Create Account

Or log in with Facebook


Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Packers Can't Let Nick Perry Hit the Free-Agent Market

By Category

Packers Can't Let Nick Perry Hit the Free-Agent Market

Has Nick Perry played his last game as a Packer?

Has Nick Perry played his last game as a Packer?

If the Green Bay Packers want to have any chance of keeping free-agent outside linebacker Nick Perry, they need to act soon.

Coming into the offseason, Perry, was considered one of the top players available on the free-agent market. This past season, after signing a one-year, prove it deal, Perry had his best season as a Packer, registering 11 sacks. He also had 35 tackles and four passes defensed.

Perry is also an outstanding run defender. There has been no one better the last few seasons in Green Bay at setting the edge than the 2012 first-rounder. 

The former USC product was once thought to be a bust. But now, after his fifth season, he has finally lived up to his potential.

The only question is whether or not the rewards of that will be reaped in Green Bay or some other location?

I am not sure what Perry is going to do. But I don’t really expect any hometown discounts. He has 23.5 career sacks and plays the run well. He has also played in 14 games or more the past three seasons, answering any questions about durability.

However, one thing I am sure of, is that if the Packers want to keep Perry, they need to act quickly, as in now.

At this point, the Packers have five days before the legal tampering period begins March 7. Players can sign March 9. And after many of the elite pass rushers such as Jason Pierre-Paul, Melvin Ingram and Chandler Jones were all given the franchise tag, Perry's price tag has likely gone up.

Supply and demand after all.

The Packers declined to use the tag and If Perry gets to the open market, he will certainly get a big contract offer that Green Bay will be unlikely to match. The team could get lucky and he could take less money to stay like Randall Cobb and Bryan Bulaga did, but don’t count on it.

Green Bay has more than $40 million in cap space. Some of it needs to get used keeping Perry. But if that’s going to happen, it has to happen now, before free agency starts.

That’s when the crazy money starts flying around and that’s generally when Ted Thompson sticks his head in the sand.

Hopefully, for the sake of the Packers pass rush, Thompson gets something done in the next five days. Otherwise, it will be simply one more hole to fill on a defense filled with them.

NFL Categories: 
  • Like Like
  • 0 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (52) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

Nick Perry's picture

I think Perry tests the market no matter what. I haven't read anywhere anytime that he WANTS to stay in GB. Normally when that happens the player will test the market. There's teams out there with twice as much cap space as the Packers who would be willing to throw a ton of it Perrys way. I also think Perry just may want to go to a 4-3 defense and play DE. Just saying...

dobber's picture

The question is: does Perry come cheaper if signed before hitting the market or in response to some other team's offer? If you're trying to keep him off the market, you're essentially paying him what he estimates the market is going to give him. You're buying out his ability to test which means you're paying mostly on his terms. If you ask for the right to match or better an offer (assuming he's willing to do that) you're paying market value rather than his perceived value.

jeremyjjbrown's picture

I'd be shocked if he comes back. He's going to get paid a lot more than TT is going to pay, and maybe even to play 4-3 DE.

If I was Perry's agent, I'd need to see 10+ a year, 25+ guaranteed to even consider not going to market.

Tundraboy's picture

No then you will have to change your name.

dobber's picture

I vote he changes it to Jamaal Reynolds.

Tarynfor12's picture

In the simply manner as one General Anthony McAuliffe during the Battle OF THE Bulge in WWII...." NUTS "

J0hn Denver's Gavel's picture

The blindfolds were removed and the Germans opened and looked at the reply. They asked, "What does this mean?" They obviously didn't understand the American slang. Harper and Premetz discussed how to explain it. Harper suggested, "Tell them to take a flying s**t!" Premetz thought about it, then straightened up, faced the Germans and said, "Du kannst zum Teufel gehen." He told Harper it meant "You can go to Hell." Then Harper said, "If you continue to attack, we will kill every goddamn German that tries to break into this city."

Handsback's picture

Green Bay needs OLBs and pass-rushers. Peppers is gone, and CM isn't the guy that he was when the Packers won the SB. So the depth is bare. I think you try and sign Jones and Perry in that order. WHY? Because availablility is key and Perry hasn't played an entire season injury free. Last year he was very stout and needs to be retained. If it's a bidding war...then forget it.

dobber's picture

Some people wanted to see this defense completely rebuilt...well, this would be one way to force it to happen.

