100% agree with Ethan here. We live in an age of over-the-top media reactions to everything. Every trade is historically awful, every player is generational, and every outcome is dystopian. Yet, history teaches us that such reactions and any purported “consensus” are rarely even close to accurate in the end. These deals are complex, subject to numerous factors not in view, and difficult to assess without the passage of time. The future is unwritten and when it is, it will be different than what the media is shouting today.
The headlines screamed that the Bears had done it.... they had acquired a "generational talent" in Kahlil Mack. They had their answer...until they didn't. Two years later, Chicago writers wanted the Bears to unload him because he was suddenly disappointing and had a financial stranglehold over the ability of the organization to make necessary changes. Several recent retrospectives on the Mack transaction candidly acknowledge that the media got it wrong.
One way to identify histrionics is the use of empty calorie consensus language to describe the player. Several metrics have shown that Parsons is woeful against the run (just as Jerry suggested) and worse in the post season (just as Jerry suggested). Yet, article after article lazily uses the phrase "game wrecker" to describe Parson - as if that covers off on all sins. It seems that all you need is to use the cool kids’ terminology and your work is done. No intellectual heavy lifting is needed. Just learn to write "game wrecker" and remain smug and sanctimonious. Count me out.
Remember Jadeveon Clowney? Another disappointing player the media got wrong, who in the latter half of his career as he was cycling through one-year deals with multiple teams who never retained him (or worse, released him before the end of the year), the media kept writing , "yeah, he's not great as a pass rusher like we thought, but boy is he disruptive."
"Disruptive." What did that mean exactly? Nobody knew or bothered explaining.
It was the magic word that was needed to keep the lie about his disappointing performance alive for another season while deferring accountability for a bad initial take. You know it's over when the media inevitably goes dark when the player doesn't pan out. BTW...where is all the Clowney disruptor talk suddenly?
So, let's break this down. First, let's call out the big lie of the media. All this talk around "Jerry didn't get enough back" is a blatant and obvious falsehood. Not a single person advancing this line of reasoning believes that. It's a fake made up argument. There is no compensation that these people believe would adequately compensate for "the greatest pass rusher of the last 20 years." There is no deal Jerry could have done that would satisfy them.
So, let's stop making that ridiculous argument
This is a lie advanced by those in the media trying to present themselves as reasonable and honest brokers in the dialog when they're not. Don't be fooled.... they view the Parsons trade as akin to the Christians trading the Savior right before Easter. There is no adequate compensation in their minds if put under sodium pentothal.
So, how good is Parsons beyond the hyped branding and over the top monikers? All metrics are flawed to some degree but remain valuable as directional proxies. Let's look at Approximate Value from Pro Football Reference as one. When extrapolated to a full 17 games here are Parsons AV ratings in his first four years: 19.1; 19; 15; and 10.5.
Again, not a perfect stat, but notice a trend? His value has dropped 45% since his rookie season. It’s easy to ignore the trend when you keep putting out “in the first four years of his career” stats to hide the concerning trend. See, what really matters is the NEXT four years. The Reggie White comparisons are not apt. Here are White’s AV Ratings over only a 16 games season during his first seven seasons; 7, 19, 15 (over just 12 games), 19, 18, 17, and 19.
One thing I hope we can agree upon easily…Micah Parson ain’t Reggie White. Let’s also stop with that absurd comparison.
Parsons is 26 and despite what the objectors are suggesting, that is not young for the position. It is in fact the average age for an NFL linebacker whose careers are short. He's a one-dimensional player who now requires pain killers to get through Week 1 we are told. We are now also told that his Dallas teammates didn’t see him as a hard worker.... a troubling attribute for someone on the downhill side of the aging curve. With him, Dallas had one of the worst defenses in the NFL. While friends of mine will tell you that Green Bay's numbers were a bit of an illusion, they were still very good and in the top 10.
