Packers 2025 preseason

[OldSchoolSnapper]

11 hours ago, adambr2 said:

Giving up two 1sts and Clark just to be able to have the privilege to pay QB money to Parsons is indeed an enormous price and investment. 

I'm not saying they shouldn’t have. I’m just saying it’s a deal that could look really, really bad in a few years. Or the deal that won them a Super Bowl. We will see.

I couldn't disagree more. Can't be any worse than David Bhaktiari. Those picks are, likely at best, outside of the top 20.  Exchanging two of those for an elite finished product is a no-brainer. I'm pretty surprised this is all it took.

I am not seeing the giant risk here, outside of the large contract, which is just a fact of life that happens all the time. Clark's deal was a risk. Love's deal was a risk. All those deals are "risks." The comp to FA isn't legit either, because every other team has a crack at him in FA. Doing it this way we set our own price for the extension. 

As far as the comps go to White, it's not the same. The Packers weren't good when they signed Reggie and they proceeded to go 9-7 for 3 straight years, which was a big deal at the time, but they were still quite a ways out from contending. Parsons is supposed to get this team over the finish line.

With Russell Wilson, he was in his mid 30s and entering wash phase when he got to Denver. A player like Parsons virtually never becomes available at this stage of their career. I am not seeing any way it will be fair to criticize the Packers for making this deal. Even if he blows out his knee next week, it is quite literally what everyone has been clamoring for. There's not a chance they'd get anything this good with those picks.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

10 hours ago, sveumrules said:

Yeah, Reggie got us to two Super Bowls, anchored defenses that ranked 4th, 4th, 1st, and 5th in points allowed over a four year stretch, and capped it off with a DPOY (plus all the intangibles).

Gonna be hard for anyone to match that impact but if Parsons can help get the Pack back to the SB that’d be a good start.

I think this is a little romantic. White was a shell of the GOAT player he was by the time he was playing in Super Bowls. He was still a very good player, but they were 27-21 in his first three seasons and couldn't get out of the Divisional with the best version of Reggie. They started winning big because Brett Favre was winning MVPs and let's be real, the roster was loaded from top to bottom from 95-97.

It's a closer comp to Julius Peppers, an acquisition made to get us over the hump - and it really should have without Bostick's intervention. Parsons is in his prime though, Peppers was in the twilight but still effective.

[homer]

I would trade 6 of the last 7 Packers' 1st round picks for Parsons (not including Golden)

25 Morgan

13 Van Ness

28 Wyatt

22 Walker

29 Stokes

26 Love*

21 Savage

*Would not trade Love

[adambr2]

4 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I couldn't disagree more. Can't be any worse than David Bhaktiari. Those picks are, likely at best, outside of the top 20.  Exchanging two of those for an elite finished product is a no-brainer. I'm pretty surprised this is all it took.

I am not seeing the giant risk here, outside of the large contract, which is just a fact of life that happens all the time. Clark's deal was a risk. Love's deal was a risk. All those deals are "risks." The comp to FA isn't legit either, because every other team has a crack at him in FA. Doing it this way we set our own price for the extension. 

As far as the comps go to White, it's not the same. The Packers weren't good when they signed Reggie and they proceeded to go 9-7 for 3 straight years, which was a big deal at the time, but they were still quite a ways out from contending. Parsons is supposed to get this team over the finish line.

With Russell Wilson, he was in his mid 30s and entering wash phase when he got to Denver. A player like Parsons virtually never becomes available at this stage of their career. I am not seeing any way it will be fair to criticize the Packers for making this deal. Even if he blows out his knee next week, it is quite literally what everyone has been clamoring for. There's not a chance they'd get anything this good with those picks.

You don’t see how not having two 1st round picks to build the team with (regardless of position, which certainly isn’t guaranteed), eating as much dead money dealing Clark as they did, and investing as much as they did in Parsons, couldn’t look really, really bad in a few years?

Again, not saying they shouldn’t have. But there are numerous different ways it could blow up in their face.

[adambr2]

If there’s a great argument to be made about the Packers trading a pair of 1sts, it’s that they kind of suck at drafting in the first.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Just now, adambr2 said:

 

Again, not saying they shouldn’t have. But there are numerous different ways it could blow up in their face.