Bert's picture

It's a business and Perry has the Packers in a position in his favor. Can't blame him for trying to get the most $$$ he can get. If we lose him then that creates a huge hole to fill. Maybe too many holes to fill on defense in one off season? As mentioned above Perry may or may not want to return to GB anyway and would rather play DE in a 4/3. In any case the Packers are not in a strong position to rebuild to a competitive defense for 2017 if they lose Perry.

dobber's picture

For those who are all about the Packers playing in the FA market, losing Perry all but forces TT into the fray. So long as he gives the Packers the opportunity to match an offer, I don't really see the Packers stopping him from hitting the market.

I'm not sure where the people who have speculated that Perry wants to play in a 4-3 get their info...I've never seen a player statement to that effect (but I might be the one on the outs). He certainly has the flexibility to play in either scheme, which hurts the Packers because virtually every team is a potential suitor, then.

WKUPackFan's picture

The 4-3 stuff mostly relates back to Perry's unfortunate, long ago hand in the dirt comment. A single comment that detractors have used against him and TT ever since.

In reality Perry personifies what some said couldn't be done and shouldn't be attempted: He successfully made the transition from college DE to NFL OLB. He also is a testament to the draft and develop philosophy. That philosophy should be furthered by resigning him to a market rate contract.

akeemthedream's picture

Paying a guy over $10 mil per, who averages 12 games and 4.7 sacks per season would be ridiculous.

If last year wasn't a contract year, he would have sat out last season too.


Signing guys to big contracts because you've got no one else to take their place is what bad teams do. The D won't be any worse without him than it was with him.

dobber's picture

2015 was a contract year, too. I don't see a connection.

akeemthedream's picture

Good point.

Still doesn't change 12 and 4.7, though.

Bearmeat's picture

Perry has long wanted to play a 43 edge position, but he'll take the highest money he can get, and I don't blame him one bit. That almost certainly won't be from the Packers, and I don't blame the Packers one bit either. He's been FAR from a consistent performer throughout his time here, and I don't think throwing 12 mil/year for 4-5 years is the right thing to do in this situation.

Blow up OLB and start over. And yes, that includes moving on from CM3 in the very near future. He is NOT a difference maker any more, and he's been paid like one for awhile. Instead, TT should find a couple mid-level serviceable vets at OLB (and CB) and draft some young guys.

It couldn't be worse than it was last year anyway.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

You make some good arguments. i have to think about them. Depends on whether we can get Perry on a reasonable deal for me, I think.

Bert's picture

Actually I think it could be worse than last year. I think letting our only effective pass rusher (Perry) hit the road and start over at OLB would be a big mistake for the 2017 season. Finding good pass rushers is much easier said than done.

slit's picture

Perry had his career year last year, let him go. Losers overpay for mediocre talent, just because there isn't a proven guy to take his place. Btw, that falls on Ted. Said it before, and I'll say it again, if Barwin gets cut, TT better run to sign him. 14.5 sacks last time he played OLB in a 3-4 DEF.

porupack's picture

How do you know he had a career year? How do you know he isn't ascending? Draft and develop, also implies you keep players on the ascent. Statistically, no evidence he isn't rising. Get him signed.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

IIRC, Barwin played OLB in 2015, and had 7 sacks. In 2014, Barwin had the 14.5 sacks. They moved him to DE in a 4-3 last season (2016), and he was not very good at it.

I like the idea of Barwin: depends on price and why he went from 14.5 to 7 sacks, both years playing as an OLB.

Couch Cleats's picture

Agreed Bearmeat. Nick Perry is not the guy you let empty your bank account. Would love to have him back but not at an unreasonable amount.

If they can find a couple tier 2 players with experience that actually can stay on the field I don't know if we will notice much of a difference from last year's passrush production.

I would rather make an investment in the position by trading up to get a passrusher than overpay Perry to be that guy for a multi year term.

My only question is if we're going to blow up the OLB position, is it time to consider a different defensive scheme entirely? It's actually been harder for us to find OLB's than QB's and it's very apparent that our current defensive system is completely ineffective without good OLB's.

To me, there is too much emphasis on having great OLB's in a 3-4 defense. Even if you're lucky enough to find them you become far too vulnerable to their health. As soon as their injured it's like watching an offense trying to play with their second string QB. You're no longer a match for a playoff caliber team.

