Nick Perry not signed

[call_me_ishmael]

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.

It's not about the money, it's about the roster spot. Perry has a knack for either ending up on injured reserve, or the even worse not-quite-healthy-enough-to-be-effective-but-not-injured-enough-for-injured-reserve situation. I would be totally fine signing him after week 1 so they can cut him if he gets dinged up again.

[bobblehead]

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------------- .395 sacks and 2.63 tackles per game
P Smith - 64 games - 24.5 sacks - 168 tackles------------ .383 and 2.63
Z Smith - 58 games - 18.5 sacks - 119 tackles------------ .319 and 2.05

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.

Soooo....

[bobblehead]

It's not about the money, it's about the roster spot. Perry has a knack for either ending up on injured reserve, or the even worse not-quite-healthy-enough-to-be-effective-but-not-injured-enough-for-injured-reserve situation. I would be totally fine signing him after week 1 so they can cut him if he gets dinged up again.

But clearly he is as productive as the 2 guys we signed when he is on the field. and if he plays 5 games for 3 Mill he is a better value than either of them.

[bobblehead]

However all of this is a moot point cuz Perry will want to start and hope he "proves it" so he can get a payday again.

[call_me_ishmael]

But clearly he is as productive as the 2 guys we signed when he is on the field. and if he plays 5 games for 3 Mill he is a better value than either of them.

Sure, he's a better value for those 5 games but what about the wasted roster spot and short depth the other 11 games?

[pbmax]

Sure, he's a better value for those 5 games but what about the wasted roster spot and short depth the other 11 games?

Its only a wasted roster spot if you can't sign someone in October that you could have in August. Are there any replacement level OLB you really like out there?

[bobblehead]

Sure, he's a better value for those 5 games but what about the wasted roster spot and short depth the other 11 games?

Valid point. But I can gamble that he stays healthy with limited snaps. I'd rather have him than Gilbert.

[Patler]

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?

Two thoughts:

First, I don't think it would be essential for him to play STs. When the Packers had Matthews, Perry and Peppers, none played STs on any regular basis. Now the group could be Smith I, Smith II and Perry. There will be a couple TEs and RBs, 2 or 3 Wrs, CBs and safeties and 3, maybe 4 other LBs to pick from, along with the occasional O or D linemen that fill a spot. I think they could meet their needs without him.

Second, I have no reason to think Perry wouldn't play, if asked. In recent years I have often been surprised to see veterans who are prolonging their careers as backups also now playing STs. It makes sense. If their goal is to extend their careers even when no longer starting, why not do whatever it takes?

[Patler]

Just to be clear, I'm not really advocating signing him, nor not signing him. I don't much care either way. If they think they have a hole in their roster at OLB, he would be an interesting player to plug it. Cutting his snaps in half would limit the opportunities for injury, but, obviously any injury can come at any time. However, as a backup, if he misses a game or two here or there it doesn't impact your defense all that much. If he goes on IR, hopefully by that time there will be a younger player ready for more opportunities. If limiting his snaps allows him to play a full season, I think he could make a decent contribution.

Realistically, players don't often take such reductions in their role with the team for which they had prominent roles previously. Normally, they are released or their contracts expire and they go elsewhere. Probably a lot of reasons for that for both the player and the team.

[call_me_ishmael]

Its only a wasted roster spot if you can't sign someone in October that you could have in August. Are there any replacement level OLB you really like out there?

It's a wasted roster spot if he can't play and the rotation is short. The problem with Perry in my eyes is he's always hurt but seemingly always healthy enough to get a cast put on and keep playing, at least for a month or two before IR. During that time, he's ineffective. It's a real problem in my eyes.

[call_me_ishmael]

Valid point. But I can gamble that he stays healthy with limited snaps. I'd rather have him than Gilbert.

I would 100% be on board bringing him back in a limited role.

[pbmax]

It's a wasted roster spot if he can't play and the rotation is short. The problem with Perry in my eyes is he's always hurt but seemingly always healthy enough to get a cast put on and keep playing, at least for a month or two before IR. During that time, he's ineffective. It's a real problem in my eyes.

A. If he can't play and you are short, you cut or IR him. Its not a long term deal that hurts you with dead money.

B. He still put up those numbers, club on his hand or not.

I suspect Patler is right, they are carrying him and his dead cap weight on the books now ($11 mil). I doubt they want to be reminded of it since they washed their hands of him once.

[run pMc]

I think the cap hit plus the reduced salary/role would be tough for each. I'd be surprised if he's still unsigned by Week 1. He can still play at a decent level when healthy. Playing him in a rotation/limiting his snaps could keep him healthier and get the most out of him.
Would I take him over Fackrell? Only if he could stay healthy.

I think the odds of Perry's return are very low (< 10%), especially now that they drafted Gary to rotate in with the Smiths.

[texaspackerbacker]

Perry is not as good as what we had before this off-season much less what we have now. Fackrell and Gilbert both performed better than Nick Perry even when Perry was as close to healthy as he ever was. I wouldn't want him to take up a roster spot even if he would play for nothing.

[mraynrand]

Fackrell and Gilbert both performed better than Nick Perry even when Perry was as close to healthy as he ever was.

After that came out, did you wipe your anus?