The Parson's Trade: How to Become a Basement Dweller

[Magooch]

Echoing some other thoughts but I don't take a ton of issue with the Parsons deal. At the time we made it we seemed to think we were just a few pieces away from being a serious contender, and while that seems awfully far away right now, *at the time* it looked perfectly reasonable.

It's a deal that makes total sense if you feel you're only a couple pieces away AND I think a lot of folks would tell you that you make that deal even if you're NOT right there and ready to compete. If you go back and look at the reaction at the time, virtually everyone was in agreement that Green Bay handily "won" that trade and many would more or less conclude that if you have the opportunity to get a player like Micah Parsons for two firsts you should jump at that opportunity pretty much every time.

For much of last season this seemed totally justified too. Go back to last season - right up until Micah got injured vs Denver, the bookies had us with the second-best Super Bowl odds in the league, just marginally behind the Rams.

Moreover, we DID have a huge pressing need for an edge rusher. It's true that our OL is in shambles right now but it's not like that was our only issue needing addressed at the time. Prior to trading for Parsons most had EDGE as one of our top draft needs (CB, iDL, OL). Imagine we hadn't traded for Micah and we still hold our own pick at 20 (it is probably a little lower without Parsons in 25/26, but for sake of this example I'll assume it stays the same). You take an EDGE there and you still have a pressing need at OL this season. You take OL there and our current EDGE rotation is likely what we roll with for the whole season. You take a CB there and we again still have a pressing need at OL.

The cap numbers are perfectly manageable. That's not a concern for me. And frankly, looking at the state of our OL (and how it has been assembled), I'm not sure having a 26 and 27 first is going to completely fix it and that's assuming we'd spend those picks on OL in the first place. That's not a guarantee, and our recent track record for drafting OL has not exactly been encouraging, either. I don't think we'd be any better off if we didn't have Micah Parsons but did have a pair of Jordan Morgans at the tackle spots and a couple of Beltons at OG, to say the least

I also think a lot of the "related" moves probably happen regardless of if we do/don't trade for Parsons. Jenkins, Clark, etc...we probably move on regardless.

I guess the TL;DR for me is that - assuming he comes back healthy and ready to go with no long-lasting impacts (which is a big IF to be fair) - I'd rather have a "sure thing" in Micah Parsons along with holes at OL, CB, RB, etc than NOT have Micah Parsons and still have a bunch of holes at OL, CB, RB, *and* EDGE.

 

[Magooch]

Also not for nothing but it felt like there were a lot of games last season where Parsons was really "the straw that stirs the drink" for us defensively last year. He was probably worth a couple of W's himself and often appeared to be one of the few "spark" or leadership presences for us. For a team that is IMO sorely lacking in leader-figures that's a huge factor that's really hard to objectively measure/define

 

[LaSeeno]

The team hasn’t felt the affect of the Parsons trade yet so this take is a bad one.

 

[gopkrs]

The team hasn’t felt the affect of the Parsons trade yet so this take is a bad one.

I'd say we haven't felt the effects because he got hurt. He was affecting the defense before that.

 

[easyk83]

The team hasn’t felt the affect of the Parsons trade yet so this take is a bad one.

The Parson's deal was almost certainly a factor in the decision to cut Elgton Jenkins. Through three games he's been an above average center for the Cleveland Browns and I'd argue better than any of our starting 5. The likely draft target for the Packers would have been Cornerback Chris Johnson, who probably would have been a great fit in this defense. The FO was apparently considering trading up to get him before the Dolphins picked him at 27.

 

[gopkrs]

I don't know. Just a question. Who is working out better. The D tackle we picked from Missouri or the one the vikings picked right after?

 

[easyk83]

Orange has been better but thats a question you have to come back to in 2-3 years. McClellan was the higher upside player.

 

[OldSchool101]

The Parsons deal is a fine deal to make if you’re a player away from a SB contender.

The problem is, we weren’t and aren’t. Too many holes.

Today yes. But our primary issue is
we lost a pair of Starters on OL and our #1 Pass Rusher and #1 RB.
Brian didn’t have that information in August 2025.

I might remind everyone GB was
9-3-1 and a #1 NFC Seed before Parsons blew his ACL.

 

[gopkrs]

Orange has been better but thats a question you have to come back to in 2-3 years. McClellan was the higher upside player.

I'm tired of drafting guys for three years into the future which never seems to come

 

[OldSchool101]

I'm tired of drafting guys for three years into the future which never seems to come

Except at QB!

 

[mradtke66]

The Parson's deal was almost certainly a factor in the decision to cut Elgton Jenkins.

I can't see that.

Jenkins was the no. 2 paid center in the league last year. He was old. He was hurt. His play declined. There was no reasonable outcome where we keep him after last season.