Ryan Graham's picture

I agree that Perry is not the guy you pay 10M per year. That would be 25M locked into 2 of 22 starting spots that are essentially the same position (not including specialists). Safe to say that Ted has not contacted Clay to reduce his pay, and you can't pay both of them. My guess is they bring back Datone Jones on a deal similar to Perry's this past season, slightly cheaper though.

The defense would just look a whole lot better with a cornerback who can establish man coverage throughout the secondary especially the front seven against the pass....absolutely unlikely, a Stephon Gilmore type perhaps. Proven man cover stud would move Randall back to the number two wideout where he belongs. Hyde plays his nickel slot corner, Rollins Brice and Gunter Dorleant all compete for Dime and quarter packages. Safeties Burnett and Clinton-Dix (the 2 leading tacklers on the team the last two years) Burnett can play up with the backers, cover a tight end, CD can play high and be a spy and I'm sure you can easily mix all that up in a playbook of plays. But that can't happen unless you get a true man coverage philosophy in that secondary.

This is all hypothetical because Capers just loves his zone blitz. Even though it's a proven broken system. Proven week after week. And Capers isn't going anywhere.

jeremyjjbrown's picture

"To me, there is too much emphasis on having great OLB's in a 3-4 defense."

Yep, The Packers found one. But never really managed to find a second. An the first one can't stay healthy.

J0hn Denver's Gavel's picture

The stars of the 34 are the OLBs, without them it doesn't work. If you are suggesting a scheme switch, 43 require 4 rushers on the line, the DTs and DEs get paid, and well. Better to pay 2 primary rushers or 4?

J0hn Denver's Gavel's picture

The stars of the 34 are the OLBs, without them it doesn't work. If you are suggesting a scheme switch, 43 require 4 rushers on the line, the DTs and DEs get paid, and well. Better to pay 2 primary rushers or 4?

Chris Peterson's picture

I don't know. I think you lose a lot if he's gone. I think Datone Jones could do a decent job replacing him. But if he leaves you are looking at a free agent or early draft pick trying to replace him. Or Kyler Fackrell

zoellner25's picture

Offer 3 years, 27 mil.

Ryan Graham's picture

By no means am I going to say that our linebacker core is in good shape, especially with all the free agents that could slip away. But I would just like to take the time to show everyone what the true problem is to its core, through and through. I'm not always a stats guy but I feel I have no choice than to point all of this out. The Green Bay Packers defense ranked as following:

7th - sacks - 40
3rd - sack yds - 295 yds
8th - def rush yds - 1515 (>100yds/game)
14th - rush yds/att - 4.0
11th - rush TDS allowed - 11

For the most part that's your front seven against the pass AND the rush. Not bad so far...

32nd - pass yds - 4603
30th - pass yds/attempt - 12.4 (first down each pass)
30th - pass TDS - 32
24th - 3rd Down Efficiency
25th - Opp Comp % - 64.8%
23rd - Opp yds after catch -122.2/gm

THE TWO LEADING TACKLER ON THE TEAM were Morgan Burnett and Clinton-Dix. Wow.

I get it. We have a lot of linebacker positions to fill from free agency. My thought after looking at all this unacceptable play in the secondary, let's address the cornerback position first. I'm not saying don't address the linebackers, or that Randall and Rollins are garbage. I like both of their young talent. But they need a corner mentor to lead by example when shit hits the fan. And I can NOT emphasize this enough.

Against today's offense in the NFL a good secondary in the 3-4 scheme that can run man coverage effictively will make your front seven look better.

Good article though.

dobber's picture

"THE TWO LEADING TACKLER ON THE TEAM were Morgan Burnett and Clinton-Dix. Wow."

Normally you'd expect it to be an ILB but all of the Packer ILBs (except Thomas, who's not much of a run stuffer) missed multiple games by injury while HHCD played every defensive snap and Burnett missed the Jax game and part of a game later in the year. Availability and teams throwing the ball against a porous D go a long way.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Safeties leading their teams in tackles is quite common. I think our defense works better if an ILB is the leader, but just saying....

JacFrost's picture

I said this three years ago and Ted got bums instead so we're at square one when we should be taking care of other needs.