So, how many wins above replacement are we arguing he is worth now exactly? Instead of lazily saying "game wrecker" tell me how much all that game wrecking is worth in terms of WAR? 1? 1.5? Maybe 2? Green Bay won 11 games last year. How many will Parsons add? If you optimistically say two, that is still behind Detroit, Minnesota, and Philly from last season.
Hardly seems future altering, even for the best case. The Packers' future still rests in the hands of Jordan Love. Adding a few more sacks will not change their direction unless those other teams get worse.
While we're looking at numbers, could Dallas have even afforded the Green Bay contract? If not, we need to stop talking about this. If they couldn't, then Dallas had to move him. As Mike Tirico noted recently, "[s]o, you can't field another 50 (players) when your three are gaining 40, 42, 46, maybe even 50 percent of the cap." That's the funny thing about arithmetic. It remembers the past and holds you accountable.
Remember when these same media people now complaining about the Parsons trade were the same ones instructing the public that Jerry had to give Dak...and CeeDee Lamb a top-of-the-market "Bag?" Remember when we were told that those decisions to pay them were "obvious ones" by those lacking any appreciation of the financial restrictions of the game?
See, those earlier deals might have led directly to Parsons wearing dark green and gold today. Yeah, unlike with hot takes, arithmetic never forgets. It's incredible how few so-called NFL writers even discuss this foundational question.
The likely outcome here is that in four years both teams will look back at this transaction as disappointing. Again, these transactions are complicated and hard to predict but make no mistake about it - this transaction is super high risk for Green Bay. They need to at least get to a Super Bowl over the next two seasons, or this is a massive miss. After next year, the financial boa constrictor that is Parson's contract will thin the roster as he gets older and the Packers have fewer picks to fill in the holes.
Whatever your view of Parsons, Green Bay is now on the clock and Jerry will be fine...
This is basketball brain. Flipping sure talent for picks in a volatile sport like football is not the same. Sure you could get a Lamar Jackson. You could also get a Kenny Pickett.
Parsons is elite. And has been consistently elite, not “tailing off.” His run when coming back from injury last year was incredible on field play from a singular player on a defense. This is a peak player who will likely live at this peak for a couple more years at least. Also the knock on effect of the attention you have to pay to Parsons has a rising effect on the other 10 players. The rest of the rush ends up with more one on ones. The linebackers are more free to cheat back and get depth in coverage. Dallas maintained a mediocre defense with incredibly poor investment and bad injury luck due in larger part to Parsons’ orbit
Trading Parsons isn’t the issue. The issue is between Dak/Lamb/Parsons, Parsons is by far the best player of the 3 relative to their positions. It is terrible team building strategy to pay worse players (Dak) or players at lesser positions (Lamb) before paying Parsons. Also the salary cap in the NFL is mostly fake. Parsons have a cap hit of 9, 19, 26 next 3 years. If the price of having one of the few potentially game changing defensive players are 2 late 1s and salary problems in 2028 in a league that prints money, that’s a price I would pay 100/100 times.
ignoring two important variables: "team" building includes team camaraderie and willingness to work for each other. parsons is not well liked on the team. can you still win despite well liked players, absolutely, but something to consider when deciding whether or not to make someone the highest paid non qb
cowboys on a mid term plan - not short - and they would benefit from higher short term cap hits, allowing more cap space 2-3 years from now when the Boys will soonest become SB contenders.
Lolll assholes never won in professional sports before. All I know is Cowboys with Parsons on the field led the league in EPA and was one of the worst without Parsons. Of all the things this can go wrong for the Packers, that doesn’t even make the list. RE Dallas, they also have a QB who is not bad enough to tank and an owner who hasn’t made a conference championship game in 30 years, so good luck with cap space and picks. Maybe one of those picks can turn into Micah Parsons.
agreed, does seem like all you know is that the cowboys w parsons on the field led the league in epa and was one of the worst without parsons. respectfully
Well respectfully, if I am a GM, leading the league in EPA is really good, and being worst in EPA is really bad. I would do whatever I can to make sure I can lead the league in EPA and do everything I can to avoid being the worst
I'm going to email Jerry Jones, he's my sister in laws brother in laws second uncle, immediately following this comment to request a banner unveiling to honor MP before opening kickoff of the 2025 NFL season.
