Micah's Money: Should Cowboys Pay Parsons Like He's a QB?

"They must keep Micah!'' Do the Cowboys really have to, though? At any cost? What good is your team if you have a Hall-of-Fame defender in Parsons but you are weakened in four other spots because you're out of money?

I'll preface right out of the gate that I am not qualified to be a general manager in the NFL (though I have no problem in telling them how to do their jobs.) It's not like you are required to be a Rhodes Scholar to run a football club but I also don't believe just any meathead can do it. 

As I'm afforded this space however, allow me to opine on what my philosophy would look like. ... as it relates to Micah Parsons and beyond.

I would be ruthless with my team's money. Belichickian. Teddy Roosevelt but with a salary cap. Now, don't confuse that ruthlessness with "evil.'' Former Dallas Cowboys coach Jimmy Johnson ran his team in a manner that I would emulate ... though him rarely showing empathy toward humanity might've been a bit much. (In Jimmy's book "Swagger" he admitted as much.)

Cowboys fans will recall that even legendary quarterback Troy Aikman hated Jimmy at first, and if not for a mutual interest in fish tanks the relationship may never have prospered. 

So ... If I were in charge I'd care for my guys and they would know it. They would also know that this was a business. And that the way to manage is "The Patriot Way.''

I've often used the New England Patriots as my modern reference in how to operate a football team. I've used the Patriots as an example of how to do things right - usually during a rant after a Dallas mistake. Panic after a running back holds out and runs off to Cabo by caving and giving him the worst contract in running back history? No offense to Ezekiel Elliott, but New England would have let the guy rot in Mexico.

My rules on this apply to all positions ... except quarterback. You have to pay the QB. No choice. In today's game with the way the league protects QB's, how rare good ones are and as offenses have evolved, you just have to give them stupid money. 

But all of the other positions? You better be damn certain that a linebacker is going to win you playoff games before you allow him to decimate your cap. 

Soon we will begin to hear more and more how Dallas has no choice but to extend Micah Parsons with the biggest deal any non-QB has ever received. CowboysSI.com is already writing about it, tossing out the $35 million APY guess. ... which would make Micah the second-highest-paid Cowboy ever ... behind only wherever Dak Prescott's contract lands.

"They must keep Micah!'' Do they really have to, though? At any cost? What good is your team if you have a Hall-of-Fame defender but you are weakened in four other spots because you're out of money?

Parsons is awesome and nobody would deny that. He's also not a quarterback. He's been All-Pro both seasons since being drafted but he has also been physically worn out by December. He knows it, too, which is why he's spent the offseason adding muscle to his frame. 

An NFL team can't lose focus just because a flashy player who's very good (or even very great) and very popular comes up for free agency. A steeled, cautious, team-comes-first mentality is required from management during these times.

I'm not arguing against Dallas extending Parsons before he becomes a free agent in 2025; of course I want him on my team. But I am calling for resolve. I am arguing that the guy shouldn't be guaranteed anything. Two years is a long time in the NFL. He better stay All-Pro if he's going to demand "Screw You Money.'' He ain't a quarterback, and that's the difference, and you don't have to be Belichick to understand that. 

COWBOYS FISH REPORT … now a podcast! Join us inside The Star, ANY TIME!

Want the latest in breaking news and insider information on the Dallas Cowboys?

Follow Mike Taylor on Twitter

Follow Cowboys / Fish on Facebook

Subscribe to the Cowboys Fish Report on YouTube for constant daily Cowboys live reports!