Ryan Graham's picture

There is truth in all of these things you all mention. Sure it's common for one safety to lead a team in tackles, no doubt. But not both. In the 3-4 it's typically an inside backer, if not an end rusher. Which I believe Nick Perry leading all end rushers on roster this year had 39 tackles to Morgan Burnetts 90 and CDs 82. 5th or 6th leading tackler, behind both inside backers who missed time...too bad that 3.5 sack count doesn't carry over in a 16 game span right? Even if it's, 2 separate unrelated seasons.

At what point do the packers organization stop using durability issues as a viable excuse, for lack of a better term, to not meeting expectations in a season? Hamstring and groin injuries are quite common in the NFL yes but it seems to me that every year the packers have 3-4 starters missing multiple games due to hamstring injuries. Matthews for years, this year on top of his shoulder, Ryan on top of his ankle injury, Randall and Rollins this year. This to me begs the question of there being a lack of preparation for the team as a whole by the strength and conditioning staff in training camp in particular.

I'm not trying to twist any facts to fit a certain case, I just presented facts. I'm not arguing that the backer core didnt need safety help from Burnett because it did from time to time, which is part of the strong safety position it's implied. Obviously the pass rush and backfield coincide in success, that's just a staple to the game you can't have one succeed without aid from the other. But there is no denying those numbers do show that's why the defense as a unit looked so bad to the naked eye.

I also mentioned that Randall and Rollins have raw talent and have potential to be the guys. As bad as Gunter started he did show improvement. But that position needs a leader and I don't see any way around that. As good as Sam Shields was with his recovery speed, that guy was no mentor. Ted Thompson (assuming he knew of Shields' concussion history - this last being his 5th) took the risk of not implementing depth at corner last year and it came back to bite. I would think this being his final year under contract as GM, assuming he wants to continue to be involved at some capacity, depth and leadership would be addressed.

dobber's picture

"Ted Thompson (assuming he knew of Shields' concussion history - this last being his 5th) took the risk of not implementing depth at corner last year and it came back to bite."

Can we put this to bed already? Going into 2016, the CB position was arguably the deepest on the roster...virtually everyone here agreed that was true. They had a returning cover corner who was very good (Shields), two young corners who showed well as rookies (Rollins and Randall), a big young CB that they felt could fill in (Gunter) and the jack-of-all-trades-and-saving-our-asses CB/S in Hyde. How many games did Shields miss in 2015? How did the rookie CBs play in his absence? Pretty well. That's 5 guys they felt that they could play at CB and most of us believed that, too. The depth was there, initially. NOBODY could have projected what happened at CB in 2016 in August...or in the spring when the kinds of player acquisitions many call for would have needed to happen. And if the Packers DID go out and burn a chunk of change at that point on a CB and not at other positions (like ILB) like we wanted, this place would have absolutely lit him up.

OH NO...THEY LET HAYWARD GO AND THEY SHOULD HAVE KEPT HIM! -- For crying out loud the guy had stagnated in GB and had arguably been outplayed by Rollins and Randall in 2015, and was pushed him back into his slot corner role from outside CB. He had given the Packers no reason to pay him $6M per year. Congrats to him on having a great year, but you can't take his 2016 with a different team, coordinator, and position coach, and project it back onto his contract situation last spring.

OH NO...TT SHOULD HAVE SIGNED SOMEONE OR TRADED FOR SOMEONE TO FIX THE CB POSITION! -- Tell me who was out there to be signed. Antonio Cromartie? Perrish Cox? Two guys out there who were so bad and had slowed so much that--in a passing league where playable DBs are a valuable commodity--they were cut loose early in the season when everyone was still in contention. And who is going to deal the Packers a CB? Clearly there's a "trading tree" out there in a league that tends to shun player trades (in clear contrast to the other major sports leagues where players are dealt like used cars) where a quality CB--at that valuable position--who can help your team will just immediately pop into your lap at a reasonable cost.

Revisionist history is the easiest history to write, but what happened to the CB position in 2016 was devastating and wholly unexpected. No team is prepared to deal with that kind of attrition at one point, the starting CBs were Gunter and Dimitri Goodson, someone who probably only made it back onto the roster from his drug suspension because the Packers were so beat up at CB...and then he blew out HIS knee, too. How about Mackinton Dorleant, the guy who showed well in camp but got hurt, and was later their "IR to return" guy--who all but immediately had a season-ending injury.

