Packers Made the Right Move Paying Nick Perry

The Green Bay Packers likely had to pay a pretty penny to keep Nick Perry, but in the end, it will be worth every penny. 

Nick Perry's deal will prove to be costly, but he is worth it.

Nick Perry's deal will prove to be costly, but he is worth it.

You never know what the Green Bay Packers are going to do when free agency rolls around.

But like in previous seasons, just hours before teams are offically able to sign un-restricted free agents, the Packers struck a deal with their top available player, Nick Perry.

The deal, accoring to Jason La Canfora is going to be for five years, although the specific dollar amount has yet to be released. 

The fact that the Packers were able to keep Perry, their top pass rusher a season ago, shows once again that Ted Thompson and the organization is willing to spend big money on certain players.

They did it with Sam Shields, Randall Cobb and Bryan Bulaga in recent years and Perry is just another example of Green Bay spending big to keep homegrown talent.

Some still question whether Perry will be worth the big-money deal he got. But in five seasons, he has proven to be a consistent pass rusher and run stopper. Then, after posting 11 sacks last season, it's hard to argue with his increased value.

Perry did have just 12.5 sacks in his first four NFL seasons, but after watching the former first-round pick finally break out and live up to his potential in 2016, it would have been a bitter pill to swallow to see him leave and prosper somewhere else.

Green Bay still has plenty of work to do. Hopefully, they can keep T.J. Lang and Jared Cook. But for those who are constantly calling Thompson cheap and complaining about how little money the Packers spend, look at the deal for Perry. 

Look at how much they end up paying to keep Lang and Cook, which I think will happen. Thompson wants to keep his core players together and I think the Packers view both Cook and Lang as part of that. The money may get ridiculous and that might cause Green Bay to balk. But I would not be at all surprised to see Thompson pay top dollar to keep both.

Thompson may be unwilling to spend big on other team's free agents, but the Perry deal shows once again, that when it comes to high-end players from his own team, Thompson isn't shy about writing a big, fat check. 

 

ADDENDUM:

 

 

 

__________________________

Chris is a sports journalist from Montana and has been blogging about the Packers since 2011. Chris has been a staff writer for CheeseheadTV since 2017 and looks forward to the day when Aaron Rodgers wins his second Super Bowl. Follow him @thepackersguru

NFL Categories: 
0 points

Comments (66)

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

March 09, 2017 at 12:19 pm

He is very good against the run, and a decent pass rusher. this is the right move. Need another one for the opposite side, though...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 09, 2017 at 12:22 pm

I don't know about the 'right' move...only time will tell that. It was the necessary move.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Packmaniac's picture

March 09, 2017 at 12:55 pm

Well put, Dobber

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
rdent's picture

March 10, 2017 at 10:16 am

Agree here,with all the good edge rushers who got tagged.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
zoellner25's picture

March 09, 2017 at 12:25 pm

is it just me, or is the contract incredibly team-friendly?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

March 09, 2017 at 12:31 pm

I don't see any details made public other than 5 years.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
zoellner25's picture

March 09, 2017 at 12:49 pm

from Demovsky Tweet:

Here's a breakdown of Nick Perry's contract with the Packers: Five years, $60 million. Includes an $18.5 million signing bonus (the only guaranteed money). It also includes roster bonuses of $4.3 million in 2018 (payable the third day of the league year) and $4.8 million in 2019 (third day of the league year). Base salaries are: $1.3 million (2017), $1.9 million (2018), $5.2 million in 2019, $9.6 million in 2020, $9.4 million in 2021. There's another $5 million in per-game roster bonuses and workout bonuses.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 09, 2017 at 01:53 pm

So essentially his cap hit in 2017 is $5M ($3.7M for signing bonus plus $1.3M) and 2018 and 2019 are $9.9 M ($4.3M roster bonus, $3.7M signing bonus, $1.9M base) and $13.7M. After that, a cut would cost the Packers the remainder of the bonus ($7.4M) in 2020 or $3.7M in 2021. This creates some breathing room under the cap in 2017 for one-year deals to the likes of Jones or Lacy, but I don't see this as tremendously team-friendly. They're married to this deal for at least 4 years.

In Edit: The Demovsky tweet doesn't seem to align with the other tweet above. I don't see how he gets $20M in the first year of the deal...unless you add the full signing bonus to the first-year base salary. Which is not how this works.