"2024 Cowboys #1 in EPA w Micah Parsons on the field"
You might also want to add Parsons has a higher PFF grade against the run than Clark and Bland was legitimately one of the worst run defending corners in the league.
hey Ethan, was mostly just looking for any reason to use the scott skiles story and i actually don’t think you’re too far off with this take. hope you didn’t take that joke personally
my main issues are mostly summarized in other comments but i think the big thing is this: the cowboys offered him a massive contract in the ballpark of the packers deal. trying to do research on this is tough but some reports say they offered more guaranteed money but over a longer period of time - either way all the details are murky.
the main point being: Jerry wanted Parsons and was willing to give him huge money, and things went sideways more for non-money reasons and it became a dick swinging contest. this means that a) Jerry might even secretly disagree with the points in your article and b) i think it means you have to judge this deal on the difference between the packers deal and the cowboys deal. if the cowboys really wanted him and lost him over a relatively small amount then this is a failure
i can definitely agree with your last point. the “well i watched this one game 2 years ago and he didn’t make any plays that i can recall from memory” was not a great way to make an argument
I love this take. It's super fun (and probably wrong). It's a complicated sport to analyze that not many people understand and yet there's an element of, if Parsons is so good, how come their defense wasn't better last season
Well, they wanted to keep him. Jerrah just threw a temper tantrum because he tried to work him over without his agent but they were ready to pay him market resetting figure so I don't buy the salary cap bit. And the Dak contract is an albatross but that one didn't have to go that way either, nor the Lamb contract.
The defense is now much worse. The players they receive even if they pan out will be 2 years down the road right around the time you'll need to be drafting a rookie QB when the Dak cut inevitably comes. Not ideal.
Contrarians always run the risk of being wildly wrong because they just want to go against the grain (happens to me at times). People that don’t watch all the games (genuinely impossible if it’s not your job) and don’t understand the in’s and out’s of scheme, responsibility, and technique are at a huge disadvantage when offering takes on football. It’s too complex. You have to know what’s asked of a player (only educated guesses for those not in meeting rooms) and what opponents are doing to neutralize the best players.
Fundamentally I think the contrarian Parsons take here is just too NBA-brained. The depth of the draft means that there isn’t the same No Man’s Land of not good enough to win but too good to lose enough to draft someone good doesn’t apply. Unless your QB is hopeless, you don’t need to tank from the beginning of the season.
Would the Cowboys organization have been likely to build a team around him that would actually compete in the playoffs? No. But they’re not likely to turn the team around with an extra late first in 2027 either.
Yeah there's a lot of differences between NBA and NFL strategy- too many to write out here. A big one is that fans actually watch the games.
Fans are not cool - and shouldn't be - with a Wizards like strategy of sucking for 4 years and then maybe Sarr and Johnson and Carrington are good. In the NBA you can just check out and watch highlights.
In the NFL, we build our lives around watching the games. Its getting cold and dark. Its so fun when your team has a big game on SNF with a division rival. And you care about it. That is the life experience we want as sports fans. Maybe fringe cases like the current Steelers would differ. But being a good, competitive team is fun. And as noted, there is enough volatility that sometimes it can result in a deep playoff run
I'm an Eagles fan, so maybe take this with a grain of salt, but I have long thought Parsons was a bit overrated.
People talked about him like he was Lawrence Taylor, but it seemed he could be completely taken out of the game. As noted, maybe this diverted some resources, but LT-level players make an impact regardless.
That said, I think the trade helps the Packers more than the Cowboys, and it's rarely advantageous to let a 26 year old Top 5 at his position player go without getting one in return.
You can’t win paying $150m+ to Dak, Lamb and Parsons. Agree that they should have traded him earlier, but not paying him by itself, even with ignoring what they got back, was the right move.
