Cory's Corner: The Packers don't need Nick Perry

The Packers aren’t interested in bringing Nick Perry back.

And the reason is the news that broke on Monday morning. The Packers are interested in trading for Eagles defensive end Connor Barwin.

Barwin turns 31 in October and has averaged 6.3 sacks a season over his eight-year career. Perry turns 27 in April and has averaged 4.7 sacks over a five-year career.

Perry had an outlier season this year with a career-high 11 sacks, mostly because Clay Matthews opened things up for him on the other side. If Perry has his average number of sacks this year, his career sack number plummets to 2.6.

Barwin has a cap number of $8.3 million this year and $10.2 million next year. Perry, on the other hand, will likely command over $9 million this year and it will go north of that in the coming years.

The Packers could save money by trading for Barwin and drafting T.J. Watt or Ryan Anderson in the second round rather than overpaying Perry for one banner season. The percentages say that Perry is going to come back down to Earth, so it doesn’t make sense to pay him for one strong season.

Now Barwin may end up getting traded elsewhere, but the fact that Green Bay was interested tells me that Perry isn’t on their radar. And how do we know that Kyler Fackrell isn’t ready to blossom into a solid player that defensive coordinator Dom Capers can rely on?

Perry’s situation reminds me of Jarrett Bush in the spring of 2012. “I'll just go out there (on the free agent market) and see what happens,” Bush said.

What happened was that other teams knew that Bush was a one-trick pony and opted to pass. The Packers gave him a three-year contract, ending in 2014, which coincidentally was his final year in the NFL.

Perry played well this year, but the million-dollar question is if he can do it again. History has told us that he can’t and because of that, Thompson has been working the phones.

Giving Perry a huge payday will turn out to be a three-year mistake if he returns to form and becomes average. The Packers’ defense was average enough this year. The team doesn’t have to spend gobs of money for it.

 

 

-------------------

Cory Jennerjohn is a graduate from UW-Oshkosh and has been in sports media for over 15 years. He was a co-host on "Clubhouse Live" and has also done various radio and TV work as well. He has written for newspapers, magazines and websites. He currently is a columnist for CHTV and also does various podcasts. He recently earned his Masters degree from the University of Iowa. He can be found on Twitter: @Coryjennerjohn

NFL Categories: 
0 points

Comments (74)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Ryan Graham's picture

February 21, 2017 at 06:44 am

Going after Barwin is a good move. Depends on what Ted is wilking to give up if you ask me, but i like the idea. Drafting TJ Watt would be another strong move to add to that - versatile defender, absolute student of the game, ample room to develop.

My biggest concern is pass coverage, obviously. Be it the cornerback position or linebacker help, they are both pitiful right now. Capers' scheme would see its best results in man coverage, not zone which is what is typically run because we don't have the skillset to go man at the cornerback position as often as we should. Also, help from the linebacker position to drop back into coverage wouldn't hurt either, i.e interest in Connor Barwin. Focusing on the pass rush today is neceary based on the fact that there is an immediate spot to fill. But now there is an immediate spot to fill at our no. 1 cb spot. Preferably a veteran that can specialize in man coverage. The defense Capers has today is built to stop Colin Kaepernick and Russell Wilson, not Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Andrew Luck, or Matt Ryan. It's time to solidify the pass coverage.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thias IamLegend Boyd's picture

February 21, 2017 at 12:58 pm

Have you noticed that man coverage doesn't work? It never has. So dangerous when capers calls that up because we always get burnt. I can give u a list of examples down memory lane if you like. And zone def messed us up from inexperienced corners who fully didnt understand the concept of the play. Our linebackers cant chase wide receivers. Colin kapernick ate us alive running that option and any other rb due to soft ( I'll tackle you after you catch it) coverage. Our def needs to be more physical. I agree with fackrell and ryan and watt making our def stronger. But i say hell no to man coverage.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Ryan Graham's picture

