Nick Perry signs 1 year deal

GBP4EVER

GBP4EVER

Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member
Messages
19,132
Reaction score
6,775
Being reported that Perry signs one year deal for $5 million. This makes zero sense. Perry is always hurt not a good fit as a 3-4 LB and not worth $5 million. Guess Ted just can't accept that Perry has pretty much been a bust for GB.
 
They need what about 5-6 to sign draft picks so means down to 7-8 million. Ted always likes to carry cash over into next year so Think it does shut the door on Neal, Raji, and Hayward
 
Last edited:
DenverPackFan said:
I figured that they would sign at least one of Perry and Neal.
Click to expand...

To me I think we overpaid esp if what i saw in the shout is true if that Perry can even earn incentives above this 5 million. Would have thought a couple million a year and incentives in it would have been a fair offer for Perry.
 
Was a good signing. Perry has played well the last 2 years and made a difference. Not overpaid either. He has even been more available to. Im guessing this means Neal hits the road.
 
It seemed like Perry played better the second half of the season. He is more stout against the run than Neal. Maybe Capers just started using him for what he is and he seemed to respond. Now he's got a one year 'prove it' contract.
 
Scoremore12 said:
Was a good signing. Perry has played well the last 2 years and made a difference. Not overpaid either. He has even been more available to. Im guessing this means Neal hits the road.
Click to expand...
Market value maybe. Overpaid yes but low risk. Difference maker no. Ok in spurts. A scours take.......
Nick Perry, outside linebacker: "Well, he got better. If you've got some cap room you've got a player on the come. But he still hasn't proven he can be that special guy, I guess. Hasn't lived up to his draft billing. I thought he was a 4-3 DE coming out but they took him. I don't know what they thought they had when they got him. He plays in flashes. He just hasn't done anything consistently to this point. Obviously, injuries have come into play in that whole equation, too. I'd pick Perry over Neal because he seems like he's starting to improve. At the end of the year he looked like he was improving."..."He's got a little pass rush in him. He may have a little better market than Neal. He's a guy you waited on to do more. When is he coming? He never played up to what we thought he was going to do. He's straight line."..."I think he's a 3-4 outside backer. Low-level starter or rotational-contributor type money."
 
I like it!

1) We had only next to zero depth at OLB before he signed. Would've been a big risk at premium position. I think we still draft one, but don't have to force him into action - maybe a "high ceiling but raw" -type.
2) Perry, even when fighting through injuries, has been by far our best run D OLB. Need one of those.
3) He's 25 and just entering his prime years.
4) I like the prove-it deal for him - Should get his best effort.
5) Neal is mediocre at best. Perry has way higher upside.

5M is a bit much, but OLBs tend to make a bit much. Heck, Eric Walden got 4M avg... Perry would have cost $7.75, had we exercised his 5th year option of his rookie deal last year.
 
According to FC, Perry was a better player than Neal. Part of the decision to re-sign him might have been the way he stepped it up in the playoffs. He seen to flash during them.
 
I'd love to see what Perry can do if he is healthy. Like others have said, he seemed to improve somewhat toward the end of the year. Could be that he is just taking a looooong time to switch from DE to OLB.

Glad to see that they kept him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top