The problem is that they will probably blow the picks so it doesn’t even matter at end. This is the Khalil Mack trade again. Raiders made the right move, as they were not going to win with Mack (see Crosby’s career), but it didn’t matter because the Raiders blew those picks as everybody knew they would.
When you make a trade you are trading a contract, not a player. Micah Parsons, regardless of what you think of him, is going to make market value before he takes another snap. Two first rounders for a player paid fairly does not strike me as terrible value. To break out ny favorite Simpsons quote "money can be exchanged for goods and services" so that savings can be used to upgrade multiple positions while also having two first-rounders. NFL seems to have not fully caught up with the concept of surplus value, and this seems like another indicator of that.
The biggest issue with this argument is that NFL has a franchise tag that essentially keeps the absolute best players under control for basically as long as the team wants. This is why free agency in the NFL is usually a losers game because you are always shopping at the discount bin. Cap room is basically used to keep players that the team themselves drafted, ie Micah Parsons. The 2 1st rounders is value absolutely. The additional cap room means nothing. Dallas already had one of the most cap rooms in the league prior to the trade.
100% agree with Ethan here. We live in an age of over-the-top media reactions to everything. Every trade is historically awful, every player is generational, and every outcome is dystopian. Yet, history teaches us that such reactions and any purported “consensus” are rarely even close to accurate in the end. These deals are complex, subject to numerous factors not in view, and difficult to assess without the passage of time. The future is unwritten and when it is, it will be different than what the media is shouting today.
The headlines screamed that the Bears had done it.... they had acquired a "generational talent" in Kahlil Mack. They had their answer...until they didn't. Two years later, Chicago writers wanted the Bears to unload him because he was suddenly disappointing and had a financial stranglehold over the ability of the organization to make necessary changes. Several recent retrospectives on the Mack transaction candidly acknowledge that the media got it wrong.
One way to identify histrionics is the use of empty calorie consensus language to describe the player. Several metrics have shown that Parsons is woeful against the run (just as Jerry suggested) and worse in the post season (just as Jerry suggested). Yet, article after article lazily uses the phrase "game wrecker" to describe Parson - as if that covers off on all sins. It seems that all you need is to use the cool kids’ terminology and your work is done. No intellectual heavy lifting is needed. Just learn to write "game wrecker" and remain smug and sanctimonious. Count me out.
Remember Jadeveon Clowney? Another disappointing player the media got wrong, who in the latter half of his career as he was cycling through one-year deals with multiple teams who never retained him (or worse, released him before the end of the year), the media kept writing , "yeah, he's not great as a pass rusher like we thought, but boy is he disruptive."
"Disruptive." What did that mean exactly? Nobody knew or bothered explaining.
It was the magic word that was needed to keep the lie about his disappointing performance alive for another season while deferring accountability for a bad initial take. You know it's over when the media inevitably goes dark when the player doesn't pan out. BTW...where is all the Clowney disruptor talk suddenly?
So, let's break this down. First, let's call out the big lie of the media. All this talk around "Jerry didn't get enough back" is a blatant and obvious falsehood. Not a single person advancing this line of reasoning believes that. It's a fake made up argument. There is no compensation that these people believe would adequately compensate for "the greatest pass rusher of the last 20 years." There is no deal Jerry could have done that would satisfy them.
So, let's stop making that ridiculous argument
This is a lie advanced by those in the media trying to present themselves as reasonable and honest brokers in the dialog when they're not. Don't be fooled.... they view the Parsons trade as akin to the Christians trading the Savior right before Easter. There is no adequate compensation in their minds if put under sodium pentothal.
So, how good is Parsons beyond the hyped branding and over the top monikers? All metrics are flawed to some degree but remain valuable as directional proxies. Let's look at Approximate Value from Pro Football Reference as one. When extrapolated to a full 17 games here are Parsons AV ratings in his first four years: 19.1; 19; 15; and 10.5.