February 22, 2017 at 07:01 am

That's just my point. We don't have the personnel to run man, linebackers have been getting burned for as long as I can remember, cornerbacks can't keep up so we run more often than we should. But running zone clearly doesn't work either. Any competent qb will find the holes in the zone and they will open up quick. With decent man coverage, holes don't open up until late in the route. The basis of an aggressive 3-4 defense is to stop the run and put pressure on the pass rush. If corners and pass coverage units can start to cover between 5-7 seconds while running man coverage that would allow the pass rush to pressure the quarterback far more often. When the ball is getting out 3-5 seconds each play, no one is gonna pressure the qb enough to be effective through an entire game, much less a season. So either change the scheme, (not an option with Dom or the front 7 we have currently unless you resign datone Jones and make him full time DE) or you equip the secondary with the proper personnel. Shields was supposed to be our guy because of his makeup speed. No one has that on roster. Get it

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Hematite's picture

February 21, 2017 at 06:44 am

Trading for a guy on the sunset side of 30 makes no sense in Thompson's book so I don't see it happening.
Paying Perry big bucks makes no sense either, soooo???
I'm guessing Ted sits on his hands again..

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Ryan Graham's picture

February 21, 2017 at 06:49 am

I would tend to agree with you here. Although that is exactly what he did in picking up Julius Peppers. Granted he was a FA so it's different, so all that can be done is to wait and see what he decides. I personally think hes gonna surprise all the fans and make a splash. Fairly clear cut what needs to be done, and part of that process will include forking up a few million from his cap room...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

February 21, 2017 at 07:44 am

Where it makes sense is that TT would only be married to Barwin for two seasons before his current contract is up. His cap hit in 2018 is fairly high ($10.25M) but he could be cut and cost the Packers nothing, too. This is what's going to keep his asking price from Philly relatively low, too. Philly will need to act fairly quickly so they get his cash for free agency, so this will play out fast.

See: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/philadelphia-eagles/connor-barwin-5680/

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Packers make Perry an offer at their price and let him test the market. If he leaves, he boosts the Packers return in compensatory picks in 2018. If he comes back, he's a younger, "ascending", more affordable piece than if they tried to keep him off the market. If Barwin ends up costing the Packers a 7th or even a 6th, I think it's a win in 2017.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
rdent's picture

February 21, 2017 at 02:46 pm

"I'm guessing Ted sits on his hands again. "
As a GM TED has the warmest hands in the NFL.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

February 21, 2017 at 06:50 am

"...mostly because Clay Matthews opened things up for him on the other side."

That's laughably absurd. Clay Matthews didn't attract any attention this year. He was not game-planned for. He wasn't double teamed. He certainly didn't open things up for anyone.

He was horrible this year.

The anecdotal evidence that Perry performed better with him on the field was not because of Matthews.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

February 21, 2017 at 07:47 am

Great post. I completely agree.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

February 21, 2017 at 07:56 am

Regardless of what Taryn says, Perry carried the pass rush for this team this season.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tarynfor12's picture

February 21, 2017 at 09:00 am

I need not to say anything.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

February 21, 2017 at 09:05 am

Kooky grin ;)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Austin Dayton's picture

February 21, 2017 at 09:11 am

Perry had 11 sacks this season. But, in the 4 games that he played without clay mathews (weeks 8,9,10,13), he only registered .5 sacks. So without clay on the other side, perry had .5 sacks in 4 games. On pace for a whopping 2 sacks per season

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 22, 2017 at 02:16 am

Except your facts are wrong, Austin. CM3 missed weeks 3, 8, 9, and 10 (Detroit, Atlanta, Indy and Tennessee). Perry had 2.5 sacks in those 4 games and 17 tackles, and thus was on a pace for 10 sacks and 68 tackles. CM3 had just 24 combined tackles in 2016, and his career high as an OLB is 60 back in his breakout year, 2010. Perry's game against Detroit in week 3 was Perry's best game of his career, and included 6 tackles, 2 tackles for loss, and 4 pressures, and it came without CM3.

