Micah Parsons is a difficult player to grade. I'm not sure if Jerry's assertions of Micah in the run game are entirely correct, but it can't be denied that Dallas's defence has been disproportionately good against the pass compared to how good they were against the run in 2021, 2023, and 2024. In 2024 especially, giving up 0.083 EPA/Rush was not worth the trade. How much of the blame for this can be given to a single pass rushing outside LB? Tough to say.
However, it can be said with confidence that Micah moving to the Packers (who struggled badly against the pass but were strong against the run in 2024) is the right directional move. Kenny Clark is coming off a mild down year, but not a huge one, although at age 30 in this league you never know what a player is going to be from one season to the next. You just hope that the Packers haven't given up so much in the run game that a defensive strength turns into a weakness. I don't think they have, but it's always possible.
This is an interesting trade from the Dallas side. I find it odd that the Bengals' roster builders are routinely crucified for locking so much money into just a few guys, meanwhile the Cowboys are being crucified for not wanting to do so with Micah Parsons. I know the situations are slightly different in Cincinnati vs Dallas, but they seem similar enough that they shouldn't be thought of as differently as they're being thought of right now.
The Cowboys in 2025 have lots of cap space. Dak Prescott is the only big money player they have right now. They could've fit big money Micah easily, but this team has so many extensions kicking in next year, it would've been tough to fit another one. They have less cap space in 2026 than they do in 2025, and that's with only the contracts on the 2025 roster, without Micah.
I have more trust in Jerry Jones than most, as he's shown time and again since 2003 his ability to strip the Cowboys down and build them back up again. I'm not sure where all the talk of him being a 'bad' GM comes from. The Cowboys have been the NFC's best team multiple different times over the last 20 years. Jerry knows how to build a team. It always remains possible that at 82 years old, the man is losing his edge, but I give such an accomplished roster builder some benefit of the doubt when he makes a shocking move like this, especially now with a couple extra first round picks.
I think this is a good trade for the Packers, trading out some of their rush defence strength to attempt to shore up their dire pass defence weakness from last year. It's a hefty price they paid, and I think Micah can turn out to be a disappointment very easily, but it's a good trade. I just don't know if Dallas is getting enough credit for the fact that they're pretty good at making chicken salad out of a bad situation. They've done it time and again over the years. With an 82 year old GM, you never know which time is the last time, but Dallas gets the benefit of the doubt from me on this, based on past successes. I think your C- trade grade for them is a little harsh here.
Feels like it's the handling of the situation and the context of team timelines that is influencing the grade.
They're paying top-end QB and WR money to guys entering (or already in) their primes. That feels like a "we want a Super Bowl in the next few years" type of contract situation. In that context, trading a Parsons-caliber player makes less sense than it would if this were a rebuilding roster.
The second piece is the situation around this trade. I'm not a GM, so I don't know what Parsons "should" go for, but I'm pretty confident Dallas lost leverage at some point between "Parsons asking for a trade" and "Parsons being in the news for laying around on a training table during a preseason game." Granted, that situation was overblown, but letting it get to that point is never a positive for trade value.
C- might be a little harsh, but given where we were 6 months ago I think it's fair to question if this is really the best they could have done. I find it plausible that they could have had this trade or better in April, then had the entire summer to improve the roster with the assets they got back.
I agree with almost everything you say here. This is a point well made. The cap situation is incongruous with trading such a good player, but we do have to keep in mind that Dallas is very good at picking guys up and turning them into good football players, be that a first round pick guy or a late round pick guy or a guy off the street. They've been around the top of the NFC most of the last ten years for a reason. I don't think trading Parsons means they're giving up. In all likelihood, Dallas's defence will improve next year without him, because Dallas just doesn't have a defence as bad as the 2024 variant two seasons in a row.
It's entirely possible that I'm giving too much credit to Dallas here, just because they're Dallas, and they've been one of the best run teams in the league for a long time, but I think things like this have to come into play in such a discussion. It's entirely possible this decision is motivated by the faith that the Cowboys have in themselves to be able to replace such a player, because they've been doing it for years at other positions.
As far as the trade timing, we agree 100 percent. It would've been better to get this done in April and just be done with it. However, Dallas got more out of Micah Parsons than Oakland got out of Khalil Mack several years ago, and Khalil Mack from 2014-2017 is a better player than Micah Parsons from 2021-2024, not in the sack category but in every other category, so if we use that as reference, I don't think the Cowboys did too badly.
