawford himself.
And I don’t agree still giving a guy that essentially is more of a utility/rotational guy than a projected starter 7 million dollars.
And the Cowboys did not ask Tyrone to take a pay cut either.

I recall several predicting and posting how they thought the overpaid Crawford would be cut due to the new numbers at DL as well as his roster salary.
But I always had the feeling that the team just adored him so much as a rotational type who provides flexibility at both DE and DT if needed per injury and as a team leader.

Imo his pay isn’t worth His play but another mans pay really isn’t my business

Crawford is what marcus spears was not flashy not great but good enough not to be a liability

Cowboysheelsreds053 said:

That is the only problem with him.

Click to expand...

That and the team playing him at RDE. It’s a poor fit that benefits no one and needs to end.

Idgit said:

Don’t get why fans don’t like Crawford. Plays hard, plays well. Well liked player. It’s bizarre.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Even if you're ignoring all of the little things he does, you could do a lot worse than $9m for 5 sacks.

More importantly though,

https://encrypted-tbn0.***NOT-ALLOWED***/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUpxevGy1k6w26FBZ-UBZCs1geJjtIdhhUVVrQMNukVB9g538F

MizzouCowboy4 said:

What does this guy offer? He getting lot of cheddar for being a JAG?

Click to expand...

He generally offers more than players who we think will knock him off the roster, which is why he's still around.

We draft ends like Charlton, Armstrong, Jackson and Jelks, but none of them have proven up to this point to be better than Crawford. (Gregory showed last year that he was a better pass rusher, and Quinn is better all-around, but both of them are suspended.)

We use our top pick in this draft on a defensive tackle, but Hill certainly didn't show in the preseason that he's better than what we currently have in Crawford. (I do think Hyder is going to be an upgrade at both end and pass-rushing tackle, but I can't say that for certain.)

Crawford isn't great. He's just a good player. But good has been important because of players who never developed or haven't developed yet, injuries (like Maliek Collins has suffered the past couple of years) and/or suspensions (including David Irving's). Crawford plays where he needs to play well enough that our defense doesn't suffer for it even if he doesn't do much to stand out.

Some can't seem to see this because they are too busy focusing on what he gets paid.

Team leader, DLaws best bro, position flex,...
Do we need him now that the DL is deep? Prob not but what the hey...

Crawford still being on the team speaks to our lack of ability on the d line for many years. Even the amount of resources we have dumped into it no one has stepped up to be even above average except for D law. Maliek Collins would probably be that guy now if Marinelli didn't move him to 1T to make room for Ty Craw at 3T. Ty Craw has been playing out of position for years. He's a rotational guy that averages 4 sacks a year and that is usually strictly at the defensive end spot. Inside he is undersized and weak at the point of attack. Him being on the team speaks more to coaching and the front office than the player. Like Jerry extending the guy after we switch to a 4-3 defense when we drafted him to be a 3-4 end 5T. He plays because we like him not because of his ability. He is an average rotational guy and people will see when he finally leaves this team he will barely see the field on another team. He is another Barry Church/Orlando Scandrick

Tabascocat said:

He is a consistent player who does the dirty work, very under appreciated by many. He might be overpaid but there is no reason to just cut him right now. He will probably be the odd man out in 2020 though.

Click to expand...

Not sure if he will. Collins is a free agent, Quinn, Hyder and Covington all will possibly be gone, so it's going to be up to players like Hill, Charlton, Armstrong and Jackson to knock him off the roster. I can't say at this point that any of them are better than him. Even if we keep some of the free agents-to-be, Crawford might still provide better depth than these young guys.

Ideally, though, they come on to prove to be an upgrade. If all the young guys stepped up above Crawford, we'd have Lawrence, Charlton, Gregory, Armstrong, Jackson and Jelks at end and Woods, Hill, Ross and Wise. I can see that being possible at end, but not at tackle.