For context, one might recall that both Randall and Rollins were out in week 8. The indescribably bad Goodson played 97% of the snaps. Randall was out in week 9, and Rollins gutted that game out. Randall was out in week 10, and Rollins again played 55% of the snaps hurt, but gave way to the incredibly horrible Goodson, who played 45% of the snaps. It is just possible that some of Perry's lack of pressure during those 3 games is because WRs got open nearly immediately.

As for week 13, that's the game Perry injured himself. Perry played 12 snaps that game. CM3 injured his shoulder in week 12, and played just 29 snaps in week 13.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Ferrari Driver's picture

February 21, 2017 at 10:51 am

I gave you a thumbs up because I believe you are correct.

When defensive coordinators realized Mathews could be handled with a single blocker there was no special attention paid to him. Perry essentially did it on his own. Granted Mathews was injured much of the season (again) so if he had been healthy things could be looked at in the authors perspective with more validity.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
EdsLaces's picture

February 21, 2017 at 07:00 am

We don't need 11 sacks!!!! I was pretty much in disagreement from the first sentence on. And Barwin really? No thanks ...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

February 21, 2017 at 07:04 am

"And how do we know that Kyler Fackrell isn’t ready to blossom"

He's too weak to hold an edge. And, at 26 I'm not confident he's going to get a lot stronger.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

February 21, 2017 at 09:06 am

This will be his first full off-season in an NFL strength and conditioning program. He might be too long and lean to add too much weight, but if he can, it will happen.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Lphill's picture

February 21, 2017 at 07:06 am

I will take Barwin over Perry , 2 yr deal with a third year option, I think he would love to play in Green Bay knowing he has a chance for a SB ,I don't see the energy from Perry.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Razer's picture

February 21, 2017 at 07:22 am

...The Packers aren’t interested in bringing Nick Perry back....

Okay I'll bite. So we are not interested in a guy who sets the edge, gets after the QB and doesn't get beat too often because:

- Someone else who has had an average career is available
- We can draft someone's brother and hope he turns into the brother
- Owes his success to another guy who had an off year.

The Packers should be interested in Perry until such time that someone runs the price too high then we can consider hairbrain schemes.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

February 21, 2017 at 07:30 am

My guess at what's happening is that TT floated a below market offer and Perry said, "thanks for trying but I'll test the market and maybe get to play in a 4-3 and for a lot more money".

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

February 21, 2017 at 07:45 am

^^^Bingo^^^

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Razer's picture

February 21, 2017 at 07:46 am

... I'll test the market and maybe get to play in a 4-3 and for a lot more money...

And therein lies the problem. Ted drafted a guy who didn't fit, turned him into a project and now 4 years later, when he has been somewhat remapped, we question whether he was worth it. My issue isn't with Nick Perry, my issue is with a scheme and draft philosophy that tries to repurpose players. Many think of Perry as a bust. Other than injury, I think that he has done fairly well playing a space position. He will be even better in a 4-3 and we will be starting over on another project.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

February 21, 2017 at 07:54 am

With more and more high-level college teams playing the 3-4, this kind of projection is becoming less and less of a problem.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
rdent's picture

February 21, 2017 at 10:02 am

I agree, in the last 10 years or so, it is difficult to find a pure DE eg; Reggie White, Bruce Smith, Howie Long,"tweeners"are the norm coming out of Colleges these days.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RodFlash's picture

February 21, 2017 at 10:42 am

Excellent post Razer, too many fans just don't get real logic!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

February 21, 2017 at 04:01 pm

I pride myself on two main things:
1. Time spent on hairbrain schemes
2. An inability to get "real" logic, but a tremendous appreciation for "fake" logic

Oh wait, is that THREE things?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 22, 2017 at 03:03 am

This sounds like "fake" logic to me. First, the author does not state that he has any source about the nature and extent of GB's interest in re-signing Perry. Even if GB is interested in Barwin, as has been reported, it does not follow that GB is not interested in re-signing Perry.