You could say this about literally any acquisition of a top-flight player is the point. We could do this or we could go get Derrek Sherrod and Justin Harrell the next 2 years. Or maybe we get Edgerrin Cooper or Jordy Nelson even. None of them would be the instant impact that Parsons is. Even if you hit, you're likely not getting anybody to make a difference until 2028 or something.

[adambr2]

The two 1st do get tricky to gauge because two 1sts from one team mean so much more than from another. Bears got a 1st from Carolina that turned out to be 1.01. If the Packers pick 29th and 23rd the next two years which is probably a pretty fair guess, that’s equal to one 1st at #8 overall in value.

[adambr2]

And I’ve definitely always been of the belief that on the defensive side of the ball, for winning a Super Bowl, pass rush trumps everything. Not stopping the run. Not coverage. Pass rush. 

[sveumrules]

14 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I think this is a little romantic. White was a shell of the GOAT player he was by the time he was playing in Super Bowls.

Here are White's approximate values from PFR for 1986-92 with PHI then 1993-98 with GB...

PHI: 19, 15, 19, 18, 17, 19, 15

GB: 15, 15, 15, 18, 15, 16

He was diminished from his peak as a younger man, sure, but hardly a shell. He's the oldest DPOY winner ever at age 37 in 1998 and was 1st or 2nd team All Pro each of his six years with the Packers so he was playing at a top level right up until the end.

Would love it if Parsons topped Reggie's 68.5 sacks and 94 AV over six years with the Packers, but that is a pretty tall ask. Anchor a defense that wins one SB and he'd put himself right there with Woodson (DPOY, 4 of 7 years 1st or 2nd team AP, 74 AV) for me, but I give Reggie extra credit for the intangibles & culture change he helped kick off so Parsons would pretty much need to anchor two SB winning defenses for me to put him over Reggie in terms of impact.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

21 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

Here are White's approximate values from PFR for 1986-92 with PHI then 1993-98 with GB...

PHI: 19, 15, 19, 18, 17, 19, 15

GB: 15, 15, 15, 18, 15, 16

He was diminished from his peak as a younger man, sure, but hardly a shell. He's the oldest DPOY winner ever at age 37 in 1998 and was 1st or 2nd team All Pro each of his six years with the Packers so he was playing at a top level right up until the end.

Would love it if Parsons topped Reggie's 68.5 sacks and 94 AV over six years with the Packers, but that is a pretty tall ask. Anchor a defense that wins one SB and he'd put himself right there with Woodson (DPOY, 4 of 7 years 1st or 2nd team AP, 74 AV) for me, but I give Reggie extra credit for the intangibles & culture change he helped kick off so Parsons would pretty much need to anchor two SB winning defenses for me to put him over Reggie in terms of impact.

I remember the DPOY well and it was political. He had mulled retirement the year before and the writers handed him a lifetime achievement award. It was pretty much assured he was retiring, which I think he may have? But then changed his mind and went to CAR, I can't remember exactly. He was still really good, but he didn't even lead the league in sacks and still won the lion's share of votes, it wasn't very close. When the Packers signed him, he was the best DL in the history of football. So saying he diminished isn't the critique it sounds like. Just that by the time they won Super Bowls, he was closer to 2014 Julius Peppers than he was the best of all time.

[homer]

This Reggie White slander needs to stop. He had 16 sacks his last year in GB. And as for that DPOY being political:

[Jimbo]

And I placed a wager on the Cowboys Wednesday.  Sigh.

 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

1 hour ago, homer said:

This Reggie White slander needs to stop. He had 16 sacks his last year in GB. And as for that DPOY being political:

I don't know why that disapproves it was political? Because he got a lot of votes? That's kinda the point. 

It was well known at the time White was retiring. I forgot about this, but he actually did, and skipped the entire 99 season. He was given DPOY as a lifetime achievement award. It was somewhat controversial at the time that he got DPOY, in large part because he was noticably slowing down in the second half of the year. 

I didn't slander the guy or suggest he was bad at the end. Quite the opposite. 

 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

30 minutes ago, Jimbo said:

And I placed a wager on the Cowboys Wednesday.  Sigh.

 

I don't think I could ever bet on the Cowboys.

[Underachiever]

What people are missing is that Dallas probably got a top five draft pick in the deal. It's their own pick, but still.