Again, not a perfect stat, but notice a trend? His value has dropped 45% since his rookie season. It’s easy to ignore the trend when you keep putting out “in the first four years of his career” stats to hide the concerning trend. See, what really matters is the NEXT four years. The Reggie White comparisons are not apt. Here are White’s AV Ratings over only a 16 games season during his first seven seasons; 7, 19, 15 (over just 12 games), 19, 18, 17, and 19.
One thing I hope we can agree upon easily…Micah Parson ain’t Reggie White. Let’s also stop with that absurd comparison.
Parsons is 26 and despite what the objectors are suggesting, that is not young for the position. It is in fact the average age for an NFL linebacker whose careers are short. He's a one-dimensional player who now requires pain killers to get through Week 1 we are told. We are now also told that his Dallas teammates didn’t see him as a hard worker.... a troubling attribute for someone on the downhill side of the aging curve. With him, Dallas had one of the worst defenses in the NFL. While friends of mine will tell you that Green Bay's numbers were a bit of an illusion, they were still very good and in the top 10.
So, how many wins above replacement are we arguing he is worth now exactly? Instead of lazily saying "game wrecker" tell me how much all that game wrecking is worth in terms of WAR? 1? 1.5? Maybe 2? Green Bay won 11 games last year. How many will Parsons add? If you optimistically say two, that is still behind Detroit, Minnesota, and Philly from last season.
Hardly seems future altering, even for the best case. The Packers' future still rests in the hands of Jordan Love. Adding a few more sacks will not change their direction unless those other teams get worse.
While we're looking at numbers, could Dallas have even afforded the Green Bay contract? If not, we need to stop talking about this. If they couldn't, then Dallas had to move him. As Mike Tirico noted recently, "[s]o, you can't field another 50 (players) when your three are gaining 40, 42, 46, maybe even 50 percent of the cap." That's the funny thing about arithmetic. It remembers the past and holds you accountable.
Remember when these same media people now complaining about the Parsons trade were the same ones instructing the public that Jerry had to give Dak...and CeeDee Lamb a top-of-the-market "Bag?" Remember when we were told that those decisions to pay them were "obvious ones" by those lacking any appreciation of the financial restrictions of the game?
See, those earlier deals might have led directly to Parsons wearing dark green and gold today. Yeah, unlike with hot takes, arithmetic never forgets. It's incredible how few so-called NFL writers even discuss this foundational question.
The likely outcome here is that in four years both teams will look back at this transaction as disappointing. Again, these transactions are complicated and hard to predict but make no mistake about it - this transaction is super high risk for Green Bay. They need to at least get to a Super Bowl over the next two seasons, or this is a massive miss. After next year, the financial boa constrictor that is Parson's contract will thin the roster as he gets older and the Packers have fewer picks to fill in the holes.
Whatever your view of Parsons, Green Bay is now on the clock and Jerry will be fine...
I still don’t like the trade, but I like this post a lot. Every trade is greeted by a massive overreaction. Remember DeMarcus Cousins for Buddy Hield?
Thanks so much for taking the time to read through and offer your thoughts. I really appreciated it!
This is an excellent rant.
I so appreciate those who appreciate a good rant. Thank you for enduring mine and reaching out here!
We have the chance to get American Airlines.
Dropping Mohawk is a price I'm willing to pay.
This is basketball brain. Flipping sure talent for picks in a volatile sport like football is not the same. Sure you could get a Lamar Jackson. You could also get a Kenny Pickett.
