Nick Perry

[FrankRizzo]

Nick Perry has been a Packer for now about 1 2/3 of a season, and he's been hurt for half of it, if not more.

I've liked what I've seen from him when he gets playing, into a groove, and I admit I was happy to get him after we took him, just like Datone Jones.

But is this guy going to be too brittle like Justin Harrell was, and Mike Neal for 2 years?

Neal plays pretty good when he's out there now.
What are we going to get from Perry when all is said & done?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Is he going to go down as another 1st round injury-bust like Jamal Reynolds?
Or will he recover and become what Teddy Ballgame expected him to be, albeit later than desired?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Some in here think I just take shots at TT. But I never second-guessed this pick. I did Mike Neal, because I think he took Neal 2 or 3 or 4 rounds too soon.
But I also did with James Jones, who I now love.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[lambeaulambo]

He is just a guy, and that is it.

 

[Bensalama21]

But is this guy going to be too brittle like Justin Harrell was

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Don't EVER put Justin Harrell and ANY PACKER PLAYER, current or present in the same thread, let alone the same sentence!! Pure evil!

 

[Dieseljunkie12]

stole this idea from a responder at packers.com but you will all get the idea....
nick perry stats for his first two years
12 games 29 total tackles 5 sacks 2 forced fumbles 0 interceptions

player B) 32 games 161 total tackles 4.5 sacks 2 forced fumbles 3 interceptions

any guesses who player B is? i will give you all a hint, hes the player for some reason everyone loves to hate. how about we insert perry into the name drop of "biggest bust" and "why is he even around."

 

[Packerlifer]

Like Clay Matthews, Perry was an undersized de at USC so the Packers thought they could catch lightning in a bottle once again by drafting him and moving him to 3-4 olb. Even when healthy, though, he's never been and likely never will be another Claymaker.

It's been one of the signal failures of the Packers since switching to the 3-4 to land a true 3-4 olb and safety to make the thing really work. Remember the attempt to turn a Pro Bowl de Aaron Kampman into an outside linebacker in 2009? They got away with it in 2010 with Walden and Zombo playing above their heads but that facade was soon exposed in 2011.

I think Perry could have a future as a rush end, across from Daniel, in the subpackage but the Packers have to find a first round talent who's a true 3-4 olb in next year's draft or free agency.

 

[bozz_2006]

i like perry, but not sure we'll see him at his best, unless we make a change to 4-3. our horses are built for 4-3, with the exception of clay matthews.... though i'm sure they'd find a spot for him.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

i like perry, but not sure we'll see him at his best, unless we make a change to 4-3. our horses are built for 4-3, with the exception of clay matthews.... though i'm sure they'd find a spot for him.

I don't agree with this at all. Why would you play your best player out of position to accommodate lesser players? Also, the Packers don't have linebackers to play 4-3. If you play CM3 at OLB you take away his best skill, rushing the passer. If you play CM3 at DE, he'll get destroyed in the run game.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I had high hopes for Perry (still do, but obviously being tested at this point) helping our pass rush. Football Outsiders rated him as the best pass rusher coming out of that draft. Unfortunately I am beginning to believe that he's just one of those guys that can't stay healthy. He's missed more games than he's played and it's stunting his development. He still hasn't developed any real pass rush moves and he's almost done with his second season (we won't even talk about coverage).

 

[bozz_2006]

I don't agree with this at all. Why would you play your best player out of position to accommodate lesser players? Also, the Packers don't have linebackers to play 4-3. If you play CM3 at OLB you take away his best skill, rushing the passer. If you play CM3 at DE, he'll get destroyed in the run game.

You'll notice I absolutely did NOT say I think we should do any of the things you're disagreeing with me over.

 

[TJV]

We don’t know what Perry can become until he gets and stays healthy for an extended period of time. We, or at least I, have seen him display the potential he was drafted for; IMO he just needs to get and stay healthy. And if he does I think there’s a very good chance he’ll gain consistency that’s been difficult for him to attain so far. However, anyone expecting him to be another Clay Matthews was destined to be disappointed from the start. While Clay is perfect for the WSLB spot in the base D, Perry was drafted to be the SSLB. In that spot he has more responsibility vs. the run and should be more of a power player.