Could they have done even better? It's possible, but I don't think I would bet on that, given previous trades for star pass rushers.
The key question that everybody needs to answer trading for a player like Micah is that on any passing play, what happens in the secondary is more important than what happens at the line of scrimmage, so how much should we give up for a player who is of no help in pass coverage? The hard and fast answer appears to be two first round picks, plus a sweetener. We can debate the could've beens and should've beens about the quality of the sweetener, but I sincerely doubt the two first round pick barrier is ever going to be broached for a non-DB defensive player.
Honestly, I think the Cowboys milked every dime they could out of a player that they did not want in Micah Parsons. The contract GB gave him was very affordable. Dallas could've handled it easily, so I don't think it's even about the money. I just don't think the Cowboys wanted him that badly, and traded him for the most they could get. Fans don't like it, but we're not in the locker room. Why don't the Cowboys want Micah Parsons? Tough to say, but it's not the money. He's making four percent of the cap this year and not much more than that in the next two. I cannot stress enough that Dallas can easily fit this into their cap situation. It's got nothing to do with the cap situation. There's some other reason that the Cowboys do not want him.
This reason can be as petty as Jerry Jones got offended, or it can be as real as Micah being a serious locker room issue (there are whispers to that effect, but you never know if they're true or not at a time like this). What must be stressed though is that the media is getting it wrong if they think letting him go has anything to do with money. It doesn't. At least not in the next three years it doesn't. They got rid of him for another reason, whatever that reason may be, football or non-football. We can't be sure.
I completely agree with your points on the timeline issues, and on the timing of the trade, but I think they maximised the trade haul anyways, and I think the media is (deliberately or otherwise) getting it wrong by insisting this has anything to do with money, when I just don't reasonably think that can be the case, given the deal that Micah took with the Packers.
The game is about money. Large money! If a player’s contract doesn’t fit the team allocation there’s no point in wasting an early season trade opportunity instead of generating hard feelings between management and player. That results in disappointing performance.
Micah is a great pash rusher who fades by December. If Green Bay wins this year it’s going to be bc of Jordan Love.
Micah Parsons is a difficult player to grade. I'm not sure if Jerry's assertions of Micah in the run game are entirely correct, but it can't be denied that Dallas's defence has been disproportionately good against the pass compared to how good they were against the run in 2021, 2023, and 2024. In 2024 especially, giving up 0.083 EPA/Rush was not worth the trade. How much of the blame for this can be given to a single pass rushing outside LB? Tough to say.
However, it can be said with confidence that Micah moving to the Packers (who struggled badly against the pass but were strong against the run in 2024) is the right directional move. Kenny Clark is coming off a mild down year, but not a huge one, although at age 30 in this league you never know what a player is going to be from one season to the next. You just hope that the Packers haven't given up so much in the run game that a defensive strength turns into a weakness. I don't think they have, but it's always possible.
This is an interesting trade from the Dallas side. I find it odd that the Bengals' roster builders are routinely crucified for locking so much money into just a few guys, meanwhile the Cowboys are being crucified for not wanting to do so with Micah Parsons. I know the situations are slightly different in Cincinnati vs Dallas, but they seem similar enough that they shouldn't be thought of as differently as they're being thought of right now.
The Cowboys in 2025 have lots of cap space. Dak Prescott is the only big money player they have right now. They could've fit big money Micah easily, but this team has so many extensions kicking in next year, it would've been tough to fit another one. They have less cap space in 2026 than they do in 2025, and that's with only the contracts on the 2025 roster, without Micah.
I have more trust in Jerry Jones than most, as he's shown time and again since 2003 his ability to strip the Cowboys down and build them back up again. I'm not sure where all the talk of him being a 'bad' GM comes from. The Cowboys have been the NFC's best team multiple different times over the last 20 years. Jerry knows how to build a team. It always remains possible that at 82 years old, the man is losing his edge, but I give such an accomplished roster builder some benefit of the doubt when he makes a shocking move like this, especially now with a couple extra first round picks.
