Von Miller, Micah Parsons clear the air about perceived Jalen Hurts criticism

Maybe we can finally focus on the Philadelphia Eagles‘ next opponent, the Chicago Bears… maybe. By now, you’ve all heard the story. You’ve probably heard about it so much that you’re sick of hearing it. Micah Parsons appeared on the Voncast with host/creator Von Miller. He made a statement that had Jalen Hurts‘ name attached to it. Philly’s QB1 brushed it off. It seemed like everything should have calmed after that, especially seeing as how Hurts and Parsons weren’t discussing the story. Perhaps we should have known better.

Every sports publication and sports show has either led with this one, or they have dedicated time to a discussion. Some were offended. Others found no issue. Somewhere along the line, Jordan Mailata stated Parsons should worry about what the Cowboys are doing.

It isn’t like the Eagles versus Cowboys rivalry needs any more fuel added to the fire. Then again, it’s the Eagles versus Cowboys rivalry. Of course we were going to discuss this. We may finally have some closure here though.

Von Miller and Micah Parsons clarify what really happened in the Jalen Hurts discussion.

Okay, so here’s where we are now. Von Miller made an appearance on the Pat McAfee Show to give his take on things. Take a look at this one.

A few hours later, we finally heard from Micah Parsons. Here’s some of what he had to say on the subject. He claims no disrespect was intended and that he believes Jalen Hurts is doing a great job. Here are a few tweets.

With that, we move on. As Jordan Mailata put it, the Eagles’ next game features a clash versus the Chicago Bears, not the Chicago Micah Parsons. Once we wrap that one, we move to the Philadelphia Eagles/Dallas Cowboys clash on Christmas Eve. Everything can be settled on the field then, but here’s what’s crazy (and correct us if we’re wrong).

Raise your hand if you still feel like we haven’t heard the end of this. Yep, we were feeling that way as well. Cowboys Week is going to be interesting, but then again, when is that not the case?