Nick Perry not signed

[Guiness]

Nick Perry is still out there unsigned. Do the Pack have no interest in him at all? I wonder if they would consider bringing him back as a rotational/backup player?

He obviously didn’t draw much interest on the FA market, and I can’t see his price being much over $2-3million with little or no signing bonus. They thought highly enough of him to give him a big contract not so long ago.

[Tony Oday]

All sorts of nope. Waste of a roster spot.

[pbmax]

Depends on price. No reason he couldn't rotate in. Might help keep him healthy.

[MadScientist]

There's a reason he hasn't signed. At this point he'll probably wait to see what team has enough injuries to sign him. Peri is injured too much and just isn't good enough to waste a roster spot right now.

[ThunderDan]

Depends on price. No reason he couldn't rotate in. Might help keep him healthy.

My thoughts exactly. For the right price we should be willing to look at anyone not signed yet.

[Vincenzo]

Why Ted signed NP to a lucrative deal is beyond me. He showed so little prior to his signing.
Pure lazy POS.

[gbgary]

All sorts of nope. Waste of a roster spot.

agree. he'd just get hurt again.

[gbgary]

Why Ted signed NP to a lucrative deal is beyond me. He showed so little prior to his signing.
Pure lazy POS.

he developed, had a good contract year. he thought he'd arrived. hind-sight says it was a bad idea but at the time it seemed right. didnt' work out. hurt too much...not lazy.

[red]

Packers have given him enough money for nothing already

[pbmax]

Why Ted signed NP to a lucrative deal is beyond me. He showed so little prior to his signing.
Pure lazy POS.

You apparently have never seen him do the dirty work of holding the edge against the run versus a pro tackle. He's was/is unmovable at the edge.

[Patler]

Perry is a good football player, he just doesn't play often enough. Nothing at all lazy about the way he plays. His stats per game played really are not bad, his games played per year are bad. I think an argument can be made that his numerous hand, wrist and arm injuries may have come from the violent way he attacks blockers. He always seems to have a cast of some sort on one arm.

N. Perry - 81 games - 32 sacks - 213 tackles
P Smith - 64 games - 24.5 sacks - 168 tackles
Z Smith - 58 games - 18.5 sacks - 119 tackles

The problem is that Perry's stats came over seven seasons, the Smith's just four seasons. Perry's best years were the season before and the season after signing his last contract, so you can't really argue he let down after signing the deal. The guy just can't stay on the field, and you can't build a defense expecting him to be a starter. But, at a reasonable price he could add value as an experienced, physical backup to spell your starters.

Oft-injured players make for tough decisions. You never know when they might turn things around, or how long his health will last. In the three years before his contract, Perry missed a total of five games. In the two years after, he missed 11 games. I can't blame GB for their decision to sign him in 2017, especially when you consider:

Casey Hayward seemed to have a chronic hamstring problem that stole his quickness, but he hasn't missed a game and has played very well in three seasons for the Chargers.

JC Tretter played in 0, 8, 16 and 7 games in his four seasons in GB, but now hasn't missed a game in two seasons for Cleveland.

Difficult to know what direction a player's health will go.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Exactly. Nothing lazy about the way Perry plays the game.

[call_me_ishmael]

Perry is a good football player, he just doesn't play often enough. Nothing at all lazy about the way he plays. His stats per game played really are not bad, his games played per year are bad. I think an argument can be made that his numerous hand, wrist and arm injuries may have come from the violent way he attacks blockers. He always seems to have a cast of some sort on one arm.

N. Perry - 81 games - 32 sacks - 213 tackles
P Smith - 64 games - 24.5 sacks - 168 tackles
Z Smith - 58 games - 18.5 sacks - 119 tackles

The problem is that Perry's stats came over seven seasons, the Smith's just four seasons. Perry's best years were the season before and the season after signing his last contract, so you can't really argue he let down after signing the deal. The guy just can't stay on the field, and you can't build a defense expecting him to be a starter. But, at a reasonable price he could add value as an experienced, physical backup to spell your starters.

Oft-injured players make for tough decisions. You never know when they might turn things around, or how long his health will last. In the three years before his contract, Perry missed a total of five games. In the two years after, he missed 11 games. I can't blame GB for their decision to sign him in 2017, especially when you consider:

Casey Hayward seemed to have a chronic hamstring problem that stole his quickness, but he hasn't missed a game and has played very well in three seasons for the Chargers.

JC Tretter played in 0, 8, 16 and 7 games in his four seasons in GB, but now hasn't missed a game in two seasons for Cleveland.

Difficult to know what direction a player's health will go.

Great post.

[Fritz]

Part of the problem is that you expect your backup linebackers to play special teams, I think. So is Perry willing to do that? He'd be a great rotational guy, play him on obvious run downs, maybe keep him healthy by keeping snaps down, but if he doesn't add value on special teams, can they really afford to carry a specialist, part-time guy?

[bobblehead]

Clearly Pb and Patler didn't get the message. Stats and game film be damned, Perry was often hurt, therefore lazy and didn't do shit when on the field. Waste of money to pay $3 million for a guy who is as productive as the Smiths when he is on the field.