JJT/ Archer: Is Melton worth the money?

Good pass-rusher worth the money
Taylor By Jean-Jacques Taylor
ESPNDallas.com

Take away defensive tackle Henry Melton, and the Dallas Cowboys don't have a proven pass-rusher on their roster.

Perhaps DeMarcus Lawrence will soon evolve into the kind of pass-rusher who forces offensive coordinators to focus on him each week, but for now he's not.

The NFL is all about passing. The rules are designed to help the passing game and teams that can't rush the passer usually struggle to win.

So it makes sense to pick up Melton's three-year option at the end of the season.

Melton has a team-leading five sacks. The other 10 defensive linemen on the roster have combined for 5.5 sacks, and no one else has more than two.

Melton missed the final 13 games of last season with a torn ACL, and he struggled in training camp with a strained groin that kept him out the entire preseason. Only recently has he felt healthy enough to be dominant.

It shows.

He has 3.5 sacks in the past three games, and he's been consistently pressuring opposing quarterbacks. He's been lining up at defensive end and defensive tackle, depending on the situation and the matchup, and producing consistent pressure.

It's so difficult to find legitimate pass-rushers that the Cowboys shouldn't let one walk away. We've seen for years how hard it was for DeMarcus Ware when the Cowboys didn't have a legitimate pass-rusher opposite him.

If Lawrence develops as expected and the Cowboys pair him with Melton and, let's say, another first- or second-round pick who can also rush the passer, then the Cowboys could have a dominant defensive line to go with their offensive line.

Good pass-rushers in the NFL are hard to find, especially at defensive tackle. They're players who command a high price, but in today's NFL, they're worth the money.

If the Cowboys are going to overspend for a player, it's far better to do it on a pass-rushing defensive tackle, such as Melton, who can make an impact on the game.

Melton doesn't play enough snaps
Archer By Todd Archer
ESPNDallas.com

The Dallas Cowboys will have a decision to make about defensive tackle Henry Melton when the season ends.

If they decide to pick up the three-year option on Melton's deal, they will guarantee him $9 million in 2015. If they don't, then Melton will cost $750,000 in dead money against the cap next year.

How the Cowboys spend their money has been a big topic of discussion here lately. Maybe you've heard Dez Bryant is a free agent when the season is over and wants to be paid top dollar. DeMarco Murray might be running his way to the league's MVP and he is a free agent after the season. The team will have other decisions to make on lower-paid players, as well.

Melton has done a decent job with the Cowboys. He leads the defense with five sacks. He has been around the football and affected the quarterback.

But at $9 million, I'm not picking up the option.

It's not that I don't think Melton is a good player. He's good. He just doesn't play enough -- fewer than 30 snaps a game. That's by design, too. Rod Marinelli wants to keep his defensive linemen fresh. He loves to rotate guys in and out in order to wear down the offensive line. It's a great philosophy.

That's why cost matters. At $9 million in 2015, would the Cowboys gain any cost benefit from Melton playing 30 snaps a game? I'm sure there are some statisticians out there who have a formula to say yes or no, but to me, that's not enough bang for the buck.

This isn't just a Melton issue. I wonder if the Cowboys will work this way going forward with their defensive linemen, viewing them as plug-and-play guys for two, three, four years and move on to the next round of defensive linemen.

The Cowboys did not want to pay DeMarcus Ware big money last year, partly because they believed he was a declining player, and partly because they knew they would employ more of a rotation. Jason Hatcher was not brought back in part because of his age and the rotation strategy.

Paying a player that kind of money to play fewer than 50 percent of the snaps just does not seem beneficial.

Teams want to get their money's worth out of their high-priced players. Bryant and Murray hardly come off the field. Jason Witten doesn't come off the field. Their offensive linemen don't come off the field. Their cornerbacks don't come off the field.

Every dollar will count for the Cowboys and they will be wiser spending the money they would sink in Melton into players who will be on the field more.

I'd think about bringing Melton back in 2015, but at a better price. That $9 million tag is just too expensive.

I am on the fence with this one mainly because Crawford has been as productive.

Salary cap wise it would be a huge benefit to go with the younger guy and use that money to beef up the ends and get some quality depth in the secondary.

But I also think Melton has a higher ceiling, but Crawford is too good to just be a rotational guy.

The upside is Crawford has positional flex you could still use him at LDE while not his best spot he is better there than what we currently have and you could move him inside on occasion. I think this what I am leaning towards.

Iamtdg said:

Teams want to get their money's worth out of their high-priced players. Bryant and Murray hardly come off the field. Jason Witten doesn't come off the field. Their offensive linemen don't come off the field. Their cornerbacks don't come off the field.

