Packers 2026 Offseason

[endaround]

13 minutes ago, homer said:

Id prefer Richardson's upside. But you have to trade for him so not sure Id want to give up much to get him.

Richardson has an upside but he's even more raw than when Willis got here. If there is one thing about Love, its that he tends to miss time so you need a guy you fell OK with for 2-3 games a year.

Doubt Richardson is going to cost more than a 6th/7th.

[adambr2]

8 hours ago, SeaBass said:

The big caveat about these grades is the survey occurred before the 5 game losing streak. Even so, not really looking that deep into it. I really think a grade system isn't a great barometer unless you're getting Ds and Fs. A C grade can be a concerning blip but it's not completely awful either.

Its literally what the Packers players’ private opinions of Matt Lafleur were *before* the 5 game losing streak, so it’s not great.

[adambr2]

I like Richardson the most, but one year is probably not going to be enough to turn him around much, and if it is, he’ll be gone anyway. 

Ridder is probably the leading candidate, but I don’t feel great about that. The veteran stopgap backup market would include Joe Flacco and Russell Wilson.

[CheezWizHed]

I wonder if we can get Levis from the Titans for a 7th round pick?  Then we could get Cam Ward in a couple of years.  Keep refurbishing their failed QBs... 😉

 

[Fear The Chorizo]

Not directly Packers but definitely Packers-related....sounds like starting Bears center and Pro Bowler Drew Dalman is retiring at 27.  He must really not want to play home games in Hammond, lol.  The downside for Packer fans is we have seen the last of his rocket snaps over Williams' head

That leaves a cavernous hole in their interior line, and along with them missing Trapilo most if not all of next year after he blew his knee out in the playoffs, suddenly what was an assumed strength of that roster for next season isn't.

 

[JosephC]

Dalman's contract was not like most other NFL contracts.  It was a 42 million dollar deal, but only had a 6 million dollar signing bonus.  The base salary, roster bonuses and workout bonuses were the same every year.  Each year had a 14 million dollar cap number.  It sure looks like he made the Bears aware that he could retire at any time and the contract was structured in a way that made it pretty easy for the Bears if he did.  According to overhecap, the Bears will get hit with a 4 million dollar cap charge for the remaining pro-rated signing bonus, and if Dalman pays them that money back, it will get carried over to 2027 and give them an extra 4 million in cap room. 

It's just too bad it puts another team in the market for a center.

[SeaBass]

On 3/2/2026 at 8:28 PM, adambr2 said:

Its literally what the Packers players’ private opinions of Matt Lafleur were *before* the 5 game losing streak, so it’s not great.

B's are not bad grades. Sorry. If there were some breakdown of criteria that showed more context then there could be some debate. So fans are just left with the things we already see every week which are already things that get talked about.

[adambr2]

31 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

B's are not bad grades. Sorry. If there were some breakdown of criteria that showed more context then there could be some debate. So fans are just left with the things we already see every week which are already things that get talked about.

Perhaps a B minus doesn’t look like a bad grade on the surface. 

Until you look at your peers and see that only 6 of them got worse grades and 4 of those got fired.

[SeaBass]

7 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

Perhaps a B minus doesn’t look like a bad grade on the surface. 

Until you look at your peers and see that only 6 of them got worse grades and 4 of those got fired.

My point is, we already have our opinion of MLF, this really doesn't matter that much. It's like getting 3.5 stars on Yelp. What does that really mean?

If he'd gotten an A would your opinion of him change? I suspect no. So it doesn't matter. It's just another drip in the cup and whether you are a fan that supports MLF or wants him gone your opinion is not going to be swayed by this one thing.

It's a survey, not everybody participates in the survey. What if 5 more guys participated and gave him As, would that be enough to push him up to a B+ or A-? As with any survey there may be people that never award the "5 out of 5" type scores. We just don't know.

If this was a "Has MLF lost the locker room" question and he got a middling score I would take that as a bad thing. I really don't know how to judge this letter grade when separated from the grades different men received around the league. Those men are different and in different situations and being judged by different men. Does it really compare? Why does it compare? I don't care about the other teams, I care about the Packers.

I think overall it's not a great barometer. There's not a lot of context in a letter grade with no other commentary. When I look at reviews on Amazon I don't just look at the stars, I read the comments. There are no comments here, just the grade.

[adambr2]

2 hours ago, SeaBass said:

My point is, we already have our opinion of MLF, this really doesn't matter that much. It's like getting 3.5 stars on Yelp. What does that really mean?

If he'd gotten an A would your opinion of him change? I suspect no. So it doesn't matter. It's just another drip in the cup and whether you are a fan that supports MLF or wants him gone your opinion is not going to be swayed by this one thing.