Barwin's $7.75M actual cash and actual cap number (the author is incorrect in quoting a $8.3M cap number for Barwin should he be traded to GB) is well less than the $10.5M cap and $8M actual cash we just paid to Peppers. There are a lot of moving parts here. What do you all want to do with Datone and what will it cost to bring him back?

The director of pro personnel needs to advise TT on whether Barwin is still a good OLB. I do think that there ought to be a riot if GB goes into TC with CM3, Fackrell, Gilbert plus a rookie as our OLBs. Same even if Jones is added to that list.

Sounds like three things.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
lou's picture

February 21, 2017 at 07:54 pm

Agree Razer, no one in recent history sets the edge as well as Perry, Clay on his best days still gets caught inside too often. People say Perry has only a bull riush, how many LB's with one move get 11 sacks (and some were with a club on his hand). In addition the last two years he has stepped up in the playoffs allthough limited with the club this year.We have an Associate Head Coach, Winston Moss who should be able to add to a still young solid LB like Perry an assortment of additional pass rush moves, isn't that what draft & develop is all about ? Conner Barwin at 31 in place of a young and productive Nick Perry (only concern is health), the author must be related to the Vikings GM who did the Herschel Walker trade.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Chad Lundberg's picture

February 22, 2017 at 04:15 am

I have continually said that Cory is easily the worst writer on Cheesehead TV.com, and only throws out that things that erupt discussion because he knows his opinions are absurd. He's the Skip Bayless of this site.

Seriously, why is he still writing for this site? didn't they just hire 4 new writer's? I'm tired of Cory's shenanigans. He officially needs to go.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
ShanghaiKid's picture

February 21, 2017 at 07:31 am

This article is funny, they don't need Perry? He's the best edge defender against the run on the team. He notched 11 sacks with a club and non-effective CMIII playing opposite. There's a reason he's going to command money. If TT truly believes in D&D he needs to bring Perry back.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

February 21, 2017 at 04:02 pm

I used to play Dungeons and Dragons in middle school. Never saw TT there.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

February 21, 2017 at 07:37 am

Cory I agree with you. I've always been a fan of perry. But why get stuck with a 1 trick pony. Big Contract. I'm all for going back to the Linebackers. More speed! Brian Urlacker types. Time to do away with the elephants. Their to slow, and not getting through the holes.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
vj_ostrowski's picture

February 21, 2017 at 08:12 am

Brian Urlacher types?! Jesus, that's not even the same position.

We're talking about an Edge rusher. Perry has almost an ideal body and close to ideal athletics for that position, if you take his combine numbers into account. It's not about getting through holes, it's about bending the edge, something Perry has definitely done when healthy. Pass rushers, behind QBs, are the most expensive players in the NFL - for a REASON.

If you want to use health as evidence that he shouldn't get paid, that's fine. I completely understand. But what's this Urlacher BS? Please, learn something about the positions. It's embarrassing to read Packer fans compare every LB to Urlacher, every CB to Charles Woodson, and every DE to Reggie White. Stop it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tarynfor12's picture

February 21, 2017 at 09:11 am

" Perry has almost an ideal body and close to ideal athletics for that position, if you take his combine numbers into account."

You have got to be kidding and who cares what his combine numbers were....he's in the league 5 years and his field speed and play us what needs accounting for....he's a step ahead of slug which appears fast against other slugs on offense. Don't let the rare occasionally over blown wow play blind you.
He is not the outside linebacker the Packers hoped him to morph into and won't be no matter how much you pay him. I said it before his draft, when drafted and still today...never will he be what is expected but a square peg...round hole player who may now bilk the idiots out of money he shouldn't get half of as a 3-4 linebacker. : )

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

February 21, 2017 at 09:17 am

Nick Perry, like Peppers, is not asked to play in space much in the Packers system. Not much more than a DE on a team that zone blitzes with much frequency. His role is akin to that of a DE in a 4-3. If anything, he's a little undersized for a 4-3 DE.