In Edit in Edit: Sportrac.com has the crude details of the contract up on its site. They aren't reporting the dead money due to proration of the bonus, yet, but the tweet above where they say that he's getting $20M in the first year appears to be crap. Besides, if the Packers did that, they wouldn't be doing anything else in 2017.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spud Rapids's picture

March 09, 2017 at 01:58 pm

I think he get's $18 million in his pocket right away is what he meant

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
bstone's picture

March 09, 2017 at 01:59 pm

The 20m the first year is cash payout... 18.5m signing bonus, 1.3m salary & 1m in other bonuses. From a cap perspective, the first year hit is only 6m.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 09, 2017 at 02:05 pm

OK...I can jive with that...but for cap purposes (which is what I really care about), the Packers are on the hook $3.7M per year over the next 5 years based on signing bonus.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
bstone's picture

March 09, 2017 at 02:40 pm

Based on the limited info from Demovsky, I was able to extrapolate the following cap #'s (assuming the $5M in additional bonuses are $1M/year):

2017 - $6M
2018 - $10.9M
2019 - $14.7M
2020 - $14.3M
2021 - $14.1M

As discussed in one of your other replies, they can't really get out of this too cleanly until 2020 due to the guarantee proration. They could get out of it in 2019 with $5.5M hits in 2019 & 2010 using the 6/1 designation and avoid the $4.8M roster bonus in 2019 but that seems unlikely.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
ricky's picture

March 09, 2017 at 03:01 pm

Give the man a bubble gum cigar! Indeed, checked SporTrac. There is NO dead money in Perry's contract. None for any year. The Packers can let him go at any point, and the only cost will be the $18.5 they pay him, and whatever roster bonuses he receives if he remains on the roster. In effect, this is a series of one year incentive laden "prove it" contracts. It binds Perry to the Packers, while they can dump him anytime they feel he is underperforming. That he signed such a deal means either he's very confident or very naive. And I don't think him or his agent are naive. The Packers won big time on this contract.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/nick-perry-9838/

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

March 09, 2017 at 04:46 pm

I believe the accelerated signing bonus is always considered to be dead money. Give spotrac a little time to see the contract and fill in the blanks.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Ryan Graham's picture

March 09, 2017 at 07:33 pm

Hey the way I see it Ted made out in this one. Kept a good pass rusher and big presence against the run for only 18.5 guaranteed. If it doesn't pan out it sucks but at least you'll be able to figure it out quick and Eliot can plan accordingly...assuming he takes over. And yeah the dead cap would be the roster bonuses of 2018-19. But I'll take those numbers. I'll be interested to see how everything else plays out now....Barclay's been signed (meh) for 1.3M which I guess is okay if you draft well, which Ted typically does a good job of with Oline. He gonna pay Lang? More importantly, Cook....?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 10, 2017 at 02:34 am

Ricky - if there is any guaranteed money, there absolutely freaking has to be a dead money hit somewhere.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
egbertsouse's picture

March 09, 2017 at 12:41 pm

I'm not big fan of Perry. He's inconsistent and injury-prone. Has some great games and then disappears for 3or4games. I hope TT didn't break the bank on this deal. We already have Fabio making Vonn Miller money.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

March 09, 2017 at 12:44 pm

But he said on his commercial "I'm the best". Don't you believe it?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 09, 2017 at 01:09 pm

Fabio came first....Von Miller is making Fabio money.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

March 10, 2017 at 01:38 am

He has had injuries, but he plays at a consistent high level when healthy.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bert's picture

March 09, 2017 at 12:54 pm

Good move! I was hoping Ted would keep Perry and now hopefully he can sign Cook and Lang and possibly Hyde. Then move on to a FA CB and OLB if possible. Barwin was released today and a combo of Barwin, Perry and CM would give a boost to the LB core.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
vj_ostrowski's picture

March 09, 2017 at 12:57 pm

A pretty team friendly deal with how high the cap is and how easily we could get out of it in 3 years if we wanted to.

Let's be honest, this was the one GB FA re-sign that HAD to be made. Our defense would look like even worse garbage without Perry. Clay & Fackrell, save a different FA move or draft pick? Ewww.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 09, 2017 at 01:12 pm

I just don't see the easy out in year 4. His savings against the cap at that point would be ~$10M, but the accelerated hit from his bonus is still close to $8M, which would be a big chunk to swallow. It's not 'til year 5 that he's really cuttable.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
bstone's picture

March 09, 2017 at 02:00 pm

They can get out of this contract in year 4 by doing a post 6/1 designation. That spreads the remaining dead money over two years. That would make for cap savings of 10.6m in 2020 & 10.4m in 2021.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 09, 2017 at 02:22 pm

True, that would split the remaining $7.5M cap hit over those last two seasons...

