For better or worse once a good player reaches free agency it's almost always going to require overpaying them. A team is generally going to get a B-tiered player for an A-tiered contract.
The Packers would have been a worse team without Perry. His best asset is his run defense. He disappears as a pass rusher pretty often, like everyone player on the Packers defense. People would be hating on Aaron Rodgers for getting a new deal despite not playing great all of the time, but most don't seem that upset about a similar situation for Perry relative to the difference in costs for the positions. The bottom line is the market speaks for good players because there are so few who even have the potential to be very good to great, and even fewer with the potential to be great consistently for stretches.
Originally Posted by: DoddPower