Click to expand...

Gotta love this truly idiotic thinking.

You don't necessarily pay for snaps, you pay for impact. If Melton is giving you 8 sacks a year as part of a rotation, that impact is definitely worth the money.

Jiggyfly said:

I am on the fence with this one mainly because Crawford has been as productive.

Salary cap wise it would be a huge benefit to go with the younger guy and use that money to beef up the ends and get some quality depth in the secondary.

But I also think Melton has a higher ceiling, but Crawford is too good to just be a rotational guy.

The upside is Crawford has positional flex you could still use him at LDE while not his best spot he is better there than what we currently have and you could move him inside on occasion. I think this what I am leaning towards.

Click to expand...

It's a good problem to have, that's for damn sure.

Jiggyfly said:

I am on the fence with this one mainly because Crawford has been as productive.

Salary cap wise it would be a huge benefit to go with the younger guy and use that money to beef up the ends and get some quality depth in the secondary.

But I also think Melton has a higher ceiling, but Crawford is too good to just be a rotational guy.

The upside is Crawford has positional flex you could still use him at LDE while not his best spot he is better there than what we currently have and you could move him inside on occasion. I think this what I am leaning towards.

Click to expand...

I see what you're saying but the rotation we have on the DL this year is a huge part of why our defense has been passable. If we let Melton go we still have to find someone else to provide some pass rush from the interior aside from Crawford.

Simpleton said:

I see what you're saying but the rotation we have on the DL this year is a huge part of why our defense has been passable. If we let Melton go we still have to find someone else to provide some pass rush from the interior aside from Crawford.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but regardless you can't play a rotational player 9 mil. You won't be able to afford everyone.

Iamtdg said:

Yeah, but regardless you can't play a rotational player 9 mil. You won't be able to afford everyone.

Click to expand...

Are the Seahawks making a mistake paying someone like Michael Bennett 7+ million a year?

He was a part of a heavy rotation too.

You want some kind of a rotation on the DL no matter what the guys are getting paid or how good they are, does that mean you shouldn't pay defensive linemen?

If a guy can give you around 8 sacks a year from the interior that's worth the money, and from what I remember it's only a 3 year deal so we could get out of it easily after a year or two.

Simpleton said:

I see what you're saying but the rotation we have on the DL this year is a huge part of why our defense has been passable. If we let Melton go we still have to find someone else to provide some pass rush from the interior aside from Crawford.

Click to expand...

I agree we have to find someone else, but I liked what Coleman did he and Crawford could be a good rotation and much cheaper.

Remember we also have to resign Crawford after next year.

Simpleton said:

Are the Seahawks making a mistake paying someone like Michael Bennett 7+ million a year?

He was a part of a heavy rotation too.

You want some kind of a rotation on the DL no matter what the guys are getting paid or how good they are, does that mean you shouldn't pay defensive linemen?

If a guy can give you around 8 sacks a year from the interior that's worth the money, and from what I remember it's only a 3 year deal so we could get out of it easily after a year or two.

Click to expand...

I didn't say they shouldn't. I said they can't because they won't be able to afford it.

I should have worded it better.

Jiggyfly said:

I agree we have to find someone else, but I liked what Coleman did he and Crawford could be a good rotation and much cheaper.

Remember we also have to resign Crawford after next year.

Click to expand...

I realize that, I just looked at Melton's contract and from what I read it looks like we only gave him a 1 million bonus, if he's on the roster next year the 9 million is fully guaranteed but I don't think there's any more bonus money, so the deal is basically a series of 1 year deals.

If that's the case we could get rid of him at anytime with little to no repercussions, and as for affording him, if we cut Carr we could probably afford him.

A guy being paid franchise tag money needs to be able to play 75% of the snaps if called upon. If you pay a guy like Kevin Williams, he needs to play like Kevin Williams. Sometimes you don't have the depth to coddle a specialist and they need to start and play well with a full workload.

Simpleton said:

Gotta love this truly idiotic thinking.

You don't necessarily pay for snaps, you pay for impact. If Melton is giving you 8 sacks a year as part of a rotation, that impact is definitely worth the money.

Click to expand...

I strongly believe this thinking took at least a year off of DeMarcus Ware's career and also damaged his productivity.

Simpleton said:

I realize that, I just looked at Melton's contract and from what I read it looks like we only gave him a 1 million bonus, if he's on the roster next year the 9 million is fully guaranteed but I don't think there's any more bonus money, so the deal is basically a series of 1 year deals.

If that's the case we could get rid of him at anytime with little to no repercussions, and as for affording him, if we cut Carr we could probably afford him.

Click to expand...

