The Parsons trade was a huge blowout win for the Cowboys. FA James Houston has just 2 less sacks for millions and millions and millions less even though he's got much less help than Micah does in Green Bay with Gary drawing a lot of attention. If Arizona wasn't so inept and let Parsons get over half his sacks in one game last week, he'd have about the same number as Houston. And that's with Houston playing part time. Micah would be lucky to have the 3.5 sacks Houston does right now if he was still in Dallas.
The Cowboys are now setup for success with 4 1st-rounders over the next 2 years, a lot of extra cap space, and only having to focus on one side of the ball. Jerry's deal was a grand slam. At the same time, I've always said you can't blame the Packers for taking a shot. It might work out for them, as well.
		
		
	 
	
		
	
	
		
		
			By the way, no, we don't miss Micah's 8 solo tackles, LMAO. Parsons is fairly good at one thing, but he's one of the most overrated players in the league based on salary.
That's the reason Jerry passed on bending over.
		
		
	 
"I don't understand how coverages work"
Okay so... When Parsons was on the field with Dal the entire defense improved simply because of the attention he draws.  You can see it in the splits between him on and off the field, even when Parsons is doing nothing solo.  Houston gets sacks because Houston isn't dealing with double teams, and he doesn't allow for other players on the defense to take advantage of him just being there.
		
 
		
	 
Coverages? Right.
Unfortunately, there's a salary cap. Micah is a one-dimensional player and that's not something that's negotiable...and he's not worth anywhere near what his salary was going to be for us. How Parsons fits or doesn't fit in Green Bay is their problem. That said, the deal doesn't necessarily have to be bad for the Packers for it to be a win for us. Dallas came out way ahead, long-term. The Cowboys certainly weren't going anywhere with Micah. You can't win a title with our D...with or without Parsons.
The offense is set up for years. I just saw an OL ranking that had us at #2 based on PFF ratings and that's with multiple inuries. We're young and deep everywhere on O. Dak is 32, but QBs play a long time these days. Only having to focus on one side of the ball while we rebuild is a dynamic not to be underestimated.
Dallas is a ways shortsup on D right now, but the Cowboys are one of the better drafting teams in the league and we're set up really well with picks the next couple years. Jerry has done a fantastic job this offseason. I'd just as soon see us get a top-10 pick next season, but we might win too many games.
		
 
		
	 
Oh, yeah, the salary cap.  Not like teams figure out how to pass the hit on to  multiple years with outs built into the contract.  I seem to recall the saints in the negative for years while trying to keep their superbowl window open with Brees.  Even better if the front office is good at drafting and they don't need to pay middling vets.
Genuinely curious - what teams have built up one side of the ball while ignoring the other side, who then went on to be successful?  I'm thinking of Cin as a recent example, and even they ended up paying for their one defensive star.
Parsons pressures the qb.  Four years of over 70 times.  His run game weakness is like arguing Derek Henry isn't a good rb because he offers nothing in the pass game.  Some players are so good they can get away with being more one dimensional.  Parsons is one of them.  What you can't argue are the splits from when he's on the field VS when he's not.  And you can't argue it's not a significant difference.
Also you should care how GB does.  It's the difference between a pick in the mid 20s and last in the round.  That is a significant distance as well.
Finally... I just don't see "deep".   Williams was a lucky find but Sanders and Blue?  Mafah?  Wr you have a top five pair in the league... Then Tolbert and Terpin.  Maybe you're a Mingo truther?  I guess Shoonmaker would be a good enough te, but we're not talking Gronk and Hernandez here.
Where's the depth?