News: The surprising progress stoppers on the Dallas Cowboys defensive line

[CCBoy]

The surprising progress stoppers on the Dallas Cowboys defensive line

http://cowboyswire.usatoday.com/201...toppers-on-the-dallas-cowboys-defensive-line/



...When Bill Parcells took over as the head coach of the Dallas Cowboys in 2003, he brought the idea of “progress stoppers” with him. Aptly named, progress stoppers prevent others from developing into even better players at a given position.

Often, these are typically older, veteran players who may have once been stars or solid contributors but are now on the tail-ends of their careers. But, even younger players can be progress stoppers if better replacements exist lower on the depth chart. The current Cowboys front office philosophy seems to ignore the second possibility, however.

Despite the worries about pass rush before the season, the Cowboys front office rebuffed the idea of getting outside veteran help. Instead they argued their young players just needed time to develop and a veteran would only hinder that progress.

Name Snaps Sacks Avg Salary (Millions)
Jack Crawford 529 3.5 1.1
Benson Mayowa 381 6 2.8
David Irving 485 4 0.5
Demarcus Lawrence 327 1 1.4
Maliek Collins 656 5 0.9
Terrell McClain 467 2.5 1
Tyrone Crawford 624 4.5 9
Cedric Thornton 278 1.5 4.25 ...

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Well. This was a lazy article. Using average annual salary was lazy. Ignoring that the Cowboys don't play favorites and bench or limit unproductive player snaps was lazy. Using sacks as the sole definition of player production was lazy. Forgetting that being a starter on this defensive line isn't that important given Rod's desire to rotate lineman frequently was lazy. Pretending this team doesn't realize it needs a "war daddy" on the defensive line when ownership has stated as much is lazy.

Dog days of the offseason.

 

[CCBoy]

Well. This was a lazy article. Using average annual salary was lazy. Ignoring that the Cowboys don't play favorites and bench or limit unproductive player snaps was lazy. Using sacks as the sole definition of player production was lazy. Forgetting that being a starter on this defensive line isn't that important given Rod's desire to rotate lineman frequently was lazy. Pretending this team doesn't realize it needs a "war daddy" on the defensive line when ownership has stated as much is lazy.

Dog days of the offseason.

No, it had a valid posting that included a concept driven home by Bill Parcells. You now claiming he was a lame commenter on roles and player directions. Knowing a general team concept or not?

Roles of players are EXACTLY what this team is doing in preparation for next season...right now. What, that is dumb also?

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

I agree as to ty Crawford

 

[Doc50]

I agree as to ty Crawford

Yeah, ROI on him has been disappointing.

The brain trust may well move on from him this summer.

 

[ABQcowboyJR]

The article could have used more substance to support its argument, but it isn't wrong. We have a big problem with how to treat Lawrence moving forward.

 

[Sydla]

I am not opposed to sending Crawford packing or trying to get him to take a pay cut.

But while he carries a big number that might not jive with his production, he's still an effective player. You already have McClain as a FA at the 1 tech. Thornton was just OK last year at the 1 tech. Collins looked good for a rookie at the 3 tech.

You cut Crawford and don't bring McClain back, you've now created a pretty massive hole at DT to go along with the questions you have at DE. Certainly Irving can play some 3 Tech but people are also counting on him at DE.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

Crawford and Lawrence will be progress-stoppers next year. Right now, Dallas does not have enough young talent (for progress to be stopped) on the roster but the draft can change that.

Most important is Dallas does not waste money bringing in aging vets who will cost lots of money and have a limited role. The NFL is also the NCFOM (no country for old men); bringing in expensive gap-fillers is a waste when Crawford and Lawrence can serve that purpose. Youth and speed: that is what Dallas needs on defense.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

No, it had a valid posting that included a concept driven home by Bill Parcells. You now claiming he was a lame commenter on roles and player directions. Knowing a general team concept or not?

Roles of players are EXACTLY what this team is doing in preparation for next season...right now. What, that is dumb also?

I believe that players can be progress stoppers. I also believe this article was lazy.

