Parsons Trade

[mradtke66]

Of course nuance could enter in and amend it but right now,

I know. I'm trying to be funny. My thesis could be summarized as "What if, even with hindsight and a crystal ball showing the outcomes of all possible roster alternatives, this was the best play?" I'm not trying to defend the trade nor be a downer. How's the line go? "You can do everything right and still lose."

the picks,

This has the potential to be the biggest risk to me.

Kenny

I love Kenny, but the man is in his 10th season in the league. He might be relatively young, but he has a lot of pro miles on him. I would not be surprised if he is approaching the end of his career.

and the fiscal restraint perhaps more than anything and the impact in future that will have that folks don't ever consider -

I see if the opposite. This probably "hurts" us the least. It's far enough out to be hard to predict, but his 2029 cap number, as big as it is, might only mean 1 cap casualty. And unlikely to be a star, as such a star would presumably get a large signing bonus and small cap number in year 1.

 

[OldSchool101]

Culture & fit is essential in almost everything. Even out here on the internet it's true. The culture on these boards is amicable, and people share information with each other. It's not confrontational and "in your face" nasty when people disagree. That's the main reason I don't want to be part of so many of them. I have no interest in trying to "outshout" others by calling their opinions lame or ignorant.

At this point, the Packer culture seems to be exactly what Parsons wants and needs. That's a good sign and can net exceptional results. Hopefully that will continue.

I'd sure like to jump on the idea that we're going to get to the big game at the end of the year but I'm a little apprehensive at this point. There are so many things that can derail that objective and the Packers still lack depth in a lot of areas making that quest pretty darned difficult.

Oh yeah. We’ve got a Brutal schedule coming up. I’ll tell you what though it would go a LONG ways to be able to beat Washington on a short week.

 

[Voyageur]

Oh yeah. We’ve got a Brutal schedule coming up. I’ll tell you what though it would go a LONG ways to be able to beat Washington on a short week.

A very big hurdle on Thursday. The Commanders are an opposite on offense as to what we saw with the Lions. They have a QB who can run with the best of them. We need to see consistency from the defense in bottling him up and forcing him to throw the ball. He's not nearly as good a passer as he is runner.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Following up on my own post here, but it's being reported now by several sources that the Eagles offered a king's ransom compared to what we paid - two 1st round picks, plus a 3rd and a 5th, plus a significant player. And we swooped in and gathered him up for two 1st-rounders and Kenny Clark, because Jerruh "scrambled eggs for brains" thought it would be more important to keep him from going to a division rival.

We literally stole this guy. It's the biggest trade steal I can think of since Jerruh and Coach Hairspray fleeced the Vikings in the Herschel Walker train robbery. Can you even imagine how much harder it would be to get past the Eagles in the postseaon if they had Parsons? This is the biggest deal I've seen since Jerruh and Coach Hairspray conspired to fleece the Vikings in the Great Trade Robbery Hearschl Walker deal.

This is biggest, boldest move Gutekunst has made in his entire time here. The entire NFL is now on notice that Green Bay is fully commited right now, all chips in, Packers are fully in it to win it immediately.

And the entire D looked great Sunday, no small feat against the Lions' O. The Packers D had a lot of talent to begin with. Adding Parsons makes the entire D better.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I go back and forth.

On the whole I can't 100% co-sign to the idea that we HAVE to get to a Super Bowl for the trade to be worth it. There's just too many variables there. For me, by that logic....For his time here we paid Rodgers over 300 million dollars...and he only ever made it to one Super Bowl. Think of all the resources (money, picks, etc) we could've invested elsewhere if we had not invested that heavily into Rodgers. Since he only got us to one Super Bowl, was it a "failure" to keep bringing him back on a big contract?

(to be fair, there are probably some here who would answer yes to that lol)

But at the same time I would say that for the next 3-4 years to be deemed a "success" we should be aiming to make a SB appearance and that *should* have been the standard/expectation even BEFORE Parsons. So in that sense, yeah, we really need to make it, but it's also not entirely on Micah either

Agree on SB expectations.

As for Rodgers, and even Favre, the GMs never did prioritize getting him more weapons on O and building the D to legitimately compete for a SB. That's not to say that TT and Gluten (Gluten especially) didn't try. The Parsons acquisition was part great negotiating by Gluten, and luck in the form of Jerry's stubbornness/ignorance.

I think TT was allergic to acquiring FAs, and he never could have pulled off what Gluten just did with Parsons - with all respect to TT, who afterall, drafted Rodgers. RIP Ted.

 

[tynimiller]

I see if the opposite. This probably "hurts" us the least. It's far enough out to be hard to predict, but his 2029 cap number, as big as it is, might only mean 1 cap casualty. And unlikely to be a star, as such a star would presumably get a large signing bonus and small cap number in year 1.