I'm letting myself get sucked into another Nick Perry debate...ugh...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

February 21, 2017 at 09:59 am

Still talking elephant! When Perry didn't get his option year, where were you? Most comments said Perry was a Bust. I said put him in Mathews spot. He uses his shoulder to bull Rush. (And reaches with his right hand. ) Thats the one trick pony. Now you want to pay him elite numbers. Forget that BS. I said Urlacker Types because he was a safety turned LB. HAD SPEED! And could tackle from anywhere. He also dropped into coverage. The Bears could not win without him. Then he got slow. So I'm saying why do you want slow. Screw your setting the edge. The packers cannot stop anyone on 3rd down. And don't give me the BS of fitting into Capers sophisticated defense!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

February 21, 2017 at 10:31 pm

"Talking elephant"?? Now THAT would command top dollar, whether it be from TT, or Barnum, or Bailey!!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

February 21, 2017 at 07:39 am

TT usually releases players once they reach their 30's. Now he's looking to trade for a player who is in his 30's and let one go who's at 27? Barwin may be less expensive, depending on who we give up to get him, but how much upside over Perry does he bring? If this is an attempt to win now it seems a bit misguided. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

February 21, 2017 at 07:49 am

Well said Since '61. Hard to imagine Ted actually TRADING for an older player and not waiting for the RELEASE of another player who might get you 5 or 6 sacks and could possibly be younger AND cheaper.

So we trade for Barwin, combine him with Matthews and what do we have?

About 10 sacks at a cost of about $25 Million. No Thanks!!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

February 21, 2017 at 07:52 am

I just don't see this as an "either/or" situation. They're losing a key edge rusher in Peppers, Jones has been very meh for his time in GB, and they can't keep Matthews on the field when he plays exclusively on the outside. Elliott's an RFA and Fackrell needs to add 10-15 pounds.

How many needs for round 1 draft talent does this team have at the moment? How many picks does it have? Between CB and OLB/Edge, there are two gaping holes in this team...as big or bigger than RB and TE (absent Cook and Lacy). If Perry walks and they deal for Barwin (or if they bring back Perry and back off on Barwin) they STILL need to make moves to shore up the edge. If they bring Perry back and bring in Barwin, it makes the need less pressing, but still something they'll need to address.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 22, 2017 at 04:20 am

Spot on, Dobber. Bringing in a veteran at CB or OLB makes it easier to draft the BPA, one that might turn out to be an impact player. I hate to suggest drafting for need, but absent any talent acquisition outside of the draft, it is hard to see how we can take any positions other than CB and OLB in rounds one and two. Trades can't be made until March 9, and unfortunately, FA decisions have to be made long before the draft occurs, so we don't know which players will be there at #29.

In 2016, we devoted $13.75M in cap to CM3, $10.5M to Peppers, $5.05M to Perry, and $2.45M to Jones, and $632K for Fackrell for a total of $32.373M.

What is the problem with devoting $15.075M for CM3, $7.75M for Barwin, $748K for Fackrell, (subtotal $23.573M) and something in the area of $10M to $13M for both Perry and Jones?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Donster's picture

February 22, 2017 at 07:36 am

Well said Since '61. One I think TT probably isn't even looking at Barwin. If true, unless it is a 6th round pick to get him, I doubt a trade will happen. TT would wait for him to get cut. Then maybe try to bring him in.

Perry and sports writers think that he will receive a ton of interest from other teams and drive his compensation up. I don't feel that will happen, as his history has been he is always injured. One year doesn't prove anything. I think TT will get him re-signed. And if this Barwin rumor is true, it also might be a TT attempt to help him re-sign Perry.

What would be good is to have both on the squad. Move CMIII back to the inside. Then you have edge rushers on both sides that can get the job done.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

February 21, 2017 at 07:45 am

Moronic article. Perry is an elite run stuffer who also racked up 11 sacks in 14 games with a club on his hand and no cornerbacks behind him.

