I really don't understand why people keep comparing a one year band-aid contract to a multi-year contract. That's an apples and oranges comparison. The Packers have a LOT of players to resign next season when Perry's one year contract will long be an issue. Trevathan's would be. Different implications.
I'm not saying the Packers made the right decision by not signing Trevathan, but using Perry's one year deal as any justification is just silly. If one wants to complain about anything, complain about Julius Pepper's salary. Cut him and there should be enough flexibility to add a player like Trevathan. But it would still likely result in some issues in 2017.
Either way, I think Trevathan isn't as good as he appears when not on a loaded Denver defense, but he is clearly better than what the Packers have otherwise. That's fair enough.
Originally Posted by: DoddPower
I agree to a certain extent. The thing is, Perry most likely won't bring anything to the table this year, either. He's just not that good (in a 3-4). We could've invested that in someone like McClain, who would've been a better band-aid at a position we needed it more.
And then Trevathan himself is a young guy who, currently, looks like a bargain.
Who do we resign who has the same potential impact as Tevathan potentially has? I mean, we signed a guy like Bulaga to a 5 year, $34 million contract. That makes him the 2nd highest paid RT on average. Contracts like that are hurting us a lot more than giving a FA ILB a 4 year, $24,5 contract. Especially since he signed a deal which allows the Bears to pretty safely cut him after the first two years.
Add to that that Peppers' $10 million cap hit will be gone next year (which I agree with you, is way too much for this year), the cap will rise by about $10 million, Sitton and Lang will have a lower cap hit with the way our FO likes to backload contracts, Lacy won't be as expensive as first thought if he keeps his work ethic up.... If we WANTED him, we could've gotten him easily.