"Micah Parsons?" Island

I liked the Cowboys trade

Ryan Glasspiegel and I talked some Micah Parsons trade on the last Random Offense. Some of you subscribers DARED disagreed with me, America’s Foremost NFL writer.

The Official HoS position on the Dallas Cowboys’ Micah Parsons trade is simple: It was a good choice, after a series of bad choices led the franchise to this point. It’s drawn comparisons to that other big trade in Dallas, but dealing Dončić made little strategic sense. In contrast, a mediocre, overspent Cowboys exchanging their vaunted edge rusher for two first rounders and veteran DT Kenny Clark makes a lot of sense. If anyone believes it was a poor decision, at the exact time it happened, I’m open to hearing why here or on the BCC Chat.

The Cowboys were not winning the Super Bowl with or without Parsons, so why not get some picks? Why is getting draft capital worse for a rudderless team than making Parsons history’s richest non quarterback? What was the big upside to door Number 2?

Would it have been more optimal for the trade to have went down pre draft? Sure, but after that ship sails, you’re still left with, “What’s the best choice, given the current set of circumstances?” The 49ers sunk-cost-fallacy’d their way into overpaying receiver Brandon Aiyuk after they couldn’t consummate a pre draft trade in 2024. You can’t let “perfect” be the enemy of “prudent.” You don’t continue to hold the bag just because you should have let it go sooner.

You can claim Dallas could have gotten a better deal but as HoS friend John Middlekauff has pointed out, NFL players have undergone something of an NBAification. As in, football stars, via their agents, can dictate preferred location to a degree. This means that a select few teams were on a plausible list for Parsons, so it’s not as though the Cowboys were leveraging 31 franchises against each other. Jerry Jones may be grandiose and increasingly senile, but this was plausibly more or less the best trade on offer. Bottom feeding teams weren’t going to unload picks for an unhappy, possibly non compliant star.

While it’s probable that the Packers’ first rounders are likely late in the order, this isn’t the NBA. Bottom end first rounders often change franchises (Justin Jefferson, Lamar Jackson, TJ Watt). If you’re not sold on that chance, the picks can be packaged to yield a higher order first round selection.

These are the takes I’m solidly confident in, and now allow me to walk further out onto a limb: I also think Micah Parsons is overrated. The operative word here is “think,” because unlike with NBA basketball, much of NFL football away from the ball gets visually obscured.

We’re hearing a lot about how Micah is only 26, but his best season was the rookie year he spent at linebacker. The only example I can come up with where an edge exploded in his first season before tailing off was Jevon Kearse. I take it that Parsons is younger than the other top flight edges, but he’s got a back issue and the production trend line is not favorable.

Parsons clearly can rush the passer, which is valuable, but he’s reputed to be weak against the run, which makes sense given that he’s a 245 lbs DE. I’d add that, based on his own interviews, he appears to conceive of his job as almost wholly about getting sacks.

Sacks are valuable, but as with a lot of sports stats, there’s an aspect of Campbell’s Law:

The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.

As veteran edge Cameron Jordan has explained, there are players who snag reputation-boosting sacks while shirking team specific responsibilities. This has been alleged in regards to Parsons, but I’m in no position to determine the extent to which it’s so. I will say that, based on the circumstantial evidence, I’d bet there’s fire behind the smoke. Parsons brings value, but likely also slightly undermines impact by chasing a statistical indicator of value.

Then there’s the matter of Parsons underwhelming in his postseason career (4 games, 4 QB hits) and big matchups more generally. The NFL is a small sample size sport and perhaps this means little longterm, but…what’s up with that? I’m sure he was schemed for, a strategic concession that’s a value in of itself, but top end players are supposed to make their presence felt when it matters most. There could be exonerating explanations for the poor production, but I’ve yet to see one offered. It doesn’t mean that Parsons is fraudulent, but if NFL analysts are building up a player as, “the best pure pass rusher to enter the league in the last 20 years,” I’d like to know why that quality wasn’t there in the highest leverage moments.

None of this is to say that Parsons is bad, or without value. One reason I’m nervous about this take is that the Packers organization is superior to the Cowboys org. Green Bay has a need for Parsons, who could theoretically fit perfectly. They stand a chance at optimizing what Parsons does far better than the circus he’s escaped.

But…as the NFL transitions back to the rushing attack, as a way to punish defenses for going “two high,” I question teams investing so much in specialists. By rep, Parsons isn’t a run stopper or a coverage guy. He does one job, and fortunately, it’s a job the Packers need. I’m not entirely negative on Green Bay taking a swing here, but ultimately it’s a move I’m against. You can call me an idiot, a contrarian, or whatever else. What I am now, definitively, is someone who’ll be watching the Packers this season with a sense of skin the game.