5 years, $50 million.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
vj_ostrowski's picture

February 21, 2017 at 08:15 am

Yep.

Letting your best pass rusher go and thinking GB is going to trade for Barwin made me choke on my cereal this morning.

Personally, I'd cut Clay outright and, since Peppers is walking, throw their two salaries at Perry and Melvin Ingram. It could be done. It won't be, but it works, monetarily.

And I'm not a Clay "hater", as I've loved the guy for years, but he looks done.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
GBPack's picture

February 21, 2017 at 08:25 am

I'd be totally fine with that move. If you're going to spend money, spend it on a premium player at a premium position. I'd take Ingram all day to pair w/ Perry, then we go into the draft with arguably the most important position on D settled.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

February 21, 2017 at 09:02 am

Getting Ingram will be tough, but maybe he'll be interested in joining a team with Aaron Rodgers.

Man, Perry and Ingram would be a sweet set of pass rushers.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

February 21, 2017 at 09:22 am

OK...so you cut Matthews, bring back Perry and sign Melvin Ingram. You're still down Peppers, and have to figure out what to do with Elliott and Jones. This team needs MULTIPLE (as in more than one) addition to its pass rush if you cut Matthews. Maybe Ingram means that you sign an average guy off the street because you expect him to be great guns. Maybe it means you draft a developmental guy and shove him into the rotation right away. Maybe you bring back Jones and Elliott, and hope Fackrell is ready to contribute in 2017. But the holes on the edge are too big to cut a piece and replace him and still be ready to go in 2017.

I just don't want to mortgage the cap on one player who's going to demand an obscene amount of money...it leaves too many other spots unattended.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
GBPack's picture

February 21, 2017 at 10:50 am

I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume we could keep Jones on a modest deal. As you mentioned, still have Fackrell and Elliott stays for a modest price (RFA). Add another body in the draft that is supposedly deep for EDGE players and I'd be fine with that situation. We've won games w/ Frank Zombo and Erik Walden out there. :)

I understand not wanting to mortgage the cap, but we're a responsible team when it comes to cap. We can take calculated risks here and there. Pass rushers cost money, it's not like signing an OG to $9 mil a year or something like that. It's where the money should be spent, if we were to spend it of course.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Austin Dayton's picture

February 21, 2017 at 09:17 am

If the packers cut clay it still costs them 4.1 million in the books. They won't take that kind of a hit to the cap.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
cuervo's picture

February 21, 2017 at 09:24 am

I've said all along, and will continue to...I would pay Ingram 13mill per year before I'd pay Perry 8 million. Ingram would be a huge upgrade over anything we've had in the last 3 years. No way do I pay premium money for a player that has one decent (not great...decent) year out of 5, and has never played a season without some kind of injury.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Turophile's picture

February 21, 2017 at 07:47 am

There are a lot of moving parts in this deal, the projected price of Perry being one, the number of OLBs lost is another. Peppers is likely gone. Datone Jones may be gone too, he can set the edge in the run game, but has never offered much getting to the QB.

I'd like to see Perry retained, Barwin acquired, and a high draft pick (1 or 2) as well. Matthews can take more snaps inside, then, where he seems more impactful. That gives a pass rush of Perry, Barwin, draft pick and Fackrell, enough to sub guys and not fret too much about a drop off in pressure.

The biggest problem with this, is the level of money invested in this position group. You can only have so many high earners, and a combo of Barwin/Perry/Matthews is a big chunk for LBs. Do-able, but expensive.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

February 21, 2017 at 09:43 am

There's a lot of sense in this post.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
egbertsouse's picture

February 21, 2017 at 08:00 am

No way Does Ted make this trade. I also hope he doesn't throw money at Perry. He is good when he's 100% but that is only 8 games a year, max. Let him walk and get a 16 game player.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
GB Jacker's picture

February 21, 2017 at 08:00 am

Would love to see us trade for a rusher with experience like Barwin, pair with Matthews (who has to get another year to see if he can regain his spark and stay free of major injuries). Then I'd love to see us trade up in the second if needed to secure help at CB and OLB with our first two picks. To help the secondary and put alongside Fackrell in the rotation.

Jones and Perry might end up losing value as free agency plays out. Though Perry will probably get PAID!

I'd rather bring Cook, Lacy, Hyde and Lang/Tretter and let Jones & Perry test the waters though. A draft supposedly deep at Corner and Edge is pretty ideal for our needs right now

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
GBPack's picture

February 21, 2017 at 08:19 am

Pay the younger player (Perry). End of story.

Then cross your fingers he stays healthy because when he's on the field he's effective, no denying that. Ted isn't trading for Connor freaking Barwin.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Razer's picture

February 21, 2017 at 08:24 am

Concise and accurate - well said.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
porupack's picture

February 21, 2017 at 09:55 am

I don't get the logic: you say Perry had an outlier year with 11 sacks....and say he'll regress just because of generic statistics.

They you way...who knows, maybe Fackrell is at the edge of breakout?

Umm....statistics trends would rather support Perry here....that he'll continue his pace of improvement.
Whereas, no stats support Fackrell having a breakout next year.

Forget Connor B. Stats doesn't support him maintaining his moderately high, but stagnant level play, and likely to decrease w age.

Go with the stats...sign Perry.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tarynfor12's picture

February 21, 2017 at 10:28 am

Go with stats.....this isn't Fantasy Football where a player can be erased from your starting roster each week for benefit, the Packers need his play every week, something that he has not done even in his overrated year of recent false adulation being used for retention.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

February 21, 2017 at 12:08 pm

"something that he has not done even in his overrated year of recent false adulation being used for retention."

Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
porupack's picture

February 21, 2017 at 09:56 am

apologies for my typos....just a crappy keyboard...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

February 21, 2017 at 01:31 pm

Hint: If you click that little word "edit" just after the date and time...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Handsback's picture

February 21, 2017 at 12:51 pm

The one YUGE issue with Perry is his injury issues. So far...he hasn't gone through a single year w/o injury. Will it continue or will it stop? I think Green Bay needs him, but everyone has to determine how healthy the guy can become.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

February 21, 2017 at 01:11 pm

Nonsense. Unless TT gets a brain transplant or some miracle happens where we acquire Von Miller, Campbell, or two or three similar players, we NEED Perry.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
J0hn Denver's Gavel's picture

February 21, 2017 at 01:52 pm

If we don't sign him, our run D will suffer. Pair that with injuries/ growing pains in the secondary and we'll most likely be even worse on D next year. Triple team Daniels, QB goes deep while all WRs are running streaks a la Redskins game in 2016. Somethings gotta give! We need help all over, and then some.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

February 21, 2017 at 09:06 pm

Agreed to a large extent. DAL, ATL, SEA, MN,PHI, all play at a different speed that our defense. We must upgrade speed & atheleticism on the defensive side of the ball! Hell, a healthy Bears defense is probably faster than our unit. It's the way the modern game is played. If you can't play fast AND stay healthy, you're a liability. Who else can run on defense?! Thomas, DR, HHCD, Burnett, and I guess QR by default? I like Hyde a lot but if it were not for his utility & insticts, I don't think he would be in the league. We need a high draft pick edge rusher & SPEED on defense EVERYWHERE. It's tough to cover someone when you're 3-5 yards behind them:(

