No matter how the stats are calculated, we can all agree the Packers are known for giving UDFAs as good a shot – or better - of making their team as any in the league, can’t we? It has been mentioned by UDFAs as one of the reasons they sign with the Packers. Of course the chances of UDFAs making the team and significantly contributing are slim but why not do it? Particularly for a draft and develop team.
For the 90 man roster, certainly, why not? How else should a team accumulate that number of bodies? Maybe second year PS players or low draft choices from other teams who couldn't stick with their teams, or guys who were not on a roster last year or in the Arena league? The Packers did bring some of those guys too.
When it comes to the regular season roster, we end up at the same old argument. The Packers will be presumably entering the season with starting ILBs and their backups with a grand total of 1/2 season of NFL experience, and cover corners with something less at the position. While the starters at those positions will likely be draftees, not UDFAs, the alternative (signing a couple of free agents, the Packer's own or outsiders, as starters or rotational players) would increase the odds that a couple of UDFA's would roll off the bottom of the roster.
The "why nots" when we consider the 53 man roster are a few:
Filling out the bottom of the roster with a couple of UDFAs is cost effective and a calculated risk. Every week 8 players sit inactive. Paying a guy a million or two to not play has it's issues.
Boykin is a good case in point. He was a cheap UDFA player who proved serviceable as the #4 injury replacement. He'd topped out and was not going any further. So when it came time to pay him a $2+ mil restricted FA contract, the cost/benefit looked less favorable. Drafting a WR in the 3rd. round which pays close to the rookie minimum is a calculated risk that he (or one of the minimum pay incumbents) will yield serviceable performance, if required, at a lower cost.
Another team in a similar situation might have 1) paid the $2 million to a player similar to Boykin, maybe a free agent, as the #4 WR, 2) used the 3rd. rounder on an ILB, and 3) re-signed House to play cover corner, thereby leaning toward experience and pushing the the cap closer to the limit. At the same time, those particular moves might squeeze one or two UDFAs (rookie or otherwise) off the roster.
A second "why not" is the fact that the players choose you, you didn't choose them in the draft, while the pay difference between competing offers might be a matter of a couple thousand dollars in signing bonus. They
want to play for you. That can go a long way in getting on the development track, and enough to differentiate them from a 6th. or 7th. round pick.
Personally, given the Packers current situation, I don't have much of a problem with this approach. Signs point to 2016 as
the year providing the OLB position doesn't turn into another FS or ILB Achilles heel as in past seasons. Nearly the entire offense is signed through 2016; the key rookies at key positions this season (we know there will likely be a few) will have a year under their belts. Then, after 2016, there will be quite a few starters turning free agents, which argues for cap conservation in the year-to-year rollover process.
If all goes swimmingly, perhaps 2015 will be
the year, if the rookies prove up. By the time the playoffs roll around, the rookies will be half way to veteran status. I expect early season bumps.
