Packers News, Transactions, Trade Talk - Watson 1 Year Extension Through 2026

Man the PR from Dallas is hilarious: "Parsons isn't a leader, he can't stop the run, and his back is messed up, but we actually offered him more than the Packers did. We were going to give him $150mil guaranteed." Which is it? He was terrible in the locker room, is horrible against the run, and has a bad back or you were willing to pay more than GB?

Meanwhile Packers on Clark "We hate to see him go. He was a great guy to have in this organization."

This dude is going to ball out and if the back was even somewhat something we should worry about I don't think we make this move after dealing with Jaire the last 2-3 years of knee issues. I trust our doctors to give a complete physical and see if he really has any back issues.

Profound23 · Post #1528 » by **Profound23** » Tue Sep 2, 2025 7:41 pm

If you are freaking out about all of the Parsons crap Dallas is pumping into the media, just look at how they treated Luka on his way out.

Post #1529 » by **MickeyDavis** » Tue Sep 2, 2025 7:53 pm

Profound23 wrote:If you are freaking out about all of the Parsons crap Dallas is pumping into the media, just look at how they treated Luka on his way out.

It's not the same ownership though. And no one here is "freaking out".

Post #1530 » by **ReasonablySober** » Tue Sep 2, 2025 8:16 pm

Profound23 · Post #1531 » by **Profound23** » Tue Sep 2, 2025 8:31 pm

MickeyDavis wrote:
Profound23 wrote:If you are freaking out about all of the Parsons crap Dallas is pumping into the media, just look at how they treated Luka on his way out.

It's not the same ownership though. And no one here is "freaking out".

I get that, I just think most teams after trading away their best player (or one of their top two best players) have to spin it as much as possible. Especially when they traded that player away for pennies on the dollar.

Had Parsons been traded at the draft I think they could've received a top five pick in the 2025 draft and two future firsts from a bad team.

RRyder823 · Post #1532 » by **RRyder823** » Tue Sep 2, 2025 8:47 pm

Profound23 wrote:
MickeyDavis wrote:
Profound23 wrote:If you are freaking out about all of the Parsons crap Dallas is pumping into the media, just look at how they treated Luka on his way out.

It's not the same ownership though. And no one here is "freaking out".

I get that, I just think most teams after trading away their best player (or one of their top two best players) have to spin it as much as possible. Especially when they traded that player away for pennies on the dollar.

Had Parsons been traded at the draft I think they could've received a top five pick in the 2025 draft and two future firsts from a bad team.

Yeah if your going to trade Parsons (honestly a legit argument to be had. Personally I woupdve headed Ceedee but whatever) you gotta make that decision before the draft a preferably before FA even starts before teams spend their cap

Jerry played played this like a hand of poker where he was holding A/K and the rest of the table was 3 and 4 betting pre flop. You can see the flop but if you dont pick up even a draw you gotta know its time to fold or your bluff game better be on point. Jerry on the other hand decided he needed to see that river card

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

Profound23 · Post #1533 » by **Profound23** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 4:45 pm

I still remember when we signed Charles Woodson in 2006. There was talk about how nobody else wanted him, only TB was in the running and we overpaid, and he was never going to recover from his leg/back injuries. Then we heard all offseason how Woodson didn't want to be in Green Bay and refused to report to minicamp while he was overseas.

Moves like Reggie, Woodson, and now Parsons are risks but calculated risks. If we win the SB this year great, if not it does not mean this trade was a bad one as we still have Parsons in his prime for five years.

Matches Malone · Post #1534 » by **Matches Malone** » Thu Sep 4, 2025 8:02 pm

Read on Twitter

Profound23 · Post #1535 » by **Profound23** » Fri Sep 5, 2025 5:44 pm

Moving here so we don't derail the Packers/Lions thread:

MickeyDavis wrote:
JCP11 wrote:
Profound23 wrote:

2022 broken hand missed 7 weeks
2023 ankle injury missed 4 weeks
2024 ankle injury missed 4 weeks

I'm skeptical that this is the guy to replace Jaire. I understand this is a tough game, injuries will happen but man that's not a good track record. Hope I'm wrong!
He was never brought in to replace Jaire. They wanted to improve at Nickel, that's why he's here.

Regardless of exact position it was Jaire out, Hobbs in. We drafted one DB in the 7th round and he's on the practice squad. Bo converted.

Ron Swanson wrote:I've been a skeptic/critic of the Hobbs signing since it happened, so no, I don't buy this idea that he was brought in just to shore up the nickel corner position. You don't go out in free agency and drop that kind of money on just an "ok" slot guy. If he can't play the boundary, then it was always a bad investment.

I agree with MD and Ron, that is what I have been saying. From what I remember both Banks and Hobbs contracts were set up so we can cut them after two years without too much of a cap hit. With the acquisition of Parsons if Hobbs/Banks don't live up to their contracts I don't think either makes it through the entirety of their contracts. I was iffy on both deals, Hobbs because of his injuries and Banks because we already have invested a lot of money and draft picks into the offensive line. Hopefully I am wrong and they both have a great season while staying relatively healthy.

RRyder823 · Post #1536 » by **RRyder823** » Fri Sep 5, 2025 6:14 pm

I wasn't a fan of either of the Banks or Hobbs deals but at least with Banks he's a clear starter at LG.

Hobbs on the other hand im not all that sure hes actually going to be playing outside of the dime package barring injury. I dont think there's any kind of a lock hes the better option over Nixon/Valentine or even Bullard in the slot for the Nickle

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

Profound23 · Post #1537 » by **Profound23** » Fri Sep 5, 2025 8:32 pm

RRyder823 wrote:I wasn't a fan of either of the Banks or Hobbs deals but at least with Banks he's a clear starter at LG.

Hobbs on the other hand im not all that sure hes actually going to be playing outside of the dime package barring injury. I dont think there's any kind of a lock hes the better option over Nixon/Valentine or even Bullard in the slot for the Nickle

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

I think if Gutey knew for sure he was getting Parsons he keeps Slaton, signs Byron Murphy and this roster would be more complete. But that's 20/20, who would've thought Dallas would give up a player like Parsons while also specifically asking for Clark in return.

BUCKnation · Post #1538 » by **BUCKnation** » Sat Sep 6, 2025 1:45 am

I think the idea of Hobbs is that the nickel is super important in Hafley's defense, so you get a good one and then free up your safeties that you were using as the nickel and then that can help open up some things. It also provides depth for the rest of the lineup since Hobbs himself, the 2 safeties and X aren't always the healthiest.

MVP2110 · Post #1539 » by **MVP2110** » Sat Sep 6, 2025 7:36 pm

Read on Twitter

?t=zUSNiRsBZM_V89s6TGo62g&s=19

Post #1540 » by **ReasonablySober** » Sat Sep 6, 2025 7:56 pm

So Clark and a mid round pick vs Clark and two firsts for Micah is what I’m reading? I’d rather have Parsons, but it’s not an easy choice.