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

February 21, 2017 at 06:32 pm

News Flash...Nick Perry is the most complete OLB on this roster..for better or worse. He's very good at setting the edge against the run and can get after the QB, especially in big games. How many sacks has Perry has in crucial games? I bet it's quite a high percentage. He's had injury issues and he may command too much on the FA market to make sense but GB damn sure better try to configure a 3-4 year deal. CMIII is much more overpaid than Perry & as much as I appreciate his game, his productivity doesn't begin to justify his compensation. Fackrell is a skinny speed rusher who won't be able to defend the run effectively for another 2 years at the soonest. I like Elliott, but he's also primarily a pass rusher & ST guy. The elephants? Jones & Peppers? I say try to sign each for a 1-3 year flier with as little guaranteed money as possible. Jones, Pep, & Perry are the only OLB that reliably can play the run...and it's not nearly as consistently as they should. Move CMIII inside and use him on the edge situationally. Please stop with the Watt draft love. He's undersized and not that damn good! He's not JJ! We don't need any more marginal OLB'rs. We need defensive SPEED across the board at every position save the defensive front 3. I can name 5-7 NFC teams that are profoundly faster as a unit than GB. That MUST change for them to win another SB. It's beyond obvious.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
al bundy's picture

February 21, 2017 at 09:15 pm

Perry does not give a crap about the packers. He wants a big payday, this is his last chance at big money so whomever it comes from is all that matters.
Hey we've seen this type before, total bums until the contract year. Then its showtime.
I hope they let him go. If not it's bum time again.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

February 21, 2017 at 09:29 pm

Maybe your first sentence is right. Perry has nothing more to prove to the packers. Perry may want to leave and Jones too.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

February 22, 2017 at 07:22 am

Year before last was a contract year, too. Did he have 11 sacks, then?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4zone's picture

February 22, 2017 at 02:37 am

Let's get this straight. It's called draft and 'develop'. The premise is to draft players with potential, then develop them into productive starters. Get it?

What you are proposing is draft and dump. In essense, being the farm team for the rest of the NFL. What do you expect? A player to bust out then talk a pay cut? The whole premise assumes salary increases when players develop. If you aren't willing to pay, then don't bother drafting them.

And lastly, why do we want and aging player instead of one reaching his prime? And don't tell me you will replace Perry with a draft pick that's better than he is cause in a few years hell demand even more than Perry will this year.

Quit this rubbish talk about dumping your talent to replace with older players or unproven draft picks. We are short enough of talent on D already, the last thing we need is to get rid of anyone who can make an impact. If you want to trade fore someone else, trade depth and picks, not starters.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 22, 2017 at 05:47 am

What I get is that it isn't draft, develop and automatically pay.

We've dumped Thornton, Bradford, Abby, Boyd, Palmer, Worthy, Hayward, McMillan, Manning, Sherrod, Green, House, DJ Williams, Neal, Quarless, Newhouse, etc. Only Hayward arguably should have been paid instead of dumped, and Neal at least got a prove-it year deal.

We drafted Perry and Jones high, developed the living bejeezus out of them, and now it is time to decide IF we should pay them, and if we should, then we have to decide how much. Perry has proven that he can be a good starting OLB, albeit one who misses time every year. I think CM3 is declining and Peppers is gone, so Perry has us over a barrel. We should pay him, even if its a bit more than his worth on the FA market. OTOH, we should play more hardball with Jones, who has shown he can't play 3-4 DE, but might be able to improve as an elephant OLB. I think his best chance of earning a longer term contract is with GB rather than trying to be a LEO for some other team. A 1 year, $3.5M to at most $5M deal sounds about right.

You present a false choice with the wanting an aging player instead of one reaching their prime. I want to trade a late round draft pick for an established vet, who played last year out of position, and who has 21.5 sacks in his last two years playing 3-4 OLB. I have no trouble paying Perry in addition. The percentage of cap space devoted to OLBs won't change if we bring in Barwin in addition to CM3, Perry, Jones, Fackrell and a rookie.

I agree that we should not rely on a draft pick (though we definitely should draft an OLB high if there is one TT likes when we draft in round 1 or 2): that's why I want to bring in that aging vet with no guaranteed money on his contract.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

February 22, 2017 at 06:21 am

Knowing when to apply real logic or fake logic is what separates the true visionaries from the rest of the pack. Well done, I say!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
BradHTX's picture

February 22, 2017 at 11:05 pm

Hey Marpag! Comment thread GONE!

High five? LOL

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.