I think this is a good trade for the Packers, trading out some of their rush defence strength to attempt to shore up their dire pass defence weakness from last year. It's a hefty price they paid, and I think Micah can turn out to be a disappointment very easily, but it's a good trade. I just don't know if Dallas is getting enough credit for the fact that they're pretty good at making chicken salad out of a bad situation. They've done it time and again over the years. With an 82 year old GM, you never know which time is the last time, but Dallas gets the benefit of the doubt from me on this, based on past successes. I think your C- trade grade for them is a little harsh here.
Feels like it's the handling of the situation and the context of team timelines that is influencing the grade.
They're paying top-end QB and WR money to guys entering (or already in) their primes. That feels like a "we want a Super Bowl in the next few years" type of contract situation. In that context, trading a Parsons-caliber player makes less sense than it would if this were a rebuilding roster.
The second piece is the situation around this trade. I'm not a GM, so I don't know what Parsons "should" go for, but I'm pretty confident Dallas lost leverage at some point between "Parsons asking for a trade" and "Parsons being in the news for laying around on a training table during a preseason game." Granted, that situation was overblown, but letting it get to that point is never a positive for trade value.
C- might be a little harsh, but given where we were 6 months ago I think it's fair to question if this is really the best they could have done. I find it plausible that they could have had this trade or better in April, then had the entire summer to improve the roster with the assets they got back.
Long time no chat Sam. How are you buddy?
I agree with almost everything you say here. This is a point well made. The cap situation is incongruous with trading such a good player, but we do have to keep in mind that Dallas is very good at picking guys up and turning them into good football players, be that a first round pick guy or a late round pick guy or a guy off the street. They've been around the top of the NFC most of the last ten years for a reason. I don't think trading Parsons means they're giving up. In all likelihood, Dallas's defence will improve next year without him, because Dallas just doesn't have a defence as bad as the 2024 variant two seasons in a row.
It's entirely possible that I'm giving too much credit to Dallas here, just because they're Dallas, and they've been one of the best run teams in the league for a long time, but I think things like this have to come into play in such a discussion. It's entirely possible this decision is motivated by the faith that the Cowboys have in themselves to be able to replace such a player, because they've been doing it for years at other positions.
As far as the trade timing, we agree 100 percent. It would've been better to get this done in April and just be done with it. However, Dallas got more out of Micah Parsons than Oakland got out of Khalil Mack several years ago, and Khalil Mack from 2014-2017 is a better player than Micah Parsons from 2021-2024, not in the sack category but in every other category, so if we use that as reference, I don't think the Cowboys did too badly.
Could they have done even better? It's possible, but I don't think I would bet on that, given previous trades for star pass rushers.
The key question that everybody needs to answer trading for a player like Micah is that on any passing play, what happens in the secondary is more important than what happens at the line of scrimmage, so how much should we give up for a player who is of no help in pass coverage? The hard and fast answer appears to be two first round picks, plus a sweetener. We can debate the could've beens and should've beens about the quality of the sweetener, but I sincerely doubt the two first round pick barrier is ever going to be broached for a non-DB defensive player.
Honestly, I think the Cowboys milked every dime they could out of a player that they did not want in Micah Parsons. The contract GB gave him was very affordable. Dallas could've handled it easily, so I don't think it's even about the money. I just don't think the Cowboys wanted him that badly, and traded him for the most they could get. Fans don't like it, but we're not in the locker room. Why don't the Cowboys want Micah Parsons? Tough to say, but it's not the money. He's making four percent of the cap this year and not much more than that in the next two. I cannot stress enough that Dallas can easily fit this into their cap situation. It's got nothing to do with the cap situation. There's some other reason that the Cowboys do not want him.
This reason can be as petty as Jerry Jones got offended, or it can be as real as Micah being a serious locker room issue (there are whispers to that effect, but you never know if they're true or not at a time like this). What must be stressed though is that the media is getting it wrong if they think letting him go has anything to do with money. It doesn't. At least not in the next three years it doesn't. They got rid of him for another reason, whatever that reason may be, football or non-football. We can't be sure.
I completely agree with your points on the timeline issues, and on the timing of the trade, but I think they maximised the trade haul anyways, and I think the media is (deliberately or otherwise) getting it wrong by insisting this has anything to do with money, when I just don't reasonably think that can be the case, given the deal that Micah took with the Packers.
The game is about money. Large money! If a player’s contract doesn’t fit the team allocation there’s no point in wasting an early season trade opportunity instead of generating hard feelings between management and player. That results in disappointing performance.