The Green Bay Packers just completed one of the biggest blockbuster trades in recent years by trading for disgruntled Dallas Cowboys’ star edge rusher Micah Parsons. Parsons, an off-ball linebacker at Penn State, was drafted by the Cowboys in 2021 and since then was named 2021 Defensive Rookie of the Year, 2x First-Team All-Pro, 1x Second-Team All-Pro, and 4x Pro-Bowler. He turned 26 in May. He has been top 3 in Defensive Player of the Year voting three times in four years, the exception being last year when he missed four games due to an ankle injury.
The Packers’ pass rush has been a weak point of their defense, as edge rusher Rashan Gary has been a disappointment, so has 2023 first-round pick Lukas Van Ness, and the Packers’ defensive coordinator Jeff Hafley does not like to blitz. The Packers had the second-lowest blitz rate in the league last season. The addition of Micah Parsons should provide an immediate boost to the Packers’ ability to rush the passer. He also provides star power that the Packers were lacking on defense.
That, combined with a top ten offense and defense last season in both points and yards, should be enough to get the Packers to another Super Bowl. At least that is the Packers rationale for acquiring Parsons.
According to Albert Breer, the Cowboys ultimately opted to part ways with Parsons because Jerry Jones no longer trusted Parsons enough to pay him a top contract like he did with Dak Prescott and CeeDee Lamb. There was also sort of a slow moving concern that the Cowboys roster was getting too top heavy and whether that was the right way to build their roster. They also found that only the 2015 Broncos won the Super Bowl driven largely by an edge rusher- Von Miller on his rookie contract. Finally, they also were aware that Parsons was not popular in the locker room like Prescott and Lamb. Breer reports that Parsons, “rankled teammates in different ways, seen by some as egotistical and self-centered. His podcast has created issues, too, that go all the way up to quarterback Dak Prescott.” Coaches (I’m sure Mike Zimmer was one of them) also had issues with Parsons for not being disciplined in his assignment on the field, opting to freelance in an effort to make splash plays while sacrificing run defense. Other pass rushers have had this issue, but apparently Parsons even more so. Some in the Cowboys organization were beginning to question his commitment to football, or whether he just liked what football had done for him.
Rare Opportunity or Desperation Move?
One of the reasons this blockbuster trade was so stunning is because this hasn’t been the modus operandi of the Packers front office for decades. Indeed, it is the exact opposite. The Packers have largely avoided making any big splashes in free agency or blockbuster deals of any kind with the notable exception of moving on from Aaron Rodgers and trading him to the New York Jets, which is many ways was a long, drawn out drama over many years in which they first extended Rodgers and then decided to trade him.
So why the change of approach for the Packers now?
One reason may be simply because this was a rare opportunity to acquire a star player in his prime at a position of need for the Packers. There were reportedly six teams that were interested in trading for Parsons, but as the Cowboys demanded two first-round picks and a good player, apparently a good run stopper and team leader, most teams dropped out. But the Packers had apparently been interested in Parsons, should he become available, all summer.
It was rumored a day or two before the deal was announced that the Packers were offering two first-round picks and a second-round pick, along with a $45 million AAV deal for Parsons. That turned into two first-round picks plus Kenny Clark and a 4-year, $47 million AAV deal for Parsons, which was a 15% premium over the record T.J. Watt deal done in July for $41 million AAV. The Packers weren’t taking any chances they would be outbid, like they were in the blockbuster 2018 Khalil Mack trade, Brian Gutekunst’s first year as general manager of the Packers.
But looking at the cost to acquire Micah Parsons, this really concentrates the Packers salary cap in a handful of players for the next few years and cost them the lions share of their draft capital for the next two years as well, limiting their chances of adding quality, inexpensive players in the draft. The Packers are also paying Kenny Clark $35 million between this year and next to play for the Cowboys. The Packers just extended Clark last year on a 3-year, $64 million deal, which essentially became a one-year, $61.3 million extension after he was traded to the Cowboys.
Overall, the cost to the Packers in acquiring Parsons was similar to what the Chicago Bears paid to acquire Khalil Mack in 2018- two first-round picks and change, although there is a good argument that sending Clark to the Cowboys and taking a $35 million cap hit to do so is worth more than the later-round pick swaps between the Raiders and Bears in the Mack deal. The Packers, like the Bears, also made their new edge rusher the highest paid, only the Packers did so by a substantial margin- 15% or $6 million/year more, while Mack was only narrowly so.
Additionally, by making the trade for Parsons and the associated salary cap hits, the Packers are essentially writing off their 2023 #13 overall draft pick Lukas Van Ness, who will remain a rotational edge rusher for the last two years of his rookie contract. Slim chance at this point they’d pick up his 5th-year option in that role.
So why was Packers general manager Brian Gutekunst willing to pay more now when he wasn’t in the past? Maybe because now his job (and Matt LaFleur’s) is on the line.
One underreported change this offseason for the Packers was Ed Policy taking over for Mark Murphy as president and CEO of the Packers. At his initial press conference, Policy said that he doesn’t like having lame-duck head coaches or general managers working on the last year of their contract as it creates uncertainty, etc. Both Packers head coach Matt LaFleur and general manager Brian Gutekunst have two years left on their contracts. At the same time, Policy said he would not be extending either Gutekunst or LaFleur before this season, implying that the results of this season could weigh heavily on his decision to extend them or not. There is some dissatisfaction that after a strong first three seasons, the last three have been underwhelming with no division title or whiff of a Super Bowl during that time. Another second or third place finish in the division and/or a one-and-done in the playoffs or worse, not making the playoffs, and Policy may opt for a new regime to take over next season. That stress has shown up in Matt LaFleur’s press conferences, which have gone from more upbeat to more terse in recent years. There are those in Green Bay who also feel that with two playoff appearances since Jordan Love took over at quarterback, they’re not far away from a Super Bowl appearance.
So, acquiring Micah Parsons might be a last minute move by this Packers regime to be more competitive in a division in which they went 1-5 last season and still looks pretty tough, and hopefully make a splash in the playoffs and get their contracts extended. Whether that will work or not is, of course, problematic.
The ‘One Player Away’ Fallacy
The Packers wouldn’t be the first team to believe that they’re just one player away from a Super Bowl. What looks good on paper often doesn’t play out that way once the season starts. That’s what history shows. There really isn’t an example of an edge rusher making the difference in a team’s Super Bowl run apart from Von Miller in 2015 on a rookie contract. One example recently cited is the Cowboys trading for Charles Haley back in 1990, and the team’s subsequent Super Bowl run. But that was powered more by the Hershel Walker trade made by the Vikings- who felt they were just one player away from a Super Bowl. That was the case with the Vikings again in 2018, when they acquired Kirk Cousins on a record contract after having made the NFC Championship game with the top defense in the league.
The Khalil Mack trade to Chicago was also meant to make the Bears a contender, in the dominant defense sytle of previous Bears contenders, but that never materialized. After an initial 12-4 season in 2018, they didn’t have a winning record for the remainder of Mack’s time in Chicago. They had a more formidible defense than the Packers do now, with first-team All-Pros Eddie Jackson and Kyle Fuller, Pro Bowler Akiem Hicks, Roquan Smith, Adrian Amos, among others including All-Pro Mack. But they also had Mitch Trubisky and the Bears never won a playoff game while Mack was in Chicago.
Even for the Cowboys with a solid roster on both sides of the ball and a top ten offense and defense for three seasons with Micah Parsons, they didn’t get any closer to a Super Bowl than Packers have in recent years.
How Top Heavy is Too Top Heavy?
The other question that comes up with the Micah Parsons trade is how top heavy is too top heavy a roster in terms of salary cap concentration? Clearly having a number of top players that demand top contracts is a good problem to have, but as markets for nearly every position are reset significantly higher each year, and sometimes more frequently than that, the number of top contracts a team can afford to maintain has declined, even with a rising salary cap.
Next year the Packers will have 56% of their salary cap tied to just six players. Having so many eggs in just a half-dozen baskets creates added risks. Injuries or underperformance can have an outsized impact because the team has fewer resources to replace them, often lacks depth, and can be contractually bound to them. Top heavy rosters can also result in lower morale if lower-paid players feel they are undervalued, or the top players are given special treatment, or the team can’t afford to reward other players for good performance.
At some point a team with top players demanding top contracts has to move on from one or some of them because they can no longer afford to keep them and maintain a competitive roster. The Chiefs have been forced to do this the past few years, letting go some top offensive linemen and Tyreek Hill a few years back as the price tag for Patrick Mahomes and Chris Jones continues to go up. Next year, Mahomes and Jones will consume 40% of the Chiefs salary cap. For just two players.
But while the Packers have decided to take on the risks of a top heavy roster, the Cowboys are moving away from it. The Philadelphia Eagles have also avoided as top heavy a roster with 42% of its salary cap tied to six players next season and just 33% this season. The Detroit Lions, by contrast are rapidly becoming a top heavy roster with 52% of their salary cap going to their top four players next season and still having to pay Aiden Hutchinson. The Vikings are similar to the Eagles in salary cap concentration both this year and next.
There is no clear line in terms of when a roster has become too top heavy, apart from not having enough cap space to field a 53-man roster, but clearly there is a point at which fielding a competitive team with a high percentage of salary cap going to a handful of players becomes too great a burden for even the best front office and coaching staff.
The mistake the Cowboys have made in recent years is waiting too long to extend top players, resulting in bigger contracts than need be, and in the case of Micah Parsons, not deciding to trade him sooner- before the draft- to maximize the compensation.
For now, the Packers will have the star but not much of the cost. But over the next three years, that cost will continue to rise as Parsons’ salary cap increases, and drafts go by with no first-round draft pick to replace aging or underperforming starters and less salary cap space to do so as well. And if the Packers fall short of high expectations, they could end up where the Bears were a few years after they traded for Khalil Mack- beginning a tear down and the long climb back to relevance.
Follow me on X/Bluesky @wludford
2 CommentsSee More:
