Did we pay too much for Perry last year ? Also do we sign Matthews after next year considering he's a FA?

[MacReady]

1 hour ago, ricky said:

Now, as far as CMIII, definitely, if possible, extend him and reduce his cap hit. But let him go? DC's still have to game plan against him. He is versatile enough to move around the defense, and though his sack numbers have declined, the number of times he's literally a split second late in getting to the QB is amazing. He still has the ability to change a game, and the Packers have too few of those guys to lose one because "he's making too much money." 

You're my new favorite. 

[ricky]

2 hours ago, Golfman said:

By the way, Ricky good to see you over here! 

You say that now... just wait! LOL

[Joe]

We paid too much for Perry, but had we not done so, not drafting TJ Watt would've been an even bigger debate.

We need a reliable pass rush that is not injury prone. Our guys are injury prone, period.

[Deekster37]

8 hours ago, squire12 said:

@Deekster37

Can you elaborate on what the Edge group would be if Perry was let go in FA last offseason? 

Yeah I think if you had to start someone day one i would've used Fackrell but I would have gone into the draft looking for his replacement I go pick for pick every year just like a real live mock draft and I grabbed  Carl Lawson who I was high on last year to plug and play they got biegel but got hurt so that didn't help..... now is Perry a better player than Fackrell.........ummm yeah...my point was we invested in Perry and I don't like that jmo so  to be clear I would've let Perry walk attacked the draft for his replacement and had Fackrell start week 1.  

[Deekster37]

38 minutes ago, Joe said:

We paid too much for Perry, but had we not done so, not drafting TJ Watt would've been an even bigger debate.

We need a reliable pass rush that is not injury prone. Our guys are injury prone, period.

Sounds about right to me

[squire12]

5 minutes ago, Deekster37 said:

Yeah I think if you had to start someone day one i would've used Fackrell but I would have gone into the draft looking for his replacement I go pick for pick every year just like a real live mock draft and I grabbed  Carl Lawson who I was high on last year to plug and play they got biegel but got hurt so that didn't help..... now is Perry a better player than Fackrell.........ummm yeah...my point was we invested in Perry and I don't like that jmo so  to be clear I would've let Perry walk attacked the draft for his replacement and had Fackrell start week 1.  

Thanks for elaborating.  

That seems to be a scary set up with Matthews and Fackrell as your top 2 EDGE rushers and Lawson/Biegel as your #3.  I am assuming you would have done something with the $$ you would have saved on Perry.  Any info on what you would have done with the $6M in 2017 cap hit that Perry had?

[Striker]

Considering his production the year prior and the options available, no. Edge rushers are hard to find, and even the above average-good ones will be "overpaid".

[Leader]

10 hours ago, ricky said:

You say that now... just wait! LOL

Now, now....dont you two start up again

[MacReady]

9 hours ago, Joe said:

We paid too much for Perry, but had we not done so, not drafting TJ Watt would've been an even bigger debate.

We need a reliable pass rush that is not injury prone. Our guys are injury prone, period.

I think it's highly probable that if we hadn't re-signed Perry, we would have drafted Watt. 

[SSG]

16 hours ago, Golfman said:

No we did not pay Nick Perry too much given the year he had. You don't find guys who can put up double digit sacks and you sure don't let them walk. No we don't sign Matthews to a new contract unless he gets extended this year with reduced cap number for 2018 and 2019. Otherwise, adios! 

To be fair, Eric Walden had exactly that same year in 2016.  Like Perry's 2016 season, his season was substantially better than anything he's ever shown as a pro.  Giving players huge long term deals for one quality season of production is very very dangerous IMO.

I personally feel that Nick Perry is probably over paid given his NFL career as a pass rusher which borders on bad or terrible given his years of play.  Saying that though we didn't have much of  choice given the garbage heap we had at OLB.  He had to be extended even if that meant they are paying a guy a premium despite him looking like  a legit starting caliber NFL OLB in just one of his 5 NFL seasons.  IMO this last year he looked more like the player we seen prior to the contract year (Lack of consistency.  A lot of sacks in spurts with long periods of time where he was ineffective), hopefully we see 53 become more consistent as a pass rusher. 

 

This is a big year for Perry.  He starts earning substantially more money after this year and he can be cut with very little negative effect on the salary cap. 

 

[SSG]

11 hours ago, Joe said:

We paid too much for Perry, but had we not done so, not drafting TJ Watt would've been an even bigger debate.

We need a reliable pass rush that is not injury prone. Our guys are injury prone, period.

Had Perry not been extended I don't think you'd have seen us virtually ignore the OLB position like we did last year.  IMO, you'd have seen a substantially bigger investment into the position group.

 

[SSG]

IMO extending CM3 past his current contract is going to be solely based on the production we get from any kids we draft and the guys we have on the roster.  If he's again our best pass rusher and we get very little production from the rest of the OLB group then I think we'll be backed into the same corner we were when Perry's 5th year contract ran out.