There are stats that track quality pressures. Including pressures that beat double teams. Parsons has a multi-year run at the top of them. Sacks can be a noisy stat. Pressures are sustainable. From one of the best line play follows in the game; https://x.com/brandonthornnfl/status/1961464672470679623?s=46&t=TI0QVOiXa54sW8jrNkbVTg
Parsons is elite. And has been consistently elite, not “tailing off.” His run when coming back from injury last year was incredible on field play from a singular player on a defense. This is a peak player who will likely live at this peak for a couple more years at least. Also the knock on effect of the attention you have to pay to Parsons has a rising effect on the other 10 players. The rest of the rush ends up with more one on ones. The linebackers are more free to cheat back and get depth in coverage. Dallas maintained a mediocre defense with incredibly poor investment and bad injury luck due in larger part to Parsons’ orbit
Trading Parsons isn’t the issue. The issue is between Dak/Lamb/Parsons, Parsons is by far the best player of the 3 relative to their positions. It is terrible team building strategy to pay worse players (Dak) or players at lesser positions (Lamb) before paying Parsons. Also the salary cap in the NFL is mostly fake. Parsons have a cap hit of 9, 19, 26 next 3 years. If the price of having one of the few potentially game changing defensive players are 2 late 1s and salary problems in 2028 in a league that prints money, that’s a price I would pay 100/100 times.
ignoring two important variables: "team" building includes team camaraderie and willingness to work for each other. parsons is not well liked on the team. can you still win despite well liked players, absolutely, but something to consider when deciding whether or not to make someone the highest paid non qb
cowboys on a mid term plan - not short - and they would benefit from higher short term cap hits, allowing more cap space 2-3 years from now when the Boys will soonest become SB contenders.
The Cowboys picked up George Pickens over the offseason so I don’t think locker room character is the issue here.
Lolll assholes never won in professional sports before. All I know is Cowboys with Parsons on the field led the league in EPA and was one of the worst without Parsons. Of all the things this can go wrong for the Packers, that doesn’t even make the list. RE Dallas, they also have a QB who is not bad enough to tank and an owner who hasn’t made a conference championship game in 30 years, so good luck with cap space and picks. Maybe one of those picks can turn into Micah Parsons.
agreed, does seem like all you know is that the cowboys w parsons on the field led the league in epa and was one of the worst without parsons. respectfully
Well respectfully, if I am a GM, leading the league in EPA is really good, and being worst in EPA is really bad. I would do whatever I can to make sure I can lead the league in EPA and do everything I can to avoid being the worst
I'm going to email Jerry Jones, he's my sister in laws brother in laws second uncle, immediately following this comment to request a banner unveiling to honor MP before opening kickoff of the 2025 NFL season.
"2024 Cowboys #1 in EPA w Micah Parsons on the field"
Will promptly share his reply.
You might also want to add Parsons has a higher PFF grade against the run than Clark and Bland was legitimately one of the worst run defending corners in the league.
hey Ethan, was mostly just looking for any reason to use the scott skiles story and i actually don’t think you’re too far off with this take. hope you didn’t take that joke personally
my main issues are mostly summarized in other comments but i think the big thing is this: the cowboys offered him a massive contract in the ballpark of the packers deal. trying to do research on this is tough but some reports say they offered more guaranteed money but over a longer period of time - either way all the details are murky.
the main point being: Jerry wanted Parsons and was willing to give him huge money, and things went sideways more for non-money reasons and it became a dick swinging contest. this means that a) Jerry might even secretly disagree with the points in your article and b) i think it means you have to judge this deal on the difference between the packers deal and the cowboys deal. if the cowboys really wanted him and lost him over a relatively small amount then this is a failure
I stand by my comment. Its a bad take and was supported by a lot of weak commentary on the pod.
i can definitely agree with your last point. the “well i watched this one game 2 years ago and he didn’t make any plays that i can recall from memory” was not a great way to make an argument
“The Cowboys were not winning the Super Bowl with or without Parsons, so why not get some picks?”
Mamas don’t let your sons grow up to be basketbloggers
I love this take. It's super fun (and probably wrong). It's a complicated sport to analyze that not many people understand and yet there's an element of, if Parsons is so good, how come their defense wasn't better last season
Well, they wanted to keep him. Jerrah just threw a temper tantrum because he tried to work him over without his agent but they were ready to pay him market resetting figure so I don't buy the salary cap bit. And the Dak contract is an albatross but that one didn't have to go that way either, nor the Lamb contract.