Any time any funds are allocated to future years which wasn't previously it causes fiscal impacts. I'm not even really speaking to the 2029 year as much as the offseason impending and the immediate one after that which is slopped full of every game starters or big contributors with expiring contracts.

 

[milani]

Oh yeah. We’ve got a Brutal schedule coming up. I’ll tell you what though it would go a LONG ways to be able to beat Washington on a short week.

And considering they had the Giants in WK 1 and we had to face a 15-2 team we are worse for wear. What is on our side is the home field and not having to travel.

 

[rmontro]

This trade must bring a SB for me to say it was a great trade or smart....eh...that almost sounds too much. We need to minimum see a SB for me to say the risk was worth the attempt.

If we keep getting electric moments like we got on Sunday, I'd say it was worth it. I don't think we made an unfair trade from our perspective, most people say if anyone got ripped off it was Dallas. No one wants Super Bowls more than I do, but a lot of things have to go your way for that to happen. If we don't make it to the Super Bowl over the next several years, I doubt that it's going to be because we made this trade.

 

[mradtke66]

Any time any funds are allocated to future years which wasn't previously it causes fiscal impacts. I'm not even really speaking to the 2029 year as much as the offseason impending and the immediate one after that which is slopped full of every game starters or big contributors with expiring contracts.

I'm less concerned about this because a big part of "draft and develop" is being willing to the players who are "just" contributors go. And letting aging staters go before they crash and burn.

Our own 2026 list is rather long, but no super stars (at least not yet.). Almost everyone on the list has their replacement already drafted. R. Walker -> Morgan. Presumably only keeping one of Watson, Doubs, Wicks, Heath. Jenkins is likely cut due to his increased cap number. Q. Walker is probably the only guy who isn't assured to stay but is good enough to be worth a second contract.

2027 is a much smaller list, with only Reed and Kraft being the big names. Nixon is as well, but he'll be on the wrong side of 30. LVN as well, but he could still be 5th year optioned.

And none of that list is a surprise. We might quibble about who is and is not worth signing to new deals, but I doubt we'd be that far apart. And more importantly, the list is the list regardless of Parsons. If they're good and worth it, we sign them. If they're not, we let them go.

 

[tynimiller]

If we keep getting electric moments like we got on Sunday, I'd say it was worth it. I don't think we made an unfair trade from our perspective, most people say if anyone got ripped off it was Dallas. No one wants Super Bowls more than I do, but a lot of things have to go your way for that to happen. If we don't make it to the Super Bowl over the next several years, I doubt that it's going to be because we made this trade.

When I say see I mean an appearance...I think that is quite reasonable barring some crazy things happening. We are capable, we were even last year nearly against the Eagles.

 

[tynimiller]

I'm less concerned about this because a big part of "draft and develop" is being willing to the players who are "just" contributors go. And letting aging staters go before they crash and burn.

Our own 2026 list is rather long, but no super stars (at least not yet.). Almost everyone on the list has their replacement already drafted. R. Walker -> Morgan. Presumably only keeping one of Watson, Doubs, Wicks, Heath. Jenkins is likely cut due to his increased cap number. Q. Walker is probably the only guy who isn't assured to stay but is good enough to be worth a second contract.

2027 is a much smaller list, with only Reed and Kraft being the big names. Nixon is as well, but he'll be on the wrong side of 30. LVN as well, but he could still be 5th year optioned.

And none of that list is a surprise. We might quibble about who is and is not worth signing to new deals, but I doubt we'd be that far apart. And more importantly, the list is the list regardless of Parsons. If they're good and worth it, we sign them. If they're not, we let them go.

Oh for sure...BUT you cannot assume you keep hitting on Day 3s like we have of late....seriously folks one doesn't find this many NFL caliber starters or contributors on Day 3 as CONSISTENTLY as Gute has of late.....

TJ Slaton / McDuffie
Doubs / Tom / Enagbare/ Walker
Wicks / Brooks / Valentine

I mean at this point it doesn't matter we are going to have to at some point replace some of our departures with either miraculous growth within, Day 3 draft picks or UDFAs....it just will have to happen.

 

[mradtke66]

Oh for sure...BUT you cannot assume you keep hitting on Day 3s like we have of late....seriously folks one doesn't find this many NFL caliber starters or contributors on Day 3 as CONSISTENTLY as Gute has of late.....

I mean at this point it doesn't matter we are going to have to at some point replace some of our departures with either miraculous growth within, Day 3 draft picks or UDFAs....it just will have to happen.

My point of view is that everyone in the NFL is an excellent football player. What separates the champs from the bottom dwellers is your special players. So long as your 3-4 super stars are hitting on all cylinders, you just need 47-48 players that aren't going to lose the game for you.

 

[Magooch]

I land somewhere in the middle, but I do kind of agree with the principle: We have generally had an incredibly solid collection of good to very-good players. But IMO what separate teams in the biggest games is not who has the most "good," "very good," "solid," "NFL-caliber," or "good enough to get a second or third contract" type of players. Those games are decided by GREAT players and who steps up or doesn't. Parsons is indisputably a GREAT player and with any luck the kind of difference-making one who steps up in the biggest situations.

At the end of the day I suspect we will still have a roster full of good-to-very good players next year, and the following year, and the year after that. And if adding one GREAT player comes at the expense of two or three "roster decisions" that doesn't allow us to retain a *good* player, in all likelihood I am going to be okay with that exchange.

Or perhaps another way of putting it: If I had to guess, the players who may *potentially* become cap casualties as a result of adding Parsons were probably not going to be the biggest difference makers in the most important games now or in the near future. I think the move will greatly improve our team (and postseason chances) right now and I don't think the trade-off will be as great as envisioned. This isn't like the Browns pushing in all their chips on Deshaun Watson or something

 

[tynimiller]

My point of view is that everyone in the NFL is an excellent football player. What separates the champs from the bottom dwellers is your special players. So long as your 3-4 super stars are hitting on all cylinders, you just need 47-48 players that aren't going to lose the game for you.

Which of course doesn't disagree with why I hold concern for the impact fiscally restraining things. Everyone looks solely to the big contracts or the big impacters...but teams are made in the depths and mid tier players for sure.

 

[OldSchool101]

Pardon can’t play the Run?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

That’s like a Cheetah chasing down a Wounded Gazelle. Apologies to all Gazelles for comparing Goff to you!

 

[mradtke66]

but teams are made in the depths and mid tier players for sure.

I argue yes and no.

Yes, you have to have the depth.

No, in that there is a very wide range of what counts for acceptable. Your drafted players just need to fill in here and there. They are cheap and that is their job. It's somewhat unusual to, for example, sign WR3 in free agency. It can happen, but you're looking for a draft pick to grow into the role.

Free agency for the Packers, even under Gute, has trended towards top-tier starters with risk or special teamers signing for near the minimum. The Parsons contract certainly doesn't impact the later. For the former, the team is in a reasonably good spot to not need that caliber of player. Yes yes, risk if someone gets hurt and all that, but losing one of our stars doesn't impact that. We're not going to be able to replace them for any amount of money.

 

[OldSchool101]

What you really need is that Draftee to step up in similar fashion to Wooden. While ok, he might not be Clark at his prime, if he’s anywhere close and you can shave $20Mil in Cap it goes a long ways to retaining Parsons.

That and maybe you promote a guy like Hopper over Walker for that Mid tier savings. $10-12Mil yearly.

Then use those voids to push $$ out past their contract. $15-20Mil in 4,5 years will feel like $10-13Mil todays $$. because all the compounding Cap growth. Plus you can often spread it out. I’m not saying it you don’t feel it at all you might make a pair of mid tier player concessions, but to get a generational Player who dominates like what we’ve seen? it’s doable with minimal risk.

Also instead of paying a guy $10-15Mil annual, you can often find some plug and play FA veterans for not much over vet minimum. You’d also be surprised how winning a SB attracts players. You go from Siberia to a Top 5 destination with hotel accommodation.

I’ve lived in peanuts before. It’s hard to believe I did it but you tend to get real frugal and find the deal.

 

[tynimiller]

I argue yes and no.

Yes, you have to have the depth.

No, in that there is a very wide range of what counts for acceptable. Your drafted players just need to fill in here and there. They are cheap and that is their job. It's somewhat unusual to, for example, sign WR3 in free agency. It can happen, but you're looking for a draft pick to grow into the role.

Free agency for the Packers, even under Gute, has trended towards top-tier starters with risk or special teamers signing for near the minimum. The Parsons contract certainly doesn't impact the later. For the former, the team is in a reasonably good spot to not need that caliber of player. Yes yes, risk if someone gets hurt and all that, but losing one of our stars doesn't impact that. We're not going to be able to replace them for any amount of money.

Gute has for sure maximized FA signings with some high tier but he has also hit mid as well...typically being resign types like say McDuffie or Dillard or Welch, Dillon, Nixon, Orzech types...

We agree overall for sure vastly more than disagree as we've unpacked thoughts it seems.

 

[rmontro]

At the end of the day I suspect we will still have a roster full of good-to-very good players next year, and the following year, and the year after that. And if adding one GREAT player comes at the expense of two or three "roster decisions" that doesn't allow us to retain a *good* player, in all likelihood I am going to be okay with that exchange.

To your point: Favre didn't get to the Super Bowl without Reggie White, and Rodgers didn't get to the Super Bowl without Charles Woodson.

Which of course doesn't disagree with why I hold concern for the impact fiscally restraining things. Everyone looks solely to the big contracts or the big impacters...but teams are made in the depths and mid tier players for sure.

I don't think anyone is saying to overlook the depths and mid tier players. But Gute saw an opportunity to add a big piece, and he went after it. I mean, if you swing hard for the home run, you might strike out, but you might get that home run too. It might not work out for us, but I'm not against taking the shot. We could wallow around as an upper level team for decades without really getting anywhere. What's going to set us apart? Now we have something. Regarding last year's team, I can't get past that 1-5 record in the division, even if we did play the Eagles pretty well in the playoffs.

 

[tynimiller]

To your point: Favre didn't get to the Super Bowl without Reggie White, and Rodgers didn't get to the Super Bowl without Charles Woodson.



I don't think anyone is saying to overlook the depths and mid tier players. But Gute saw an opportunity to add a big piece, and he went after it. I mean, if you swing hard for the home run, you might strike out, but you might get that home run too. It might not work out for us, but I'm not against taking the shot. We could wallow around as an upper level team for decades without really getting anywhere. What's going to set us apart? Now we have something. Regarding last year's team, I can't get past that 1-5 record in the division, even if we did play the Eagles pretty well in the playoffs.

Oh don’t get me wrong, I’m likely doing the deal as well. IF Parsons continues to be the player he has been in his career it’s a move I don’t think you can not do.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Any time any funds are allocated to future years which wasn't previously it causes fiscal impacts. I'm not even really speaking to the 2029 year as much as the offseason impending and the immediate one after that which is slopped full of every game starters or big contributors with expiring contracts.

Cap manipulation almost functions like an oxymoron. Example - give a current player a large $$$ extension, even with guaranteed money, and the cap hit goes down immediately. Huh?

It's not an oxymoron. Eventually a team's cap has to reflect a signing bonus spread over x years, and of course whatever salary is actually paid in a season.

Intuitively, the time will come for the Packers cap to take a big hit just from Love and Parsons. There is a price to be paid - limited flexibility in FA is probably the biggest, that is, having to let some of your own players walk, and being limited in FA acquisitions.

The good news is that this team, when healthy, has very few holes - CB being the most obvious to me, and even that is acceptable with the QB pressure this D can produce. Gluten spent a lot to get Parsons. But we got just a glimpse on Sunday of what he means to the D. This team is a legitimate SB contender.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If this was posted already, forgive me, I was away camping and have been out of touch with almost everything. Although I did listen to both the Packers and Brewers on my radio!

So far the Parsons trade is paying HUGE dividends. I watched both games last night when I got home and WOW, the defense just looks faster, stronger and able to be at the ball quicker. I think a lot of it has to do with Micah's individual play, as well as making the other 10 guys around him better. Our DB's have to be smiling, because the front 7....are actually giving QB's very little time to pass.

Also, a lot of credit needs to be given to DC Jeff Hafley. This, his 2nd season as the DC, has started well and I think the best is still yet to come. After seeing that the Lions absolutely destroyed the Bears, made me even more confident in just how good this Packer team is....can be.

Oh and as if Micah's on the field stuff isn't great enough, THIS, made me absolutely LOVE the guy! (Not that there is anything wrong with that)

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[tynimiller]

If this was posted already, forgive me, I was away camping and have been out of touch with almost everything. Although I did listen to both the Packers and Brewers on my radio!

So far the Parsons trade is paying HUGE dividends. I watched both games last night when I got home and WOW, the defense just looks faster, stronger and able to be at the ball quicker. I think a lot of it has to do with Micah's individual play, as well as making the other 10 guys around him better. Our DB's have to be smiling, because the front 7....are actually giving QB's very little time to pass.

Also, a lot of credit needs to be given to DC Jeff Hafley. This, his 2nd season as the DC, has started well and I think the best is still yet to come. After seeing that the Lions absolutely destroyed the Bears, made me even more confident in just how good this Packer team is....can be.

Oh and as if Micah's on the field stuff isn't great enough, THIS, made me absolutely LOVE the guy! (Not that there is anything wrong with that)

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

That looks like some AI images and fake post......let me fact check....

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That looks like some AI images and fake post......let me fact check....

Could be, hope not.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That looks like some AI images and fake post......let me fact check....

Damn it....was an easy vetting of the story, I should have done it before I posted.

Good call......it is fake.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!