It's a survey, not everybody participates in the survey. What if 5 more guys participated and gave him As, would that be enough to push him up to a B+ or A-? As with any survey there may be people that never award the "5 out of 5" type scores. We just don't know.

If this was a "Has MLF lost the locker room" question and he got a middling score I would take that as a bad thing. I really don't know how to judge this letter grade when separated from the grades different men received around the league. Those men are different and in different situations and being judged by different men. Does it really compare? Why does it compare? I don't care about the other teams, I care about the Packers.

I think overall it's not a great barometer. There's not a lot of context in a letter grade with no other commentary. When I look at reviews on Amazon I don't just look at the stars, I read the comments. There are no comments here, just the grade.

Well, there is some context available. Any player that was on the Packer roster at any time during 2025 was eligible for the poll, and there were 1,759 responses. We don't know exactly how many of them were Packers, but 1,759 is an average of 55 per team. So we know it is a pretty good sample size, not just a few. 

You are correct that I did not want MLF to return and if he had gotten an A+, I would still have the same reservations about him. However, I would take some solace in knowing that despite how I felt, an A+ response clearly indicated that he hadn't lost the locker room and had the support of the players. 

The fact is, one of the main talking points for MLF supporters has always been "but he is very well-liked by the players". 

The fact that this doesn't look like this is actually the case, is not encouraging. It doesn't guarantee that he's lost the locker room, but we can definitely deduce that he doesn't have the support of all of it. 

I can't speculate what his B- grade would have been had the survey been taken after the season, but it's certainly not a huge stretch to suggest that it would have been lower. 

Rich Bisaccia, for all his faults, seemed to be relatively well-liked among the players. I'll admit this, despite not caring to have him back, personally. 

Rich B and Hafley were our most popular coaches, and MLF and Stenavich were the least. 

I don't feel great about hitching our long-term wagon to guys who clearly aren't as popular among the players as we thought. It just seemed like a really obvious fork in the road time for a soft reset, and we didn't do it. Now we've essentially taken guys off the hot seat without even having to earn their way off of it.

What's our path forward if we go 10-7 next season and get dumped in the WC round as a 7 seed again? Just run it back again in 2027? Keep bringing the band back every year as long as we can pat ourselves on the back for making the playoffs again? Because I see that as well within the likely range of outcomes. 

 

[SeaBass]

44 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

Well, there is some context available. Any player that was on the Packer roster at any time during 2025 was eligible for the poll, and there were 1,759 responses. We don't know exactly how many of them were Packers, but 1,759 is an average of 55 per team. So we know it is a pretty good sample size, not just a few. 

You are correct that I did not want MLF to return and if he had gotten an A+, I would still have the same reservations about him. However, I would take some solace in knowing that despite how I felt, an A+ response clearly indicated that he hadn't lost the locker room and had the support of the players. 

The fact is, one of the main talking points for MLF supporters has always been "but he is very well-liked by the players". 

The fact that this doesn't look like this is actually the case, is not encouraging. It doesn't guarantee that he's lost the locker room, but we can definitely deduce that he doesn't have the support of all of it. 

I can't speculate what his B- grade would have been had the survey been taken after the season, but it's certainly not a huge stretch to suggest that it would have been lower. 

Rich Bisaccia, for all his faults, seemed to be relatively well-liked among the players. I'll admit this, despite not caring to have him back, personally. 

Rich B and Hafley were our most popular coaches, and MLF and Stenavich were the least. 

I don't feel great about hitching our long-term wagon to guys who clearly aren't as popular among the players as we thought. It just seemed like a really obvious fork in the road time for a soft reset, and we didn't do it. Now we've essentially taken guys off the hot seat without even having to earn their way off of it.

What's our path forward if we go 10-7 next season and get dumped in the WC round as a 7 seed again? Just run it back again in 2027? Keep bringing the band back every year as long as we can pat ourselves on the back for making the playoffs again? Because I see that as well within the likely range of outcomes. 

 

I wanted him replaced too. To me, this just doesn't change anything and doesn't sway my opinion either way. I don't think it's that relevant and I still do not see a B- grade as a major concern in any way. I'm not saying it doesn't have any meaning, just not a significant meaning when it comes to how I feel about him. If you feel like it enhances your opinion more that's ok too. We all have opinions.

I think it could be construed as more meaningful if a fan is a solid MLF backer. Then I could see it as a minor concern. But again, I just don't know how much weight I can really assign to it.