They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Stash]

I am not opposed to sending Crawford packing or trying to get him to take a pay cut.

But while he carries a big number that might not jive with his production, he's still an effective player. You already have McClain as a FA at the 1 tech. Thornton was just OK last year at the 1 tech. Collins looked good for a rookie at the 3 tech.

You cut Crawford and don't bring McClain back, you've now created a pretty massive hole at DT to go along with the questions you have at DE. Certainly Irving can play some 3 Tech but people are also counting on him at DE.

If they don't bring back McClain, they've got a hole to fill at 1-tech anyway. Crawford isn't filling that role. Heck, he's breaking down physically trying to play 3T and DE. He'd never last at the 1, even if they tried him there.

I look at the Crawford deal and all I see are problems. The salary is far too high for a rotational player and there isn't even a clear role for him! That and he's coming off of consecutive shoulder surgeries too.

It's time to admit their mistake and stop throwing money into a player who's just a poor fit for what they do defensively. I know someone will "hurry" to try to defend it - and him - but the fact is that we're overpaying a round peg and trying to fit him in a square hole.

 

[Sydla]

If they don't bring back McClain, they've got a hole to fill at 1-tech anyway. Crawford isn't filling that role. Heck, he's breaking down physically trying to play 3T and DE. He'd never last at the 1, even if they tried him there.

I look at the Crawford deal and all I see are problems. The salary is far too high for a rotational player and there isn't even a clear role for him! That and he's coming off of consecutive shoulder surgeries too.

It's time to admit their mistake and stop throwing money into a player who's just a poor fit for what they do defensively. I know someone will "hurry" to try to defend it - and him - but the fact is that we're overpaying a round peg and trying to fit him in a square hole.

But filling two holes at DT isn't ideal especially when you have holes at DE too.

And again, cutting him now doesn't do anything. You save no cap space and then have to waste additional cap space to sign his replacement. So instead of spending $10MM in cap space on a backup 3 Tech, you'd essentially be spending say $12MM on a back up 3 tech if you cut Crawford now ($10MM cap hit for Crawford and then say a $2MM cap hit to sign his replacement).

So either get him to take a pay cut or he has to be a June 1 guy.

 

[Stash]

But filling two holes at DT isn't ideal especially when you have holes at DE too.

Is Crawford creating a "hole at DT"? And why do they have the "holes at DE too"? Because they need better production than what Crawford gives you there as well.

And again, cutting him now doesn't do anything. You save no cap space and then have to waste additional cap space to sign his replacement. So instead of spending $10MM in cap space on a backup 3 Tech, you'd essentially be spending say $12MM on a back up 3 tech if you cut Crawford now ($10MM cap hit for Crawford and then say a $2MM cap hit to sign his replacement).

What does it take to replace what is, at this point, a platoon, rotational player? Is that now what he is? A "back up 3-tech" costing you $7 million plus in salary? If so, there's no way that anybody can defend it. And I think we can find a young guy with possible upside in the draft to fill that role, after all, they found the guy to replace Crawford inside in the 3rd round last year.

So either get him to take a pay cut or he has to be a June 1 guy.

I'm not stuck on the 'when' of getting out of the deal, June 1st designation or not. But I do think that they should take their lumps and admit their mistake and do it. I prefer that to shuffling things around in an effort to get the guy on the field to justify the contract. That's not helping anybody.

 

[Stash]

Most important is Dallas does not waste money bringing in aging vets who will cost lots of money and have a limited role. The NFL is also the NCFOM (no country for old men); bringing in expensive gap-fillers is a waste when Crawford and Lawrence can serve that purpose. Youth and speed: that is what Dallas needs on defense.

So far, it's looking like they did just that with Cedric Thornton.

 

[Sydla]

Is Crawford creating a "hole at DT"? And why do they have the "holes at DE too"? Because they need better production than what Crawford gives you there as well.