[JosephC]

Personally I don't have an opinion one way or the other on this.

I guess I would say that, from the highlights that I had watched when Green Bay obliterated Dallas in that playoff game a couple years ago, is that Parsons wasn't exactly stellar against the run.  And then this equation subtracts Kenny Clark.  But this is a passing league, so I still don't have an opinion because the pass rush factor could easily outweigh a shoddy run defense because that is what the NFL is.

All of the ESPN boobs are saying this is a horrible trade for Dallas.

That makes me think this trade will end up being a disaster for Green Bay.

[adambr2]

One thing I think we can agree on: 

The Milwaukee Brewers would never, never make a trade like this. Apples and oranges, I know. 

[young guns]

10 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

Wrong. Tag Walker, trade him, 2 1sts in return, one from... Seattle and in 2027 they're going to be terrible and we take Jeremiah Smith in the top 5. 

I think that's a pretty clear option you're overlooking...

 

But I really meant to post this. The Jones are trying SOOO hard to make it sound like Clark is going to make them better overall is kinda funny.

 

"Things are good here....things are good here...I want to be clear on that."

 

I only listened to a few minutes, but it was giving off a lot of he didn't break up with us we broke up with him vibes.

[Fear The Chorizo]

28 minutes ago, JosephC said:

Personally I don't have an opinion one way or the other on this.

I guess I would say that, from the highlights that I had watched when Green Bay obliterated Dallas in that playoff game a couple years ago, is that Parsons wasn't exactly stellar against the run.  And then this equation subtracts Kenny Clark.  But this is a passing league, so I still don't have an opinion because the pass rush factor could easily outweigh a shoddy run defense because that is what the NFL is.

All of the ESPN boobs are saying this is a horrible trade for Dallas.

That makes me think this trade will end up being a disaster for Green Bay.

truth is we don't know, because injuries are the wildcard.  

 

If Parsons stays healthy, this is a no brainer win trade for the Packers - they get an elite pass rusher who can line up all over the front 7 in his prime.  The odds of the Cowboys picking a player anywhere close to Parsons' ability on the field with either of these 1st round picks is incredibly low.  Clark is a really good interior lineman, but he's not a game disruptor that warrants concerns about how his loss impacts the defense overall.

 

Since career-debilitating injuries are impossible to predict in football, at the moment this is a great trade for the Packers.

[HarryDoyle]

ComparingParsons to Reggie is just unfair. Reggie is arguably the GOAT defensive player in NFL history. A fairer comparison would be Charles Haley, and look what happened to the Cowboys once they traded for him.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I think the narrative that Dallas got hosed is nonsense. It's just a pile-on campaign against Jerry. 

Did anyone believe Dallas was close to a championship? I did not. They have some talent for sure, but I'm just not buying them. I think Jerry felt the same. They are a decent team now armed with 4 1st round picks (for now) and contrary to popular opinion, Jones has actually drafted quite well, particularly with early picks.

The Packers, meanwhile, need a star. I complained about this last year. Who is the Woodson, who is the White, who is even the Matthews on this defense? You were looking at McKinney and Gary. Good players, McKinney may be the best at his position, but he plays a peripheral position. Parsons is the talent they were missing.

The trade makes sense for both teams IMO. And I don't think GB is looking for Parsons to be a big run stuffer. They got him to alleviate Gary's life and get QB pressure with 4 guys. We haven't had that in years.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

3 minutes ago, HarryDoyle said:

ComparingParsons to Reggie is just unfair. Reggie is arguably the GOAT defensive player in NFL history. A fairer comparison would be Charles Haley, and look what happened to the Cowboys once they traded for him.

I think Parsons is somewhere between our signing of Peppers and our signing of White. Both exceeded expectations and had the desired impact. 

[BrewerFan]

7 hours ago, adambr2 said:

One thing I think we can agree on: 

The Milwaukee Brewers would never, never make a trade like this. Apples and oranges, I know. 

No. They'd trade for half a year of him because they wouldn't be able to afford to re-sign him. 

That's closer to how the Brewers have to operate, or WOULD have to operate. 