As for the safety spot, let’s not forget that Nick Collins and, since 2010, Morgan Burnett (acquired after the switch to the 3-4) were meant to be starting in the current defense. And that duo would have been plenty good enough so that we wouldn’t be mentioning the position as a need had it not been for one of the most freakish injuries I’ve ever seen. But since Collins’ career ending injury, safety has been, and remains a need. And switching to a 4-3 wouldn’t cure that need: It would be a need in any defensive scheme.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

You'll notice I absolutely did NOT say I think we should do any of the things you're disagreeing with me over.

"our horses are built for 4-3, with the exception of clay matthews.... though i'm sure they'd find a spot for him."

I guess so

 

[Ogsponge]

stole this idea from a responder at packers.com but you will all get the idea....
nick perry stats for his first two years
12 games 29 total tackles 5 sacks 2 forced fumbles 0 interceptions

player B) 32 games 161 total tackles 4.5 sacks 2 forced fumbles 3 interceptions

any guesses who player B is? i will give you all a hint, hes the player for some reason everyone loves to hate. how about we insert perry into the name drop of "biggest bust" and "why is he even around."

Gotta be AJ

 

[bozz_2006]

"our horses are built for 4-3, with the exception of clay matthews.... though i'm sure they'd find a spot for him."

I guess so

the big fellas are 4-3 guys. raji is no 3-4 nose guard. Datone Jones, CJ Wilson, Mike Neal, Johnny Jolly are 4-3 DTs, Jones and Neal DE in obvious run scenarios when we need an edge seal. Nick Perry is a 4-3 DE. Hawk and Latimore are weak side ILBs. Jones is a strong side ILB. We need to keep our greatest weapon in a position to continue being our greatest weapon. But the rest of these Hosses are built for 4-3. Square peg, round hole. But the one round peg we have is THE CENTRAL round peg.

 

[PFanCan]

the big fellas are 4-3 guys. raji is no 3-4 nose guard. Datone Jones, CJ Wilson, Mike Neal, Johnny Jolly are 4-3 DTs, Jones and Neal DE in obvious run scenarios when we need an edge seal. Nick Perry is a 4-3 DE. Hawk and Latimore are weak side ILBs. Jones is a strong side ILB. We need to keep our greatest weapon in a position to continue being our greatest weapon. But the rest of these Hosses are built for 4-3. Square peg, round hole. But the one round peg we have is THE CENTRAL round peg.

Ok, then maybe trade away that one round peg and get a star safety, etc.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

the big fellas are 4-3 guys. raji is no 3-4 nose guard. Datone Jones, CJ Wilson, Mike Neal, Johnny Jolly are 4-3 DTs, Jones and Neal DE in obvious run scenarios when we need an edge seal. Nick Perry is a 4-3 DE. Hawk and Latimore are weak side ILBs. Jones is a strong side ILB. We need to keep our greatest weapon in a position to continue being our greatest weapon. But the rest of these Hosses are built for 4-3. Square peg, round hole. But the one round peg we have is THE CENTRAL round peg.

I think a lot of the problem is that colleges don't play 3-4 defenses so you "technically" have to fit a square peg into a round hole. Even some of the best 3-4 players in the NFL played other positions in college. Guys like Clay Matthews, Aldon Smith, JJ Watt, Haloti Ngata, DeMarcus Ware, ect. never played their pro position in college. You draft players like Datone Jones, Mike Neal and Jerel Worthy because they are "tweeners" who fit better in 3-4 than 4-3. It's almost like drafting offensive linemen. You draft an athlete and teach him to play the position.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

Ok, then maybe trade away that one round peg and get a star safety, etc.

That's a horrible idea. You don't just trade one of the five best defensive players in the league.

