The Cowboys shocked the NFL by shipping Micah Parsons to Green Bay for two first-round picks and Pro Bowl defensive tackle Kenny Clark . It was the type of blockbuster that resets markets and makes every other front office ask itself tough questions. And for Cleveland , the natural question is: should the Browns have done the same with Myles Garrett ?
Garrett is a generational pass rusher, but the Browns ' situation is murky. Let's break down why this debate isn't as simple as "never trade a Hall of Famer."
No defender draws more attention than Garrett. He was double-teamed more than anyone in the league last year and still piled up 14 sacks. Offensive coordinators design protections around him. Despite being consistently chipped by a tight end or running back on most plays, he continues to terrorize quarterbacks.
He's the type of player who changes how opponents game-plan every single week. On talent alone, you don't move someone like that.
The Parsons Deal Changes the Math
What Dallas got for Parsons is the kind of return that makes even untouchable players seem tradable. Two first-rounders plus an established Pro Bowl defensive tackle can help the Cowboys strike again in the draft while still competing this season.
For Cleveland, that type of package would've meant a chance to restock after burning through draft capital in the Deshaun Watson trade. Instead, the Browns locked Garrett into a four-year extension worth $40 million annually with a no-trade clause. They chose stability — but they also chose to close the door on a massive haul.
Is It Smart to Pay Edge Rushers Quarterback Money?
This is the bigger-picture dilemma. Parsons is now making $47 million per year. Garrett's deal averages $40 million. That's quarterback territory.
The question: is one defensive star worth the financial weight of an entire side of the ball? Oddly enough, T.J. Watt has yet to win a playoff game in his eight-year career with the Steelers. The Cowboys with Parsons couldn't get over the hump. Pass rush matters, but when the league is dominated by quick-release passing attacks, mobile quarterbacks, and scheme-driven offenses, the true game-changers are still under center.
Cleveland's Window vs. Garrett's Timeline
The Browns aren't headed to the Super Bowl anytime soon. Garrett, meanwhile, is already 29. He's still in his prime, but edge rushers don't get younger. Trading him now could've been a forward-thinking move — aligning with the Browns' realistic timeline rather than trying to force the current roster into contention.
However, head coach Kevin Stefanski, his staff, and general manager Andrew Berry owe it to the Browns players to shape a competitive roster. It'll be interesting to see how Cowboys players respond to the Parsons trade if the season starts with a few losses.
For Cleveland, they kept their star, which should bolster a Browns roster that is littered with uncertainty at quarterback and running back.
Did Cleveland Miss Its Chance?
It depends on your lens.
If you believe generational players should never be moved, then locking up Garrett was the only play. He's a future Hall of Famer, and you don't just let those guys walk.
But if you believe in cold-blooded roster building, the Browns missed an opportunity. Parsons' trade proved just how much a franchise-altering pass rusher can fetch. Cleveland could have reset its draft chest, plugged holes, and better aligned its assets with reality.
Instead, they doubled down. Garrett's contract guarantees he'll remain the face of the Browns' defense for years. In doing so, Stefanski and Berry have committed to the Browns locker room that winning seasons will soon follow.
If they don't, Garrett will still be in Cleveland, but others won't.
Related Headlines