 

11 hours ago, adambr2 said:

You don’t see how not having two 1st round picks to build the team with (regardless of position, which certainly isn’t guaranteed), eating as much dead money dealing Clark as they did, and investing as much as they did in Parsons, couldn’t look really, really bad in a few years?

Nope. I certainly don't view Chicago offering the SAME package as we did for Mack to be a bad deal because Chicago was a worse team than us and they didn't end up winning with him. 

What is the worse outcome here? He gets hurt? It doesn't work? 

Arguably the BEST edge rusher in the NFL just came available and we got him for what is VERY likely 2 late 1sts. 

And again, this is an EXTENSION. So you've got Parsons for 5 21M for this year and then the 4/188 kicks in. That's where the total GTD money comes from. 

 

This dude is a generational talent. The list of players I'd take over Parsons would be... Dexter Lawrence and I guess Myles Garrett if he were 3 years younger and Maxx Crosby MAYBE. 

If I blows up in their face, it blows up in their face. That can happen with everything. If you want to make the argument it COULD happen, well hell, it COULD happen with Love, could have happened with McKinney, COULD happen with literally any player you give big money to. Zach Tom. That could blow up. 

 

As a % of the cap, this isn't' a bad deal. Not with the cap rising at the rate it is, nearly 10% per year. Even if you cut that back to 8%... 

This is the type of trade I think it'd be stupid to not make and without comparing the numbers, if you do a worst case scenario, I don't know that the cap hits and % of cap he's eating up or dead cap that he COULD cost in 3 years when he gets expensive is more than what Ja, Bakh, Gary, Clark, Tom would have been at the same point.

He's also about 4 years younger than Garrett. 

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/player/_/id/72392/micah-parsons

[BrewerFan]

7 hours ago, HarryDoyle said:

ComparingParsons to Reggie is just unfair. Reggie is arguably the GOAT defensive player in NFL history. A fairer comparison would be Charles Haley, and look what happened to the Cowboys once they traded for him.

He's a lot better than Haley was though and he's not nearly as much of a problem, so I agree that I don't expect him to have the impact Reggie did, but Mack is the closest comp I can think of when looking at players who actually got traded. 

Mack made the Bears a contender. They went from 5-11 to 12-54 and Mack was in his prime(though even he was a year older at the time of the trade). 

I agree, expecting him to be Reggie is a bit much, but this is more like trading for Lawrence Taylor in his prime. Maybe... LT lite? I don't know, this is close to unprecedented. This might be the best defensive player to ever be traded in his prime and he WAS relatively cheap to trade for. 

And Reggie was 6 years older, but his impact goes so far even just what he did on the field.

But Reggie was a 6'5 300LB DE who could play the run and rush the QB and most importantly change the Packers by signing with them. 

 

Reggie or any elite edge though, you have to look at the impact it has on the REST of your defense. The MOST doubled player in the NFL. 20% win/loss rate. That blows the Packers best of 12% by Gary out of the water, but he sets up the rest of the defense.

And I'll go a step further, I think the talent the Packers have already in place is better than what the Packers defense did in the 90s. 

That team had two great defenders and then just solid talent around him. Sean Jones was older, their LBers were guys who were pretty limited, they were good at one thing, they did that well, but not elite by any means. Even their CBs, hardly world beaters. 

But an elite pass rush makes me a LOT less worried about the CB position and excited about the safety position. 

 

 

No matter what you think of the trade. Risky, a good trade a great trade, as big as the Reggie signing, all the talk about there not being a lot of excitement around this team or not being sure where they stand, the front office sure as hell blew that out of the water yesterday.  

[CheezWizHed]

I'm really interested to see what Hafely is going to do here to move Parsons around. 

• Rotating Gary, LVN, and Parsons at DE like they normally would with their top 3, of course. 
• Pass rush with a DL of Gary, Wyatt, LVN, and Parson on obvious passing downs. - LVN moving inside to pass rush like Z-Smith used to do. 
• DL of Gary, Wyatt, Wooden, LVN with Parson, Walker, and Cooper at LB - Probably more of a 3-4 front.
  • Seriously - Parsons, Walker, and Cooper at LB... That has to be a blitz package nightmare for our opponents. 

Ironically, I wonder if drafting Oliver was already going in this direction.  Not that I'm comparing Parsons and Oliver in quality, but more in size and how they can be used.