Apologies for my density...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 10, 2017 at 02:58 am

You're spot on, Dobber. It is at least a 3 year deal, at which time we can take a $7.4M dead money hit. Sure, we could cut Perry post June and divide that money between 2019 and 2020 cap years or just take it all in 2019. Depends on how we are doing cap-wise, but it really is just playing with the numbers. That just means we take cap hits in multiple years for a guy who ain't playing.

One comforting thought is that it is just possible that $7.4M as a % of the cap might be a lot less than it does today. In other words,$7.4M dead money hit might feel like what taking say a $4M dead money hit would feel like this year.

Guarantee is 33% or thereabouts. That's market for the injury history Perry has. The roster bonuses are player friendly terms - they make TT decide earlier than the draft and early on in FA as to whether to retain Perry. AAV is a lot higher than most folks predicted for Perry, but a lot of folks are getting more than anticipated. It is probably market.

Overall, the Perry deal seems neutral in terms of it being player friendly or team friendly. If the guy can rush the passer, and especially if the guy can play all three downs, you have to pay. Note that Perry can't cover, but is darn good when healthy in the other 2 areas.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Chad Lundberg's picture

March 09, 2017 at 01:00 pm

WOOOOOOH!!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
egbertsouse's picture

March 09, 2017 at 01:11 pm

Not as bad as I feared. Pretty team-friendly.

On another note, I heard The Hoodie is signing Stephon Gilmore to a huge deal while TT sits on his wallet. How irresponsible! That franchise will never amount to anything.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 09, 2017 at 01:37 pm

BB is also apparently dealing Malcolm Butler for Brandin Cooks, and is going to let Logan Ryan walk. That's two FA CBs that he's choosing not to pay to sign one.

TTs wallet ain't all that full, anymore.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Matt Gonzales's picture

March 09, 2017 at 02:22 pm

I don't think it's coincidental that the first time Perry was able to fully participate in offseason conditioning programs and a full training camp he put up much better numbers and mostly played healthier (I don't remember the play that injured his hand, but there are so many ways that could happen I would call it a freak injury). Unless he gets a freak injury (and honestly, how can you predict that?) I see someone who is finally blossoming who got signed to a contract that keeps him here in his prime.

This gives KF another year to develop and keeps him and any other new OLBs in rotation as role players.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Big_Mel_75's picture

March 09, 2017 at 03:03 pm

He has been injured every year he has played for us... Always scary when a guy almost doubles his sack totals in year 5 and then you pay him like he gets 10 sacks a year...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

March 09, 2017 at 02:41 pm

To many years, to many Dollars. I'm going to say this is a bad deal for the pack. TT had a gun to his head on this one. (BASED ON PEPPERS AND MATHEWS CONTRACTS) And TT knows he won't be around at the end of the contract. So he's passing a big problem onto the next GM. Perry's to streaky. And considering they would not give him his option year. The jury will always be out. But Perry has proved he was no bust. I believe panic set the tone to sign Perry. When a Defense is broken, this makes no sense. TT you blew this one. Retire!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
bstone's picture

March 09, 2017 at 02:47 pm

I'll disagree here. I think this is setting up for a "Sitton" type move on Matthews after the draft. I think it's universally agreed upon by everyone except for Matthews himself that he's not playing up to his contract. The way the last two years of his contract are structured, there is very little dead money left. I can see TT having a talk with Matthews's agent in June or July after all the big FA money has been spent & giving him the option to restructure and extend or be released and see what money is no longer out there.

If TT drafts OLB in the first few rounds, I certainly can see this playing out.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
lou's picture

March 09, 2017 at 04:10 pm

This is the key year for Mathews, if availability and performance again are on the level of 2016 prior to 2018 it is either restructure and move inside or good bye no matter how great he has played before and the super NFL longevity in his blood line. Discounting Perry's bonus, the next 2 years his salary will total $17M, assuming he is replacing Pepper's opposite Mathews, Peppers over his last 2 years was $18M. Clay is at approximately $13.5M. That is a lot of money allocated to your book end LB's, something has to give although it is balanced with all of the inside backers making minimum now. Based on the play of the secondary assuming no experienced corners are signed in free agency, our bookend OLB's both need to play at a Pro Bowl level to have a chance for the Lombardi Trophy, they will be paid accordingly next season.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 09, 2017 at 05:59 pm