What does it take to replace what is, at this point, a platoon, rotational player? Is that now what he is? A "back up 3-tech" costing you $7 million plus in salary? If so, there's no way that anybody can defend it. And I think we can find a young guy with possible upside in the draft to fill that role, after all, they found the guy to replace Crawford inside in the 3rd round last year.



I'm not stuck on the 'when' of getting out of the deal, June 1st designation or not. But I do think that they should take their lumps and admit their mistake and do it. I prefer that to shuffling things around in an effort to get the guy on the field to justify the contract. That's not helping anybody.

Yes, cutting Crawford right now with you real replacement is creating a hole. He's a solid player. Not great, but solid. So you cut him and you know have to find a 3 tech that will be as productive as he will be for a ridiculous fraction of the cost. That's not easy. We hit gold with Collins but how likely are you to do that again in the draft? And when you have other needs that need filling from the draft.

Yes, there is nothing great about paying a back up 3 tech $7MM a year. But you are already pregnant. If you cut him now, you are taking a $10MM cap hit in 2017. If you cut him June 1, you save $7.5MM but that doesn't help you in FA because that money can't be spent until way after FA starts.

The best option is try to get him to take a pay cut. Then, I guess, the June 1 designation would be 2nd best. The dumb thing would be to cut him now.

 

[Sydla]

So far, it's looking like they did just that with Cedric Thornton.

Thorton's contract is not that bad. He's a $4.3MM cap hit which isn't awful for a backup DT. And he's also not really old. He's 28.

 

[Stash]

Yes, cutting Crawford right now with you real replacement is creating a hole. He's a solid player. Not great, but solid. So you cut him and you know have to find a 3 tech that will be as productive as he will be for a ridiculous fraction of the cost. That's not easy. We hit gold with Collins but how likely are you to do that again in the draft? And when you have other needs that need filling from the draft.

You need to find a backup, rotational guy to replace him, because that's what he is. Either that, or pay him $7 million plus guaranteed for the right to try to figure out where to put him.

Yes, there is nothing great about paying a back up 3 tech $7MM a year. But you are already pregnant. If you cut him now, you are taking a $10MM cap hit in 2017. If you cut him June 1, you save $7.5MM but that doesn't help you in FA because that money can't be spent until way after FA starts.

And like everything else, the money can be juggled around and moved to where they need it, and when. And besides, personally, I'm not spending big on a mediocre free agent group this year anyway.

The best option is try to get him to take a pay cut. Then, I guess, the June 1 designation would be 2nd best. The dumb thing would be to cut him now.

Hey, I'm fine with those first two options if you can get him to take that paycut. I'm not hating on the guy or just being vindictive, even if to some it looks that way. I'm just looking to stop throwing money down the well and getting out of an obviously bad deal.

 

[Stash]

Thorton's contract is not that bad. He's a $4.3MM cap hit which isn't awful for a backup DT. And he's also not really old. He's 28.

I'd say $4.3 million is most certainly "awful" for a backup DT. He's fits overpaying for a limited role to a 'T'.

Between he and Crawford, you're paying what? a combined total cap hit of $15 million for backups on a bad defensive line? That's the definition of "awful".

 

[Sydla]

I'd say $4.3 million is most certainly "awful" for a backup DT. He's fits overpaying for a limited role to a 'T'.

Between he and Crawford, you're paying what? a combined total cap hit of $15 million for backups on a bad defensive line? That's the definition of "awful".

Holy ****. I just looked and his average is the 15th highest paid DT. I thought he was much lower on the list than that.

Then again, he might end up being the starter by default if McClain bolts.

 

[Stash]

Holy ****. I just looked and his average is the 15th highest paid DT. I thought he was much lower on the list than that.

Then again, he might end up being the starter by default if McClain bolts.

And how bad would that suck? To lose your starter at 1T because you're overpaying two backups!

 

[JoeKing]

I never liked Bill Parcells and I knew from the day Jerry hired him that it would never translate to SB championships. His football philosophy is so flawed and his terminology still haunts this team to this very day. The Tuna's lingering legacy has forever infected a certain population of this team's fanbase. It's like a curse that can never be shed.