TD alt

Semantics don't matter. The Rams were a serious contender for a few years (hell, they still are) without their QB position solved. Hell, the Eagles were arguably the same way. People talked poo about Hurts (and still do). Let's not even talk about Carson Wentz and Nic Foles. You have to keep on building your team regardless if you're sure about the QB or not.

No one said that it wasn't the most important, but you don't stop building your team because you don't have your "QB solved." That's crazy. You build as you can and keep filling in holes.

No need to keep repeating the same thing. That's your opinion. The Rams built a team and dropped a QB in there, and so did the 49ers.

So, you think that just because more than half the teams are overpaying for a QB, that means they're right? Give me a break. Pass rushers are the second highest paid for a reason, and many of them are better football players than the QBs they play for.

I strongly disagree. Every potential deal is dependent upon the value.

I mean, what do you expect to pay for the best rusher since Lawrence Taylor? I mean, seriously.

Like I mentioned, pass rushers are pretty coveted as well. Parsons is not some regular Joe. Furthermore, as I mentioned also, using run to set up the pads and the pass to set up the run is still a thing. And I shouldn't have to say it, but defense still wins championships. That is still a damned good blueprint for any era of football, damned near sacrosanct.

We can get him. All I'm saying is that you have to at least look into acquiring Parsons if he were to seriously become available. Two firsts is just the cost of doing business.

See above

Run to pass and pass to run. Have a great defense. The Eagles just used that to perfection in 2025.

Obviously, the QB is the highest paid position for a reason. Historically, pass rushers are the second highest paid players for a reason

We do have a QB. Furthermore, Ray Lewis won with Trent Dilfer. Lawrence Taylor won with Phil Simms and Jeff Hostetler. Peppers almost won with Jake Delhomme. It doesn't take an elite QB to win a Super Bowl, it takes an elite team, or at least a good one catching lightning in a bottle.

First of all, we have an offense. Any decent QB can thrive with our O-line, WRs and RBs. Secondly, you don't get better on offense by trading away one of the top five receivers in the league. Thirdly, their FO was crap. Lastly, we're not going about business in a way that's assuming Bryce Young isn't the answer.

Many people disagree. Ask any NFL type if Lawrence Taylor, Reggie White or Julius Peppers or Bruce Smith were worth 2 firsts when they were in their prime.

I disagree. Parsons is generational, and the opportunity to get Parsons, regardless of where we are, or people may think that we are, if you can make it work, you grab him.

Players, GMs and coaches? He was hiring from the same pool as everyone else. When he hired Rhule, Rhule was a hot name. Where he made his error was giving Rhule all that control (and a long contract, but Tepper had to pay that). Hiring the hot name from college and the coach and GM pool is not indicative of any genius, it's just business as usual as far as I'm concerned. I mean, if he had come in and hired Ben Johnson in the beginning, for example, and Johnson became a wunderkind, then we could say, "that was genius." Moreover, I think it's worth noting that Tepper was a new (majority) owner and still trying to figure things out. He learned relatively quickly that it wasn't as easy as he thought. Moreover, I think it's somewhat safe to assume that Morgan wasn't the first or second choice, and we already know that Canales wasn't. Bryce Young was our first choice, but he was covered by several teams, including the Texans, so, like I said, "business as usual, nothing genius."

It's just talk. I don't think that anyone thinks that Parsons will end up anywhere but Dallas. If he does end up on the market, we've already been on a few lists of potential suitors, including one on NFL.com.

People like to say that, but I don't know if it's true. We went a few years trying to answer the QB question on the cheap amid bad coaching. We did what other teams do and tried to address QB by giving up a king's ransom and moving up. I mean, I guess that could be considered a "splash move," but I see it more as trying to draft the next big thing at QB. I think that he's been more impatient than anything else. He gave too much power to Rhule who didn't know what the hell he was doing and relied on Fitterer who left a lot to be desired as well. Sure, we may have tried to get Watson and Stafford, but that's all a part of trying to answer the question at QB. "Splash moves?" maybe, but I think it's just business as usual for teams without a QB. Parsons would be a "splash move," but he's about as sure a thing that you could acquire for the capital.

Because the opportunity to make such an acquisition comes around every once in a blue moon with a generational player so young. Players of his caliber are generally with their original teams for life. QBs can be drafted in the second round and succeed, just saying. Hell, Trent Dilfer (among a few others) has a Super Bowl ring. Hell, Jake Delhomme almost won one. And all of that is assuming that Bryce busts.

Hell, I said it may be the game thread. Bryce P. already looked better than Plummer, if not Dalton. With some time in the system, he should easily be a decent backup.

A player like Micah Parsons ain't falling off trees. Just saying. In my opinion, NFL aficionados and fans use the term "generational" too generously, but I think that most people will agree that Parsons is in fact generational, so in my mind two firsts is a fair price to pay. Strike while the iron is hot, coach up your young talent, draft smart and play free agency like a Stradivarius, and you can find yourself among the competitive teams in the league, if not be an elite one over time.

Morgan and Canales haven't even been around long enough to credibly decide whether or not their moves have been boneheaded. At least give it another season.

I disagree. That five year difference in age makes all the difference in the world. I'm all for signing Parsons (which is still simply a hypothetical), but Hendrickson not so much. But that being said, I don't see a signing as predicative of, or equal to, a "sellout" or a sacrifice. Just my opinion, but if a front office can't maneuver around big signings by drafting well or otherwise making smart acquisitions (even those that are sometimes outside the box), then they need to be replaced.

His past play is NOT irrelevant, as it is indicative of what to expect for the next couple of seasons.