I agree with bstone: the way CMIII's contract sets up, I'm willing to bet he gets cut next off-season regardless.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

March 09, 2017 at 05:52 pm

I think Mathews stays another year, AS long as TT stays GM. (Ex: TT did not cut peppers. ) And I'll say that Mathews is still faster than Perry. There is no way TT drafts a OLB now. ( It's not going to happen.) 3rd or below. And with Guion suspended. TT has a new problem.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
rdent's picture

March 10, 2017 at 10:28 am

TT should have addressed the Guion problem way sooner than now ,again terribly mismanaged, TT has failed miserably as a GM the last 5 years and has not improved the talent on the roster,sits on his hands and only moves to put out fires .

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Ryan Graham's picture

March 09, 2017 at 07:43 pm

This, this here is the best case scenario in my opinion. Either he gets cut, or takes a cut and moves inside full time. I'd almost prefer that just because Ted may have to look at drafting two edge guys this year which I don't like that idea as much. Unless they picked up Barwin, but that's a probably no Ted doesn't wanna give up that draft pick. Especially since it will be his last draft as GM

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 09, 2017 at 08:01 pm

Barwin was cut. There's no draft pick compensation for a player who was cut.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
rdent's picture

March 10, 2017 at 10:33 am

I hope this will be his last draft but unfortunately he is on board till 2018.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

March 09, 2017 at 04:48 pm

I think you need to reassess your view on salary numbers. The cap has gone up, and the salaries will respond.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

March 09, 2017 at 06:28 pm

Like baseball now. But really how big was Perry's market at Elephant?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

March 09, 2017 at 07:20 pm

Hard to say, but remember that he was unhappy when he was drafted by the Packers because he considered himself to be a 4-3 DE (rush). Teams may very well have considered him for that role.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

March 10, 2017 at 01:39 am

Umm, contracts in the NFL aren't guaranteed.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 10, 2017 at 03:06 am

Many of them are (including the contracts of most first round draft picks). Some aren't. Some are partially guaranteed. This is basic.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

March 10, 2017 at 02:52 pm

can you explain how Perry's 5-year contract is "passing a big problem onto the next GM"?

Can you tell me, just your best guess, what percentage of NFL rookie contracts are guaranteed for skill, cap, and injury in their entirety?

My guess would be 1% of rookie contracts fit that bill. Just my guess.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 11, 2017 at 05:38 pm

Not sure if you're responding to Stockholder or to me. I don't think TT is passing a big problem [with Perry's contract] to the next GM. Perry's contract structure looks pretty normal to me. Neutral as to being team or player friendly.

As for the % of rookie contracts that are 100% guaranteed for skill, cap or injury, that is hard to say since sportwriters use the term loosely, but from reasonably available information I'd say about 9% overall for the 7 rounds. I'd say it is about 60 to 67% of the 1st round draft picks, which is what I limited my observation to. Roughly the first 20 something picks, with some players with injury concerns not getting that guarantee.

The rookie guarantee provisions are set out in Article 7, section 3, paragraph H of the CBA. Note that these provisions do not mandated "full" guarantees. However, the first two seasons generally are fully guaranteed for most 1st round rookies, though they do not have to be, while the third and fourth year may (but do not have to) be guaranteed only if the first two years were. Note that I refer to football-related injuries. There is a reason why the NFL has a Non-Football related injury list. To be absolutely sure of my percentages, I'd have to read the contracts of every first round pick to check for whether the guarantee extends to cap, injury and skill. That would be beyond the scope of what I reasonably can do, so I default to the sportswriters' and websites' (like Sportrac and OVC) catch phrase of fully guaranteed. Josh Doctson, the 22nd draft choice, is still getting 100% for 4 years, for example. Such guarantees peter out in the low 20s from my observations, and some players drafted earlier might not have gotten 100% due to injury or other concerns. Full guarantee obviously does not include getting placed on the commissioner's exempt list.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bert's picture

March 09, 2017 at 02:49 pm

I know the contract terms are important as they affect the future cap etc. but really the main goal is winning the SB ASAP. I could care less about what Perry's cap implications are in 2020. We really gotta focus on winning it all in 2017. As a fan, I really only care about winning this year and I'll let Ted or whoever worry about managing the salary cap. Retaining Perry is a necessary move to winning now.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
TommyG's picture

March 09, 2017 at 04:23 pm

If not perry then who? Especially at that price. Best case scenario is let him walk and bring in equal talent for less. The market just wasn't there and we paid the price this year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

March 09, 2017 at 04:49 pm

Gilmore to New England. I wish the Packers would have been in the mix for him.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

March 09, 2017 at 06:06 pm

Gilmore was absolutely roasted the first 9 games last season. However, he was much better after that and had an excellent 2015 season. Just not sure he's worth a $40 million guaranteed cap hit.