I believe that I'm neither a TT supporter nor a TT hater, but this "TT should have known better" crap about the CB position is BS. Let it die.

Since '61's picture

Perry doesn't have any reason to sign with the Packers prior to March 7th. While TT can make an offer before the FA period begins Perry's agent is going to advise him to wait and see the offers he receives and he should. For his part TT is not going to throw big money at Perry and he shouldn't. Given the situation, Perry should take the best contract he can get and the Packers should move on. Fans are complaining about CM3s salary but CM3 was actually a productive player and difference maker at one point in his career. You can count the number of plays Perry has made for the Packers on one hand and most of them would come from one season (2016). He is worth about $6 mil per season but he will be paid much more than that. Let someone else foot the bill for his injuries and lackluster play until his next contract. If our defense depends on re-signing Nick Perry we're much worse off than we think. Thanks, Since '61

stockholder's picture

Nailed right on the head. Not a franchise player. Not worth the money of one. He wants Suh money, warm climate, and star status. Move -on.

croatpackfan's picture

This time I agree with you 100%.
Maybe I would pay him up to 8 mil per season, but not all guaranteed. That is that!


Guys, the Packers really need to sign him. Datone Jones could develop more, but he is probably just an average player. Clay Mathews is facing the end of his career and there is NO ONE else in the roster capable of play at high level. You guys remember 2012? We had to go to playoffs with guys like Dezman Moses and Andy Mulumba. Colin Kaepernick put up 48 points on the defense, It was just sad.

If we don't sign him, in about 2 years the only edge rushers on the roster could be inexperienced draft picks. We saw how this turned out on cornerbacks in recent years, it is too risky to count only on draft picks, I would say riskier than overpaying for Nick Perry. Don't forget this is a PRIME position, it is not easy to find guys like him, and they are very important. Also, please don't tell me Connor Barwin is a better choice, the dude is 30 years old and won't be much healthier or much cheaper than Nick Perry.

I got say that I am glad Nick Perry had injuries over his career, otherwise the Packers would have to pay him Olivier Vernon money by now. Nick Perry might still be pricy, but for sure will be something Packers can afford.

Furthermore, we have a lot of cap space this year, and the defense needs playmakers, if we don't sign him, who it will be? All good pass rushers are tagged, the few great cornerbacks are gonna cost way more than Nick, and we don't need more S or DL ( for now). The Packers got the space, they gotta spend somewhere.

Finally, I really think nobody will offer him much more than $9 million per year, the other teams also have concerns about his injuries and because of that the bid war won't be that strong. I also don't think he is gonna prefer go somewhere else just because scheme, Packers is a winning team and this is the second most important thing (behinds money) for a player. I hope he stays and prove to all pessimists that he is a heck of a football player.

Since '61's picture

Perry is going to go where the money is. There was a time when winning was more important to some of the players. But the current players are in it for the bucks and they need to be given the potential for career ending injuries. TT has probably already determined how much Perry is worth. However, it only takes one team to overpay and he's gone and Perry does not need to give the Packers a chance to match. Anything can happen and we never know what these players might do but I'd be surprised if Perry stays with the Packers. Thanks, Since '61


I think TT will overpay Perry if needed. When it comes to guys like Davin House or Casey Hayward I agree he has a price determined. But when it comes to core players in a position of need he becomes scared. It happened with Clay Mathews and Randal Cobb. I agree with your statement about money being the most important thing for players, but what I mean is: let's suppose TT think he is worth 8.5 million, if someone like the Browns offer him 10 million, I think Nick and TT would try to find a common ground to make him stay at 9.5 million. Of course if someone like the Giants offer him crazy money like Olivier Vernon, there is no way to keep him, but until $10 million I think it is worth, not because he is worth, but because the defense would be a disaster without him.

There is 2 things to keep his price lower: He is a risky investment and the draft class is loaded with pass rushers. I really believe nobody will be crazy to offer him more than $10 million, and if there is someone that crazy then take this money and make a run on some good cornerback, the team also need it.

Unfortunately, nobody of us know the guy, and Dom Capers defense isn't the most fun to play it, but I really hope there is at least a fight to keep him in Green Bay.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Connor Barwin is likely to be much healthier than Perry.
Connor Barwin is likely to be significantly cheaper than Perry.
I don't think Barwin is likely to be better or even as good as Perry.

