Like you, I’ve been hoovering up whatever news, nuggets, and notes I can find about the Micah Parsons trade. It’s an exciting time to be a Packers fan. Right now, Green Bay is the center of the football universe. The entire NFL conversation hinges on what Brian Gutekunst and the Packers did yesterday.
Generally speaking, most people seem to think the Packers won this trade, if a trade can be won in the day or so after it’s consummated.
There are some criticisms, though, and I’ve encountered two more often than the rest. The first is that Parsons isn’t a particularly good run defender. That may be the case, but that’s not why you’d hire Parsons. He’s in Green Bay to hunt quarterbacks, and criticizing the move on the basis of Parsons’ run defense seriously overrates how well an opposing team would have to run the ball to make up for what Parsons is able to do to opposing passing games.
The second big criticism is that this is a big gamble by the Packers, and that’s what I’d really like to talk about because that’s barely a sentence, much less a criticism. Of course it’s a gamble! Everything in football is a gamble. Everything in life is a gamble!
This move is a gamble because the Packers don’t know how it’s going to turn out, but that’s true of everything that goes on in every play in every football game that’s ever been played. Sometimes you’re more sure and sometimes you’re less sure, but you never know for certain.
You don’t know for certain if a safety is going to be where you think he’ll be on a crucial 3rd and 8 play. You don’t know if the linebackers will be influenced the right way on a play action pass. You don’t know if your receiver will catch the ball when you throw it to him, and that’s more true in Green Bay than in most places.
You also don’t know if your draft picks will turn out. People have memed this to death already, but the Packers acquisition of Parsons is a pretty perfect encapsulation of the Family Guy mystery box bit. Micah Parsons is Micah Parsons, sure, but two first round picks could be anything! They could even be a player as good as Micah Parsons!
It’s fair to point out that this is an expensive gamble. Two first round picks is nothing to sneeze at, especially when you’re handing out the richest contract ever given to a defensive player immediately after turning over those picks. But paying less for Parsons, either in the trade or on his contract, wouldn’t make the deal less of a gamble. It would just make the cost of losing that gamble a little less palatable.
It’s also worth pointing out that doing nothing is a gamble, too. The Packers could have elected not to trade for Parsons, but by doing so, they’d have elected not to add a significant difference maker to their defense. Sometimes this kind of choice feels like less of a gamble because more of the variables feel known. It’s easier to stand pat with the familiar, but to borrow a line from Rush, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
And I think that’s what people are really saying here. People want security in their choices, and when the commentariat tries to downplay this move as a gamble, what they’re really saying is the Packers should have held out for a sure thing. They want certainty. And to be fair, I want that too! I’d love to be more certain about all the choices I make in life. It feels like the older I get, the less sure I feel about the calls I have to make, because the variables only get more complex with each passing year. It’s easier to just stand pat and not do anything while I wait for certainty to come along, for the obvious, riskless choice to come up and introduce itself.
But that kind of certainty doesn’t exist in football or anywhere else. Every decision is a bet, based on what you think you know at the time. But here’s what we do know: Parsons is exceptionally good at getting to the quarterback, and getting to the quarterback is an exceptionally good way to wreck opposing offenses. That’s a gamble worth betting on, even if it’s a pretty pricey bet.
0 Comments