Why not?

No. His play has decreased since his career high in 2014. The football reference Approximate Value is the lowest since his first 2 years in the league.
He got $3.5 mil last year. $7 + the two previous years. I suppose he will want around $5 mil and I can't see he would be worth it.

So tell me your thoughts. You said "Why not" so I assume you expect most fans to say no.

Gotta be wise with the remaining 10.8mm to spend. If cheap, why not?

Maybe they're confident in Biegel.

He got a 1 year 3.5 million deal last year and had a down year in part to injuries and he claims he's being picky with which team he selects... so he should be as cheap or cheaper than last year's deal.

And he struggled the year before when his Eagles team switch to the 4-3 defense and clearly he has played much better as a verstile 3-4 LB... instead of a guy rushing every single snap.

If the Packers should sign him, here has the reasons why.
~ In the last 7 years Barwin has missed two games
~ Pettine is going to be creative with his defensive front and for that reason needs verstile players and Barwin is at his best in a verstile role because he's a jack of all trades and king of none.
~ Because recently Everytime he leaves a team they look like Super Bowl contenders... he left the Eagles and they won a Super Bowl... he now left the Rams and they look stacked with that defense they created and with a bunch of young DBs, two 1st round picks and a talented DL and pass rush class coming the Packers could be in that spot next year if we grab and set the Bar-to-win

I’d take a look at him for depth purposes. Just depends on the money. Remember Aaron is holding the franchise hostage right now.

Perhaps he will sign for less than $3.5. I don't think so. We shall see. We will also see if his performance jumps back up or not. As I mentioned it has been on a decline since a high in 2014 so I don't see a big difference from last year. Injury or not.

If I am wrong I can live with it. It won't be the first time nor the last.

Most of your points are valid, but he would provide some badly needed depth. I have little faith in anyone not named Clay Mathews or Nick Perry, and I have little faith they will stay healthy. At this point in the season, there aren't going to be any superstars available, or at least rarely for reasonable money and little baggage. But a decent depth piece would be welcome, especially at such a critical position.

At this point in the off-season, Barwin can't ask for much money at all. I say bring him in... The Packers OLD depth is dangerously thin, especially with our starters both being made of glass.

According to the Ian Rappaport he signed a two-year deal worth up to $5 million with the Giants. Man for that money I am really disappointed we didn't bring him in.

http://www.nfl.com/news/...o-2year-deal-with-giants

Is he that much better than who we have, at this point?

Is he so much different from Ahmad Brooks last year? I'm fine with signing vets for depth when available I'm just not sure there's much left in the tank. I rather see Gilbert/Biegal get their shot at least they might still be in the league a couple years from now.

They must have supreme confidence in Biegel.

He had 5 sacks in 14 games. Our sack leader had 7.5. Maybe he has lost a step, but he is younger than Clay. I want the young guys to get reps as well, but when Clay or Nick get hurt I wouldn't mind a vet in the mix.

The Packers always seem to have more faith in unproven young players than I do. Unfortunately, my concerns often become a reality more often than not.

I know how you feel, but the difference is that you don't have $177.2 million to blow taking chances on marginal players.

Talent wise, no.

Availability wise, he's missed two games in the last 7 years. While Matthews has a recent broken nose and Nick Perry is one of two Packers in camp that didn't pass the physicals (Bulaga is the other, and both are on the PUP list).

Don't forget Clay will "pull a hammy" in a couple weeks once he gets tired of training camp.

Considering I have very little faith in anyone not named Perry or CM3 (and even that faith is tenuous at best), I think Barwin (or someone of his caliber) would absolutely offer more talent wise. I think all the other pass rushers on the Packers roster are just guys. I'd be surprised if any of them even end up average. Hope I'm wrong.

And you might be very correct about that. If you're correct then they should of signed him. But for some reason (gut, hope, something else) I have some a little hope in Biegel (and less-so in Gilbert) as they looked better than I thought they would last year. But Barwin is best being a jack of all trades and being used in multiple ways... and I think the same is true for Matthews and Biegel.

Also it depends on scheme. So far, it sounds like the Packers are running mostly a 3-3. Which I'm assuming means OLB line up close to the line and it has the standard 4-2 nickel look that almost all teams are running out of their nickel packages.

The 3-3 means more pressure on the DL and less pressure on the OLB, which might be great considering the fans think the Packers have DL depth and have concerns with lack of OLB depth. And Capers ran a sub-package to that had a 4-3 look. With Perry, Daniels, Clark and Lowry all on the DL and Matthews, Martinez and Ryan at LB. Only two changes are Wilkerson for Lowry and a nickel CB for one of the LBers.