Barwin played over 1000 snaps in '13. '14,'15 and some 700 in 2016 as a DE (he wasn't injured - just wasn't effective as a DE). Barwin has been very durable.

Barwin should be millions cheaper in AAV, and should be available for a shorter time frame with less guaranteed money - but we shall see.


Good points. I don't think he is a poor player, but to argue that the Packers should just dump Nick Perry to make a run on him is crazy, at least for me. The thing is: I don't think he has many years left, and when you get older, the chance of injuries increase, just as the chance of decrease in quality.

I'm guessing Connor will cost around $7 million or so, if I'm right, that's $3 million less than Perry. $3 million is not significant to save just to have a 4 years older guy with less quality.

Connor Barwin is a nice insurance in case we don't sign Perry, but it is still risky. Sign him depends on how many good years he still has, if it is 3 to 4, that's a steal, but if it's not, in 2018 the Packers would be stuck with not only 1, but 2 high paid, old and underperforming OLB, that's worse than having a guy who has some injuries during the season, but when can play, plays at high level.

dobber's picture

Even if Barwin gets cut (or the Eagles make a late push to deal him), it doesn't mean that the Packers will be able to sign him or that he even wants to come to GB. Just because one guy walks out the door doesn't make plan B something that's going to happen...or something that's really in your best interest.

stockholder's picture

I don't think Mathews is facing the end of his career. Compare him to peppers. Mathews was hurt. Peppers became a leader. Both players are over 30. Considering TT signed peppers. Mathews still has years left in the tank. I want you to compare Ted Hendricks to Mathews too. Everyone said Hendricks was done, and the Raiders picked him up. The defense sucked for years after that. No QB, and the history of losing, hurt the Packers Title town image. And TED Hendricks did nothing but turn it on. Perry had a career year for sacks. How many pressures? Sure he's in it for the money. But the money is changing what these guys play for. The best example is when the NFL changed the rules. They let the juniors and hard ship cases come in. And the NFL is just as guilty for turning this into a business. Let him go. He's not Mathews,Peppers, or Hendricks. Perry can be replaced.

JacFrost's picture

I would be shocked if he was signed before the start of fa. My take is he is going for da Mooney and I also think whomever lands him is getting a bum. We'll be can glad he didn't stay. He will be another haynesworth.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Perry played the following # of snaps (%)
2014: 360 (32.9%)
2015: 351 (33.4%)
2016: 606 (58.7%)

I still have questions about Perry's durability.

Chris Peterson's picture

I don't think Perry is irreplaceable. The Packers can get by without him and even if he comes back I think they need another rusher. I don't trust Fackrell to be the third pass rusher yet.

But Perry is good. I have always thought he was better than most. I have always thought he was great against the run. He has had two good years in a row and if he not hurt this wrist, he might have had 15 sacks.

I know most guys won't sign before and I see why. Cobb and Shields both did after the tampering period began, but if they offered him a good deal, he might take it.

I just want TT to he aggressive. He needs to keep some guys like Lang or Tretter, Cook, Lacy and Hyde but it will take some quick acting to do so.

I think Perry is more important than Hyde the others I See as important. The only way I am OK with some of those guys leaving is TT making a splash in free agency. I just will believe it when I see it. Connor Barwin would be a good pickup I think. A veteran corner is badly needed and another early one in the draft.

I just think Perry coming back would solidify the pass rush which as one guy pointed out was one of the few good things about the Green Bay defense.

Donster's picture

Packers won't be able to re-sign Perry. To many teams with a lot more money to spend will get him. TT won't get into a bidding war. Especially with a player, even though he is a TT draftee, that has never played an entire season due to injuries, and has had only one very good season. And how much of that very good season was due to the other players around him were not performing well? I don't feel he has earned the big $$ someone will pay him. And thinking as if I was Perry, and know how many injuries I have had to this point in my NFL career, I am going to want the largest amount of $$ I can get. Even if that means going to play in Cleveland.

CJ Bauckham's picture

Does anyone even know how many sacks Perry has had in his last 16 games?

dobber's picture

...I think it was 9. ;)

CJ Bauckham's picture

Thaaank you.

croatpackfan's picture

It is not likely, but maybe market will response much weaker on Perry than Perry wants. He is still higly injured player.
Maybe Packers would be able to sign him for very friendly deal...

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos 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.

Or log in with Facebook



"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."
"The Bears still suck!"