 

[13 Times Champs]

Scouting report on Perry coming out of college was too short at 6-3 and not big enough at 250 lbs. to be a 4-3 DE in the pros. I don't see him as a 4-3 DE and I don't see him as a 3-4 LB. Too small in one case and not enough range and lateral movement in the other. He's a situational player imo.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Scouting report on Perry coming out of college was too short at 6-3 and not big enough at 250 lbs. to be a 4-3 DE in the pros. I don't see him as a 4-3 DE and I don't see him as a 3-4 LB. Too small in one case and not enough range and lateral movement in the other. He's a situational player imo.

Perry put on 15 -20 lbs. between the college season and the Combine. No mean feat. He weighed in at the Combine at 271. He might as well have had a tatoo on his forehead saying "Make me a DE". Ted didn't care. He should have.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Or will he recover and become what Teddy Ballgame expected him to be...."

Applying Ted Williams' nickname to Thompson is sports blasphemy.

 

[FrankRizzo]

Perry put on 15 -20 lbs. between the college season and the Combine. No mean feat. He weighed in at the Combine at 271. He might as well have had a tatoo on his forehead saying "Make me a DE". Ted didn't care. He should have.

I remember that well too.
I remember watching a interview, pre-draft or pre-combine, of Perry and he himself answered the position question by saying he preferred the 4-3 DE position.
I remember thinking "Wow, usually they answer that by saying 'whatever teams drafts me and wants me to do, I'm fine with it'.... but no Nick said he preferred the 4-3 DE and felt that was his natural position.

But I still changed my mind and deferred to Thompson, because like some guys in here tell me the coaches and GM always know best.

I also like the power that Nick has.

I just don't understand how a strong guy who weighs 250+ pounds can be so brittle.
His injuries weren't like Randall Cobb or Jermichael Finley or Derek Sherrod.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I remember that well too.
I remember watching a interview, pre-draft or pre-combine, of Perry and he himself answered the position question by saying he preferred the 4-3 DE position.
I remember thinking "Wow, usually they answer that by saying 'whatever teams drafts me and wants me to do, I'm fine with it'.... but no Nick said he preferred the 4-3 DE and felt that was his natural position.

But I still changed my mind and deferred to Thompson, because like some guys in here tell me the coaches and GM always know best.

I also like the power that Nick has.

I just don't understand how a strong guy who weighs 250+ pounds can be so brittle.
His injuries weren't like Randall Cobb or Jermichael Finley or Derek Sherrod.

I too recall Perry's stated pre-draft preference. That, together with the weight gain, was a neon sign flashing "don't take me".

I did not defer to TT on Perry and was very surprised when he picked him. I did not defer to him on Datone Jones either, the latter being too light for 3-4 play.

Perry has made some plays with the bull rush, but that can take you only so far. He looks as one-dimensional in the pass rush in his most recent play as he did when he was rookie. Unless he develops some other moves, teams will handle him, especially the division opponents who play him twice a year.

Will Jones add weight and strength without losing speed and agility to be a 3-down player in 3-4 a la Cullen Jenkins? That's a 15 lb. weight gain off of his Combine number. We'll see, but I would have expected a guy closer to a finished product with a 1st. round pick. Two years from now, will we be seeing him drop weight and moved to LB like Mike Neal? There are question marks here.

Perry and Jones are the DE's of the future...if we were to go to a 4-3.

I liked the Bulaga pick. I liked the Sherrod pick. As for the latter, I liked how he was progressing but we'll have to wait and see if he can still dance.

 

[TJV]

IMO it’s not the scheme that’s the problem in Green Bay. It’s a combination of coaching, talent, and injuries. I do think it’s time for Capers to be replaced, but more because he’s worn out his welcome than because of his 3-4 scheme. (He has worn out his welcome before.)

According to the defensive scoring stats on the NFL website, of the top 5 defenses this season, 3 use a base 3-4 scheme and 2 use the 4-3. Of the top 10, it’s 6-4 in favor of the 3-4. That tells me either scheme can be effective.