 

[milani]

Echoing some other thoughts but I don't take a ton of issue with the Parsons deal. At the time we made it we seemed to think we were just a few pieces away from being a serious contender, and while that seems awfully far away right now, *at the time* it looked perfectly reasonable.

It's a deal that makes total sense if you feel you're only a couple pieces away AND I think a lot of folks would tell you that you make that deal even if you're NOT right there and ready to compete. If you go back and look at the reaction at the time, virtually everyone was in agreement that Green Bay handily "won" that trade and many would more or less conclude that if you have the opportunity to get a player like Micah Parsons for two firsts you should jump at that opportunity pretty much every time.

For much of last season this seemed totally justified too. Go back to last season - right up until Micah got injured vs Denver, the bookies had us with the second-best Super Bowl odds in the league, just marginally behind the Rams.

Moreover, we DID have a huge pressing need for an edge rusher. It's true that our OL is in shambles right now but it's not like that was our only issue needing addressed at the time. Prior to trading for Parsons most had EDGE as one of our top draft needs (CB, iDL, OL). Imagine we hadn't traded for Micah and we still hold our own pick at 20 (it is probably a little lower without Parsons in 25/26, but for sake of this example I'll assume it stays the same). You take an EDGE there and you still have a pressing need at OL this season. You take OL there and our current EDGE rotation is likely what we roll with for the whole season. You take a CB there and we again still have a pressing need at OL.

The cap numbers are perfectly manageable. That's not a concern for me. And frankly, looking at the state of our OL (and how it has been assembled), I'm not sure having a 26 and 27 first is going to completely fix it and that's assuming we'd spend those picks on OL in the first place. That's not a guarantee, and our recent track record for drafting OL has not exactly been encouraging, either. I don't think we'd be any better off if we didn't have Micah Parsons but did have a pair of Jordan Morgans at the tackle spots and a couple of Beltons at OG, to say the least

I also think a lot of the "related" moves probably happen regardless of if we do/don't trade for Parsons. Jenkins, Clark, etc...we probably move on regardless.

I guess the TL;DR for me is that - assuming he comes back healthy and ready to go with no long-lasting impacts (which is a big IF to be fair) - I'd rather have a "sure thing" in Micah Parsons along with holes at OL, CB, RB, etc than NOT have Micah Parsons and still have a bunch of holes at OL, CB, RB, *and* EDGE.

Although last season ended poorly after Parsons went out it is still unlikely that the 9 games we did win with him prior to his injury would have happened. Instead of 9-3-1 we probably are only 6-6-1 and out of it.

 

[tynimiller]

The Parson's deal was almost certainly a factor in the decision to cut Elgton Jenkins. Through three games he's been an above average center for the Cleveland Browns and I'd argue better than any of our starting 5. The likely draft target for the Packers would have been Cornerback Chris Johnson, who probably would have been a great fit in this defense. The FO was apparently considering trading up to get him before the Dolphins picked him at 27.

I'll grant maybe a factor, but his play plummetting and a serious injury absolutely were much bigger factors or at minimum each as much.

 

[Magooch]

Now I will say.... like previously, I don't think the Parsons deal was responsible for crippling us or whatnot. But I think the bigger conversation is WHY the front office felt they needed to make the deal in the first place?

Again like I said - generally speaking if you have the opportunity to get a guy like Parsons, in all likelihood you make the deal, especially if it's a position of need...

BUT I think we have to ask then. Would the Parsons deal still have happened if guys like LVN and Gary had panned out (or panned out sooner, at least)? I think we call can admit that when we drafted LVN, for instance, it wasn't with the intention to spend a 1st on him and then two years later package two more 1sts to bring in another EDGE player to partner with him

On the basis of the player and the performance that he brings, barring injury (which of course could not be accounted for) I would say that it was still a "good" deal for the "right" player. We had the opportunity to add one of the best players in the league at a position of need for us. That part is fine. As above though, the issue is that we "needed" to make that deal in the first place.

Long story short I guess it goes to show the importance on getting quality contributors out of your early selections. Like I said, if we don't trade for Parsons then sure - we do have more capital to invest in the OL or wherever else, but we still have a big need at EDGE. But if we hit on those picks, we don't have a pressing need at EDGE....AND still retain that capital to invest in OL or CB or WR or whatnot. And I know it's not fair to expect every draft pick to "hit" (and much less be anywhere close to a Parsons-level player) but you really have to get impact players with those early picks. It doesn't make a lot of sense to play the "draft and develop" long game and then try and rectify it with a huge splash "win now" type signing I guess.

 

[tynimiller]

I personally feel hindsight based takes are always very hard for me to do. They remove any sense of consideration of all the unknown things at the time but judging people by them.