I was told the guarantee is prorated, and it better be because we would have to do a hell of a lot to absorbe a 9 million cap hit next year, considering all of the other FA's we have.

If we cut Carr then what? We have to replace him and then incur that dead money I don't think Melton is worth that kind of finagling.

Carr cost a lot less to cut after this year so I think I would ride that out.

I am pretty sure they have a restructure in mind to lower Melton's cap hit and I would be all for it if we did not have so many other contracts up.

Jiggyfly said:

I was told the guarantee is prorated, and it better be because we would have to do a hell of a lot to absorbe a 9 million cap hit next year, considering all of the other FA's we have.

If we cut Carr then what? We have to replace him and then incur that dead money I don't think Melton is worth that kind of finagling.

Carr cost a lot less to cut after this year so I think I would ride that out.

I am pretty sure they have a restructure in mind to lower Melton's cap hit and I would be all for it if we did not have so many other contracts up.

Click to expand...

I'd approach Carr and see if he would take a Doug Free style pay cut to stay on the team. If he could come down on that base salary, we don't necessarily have to cut him.

Jiggyfly said:

I was told the guarantee is prorated, and it better be because we would have to do a hell of a lot to absorbe a 9 million cap hit next year, considering all of the other FA's we have.

If we cut Carr then what? We have to replace him and then incur that dead money I don't think Melton is worth that kind of finagling.

Carr cost a lot less to cut after this year so I think I would ride that out.

I am pretty sure they have a restructure in mind to lower Melton's cap hit and I would be all for it if we did not have so many other contracts up.

Click to expand...

According to C-Rock the cap hit would only be 3 mill next year, but according to over the cap, that's not true. His cap number would be a little over 9 mill.

http://overthecap.com/player/henry-melton/1813

This also negates that:

Breaking down Henry Melton's contract
March, 19, 2014

By Todd Archer | ESPNDallas.com

IRVING, Texas -- Henry Melton will make as little as $2.25 million with the Dallas Cowboys in 2014 and as much as $29 million over the next four seasons, according to league sources.

The Cowboys gave Melton, who is coming back from a torn anterior cruciate ligament, a $1 million signing bonus as part of the deal he agreed to Tuesday night with a $1.25 million base salary. He can earn an extra $78,125 per week if he is on the 46-man roster, maxing out at $1.25 million. His first-year cap number at present is $1.734 million but will grow through the season each week he is on the gameday roster.

The kicker in the deal comes in 2015 when he would earn a fully guaranteed $9 million base salary. The base salaries in 2016-17 are $7.5 million each.

There are also $1.5 million in incentives in the deal for playing time and sacks in 2014.

The Cowboys have to exercise the option on the final three years of the deal by the first day of the 2015 league year. If they don't, then they would have $750,000 in dead money on the cap and Melton will be an unrestricted free agent. If they do, then Melton's cap number in 2015 would be $9.25 million, which the Cowboys could easily restructure to create salary-cap room.

The Cowboys have a deal that is the ultimate "prove it," concept. If Melton plays like he did in 2012 when he earned Pro Bowl honors, then he will be paid. If he doesn't, then the Cowboys maintain financial flexibility.

"I didn't have to be talked into [the contract] at all," Melton said. "I knew what was out there. The ACL scares a lot of teams and a lot of people. You can come back great from it. That's something that I believe I can do. Just have to buckle down and get physically and mentally ready and train my butt off just to be ready to go."

I do whatever I can to keep him here...and to have him be the key prong in the DT rotation. I am fine with him taking less snaps. Also, I am not ready to give Crawford a big payday yet. I really like what I have seen from him, but I need more.

I don't think guaranteed money automatically equals prorated over the life of the contract. I believe we got those salary cap penalties because we guaranteed huge amounts of money during uncapped years on Austin's contract so that we could absorb the majority of the deal during the uncapped years while giving him a smaller signing bonus.

Yearly salary can be converted into a signing bonus which is then prorated, but just because money is guaranteed in any given year I don't think it means it's automatically prorated. So basically I think the 9 million hit would only be for next year, which has its pros and cons.

Simpleton said:

I don't think guaranteed money automatically equals prorated over the life of the contract. I believe we got those salary cap penalties because we guaranteed huge amounts of money during uncapped years on Austin's contract so that we could absorb the majority of the deal during the uncapped years while giving him a smaller signing bonus.

Yearly salary can be converted into a signing bonus which is then prorated, but just because money is guaranteed in any given year I don't think it means it's automatically prorated. So basically I think the 9 million hit would only be for next year, which has its pros and cons.

Click to expand...

If not restructured his next two year hits would be 7.75 mill each.