Here are two examples this season of switching from one scheme to another: The Cowboys hired Monte Kiffin and went from the 3-4 to the 4-3 while the Saints hired Dallas’ fired DC, Rob Ryan, and went the other way. Last year the Cowboys were 24th in the league in scoring D and they are currently 25th so far this season. The Saints finished 31st in scoring D last year and are currently 5th in the league. One article noted that while Ryan’s base D is a 3-4, he uses a 3-3-5 more than 80% of the time (does that sound a little familiar – like the Packers using a 2-4-5 most of the time?). Of course there are factors other than scheme that have gone into the results of these changes and extenuating circumstances like injuries and the quality of the offense for a lot of other teams. And that’s my point: Switching from a 3-4 to a 4-3 would not be a cure all for the Packers.

BTW, I don’t know how many major colleges run the 3-4 but I do know of one, the Wisconsin Badgers. And the switch to the 3-4 has been very successful under DC Dave Aranda (he was one of the college DCs Capers and the Packers D staff talked to about defensing the read option).

 

[HardRightEdge]

IMO it’s not the scheme that’s the problem in Green Bay. It’s a combination of coaching, talent, and injuries. I do think it’s time for Capers to be replaced, but more because he’s worn out his welcome than because of his 3-4 scheme. (He has worn out his welcome before.)

According to the defensive scoring stats on the NFL website, of the top 5 defenses this season, 3 use a base 3-4 scheme and 2 use the 4-3. Of the top 10, it’s 6-4 in favor of the 3-4. That tells me either scheme can be effective.

Here are two examples this season of switching from one scheme to another: The Cowboys hired Monte Kiffin and went from the 3-4 to the 4-3 while the Saints hired Dallas’ fired DC, Rob Ryan, and went the other way. Last year the Cowboys were 24th in the league in scoring D and they are currently 25th so far this season. The Saints finished 31st in scoring D last year and are currently 5th in the league. One article noted that while Ryan’s base D is a 3-4, he uses a 3-3-5 more than 80% of the time (does that sound a little familiar – like the Packers using a 2-4-5 most of the time?). Of course there are factors other than scheme that have gone into the results of these changes and extenuating circumstances like injuries and the quality of the offense for a lot of other teams. And that’s my point: Switching from a 3-4 to a 4-3 would not be a cure all for the Packers.

BTW, I don’t know how many major colleges run the 3-4 but I do know of one, the Wisconsin Badgers. And the switch to the 3-4 has been very successful under DC Dave Aranda (he was one of the college DCs Capers and the Packers D staff talked to about defensing the read option).

You omitted a notable factor in the Saints' turnaround...putting the bounty scandal behind them.

I have no problem with the 3-4 except for the fact that Matthews and Pickett are the only players ideally suited for it...and Pickett may be a short timer.

 

[FrankRizzo]

You omitted a notable factor in the Saints' turnaround...putting the bounty scandal behind them.

I have no problem with the 3-4 except for the fact that Matthews and Pickett are the only players ideally suited for it...and Pickett may be a short timer.

Here's what is interesting in what you say there:
Dom Capers has been here since what, after the 2008 season?
Teddy has been drafting FOR the 3-4 since then.

Does he know more than you do about what players are ideally suited for?
Is he making mistakes for the scheme, regarding guys like Datone, Nick Perry, Jerel Worthy, Mike Daniels, CJ Wilson, Jarius Wynn, Terrell Manning (whom he traded up for 2-3 drafts ago), etc.?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Here's what is interesting in what you say there:
Dom Capers has been here since what, after the 2008 season?
Teddy has been drafting FOR the 3-4 since then.

Does he know more than you do about what players are ideally suited for?
Is he making mistakes for the scheme, regarding guys like Datone, Nick Perry, Jerel Worthy, Mike Daniels, CJ Wilson, Jarius Wynn, Terrell Manning (whom he traded up for 2-3 drafts ago), etc.?

You tell me. By their own admission they've rethought what a 3-4 DE should look like. Everybody else in the league running a 3-4 has has been looking for, and in many cases finding, guys on the athletic side with length. The Packers just discovered that, and in keeping with that discovery drafted Jones. Wilson's a one-dimensional base-only player bumped out of job by Jolly and at this point falls in with Wynn and Manning as "just guys". Jones, Perry and Worthy are 4-3 players. Daniels is a good nickel inside man for us, but as a 3 down player would be better suited to the 4-3...he's too small for NT and too short for weak side DE.