So is it financially more lucrative to be a in-high-demand UDFA or a seventh round draft pick?Originally Posted by Bretsky
So is it financially more lucrative to be a in-high-demand UDFA or a seventh round draft pick?
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
A high demand UDFA can make a lot more.
Anyone know the rules on the length of team control for UDFA's?
It changed a few years ago. I think you can designate one player who cannot get taken no matter what and a couple of “veterans” that have some type of limited protection.
Other than that, I think any team can sign a practice squad player to their active roster.
But Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim Harmston
Yeah, the signing bonuses plus guaranteed money can be better. Ben Sims got more money from the Vikings as a UDFA (110000) than Carrington Valentine did (~100800) as a GB R7 pick. It's been happening over the last 3 drafts or so, the UDFAs getting as much or more along with control over where they can sign. Theory is it's one reason Gb likes those R7 picks - they have better cost control over the player's contract in many cases.
Thanks guys. It looks like UDFA's have team control for 4 years, much like round 2-7 picks - as long as the team extends qualifying offers, and the player makes the roster.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote