Sierra Foothills Posted September 13 Posted September 13 My position has been that you cannot declare a winner of this trade because we don't know the results. Here's a related question... to all those who are wowed by Parsons' performance in his first two games: Can Green Bay "win" this trade if they end up not winning a Super Bowl with Parsons? 1 Quote
FireChans Posted September 13 Posted September 13 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said: My position has been that you cannot declare a winner of this trade because we don't know the results. Here's a related question... to all those who are wowed by Parsons' performance in his first two games: Can Green Bay "win" this trade if they end up not winning a Super Bowl with Parsons? Yes. Of course they can. If your only measure of success is winning a Super Bowl, then drafting Bruce Smith wasn’t a success. The Bills should’ve traded that pick for more picks. They could’ve gotten a haul. After all, they didn’t win a Super Bowl, right? For a more recent example, was the Bills trading a first for Diggs a failure? I mean sure, he helped take our offense and our QB into elite status, and he posted the best 4 year stretch by a WR in team history, but we didn’t win the Super Bowl. It’s a failure for Green Bay only if they don’t contend for a championship during Micah’s prime, or if Micah somehow just becomes a terrible player. Otherwise, it’s the exact move that good teams should always make to try to maximize their chance of winning a ring. Edited September 13 by FireChans 2 1 Quote
Sierra Foothills Posted September 13 Posted September 13 9 minutes ago, FireChans said: Yes. Of course they can. If your only measure of success is winning a Super Bowl, then drafting Bruce Smith wasn’t a success. The Bills should’ve traded that pick for more picks. They could’ve gotten a haul. After all, they didn’t win a Super Bowl, right? For a more recent example, was the Bills trading a first for Diggs a failure? I mean sure, he helped take our offense and our QB into elite status, and he posted the best 4 year stretch by a WR in team history, but we didn’t win the Super Bowl. It’s a failure for Green Bay only if they don’t contend for a championship during Micah’s prime, or if Micah somehow just becomes a terrible player. Otherwise, it’s the exact move that good teams should always make to try to maximize their chance of winning a ring. This is a reasonable response but: Many (most?) Bills fans here seem to believe that anything short of a Super Bowl win with Josh will be a franchise failure. The acquisition cost of a player like Parsons makes this an "all-in move" which implies all-in for what? We know the answer of course. So modifying the question, if the Bills acquired Parsons and he maintained his excellent level of play but we didn't win a Super Bowl, would the Bills have won the trade? 1 Quote
FireChans Posted September 13 Posted September 13 2 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said: Many (most?) Bills fans here seem to believe that anything short of a Super Bowl win with Josh will be a franchise failure. Correct. But that’s a conflation. drafting/acquiring Josh Allen wasn’t the failure. It was obviously a great success. It would be a failure of the other folks involved. 3 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said: The acquisition cost of a player like Parsons makes this an "all-in move" which implies all-in for what? We know the answer of course “All-in move” is just a term for media and fans to throw around. How many fans or media members can name the 3 last first round picks by the Packers? Its meaningless. Their franchise isn’t going to fold if they don’t win a Super Bowl. The one certainty in the NFL is that you always get more picks. It’s just like how folks predicted the Rams were going to usher in 10 years of darkness when they were trading first rounders for talent. Meanwhile, here they are making the playoffs all the time again. 9 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said: So modifying the question, if the Bills acquired Parsons and he maintained his excellent level of play but we didn't win a Super Bowl, would the Bills have won the trade? Yes. Trading for an elite pass rusher in his prime to pair with an elite QB in his prime is objectively ALWAYS a good move. If the Bills traded for Parsons, would it have been a good trade? Yes. If the Bills managed to not win a Super Bowl with such a move, would that be a failure of the BILLS? Yes. Would it be a failure of a trade? No. 1 Quote
billsintaiwan Posted September 13 Posted September 13 That is a lot of money to give a guy who the bills made look one dimensional. I don't care about owners spending money and such. They have it. But, and this is without know their roster very well, a pretty bold move. First round picks matter, even if they're in the 20s 1 Quote
bmur66 Posted September 13 Posted September 13 Beane won’t go “all in”. Bills intention is to be a perennial contender and hope to catch lightning in a bottle at some point. He has said so himself. Quote
Alphadawg7 Posted September 13 Posted September 13 (edited) 1 hour ago, FireChans said: Yes. Of course they can. If your only measure of success is winning a Super Bowl, then drafting Bruce Smith wasn’t a success. The Bills should’ve traded that pick for more picks. They could’ve gotten a haul. After all, they didn’t win a Super Bowl, right? For a more recent example, was the Bills trading a first for Diggs a failure? I mean sure, he helped take our offense and our QB into elite status, and he posted the best 4 year stretch by a WR in team history, but we didn’t win the Super Bowl. It’s a failure for Green Bay only if they don’t contend for a championship during Micah’s prime, or if Micah somehow just becomes a terrible player. Otherwise, it’s the exact move that good teams should always make to try to maximize their chance of winning a ring. Disagree. The 2 scenarios of Bruce and Parsons are not at all the same situation or circumstance. One was drafted for a team rebuilding, the other a fortune in acquisition cost and cap spending was used specifically to win a SB right now. These are not remotely comparable. The only reason for GB to make this move is to win a Super Bowl - anything less is a failure. And that is because you are ignoring all factors and context and just reducing it to X player is now on X team and because X player is good that is all that matters. What really matters, is that GB is now paying 2 QB's, not one. He makes QB1 month now and their cap is a real thing that will be impacted significantly moving forward, and that is a fact. GB also lacks valuable draft assets to add more talent to this team if it proves not good enough to win now. So if Green Bay can't win it all as made up now, they are going to be at a disadvantage at improving the roster to be a SB winner moving forward. So in this case, a SB birth is the only way this trade proves valuable. They were already a playoff team not getting over the hump without Parsons, spending 2 first rounders and $47m per year to remain a team that makes the playoffs but loses will be a failure. Most everyone will view this as an L for GB if 3 years from now they are sitting with no hardware. Its possible BOTH teams can get a W on this trade and possible for BOTH teams to get an L. We won't know if it was a good or bad move for GB until we see if they win a SB this year or during his tenure. We won't know if its a good or bad move until we see how much better or worse Dallas does moving forward than they were with Parsons. Will be interesting to monitor. Edited September 13 by Alphadawg7 1 1 Quote
mannc Posted September 13 Posted September 13 1 hour ago, Sierra Foothills said: My position has been that you cannot declare a winner of this trade because we don't know the results. Here's a related question... to all those who are wowed by Parsons' performance in his first two games: Can Green Bay "win" this trade if they end up not winning a Super Bowl with Parsons? No. It’s a Super Bowl or bust trade. They don’t have to win it this year, but I’d say it’s a three-year window. Quote
FireChans Posted September 13 Posted September 13 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said: Disagree. The 2 scenarios of Bruce and Parsons are not at all the same situation or circumstance. One was drafted for a team rebuilding, the other a fortune in acquisition cost and cap spending was used specifically to win a SB right now. These are not remotely comparable. The only reason for GB to make this move is to win a Super Bowl - anything less is a failure. And that is because you are ignoring all factors and context and just reducing it to X player is now on X team and because X player is good that is all that matters. What really matters, is that GB is now paying 2 QB's, not one. He makes QB1 month now and their cap is a real thing that will be impacted significantly moving forward, and that is a fact. GB also lacks valuable draft assets to add more talent to this team if it proves not good enough to win now. So if Green Bay can't win it all as made up now, they are going to be at a disadvantage at improving the roster to be a SB winner moving forward. So in this case, a SB birth is the only way this trade proves valuable. They were already a playoff team not getting over the hump without Parsons, spending 2 first rounders and $47m per year to remain a team that makes the playoffs but loses will be a failure. Most everyone will view this as an L for GB if 3 years from now they are sitting with no hardware. Its possible BOTH teams can get a W on this trade and possible for BOTH teams to get an L. We won't know if it was a good or bad move for GB until we see if they win a SB this year or during his tenure. We won't know if its a good or bad move until we see how much better or worse Dallas does moving forward than they were with Parsons. Will be interesting to monitor. Yeah just flat out disagree with almost all of this. For whatever reason, trading for a player is looked at like some completely different entity than drafting a player or signing a player. It’s all just player acquisition. If you acquire a great player, it’s great. If you acquire a great player for cheaper than you really should, it’s incredible. Now, are there increased expectations associated with the move Green Bay made? Of course there are. But that’s BECAUSE of the caliber of the player they acquired. Because Micah is one of the best EDGE rushers in the league. There’s a league-wide and fan-wide view on first round picks that they are these priceless assets. Which is really bizarro, when even the FIRST ROUND has like barely above a 50% hit rate. The Packers last 4 first rounders were Eric Morgan, Lukas Van Ness, Quay Walker, and Eric Stokes. You couldn’t trade all 4 of those players for a player on the caliber of Parsons, let alone just 2 of them. Furthermore, I completely disagree that a team with an elite defensive talent is at some inherent disadvantage because they have to pay that player a ton of money. Wouldn’t like 29 teams kill to have a defensive player worth $40M+? Isn’t that the point? The point of having cap space and picks is to be able to get and retain great players. I don’t know how this became so backwards to folks. We aren’t at an inherent disadvantage because we are paying Josh. Because Josh is worth every single cent and then some. The argument against making a Micah Parsons move is “let’s hang onto our late first round picks and cap space so we can hope we can get lucky to get a player as good as Micah Parsons.” It’s ass backwards, respectfully. Edited September 13 by FireChans 1 1 Quote
Tanoros Posted September 13 Posted September 13 1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said: Disagree. The 2 scenarios of Bruce and Parsons are not at all the same situation or circumstance. One was drafted for a team rebuilding, the other a fortune in acquisition cost and cap spending was used specifically to win a SB right now. These are not remotely comparable. The only reason for GB to make this move is to win a Super Bowl - anything less is a failure. And that is because you are ignoring all factors and context and just reducing it to X player is now on X team and because X player is good that is all that matters. What really matters, is that GB is now paying 2 QB's, not one. He makes QB1 month now and their cap is a real thing that will be impacted significantly moving forward, and that is a fact. GB also lacks valuable draft assets to add more talent to this team if it proves not good enough to win now. So if Green Bay can't win it all as made up now, they are going to be at a disadvantage at improving the roster to be a SB winner moving forward. So in this case, a SB birth is the only way this trade proves valuable. They were already a playoff team not getting over the hump without Parsons, spending 2 first rounders and $47m per year to remain a team that makes the playoffs but loses will be a failure. Most everyone will view this as an L for GB if 3 years from now they are sitting with no hardware. Its possible BOTH teams can get a W on this trade and possible for BOTH teams to get an L. We won't know if it was a good or bad move for GB until we see if they win a SB this year or during his tenure. We won't know if its a good or bad move until we see how much better or worse Dallas does moving forward than they were with Parsons. Will be interesting to monitor. I do not think the trade for Micah Parsons should automatically be defined as a failure if the Packers do not win a Super Bowl. Winning a championship is always the ultimate goal, but football is far more complex than star player equals Super Bowl or bust. A great example is the Bills trading for Stefon Diggs. Buffalo did not win a Super Bowl in his four years there, but that move completely transformed the team. It elevated Josh Allen into an elite quarterback tier, gave Buffalo one of the best wide receivers in the league, and made them a legitimate contender every season. By almost every measure, that was a win of a trade, even without the Lombardi. I would argue the same logic applies here. If Parsons helps elevate Green Bay from good to consistently being among the elite with deep playoff runs and multiple NFC Championship appearances, then that is a success. Where I agree with the criticism is that simply going one and done or consistently finishing 1-1 in the playoffs would not cut it. Consistent high level contention has to be the bar. And we cannot ignore the reality of football. One injury to Jordan Love or other key players could derail a season regardless of how dominant Parsons plays. That does not erase the value of acquiring one of the very best defensive players in the league. We have seen other examples of this across the NFL. When the Vikings traded for Jared Allen in 2008, he immediately turned their defense into a top unit and helped Minnesota become a true contender. They made playoff runs and reached the NFC Championship but never won a Super Bowl. Still, that trade is remembered as a huge success because Allen was a transformative player who made them elite. Another example is the Bears trading for Khalil Mack in 2018. Chicago did not win it all, but Mack turned their defense into one of the most feared in the league and made them an immediate contender. That move was viewed as a win because of how much it elevated the team, even without a ring. The point is that acquiring a generational talent is about consistently giving yourself a real chance. Without Parsons, the Packers are a good team. With him, they are an elite team that everyone has to take seriously. And to me, that is worth it, because so many factors beyond Parsons will ultimately determine whether or not a Super Bowl is won. Perhaps instead of a binary: win/loss it could be best viewed as F - A+ with an A+ being the Super Bowl win and B+ being elite and championship game appearance(s). There is just so many layers to success or not, although I want the Bills to winner a Super Bowl beyond anything else, I also greatly appreciate when they are elite and I appreciate the steps that make them elite and I consider them being elite and with a chance to win it all a level of success beyond fighting to make the playoffs if that. 1 Quote
HomeskillitMoorman Posted September 13 Posted September 13 2 hours ago, Sierra Foothills said: This is a reasonable response but: Many (most?) Bills fans here seem to believe that anything short of a Super Bowl win with Josh will be a franchise failure. The acquisition cost of a player like Parsons makes this an "all-in move" which implies all-in for what? We know the answer of course. So modifying the question, if the Bills acquired Parsons and he maintained his excellent level of play but we didn't win a Super Bowl, would the Bills have won the trade? Just trying to understand the first part…do you think it’s not a failure if the Bills don’t come away with a SB in Josh’s career? Or were you talking about just this season? Quote
FireChans Posted September 13 Posted September 13 12 minutes ago, Tanoros said: I do not think the trade for Micah Parsons should automatically be defined as a failure if the Packers do not win a Super Bowl. Winning a championship is always the ultimate goal, but football is far more complex than star player equals Super Bowl or bust. A great example is the Bills trading for Stefon Diggs. Buffalo did not win a Super Bowl in his four years there, but that move completely transformed the team. It elevated Josh Allen into an elite quarterback tier, gave Buffalo one of the best wide receivers in the league, and made them a legitimate contender every season. By almost every measure, that was a win of a trade, even without the Lombardi. I would argue the same logic applies here. If Parsons helps elevate Green Bay from good to consistently being among the elite with deep playoff runs and multiple NFC Championship appearances, then that is a success. Where I agree with the criticism is that simply going one and done or consistently finishing 1-1 in the playoffs would not cut it. Consistent high level contention has to be the bar. And we cannot ignore the reality of football. One injury to Jordan Love or other key players could derail a season regardless of how dominant Parsons plays. That does not erase the value of acquiring one of the very best defensive players in the league. We have seen other examples of this across the NFL. When the Vikings traded for Jared Allen in 2008, he immediately turned their defense into a top unit and helped Minnesota become a true contender. They made playoff runs and reached the NFC Championship but never won a Super Bowl. Still, that trade is remembered as a huge success because Allen was a transformative player who made them elite. Another example is the Bears trading for Khalil Mack in 2018. Chicago did not win it all, but Mack turned their defense into one of the most feared in the league and made them an immediate contender. That move was viewed as a win because of how much it elevated the team, even without a ring. The point is that acquiring a generational talent is about consistently giving yourself a real chance. Without Parsons, the Packers are a good team. With him, they are an elite team that everyone has to take seriously. And to me, that is worth it, because so many factors beyond Parsons will ultimately determine whether or not a Super Bowl is won. Perhaps instead of a binary: win/loss it could be best viewed as F - A+ with an A+ being the Super Bowl win and B+ being elite and championship game appearance(s). There is just so many layers to success or not, although I want the Bills to winner a Super Bowl beyond anything else, I also greatly appreciate when they are elite and I appreciate the steps that make them elite and I consider them being elite and with a chance to win it all a level of success beyond fighting to make the playoffs if that. Full marks across the board. post more 1 Quote
NewEra Posted September 13 Posted September 13 1 hour ago, FireChans said: . It’s all just player acquisition. If you acquire a great player, it’s great. If you acquire a great player for cheaper than you really should, it’s incredible. The argument against making a Micah Parsons move is “let’s hang onto our late first round picks and cap space so we can hope we can get lucky to get a player as good as Micah Parsons.” It’s ass backwards, respectfully. We’re talking about something subjective- whether a team “won a trade”. imo- It all depends on how high a bar the teams sets their bar. When the Bills traded for Diggs- we’re all fairly confidant that their main goal was to help Josh Allen become the best QB he can become. We weren’t a Super Bowl contender yet. Sure, they’d have liked to win a SB too, but supporting Josh was goal #1 imo. They accomplished that. When the Bills drafted Bruce- they were garbage and just adding building blocks for the franchises future was the goal. The packers have their QB and have paid him top dollar. They have some solid weapons under contract for the next few years and a HC they believe is their long term guy. I don’t believe that they gave up those picks and mortgaged that much cap in order to just get better on D. They could’ve signed several players this offseason if they just wanted to improve and would have lots more cap space and multiple draft picks to continue to add to their talent level regarding the bolded- the draft picks and salary cap space wouldn’t be used to get “a” player. They would be used to get several players. The cowboys had a mini dynasty because they hit on those assets acquired for “a” player. if they don’t win a Super Bowl with parsons- then they failed at achieving the goal that they have set for themselves. They have their QB and HC. Once you have them, you have one goal build to win a SB. No one will know what the assets traded away would’ve yielded had they held onto the them- but not winning a SB with him is an L in terms of their build. I get your points though and I don’t think that you’re wrong due to this being subjective. If I were the packers GM- and the team didn’t win a SB with parsons- I’d view that as a failure in my eyes. Quote
FireChans Posted September 13 Posted September 13 36 minutes ago, NewEra said: We’re talking about something subjective- whether a team “won a trade”. imo- It all depends on how high a bar the teams sets their bar. When the Bills traded for Diggs- we’re all fairly confidant that their main goal was to help Josh Allen become the best QB he can become. We weren’t a Super Bowl contender yet. Sure, they’d have liked to win a SB too, but supporting Josh was goal #1 imo. They accomplished that. When the Bills drafted Bruce- they were garbage and just adding building blocks for the franchises future was the goal. The packers have their QB and have paid him top dollar. They have some solid weapons under contract for the next few years and a HC they believe is their long term guy. I don’t believe that they gave up those picks and mortgaged that much cap in order to just get better on D. They could’ve signed several players this offseason if they just wanted to improve and would have lots more cap space and multiple draft picks to continue to add to their talent level regarding the bolded- the draft picks and salary cap space wouldn’t be used to get “a” player. They would be used to get several players. The cowboys had a mini dynasty because they hit on those assets acquired for “a” player. if they don’t win a Super Bowl with parsons- then they failed at achieving the goal that they have set for themselves. They have their QB and HC. Once you have them, you have one goal build to win a SB. No one will know what the assets traded away would’ve yielded had they held onto the them- but not winning a SB with him is an L in terms of their build. I get your points though and I don’t think that you’re wrong due to this being subjective. If I were the packers GM- and the team didn’t win a SB with parsons- I’d view that as a failure in my eyes. I just don't agree with this arbitrary framing of this move in particular. We both agree that the Packers have "their guy" at QB and HC for the forseeable future. So they have some sort of window with that pairing, we agree. And because they have them, they have one goal, to win a SB. You say they could have gone a different route and used all the resources in the Micah trade/signing to improve their defense with multiple players. I absolutely agree they could have. What I would ask is how is that different than using all those resources on Micah? If the Packers traded a late first for some mid-tier CB, another late first for a good but not great pass rusher, and spent every cent they gave Micah on 4-5 other defensive players, why would their expectations be any less than competing/winning a Superbowl? It's fundamentally the same thing. Acquiring talent to win a Superbowl. Which is why I disagree vehemently with this dimes vs dollars framing. The Bills standing pat to draft Max Hairston or Greg Rousseau or whoever instead of trading those picks or using their money to sign some big name FA doesn't change our expectations, right? We aren't "just trying to improve," we are still trying to win a Superbowl. The ONLY difference is that there is some increased risk in terms of injury by virtue of it being 1 player vs multiple players. But that's offset, imo, by getting a known commodity in the NFL instead of a lotto ticket. They are using their assets to improve their team, just as we do. All this "all-in" and "mortgage the future" is perpetuated from talking heads who need to lay groundwork for the "Was the Micah trade a failure" talking point 2 years from now. Quote
GoBills808 Posted September 13 Posted September 13 1 hour ago, Tanoros said: I do not think the trade for Micah Parsons should automatically be defined as a failure if the Packers do not win a Super Bowl. Winning a championship is always the ultimate goal, but football is far more complex than star player equals Super Bowl or bust. A great example is the Bills trading for Stefon Diggs. Buffalo did not win a Super Bowl in his four years there, but that move completely transformed the team. It elevated Josh Allen into an elite quarterback tier, gave Buffalo one of the best wide receivers in the league, and made them a legitimate contender every season. By almost every measure, that was a win of a trade, even without the Lombardi. I would argue the same logic applies here. If Parsons helps elevate Green Bay from good to consistently being among the elite with deep playoff runs and multiple NFC Championship appearances, then that is a success. Where I agree with the criticism is that simply going one and done or consistently finishing 1-1 in the playoffs would not cut it. Consistent high level contention has to be the bar. And we cannot ignore the reality of football. One injury to Jordan Love or other key players could derail a season regardless of how dominant Parsons plays. That does not erase the value of acquiring one of the very best defensive players in the league. We have seen other examples of this across the NFL. When the Vikings traded for Jared Allen in 2008, he immediately turned their defense into a top unit and helped Minnesota become a true contender. They made playoff runs and reached the NFC Championship but never won a Super Bowl. Still, that trade is remembered as a huge success because Allen was a transformative player who made them elite. Another example is the Bears trading for Khalil Mack in 2018. Chicago did not win it all, but Mack turned their defense into one of the most feared in the league and made them an immediate contender. That move was viewed as a win because of how much it elevated the team, even without a ring. The point is that acquiring a generational talent is about consistently giving yourself a real chance. Without Parsons, the Packers are a good team. With him, they are an elite team that everyone has to take seriously. And to me, that is worth it, because so many factors beyond Parsons will ultimately determine whether or not a Super Bowl is won. Perhaps instead of a binary: win/loss it could be best viewed as F - A+ with an A+ being the Super Bowl win and B+ being elite and championship game appearance(s). There is just so many layers to success or not, although I want the Bills to winner a Super Bowl beyond anything else, I also greatly appreciate when they are elite and I appreciate the steps that make them elite and I consider them being elite and with a chance to win it all a level of success beyond fighting to make the playoffs if that. The Diggs trade got Minnesota Jefferson 3 hours ago, FireChans said: Yes. Of course they can. If your only measure of success is winning a Super Bowl, then drafting Bruce Smith wasn’t a success. The Bills should’ve traded that pick for more picks. They could’ve gotten a haul. After all, they didn’t win a Super Bowl, right? For a more recent example, was the Bills trading a first for Diggs a failure? I mean sure, he helped take our offense and our QB into elite status, and he posted the best 4 year stretch by a WR in team history, but we didn’t win the Super Bowl. It’s a failure for Green Bay only if they don’t contend for a championship during Micah’s prime, or if Micah somehow just becomes a terrible player. Otherwise, it’s the exact move that good teams should always make to try to maximize their chance of winning a ring. I think the way to look at the trade is between the two parties and their respective trajectories, not just trade vs no trade right In the Diggs case the Vikings got Jefferson...that has to be considered a win Parsons trade is too early for returns but it's not Packers trade v Packers no trade in a vacuum...it's more like Packers trajectory vs Dallas trajectory 1 1 Quote
NewEra Posted September 13 Posted September 13 2 minutes ago, FireChans said: I just don't agree with this arbitrary framing of this move in particular. We both agree that the Packers have "their guy" at QB and HC for the forseeable future. So they have some sort of window with that pairing, we agree. And because they have them, they have one goal, to win a SB. You say they could have gone a different route and used all the resources in the Micah trade/signing to improve their defense with multiple players. I absolutely agree they could have. What I would ask is how is that different than using all those resources on Micah? If the Packers traded a late first for some mid-tier CB, another late first for a good but not great pass rusher, and spent every cent they gave Micah on 4-5 other defensive players, why would their expectations be any less than competing/winning a Superbowl? It's fundamentally the same thing. Acquiring talent to win a Superbowl. Which is why I disagree vehemently with this dimes vs dollars framing. The Bills standing pat to draft Max Hairston or Greg Rousseau or whoever instead of trading those picks or using their money to sign some big name FA doesn't change our expectations, right? We aren't "just trying to improve," we are still trying to win a Superbowl. The ONLY difference is that there is some increased risk in terms of injury by virtue of it being 1 player vs multiple players. But that's offset, imo, by getting a known commodity in the NFL instead of a lotto ticket. They are using their assets to improve their team, just as we do. All this "all-in" and "mortgage the future" is perpetuated from talking heads who need to lay groundwork for the "Was the Micah trade a failure" talking point 2 years from now. IMO- it’s different based on the possible outcomes- which we will never know how it would’ve turned out. They could have used those assets on players and not won a SB too- that also would’ve been a failure. But then again- they may have landed the right players and won a SB. It’s very possible/likely that they don’t win a Super Bowl in either way, trade or no trade. grading a trade is based on results imo. If they don’t win the SB with Micah- then can be viewed as a failure and I would understand why. They failed in their end goal. That’s just how I see things. You see differently- all good Quote
mannc Posted September 13 Posted September 13 1 hour ago, Tanoros said: I do not think the trade for Micah Parsons should automatically be defined as a failure if the Packers do not win a Super Bowl. Winning a championship is always the ultimate goal, but football is far more complex than star player equals Super Bowl or bust. A great example is the Bills trading for Stefon Diggs. Buffalo did not win a Super Bowl in his four years there, but that move completely transformed the team. It elevated Josh Allen into an elite quarterback tier, gave Buffalo one of the best wide receivers in the league, and made them a legitimate contender every season. By almost every measure, that was a win of a trade, even without the Lombardi. I would argue the same logic applies here. If Parsons helps elevate Green Bay from good to consistently being among the elite with deep playoff runs and multiple NFC Championship appearances, then that is a success. Where I agree with the criticism is that simply going one and done or consistently finishing 1-1 in the playoffs would not cut it. Consistent high level contention has to be the bar. And we cannot ignore the reality of football. One injury to Jordan Love or other key players could derail a season regardless of how dominant Parsons plays. That does not erase the value of acquiring one of the very best defensive players in the league. We have seen other examples of this across the NFL. When the Vikings traded for Jared Allen in 2008, he immediately turned their defense into a top unit and helped Minnesota become a true contender. They made playoff runs and reached the NFC Championship but never won a Super Bowl. Still, that trade is remembered as a huge success because Allen was a transformative player who made them elite. Another example is the Bears trading for Khalil Mack in 2018. Chicago did not win it all, but Mack turned their defense into one of the most feared in the league and made them an immediate contender. That move was viewed as a win because of how much it elevated the team, even without a ring. The point is that acquiring a generational talent is about consistently giving yourself a real chance. Without Parsons, the Packers are a good team. With him, they are an elite team that everyone has to take seriously. And to me, that is worth it, because so many factors beyond Parsons will ultimately determine whether or not a Super Bowl is won. Perhaps instead of a binary: win/loss it could be best viewed as F - A+ with an A+ being the Super Bowl win and B+ being elite and championship game appearance(s). There is just so many layers to success or not, although I want the Bills to winner a Super Bowl beyond anything else, I also greatly appreciate when they are elite and I appreciate the steps that make them elite and I consider them being elite and with a chance to win it all a level of success beyond fighting to make the playoffs if that. That’s a good way to look at the trade…Love is a good QB, but not on the same level as the Big Four. Adding a player like Parsons elevates the Pack from a wildcard team to a Super Bowl contender that at least has a chance to win it all… Quote
FireChans Posted September 13 Posted September 13 1 minute ago, NewEra said: They could have used those assets on players and not won a SB too- that also would’ve been a failure Exactly right! So this trade changed nothing in terms of the Packers expectations. But it’s discussed like this monumental do or die inflection point. 12 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: I think the way to look at the trade is between the two parties and their respective trajectories, not just trade vs no trade right No. the reason being is that the only reason this trade happened was because the trajectories already existed. The Cowboys are coming off a lost season where they fired their head coach. Their overall talent kinda sucks. While the decision to move off Micah may be disagreed with, I see the logic in selling relatively high when you believe your teams’ ceiling is a WC. The Cowboys semi-reset was coming with or without Micah. So to me, using the franchise trajectory is kinda unfair. I don’t think Micah is a Packer today if the Cowboys were a divisional round team last year. Quote
NewEra Posted September 13 Posted September 13 5 minutes ago, FireChans said: Exactly right! So this trade changed nothing in terms of the Packers expectations. But it’s discussed like this monumental do or die inflection point. No. the reason being is that the only reason this trade happened was because the trajectories already existed. The Cowboys are coming off a lost season where they fired their head coach. Their overall talent kinda sucks. While the decision to move off Micah may be disagreed with, I see the logic in selling relatively high when you believe your teams’ ceiling is a WC. The Cowboys semi-reset was coming with or without Micah. So to me, using the franchise trajectory is kinda unfair. I don’t think Micah is a Packer today if the Cowboys were a divisional round team last year. Correct- their expectations are to win the Super Bowl either way. If you don’t win one with him, then you failed. If they had not made the trade- we’ll never know what would have happened. They may have drafted and signed players that could’ve gotten them a SB. Maybe not. What the trade does is put an expiration date (while parsons is on the team) on winning a SB. Without the trade, it’s much more difficult to put an expiration date on it as we’ll never know how long the assets would’ve contributed to the team. Quote
GoBills808 Posted September 13 Posted September 13 1 hour ago, FireChans said: Exactly right! So this trade changed nothing in terms of the Packers expectations. But it’s discussed like this monumental do or die inflection point. No. the reason being is that the only reason this trade happened was because the trajectories already existed. The Cowboys are coming off a lost season where they fired their head coach. Their overall talent kinda sucks. While the decision to move off Micah may be disagreed with, I see the logic in selling relatively high when you believe your teams’ ceiling is a WC. The Cowboys semi-reset was coming with or without Micah. So to me, using the franchise trajectory is kinda unfair. I don’t think Micah is a Packer today if the Cowboys were a divisional round team last year. Ok so Packers win the trade simply by virtue of acquiring Parsons? How do the Cowboys win then? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.