I'd love to hear the logic on Crawford

[USArmyVet]

Crawford is a $9.1MM cap hit this year and would save $8MM if cut.

He's not a starting player for us. Lawrence is the LDE, McCoy is better and likely the starter at the 3T, Woods is bigger and more able to hold up at the 1T spot and Crawford is not a RDE.

I don't think Crawford is a bad player by any stretch. He serves a purpose and is a capable backup. But that's all he is........... a backup. And when you watch this organization penny pinch the hell out of FA, it's strange that they seem content on letting a backup DL eat up nearly $10MM in cap space.

There are two starting caliber RDEs out there in Golden and Griffen. Clowney would be a third if you want to think big. We lack a starting RDE. Cut Crawford (Or even restructure and save 4-5MM in cap space) and bring one of them in. Crawford would not be hard to replace in FA as there are some backup caliber DTs out there.

I'd love to get a few JW Blues in Jerry and listen to him explain why they value Crawford that much.

There is no logic behind keeping him other than the idiots that run the Cowboys. Release him, save the $8M against the cap, sign Snacks Harrison for less than that, and Dallas has 3 of 4 D-Line positions filled with Lawrence, Harrison, and McCoy.

 

[Alexander]

I suppose the front office views Crawford as a "glue guy".

That's nice and all, but he should be asked to take a cut so the team can get a nose or corner so there is no desperation with the draft.

 

[Sydla]

my guess is he's thinking he can get more or the same he was expected to make.

I don't think he was under any delusions he was going to see that $13MM. The Vikes had cap trouble and if he opted in, they would likely be cutting him at some point.

I think that's why he's rumored to be asking for 8-10MM. He knows that's his market value.

 

[ConstantReboot]

The logic of this FO baffles me. There is opportunity right now staring them in the face to finally fix this Dline once and for all. Crawford, although I think he is somewhat of a serviceable player, is a holdover from Marinelli and should be cut right now to make room for others on the Dline.

I'm sick of having scrubs year in and year out with leftovers. Now is the time to finally fix our Dline and not look back. If the FO doesn't, they should just quit and leave it up to the football guys to make the decisions.

 

[rnr_honeybadger]

On the weekend Jerry likes to have Crawford wear a wig and clean his pool

 

[Chuck 54]

Right now you guys are worried about money that is not impacting the Cowboys at all. We have plenty of cash to sign any player we want. If we aren’t signing a FA, it’s because we don’t want him, don’t need him, or don’t think he’s worth what he wants. It’s that simple. It’s not because we don’t have the cap room. Crawford is very valuable to a defense lacking depth and starting security at both DT and DE. If we bolster the positions with better players, then maybe Crawford gets cut. If we want him and need cap dollars to sign others, we will ask him to take a cut.

Stop worrying about the money we would save by cutting Crawford or making him take a reduction. Last season we didn’t even come close to using the cap dollars on hand. Right now Dallas can sign anyone they want.

 

[Dre11]

also, I was told this was Mike McCarthy show. so apparently he likes him.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They wasted $10 million on him last year, when all the signs told them to cut him then. He was having issues with his hops back then. And even after that huge waste of money, we have dummies trying to defend keeping the contract now.

His salary was not $10m. It was $7m.

He has bursitis and had started 14 games the previous year.

No one is advocating him being kept at his current price point.

You have had this explained to you dozens of times and you have no real argument. I await you making this personal, about Garrett, or just a blanket claim of victory.

 

[Stash]

Right now you guys are worried about money that is not impacting the Cowboys at all. We have plenty of cash to sign any player we want. If we aren’t signing a FA, it’s because we don’t want him, don’t need him, or don’t think he’s worth what he wants. It’s that simple. It’s not because we don’t have the cap room.

And it's just as "simple" that they're wrong. . Exactly the same way that they were wrong last year and had an injured player end up on IR, costing the team $10 million, when they had plenty of warning signs that there was an issue. That's epic failure. And nothing anyone can say sugarcoats that failure.

Crawford is very valuable to a defense lacking depth and starting security at both DT and DE.

Starting caliber at neither position. Backup, rotational player at best, at a cost of $9.1 million.

If we bolster the positions with better players, then maybe Crawford gets cut. If we want him and need cap dollars to sign others, we will ask him to take a cut.

Translation: You check your brain at the door and don't think for yourself. Whatever the Cowboys decide to do will be just great with you and the right decision no matter what.

Stop worrying about the money we would save by cutting Crawford or making him take a reduction. Last season we didn’t even come close to using the cap dollars on hand. Right now Dallas can sign anyone they want.

Which means nothing. It was $19 million wasted. Money that could have been carried over to this year or the future. Your attempted excuses fail.

If anyone should "stop" something, fans should "stop" attempting lame excuses.[/quote]

 

[Stash]

His salary was not $10m. It was $7m.

He has bursitis and had started 14 games the previous year.

No one is advocating him being kept at his current price point.

You have had this explained to you dozens of times and you have no real argument. I await you making this personal, about Garrett, or just a blanket claim of victory.

Just shut up. You've embarrassed yourself more than enough already.

I never specified "salary", argue what's said and not a Strawman because you don't have a valid argument.

I'm not the one needing anything "explained" to me, I'm not trying to make excuses for this joke.

 

[DallasDW00ds0n]

Doesn’t look like we’re signing anybody anyway so what’s the point of cutting him? Gonna need the depth

 

[Stash]

Doesn’t look like we’re signing anybody anyway so what’s the point of cutting him? Gonna need the depth

Do two wrongs make a right?

 

[buybuydandavis]

Cut Crawford (Or even restructure and save 4-5MM in cap space) and bring one of them in.

I'm surprised that you're ok with a restructure. You should be happy, because Crawford announced his willingness to take a pay cut months ago. I would expect he costs at most 6mil.

Interesting that they haven't restricted him yet. Maybe they're even more conservative than you are. After having to punt a season for chronic problems, maybe they want to see him in action first before restructuring him, which would inevitably mean giving him some chunk as a bonus.

Right now, Crawford is under contract but has *nothing* guaranteed. I'm hoping that they leave it that way until the end of the summer. I'm more concerned about giving him a bonus and finding out that he is done than I am about locking him in at 5mil or so.

 

[buybuydandavis]

There are two starting caliber RDEs out there in Golden and Griffen. Clowney would be a third if you want to think big. We lack a starting RDE.

They likely consider Gregory the starting RDE. You may not, but they may. I do. I'm not certain, but they should understand the implications of the CBA for Gregory, and plan accordingly. I haven't heard serious talk about bringing in an RDE since the CBA was signed.

 

[Sydla]

His salary was not $10m. It was $7m.

He has bursitis and had started 14 games the previous year.

No one is advocating him being kept at his current price point.

You have had this explained to you dozens of times and you have no real argument. I await you making this personal, about Garrett, or just a blanket claim of victory.

The $10MM references the cap hit he was last year, not his salary.

One could also argue that we really just wasted $6MM last year as that was the cap space saved if we had cut him pre June 1.

 

[Sydla]

They likely consider Gregory the starting RDE. You may not, but they may. I do. I'm not certain, but they should understand the implications of the CBA for Gregory, and plan accordingly. I haven't heard serious talk about bringing in an RDE since the CBA was signed.

Gregory hasn't played in a year. It's not about the CBA and implications of the CBA.

It's about expecting a guy who hasn't played football in a year being slotted in as the starting RDE before even getting on a practice field.

Let's put it this way. If the NYG decided that they would turn over one of their starting CB jobs to a guy who hadn't played football in a year instead of adding a key FA at that spot, we'd all laugh at them. And rightfully so.

 

[DallasDW00ds0n]

Do two wrongs make a right?

Dude I hear you bro, really, Crawford’s contract was a big swing and a miss. If we cut him, which I wouldn’t complain, I hope it’s for a splash and not just to sit on some extra cap space.

 

[jjktkk]

their not just paying him for his play at DT and DE, they're also paying him for his intangibles. Could they ask for a pay cut? sure, but they obviously feels he's worth the money.

This. Crawford's versatility and leadership can't always be measured by stats. The Cowboys FO have always valued Crawford's versatility and leadership.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Just shut up. You've embarrassed yourself more than enough already.

I never specified "salary", argue what's said and not a Strawman because you don't have a valid argument.

I'm not the one needing anything "explained" to me, I'm not trying to make excuses for this joke.

Called it. No real argument but a blanket dismissal and making it personal.

They only spent $7m on Crawford last year. They "wasted" no more than that.

He had bursitis and had started 14 games the previous year. There was no writing on the wall as you claim.

No one is arguing that he should be retained at his current salary.

You still cannot argue honestly. It is very telling.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The $10MM references the cap hit he was last year, not his salary.

One could also argue that we really just wasted $6MM last year as that was the cap space saved if we had cut him pre June 1.

He was only paid $7m last year. I get he is trying to waive his hand at the cap hit. He likes whinging about sunk costs.

As for youself how would you feel about him coming back at half of his current salary?