The defense is now much worse. The players they receive even if they pan out will be 2 years down the road right around the time you'll need to be drafting a rookie QB when the Dak cut inevitably comes. Not ideal.
A solid stat that runs counter to “Micah chasing sacks hurts the overall defense despite his production” narrative. https://x.com/billbarnwell/status/1951391033474031920?s=46&t=mzbzT673-uSc4TRmqiUVIg
And here is a quick breakdown for 49er fans specifically who question Micah based on 2 playoff games. https://x.com/richjmadrid/status/1961200217514283048?s=46&t=mzbzT673-uSc4TRmqiUVIg
Trading a top 3 edge rusher who’s 26 years old, for 2 picks in the 25-30 range is awful.
I believe we have reached the line where contrarianism has reached its limit :(
Contrarians always run the risk of being wildly wrong because they just want to go against the grain (happens to me at times). People that don’t watch all the games (genuinely impossible if it’s not your job) and don’t understand the in’s and out’s of scheme, responsibility, and technique are at a huge disadvantage when offering takes on football. It’s too complex. You have to know what’s asked of a player (only educated guesses for those not in meeting rooms) and what opponents are doing to neutralize the best players.
Fundamentally I think the contrarian Parsons take here is just too NBA-brained. The depth of the draft means that there isn’t the same No Man’s Land of not good enough to win but too good to lose enough to draft someone good doesn’t apply. Unless your QB is hopeless, you don’t need to tank from the beginning of the season.
Would the Cowboys organization have been likely to build a team around him that would actually compete in the playoffs? No. But they’re not likely to turn the team around with an extra late first in 2027 either.
Yeah there's a lot of differences between NBA and NFL strategy- too many to write out here. A big one is that fans actually watch the games.
Fans are not cool - and shouldn't be - with a Wizards like strategy of sucking for 4 years and then maybe Sarr and Johnson and Carrington are good. In the NBA you can just check out and watch highlights.
In the NFL, we build our lives around watching the games. Its getting cold and dark. Its so fun when your team has a big game on SNF with a division rival. And you care about it. That is the life experience we want as sports fans. Maybe fringe cases like the current Steelers would differ. But being a good, competitive team is fun. And as noted, there is enough volatility that sometimes it can result in a deep playoff run
I'm an Eagles fan, so maybe take this with a grain of salt, but I have long thought Parsons was a bit overrated.
People talked about him like he was Lawrence Taylor, but it seemed he could be completely taken out of the game. As noted, maybe this diverted some resources, but LT-level players make an impact regardless.
That said, I think the trade helps the Packers more than the Cowboys, and it's rarely advantageous to let a 26 year old Top 5 at his position player go without getting one in return.
You can’t win paying $150m+ to Dak, Lamb and Parsons. Agree that they should have traded him earlier, but not paying him by itself, even with ignoring what they got back, was the right move.
The problem is that they will probably blow the picks so it doesn’t even matter at end. This is the Khalil Mack trade again. Raiders made the right move, as they were not going to win with Mack (see Crosby’s career), but it didn’t matter because the Raiders blew those picks as everybody knew they would.
When you make a trade you are trading a contract, not a player. Micah Parsons, regardless of what you think of him, is going to make market value before he takes another snap. Two first rounders for a player paid fairly does not strike me as terrible value. To break out ny favorite Simpsons quote "money can be exchanged for goods and services" so that savings can be used to upgrade multiple positions while also having two first-rounders. NFL seems to have not fully caught up with the concept of surplus value, and this seems like another indicator of that.
The biggest issue with this argument is that NFL has a franchise tag that essentially keeps the absolute best players under control for basically as long as the team wants. This is why free agency in the NFL is usually a losers game because you are always shopping at the discount bin. Cap room is basically used to keep players that the team themselves drafted, ie Micah Parsons. The 2 1st rounders is value absolutely. The additional cap room means nothing. Dallas already had one of the most cap rooms in the league prior to the trade.