Bouye's also off the market at $26 million guaranteed from the Jags. The remaining FA CB's are pretty pedestrian.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
porupack's picture

March 10, 2017 at 05:04 am

Foxboro has no problem dishing out Top dollar and taking chance to getting top available talent. Paid $15 m for Gilmore, I believe. Smart team.
TT needs to pay top dollar for a Vet FA CB, and the whole defense will be immediately better. That's a good investment. Period. All the BS about 'don't overpay' is for whimpy investors, always whining about the past. Fast forward 3 years from now, $15 m a year will be modest.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

March 10, 2017 at 05:54 pm

Gilmore's contract actually averages $13 million a year, but that's irrelevant. The $40 million guaranteed is the important number.

"Don't overpay" is for smart investors (and teams). Any or all of CB's Adoree Jackson, Gareon Conley, and Jalen Tabor may be available at the Packers pick. Any of those guys could be as good as a $40 million Gilmore.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

March 09, 2017 at 05:34 pm

Perry has gotten better with age, especially in the playoffs. He knocked down the 3rd down pass forcing Dallas to kick a field goal. He has had really good QB pressure in the playoffs when it counts. Pass rushers get paid well, and a lot of teams would have paid Perry. He is in his prime and we got him, now keep producing. Now get the Cook deal done..........dammit!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tarynfor12's picture

March 09, 2017 at 06:35 pm

Only two teams approached Perry....Atl and Indy I believe. ...not too many took last year as a future standard from him.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

March 10, 2017 at 01:41 am

It will be fun to talk about Nick Perry's performance in 2017.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 10, 2017 at 08:23 am

Why? (No need to respond - I am pretty sure I know why.)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

March 10, 2017 at 07:49 pm

I'll respond.

I believe Nick Perry is a very good football player when he's healthy, based on how he performs when healthy.

I don't believe he has exhibited a propensity to a certain type of injury. I believe he has had some bad luck during his early career in terms of injury, and I don't believe that string of bad luck will continue.

I believe he is worth the contract he was paid, based on those two things.

I also think it will be fun to watch Taryn squirm and twist if Perry does play well, because she is seemingly more concerned with being "right" about a player than being objective.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 11, 2017 at 05:36 pm

That is a pretty good answer. I agree about Perry. I think he will play well. One would hope that if/when he does, Taryn will simply admit it. I've been wrong about players: I loved the Bradford pick, but had to eat internet crow about him. It isn't the end of the world to make such an admission.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Allan Murphy's picture

March 09, 2017 at 08:00 pm

Cook we need him.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Allan Murphy's picture

March 09, 2017 at 08:01 pm

Did Hyde singed with Buffalo ???

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

March 09, 2017 at 08:45 pm

Fortunately the guaranteed money on the Perry deal is not that high. I'm hoping that I am incorrect, but between his inconsistent play and his injuries I doubt if Perry will actually meet the expectations for his new contract. Need to get Cook done, hopefully for about $3-4 mil per. I think the Giants signed a TE today for $18 mil over 4 years with $8 mil guaranteed and the guy had only 9 receptions last season. Helps Cook but how and why do teams do that stuff? Ridiculous. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
97DevilD's picture

March 09, 2017 at 09:29 pm

You never know what the Green Bay Packers are going to do when free agency rolls around.

Seriously we "never know" what will happen? Well nothing will happen until Teddy comes back from vacation and someone tells him FA is happening

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Point-Packer's picture

March 09, 2017 at 09:59 pm

So the Packers have prioritized Don Barclay as well? Christ. Would not be in the league if not for his love affair with MM. Fire Ted Thompson. Now.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Point-Packer's picture

March 10, 2017 at 02:25 pm

If we lose Cook due to an unwillingness to pay him an additional 1.3 million next year, I'm going to blow a fuse. You can find Don Barclay in the seventh round of any draft. He's not worth a veteran roster spot. WTF is wrong with TT and MM? They are the only two people on the planet who think the guy is worth paying.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 10, 2017 at 09:43 am

John Simon went to the Colts for 3/$14M, $6M guaranteed (apparently all in yr. 1)...that was a steal.

+ 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.