Not many folks saw LVN as a legit edge guy (I've been attacked many a time for it)....not many saw Gary collapse of a player happening...Aaron Banks injury....Kraft injury....Jenkins healing and appearing to (three games is tough to judge) play at a guard level higher than we likely expected for another team, Jacobs situation...Butkus ineptitude in coaching apparently....

There are tons of others...all of that known yes I can say maybe the Parsons trade was not in the best interest due to the fallout of timing...but even knowing that I likely still risk it for a player like him. Insanely rare player.

 

[OldSchool101]

On the basis of the player and the performance that he brings, barring injury (which of course could not be accounted for) I would say that it was still a "good" deal for the "right" player. We had the opportunity to add one of the best players in the league at a position of need for us. That part is fine. As above though, the issue is that we "needed" to make that deal in the first place.

One thing that Doesn’t help is when we are a playoff contender each season. We rarely see a Top 20 pick and Top 10 is where you’re Blue Chip players come from (mostly).
This also continues in every round. We pick after most teams have picked over that round. Probably got lucky with Cisse he’s going to be good. He’s probably a Bonafide Top 40 draft pick. Yet still a big difference between picking at #6 overall and #23 which each passing round.

 

[gopkrs]

One thing that Doesn’t help is when we are a playoff contender each season. We rarely see a Top 20 pick and Top 10 is where you’re Blue Chip players come from (mostly).
This also continues in every round. We pick after most teams have picked over that round. Probably got lucky with Cisse he’s going to be good. He’s probably a Bonafide Top 40 draft pick. Yet still a big difference between picking at #6 overall and #23 which each passing round.

Gotta say. You are forever making excuses for management/coaching.

 

[tynimiller]

Gotta say. You are forever making excuses for management/coaching.

Can you unpack how that comment speaks to this? I don't see it but I'm also wondering if I missed additional context?

 

[gopkrs]

Can you unpack how that comment speaks to this? I don't see it but I'm also wondering if I missed additional context?

You do realize I wasn't speaking to you?

 

[tynimiller]

You do realize I wasn't speaking to you?

I do

 

[adambr2]

Today yes. But our primary issue is
we lost a pair of Starters on OL and our #1 Pass Rusher and #1 RB.
Brian didn’t have that information in August 2025.

I might remind everyone GB was
9-3-1 and a #1 NFC Seed before Parsons blew his ACL.

Today that’s our supposed primary issue. That wasn’t our supposed primary issue at the end of last year when we dropped the last 5 games. It was “well, losing Parsons was one thing, but Kraft and Wyatt too? No team could sustain that.”

Well, Kraft and Wyatt are back. And we look even worse than the end of last season. The gashing we took from Bijan on Thursday with Wyatt on the field is reminiscent of the same one we took from Henry with him sidelined late last year.

Everyone was excited about Lloyd in the preseason. And now that it’s clear that he’s not fixing anything himself, we’re falling back on the narrative that it’s because we’re missing Jacobs. The same Jacobs who had the same efficiency as Emmanuel Wilson last season. We all know Jacobs walking through that door on Thursday would not have saved what happened against the Falcons.

Yes, it’s true that we were 9-3-1 with Parsons last year. It’s also true that we are 1-7 without him. Legitimate contenders don’t turn into 1-7 pumpkins because they lost one non-QB player.

Every team can play the injury card to some extent. I didn’t see any excuses being made for Ben Johnson last night being down to his 3rd string QB. No one needed to, because his team beat down a good Eagles team by 20 nonetheless. Because legitimate contenders are a complete team and more than just their star player.

 

[OldSchool101]

No I think it was a bad trade even if he stayed healthy and produced at an elite level. His injury highlights the risk of putting that much capital into one player.

That part I understand. There’s several players that are exception, high impact players though. I think your philosophy is true on the lower end of the contract sale. Like a pair of $5-6Mil types instead of of 1 Hobbs.

Brian has missed with a couple recent FA. Banks was his worst deal so far. There were many Starters being signed in that $7.5-$15mil area. I don’t know what we were thinking at $19Mil he’s never played anywhere close to that in his career.

 

[Half Empty]

Long story short

When has that ever happened?

 

[Magooch]

When has that ever happened?

Couldn't be from me, that's for sure

 

[El Guapo]

The reality is that most people were shocked at the cost but elated at the coup of bringing in Parsons to help with a Super Bowl. There are probably 2-3 contributors on this forum that could go back and point to posts they made last August/September stating how bad this was for the Packers.

This is a hindsight discussion. For years fans complained about the Packers not going all-in to get back to the SB. Well you know what, you strike out more often than you hit homers when swinging for the fences. We struck out. No regrets.