I think about it kind of in terms of, hypothetically, what if a coach is a great coach but a bit of a jerk, or even a lot of a jerk. Like a Bobby Knight though I would say without the actual physical abuse that he did because I just don't think things like that are as likely to happen anymore and if it did it would probably come out in the press. A player could assign a lower grade to a guy just because he doesn't vibe with him, it doesn't inherently mean he's bad at being a coach. There are so many variables that might lead to a guy not giving a coach an A and we're quite literally quibbling here over the difference of MLF getting an A or a B.

Ben Johnson was a first year head coach and he got one of the highest grades, how impressive is that actually? I'm not doubting his reputation but I would say it's fair to assume there's a bit of a honeymoon shine to him. MLF has been with the Packers 7 years, the stale message thing becomes kind of real after several seasons. It's hard to say if it's vets that still back him and newer guys that are less sold or the other way around. The Packers tend to the younger side of things. It's just hard to nail down what it is they might think is lacking.

I just place more importance on the things we actually see occur during football games, not the attempt to decipher the meaning of a letter grade without the deeper context behind an employee's reasons for assigning that grade to their boss.

[adambr2]

I’m definitely not saying it’s the end all be all. 

It’s just not the greatest thing to see following a pretty tumultuous end to the season and an extension that went against the wishes of a good percentage of the fanbase as it is. 

FWIW, I believe Mike Tomlin also got an “A”, and that had to be the most stale program in football.

I don’t remember the exact dialogue in the interviews, but I remember this past season in interviews, there being some disconnect between Lafleur and McManus that just seemed a little like “ok, maybe this guy isn’t as immensely popular with the players as perception would indicate, at least not all of them.”

[LouisEly]

4 hours ago, adambr2 said:

The fact that this doesn't look like this is actually the case, is not encouraging. It doesn't guarantee that he's lost the locker room, but we can definitely deduce that he doesn't have the support of all of it. 

As someone who has an advanced degree specializing in market research and who literally composes surveys for a living as part of my job, I can tell you that unless you know the exact questions and how they are worded you cannot come to this conclusion based on what was reported.

I have seen survey results interpreted in many interesting and very inaccurate ways.

Edit: as a professional market researcher, that this survey was taken in-season makes it rife for bias.  Given that this was taken mid-season, what if (and this is my hypothesis) the survey was distributed right after the Carolina loss or the Philly loss (back to back losses where a total of 17 points were scored)?  How would players respond to that survey then compared to, say, the week after they beat the Bears in Week 14 (after back to back wins against division rivals CHI and DET)?  Both would induce bias because of emotional swings.

Asking about the head coach without the full season of data, particularly when emotions after a win or loss could heavily influence responses, is poor research.  You can ask about facilities, child care, etc., things that aren't really going to change from week to week.  But not your direct leader.  That needs to be done after the season when emotions are level and you can reflect with objectivity.

[BrewerFan]

On 2/8/2026 at 4:50 PM, CheezWizHed said:

My only thought about Hobbs is that if you cut him... you have to replace him.  And cutting him doesn't save much money anyway.  Post-June cuts save more this year, but who is left in FA at that point?  

This would be the year to go with the spaghetti at the wall approach. Sign a couple low-cost FA CBs that failed elsewhere (basically last year's Stokes) and let them compete with a high-ish draft pick, last year's returning CBs, and our three main CBs. If things look good early, maybe you let Hobbs go later?

You don't save much this year, but just like with Banks, you save a lot next year.

I would move on from both of them.

Hobbs is injury prone and played poorly outside. Banks is owed I think 19.8M this year. Hobbs is owed I think just under 10M this year. Hobbs is more justifiable, but neither is worth it.

You don't save much this year on either but... Micah Parsons had a cap hit of, what, 9.9M last year? You have to look at more than just this years cap hit.

Gutey has been very good in FA. Last year was terrible. No sense in compounding it. Cut them, save the 36M in cap space next year and a couple million this year and structure the contracts accordingly. 

Wyatt Teller, Joel Bitonio... there are several veteran short term options and attack the OL in the draft. Most likely going to need to time to develop. 
CB, guys like Jaylen Watson would be ideal... but bidding will probably take what should be a 3/40 to 4 years and 20M AAV with a lot of it in GTD money. 

We can get by with a mediocre CB group if we have Wyatt, Parsons back, our young edges develop and we create pressure, but there's no sense in compounding past mistakes and adding more dead cap. 

[JosephC]

Per overthecap-

Banks cap numbers-

2026 = $24,791,176

2027 = $22,250,000

2028 = $20,750,000

If Banks is released and not given a post-June 1st designation, the 2026 cap number is $20,250,000

If Banks is released and given a post-June 1st designation, the 2026 cap number is $6,750,000 and the 2027 cap number is $13,500,000

Hobbs cap numbers-

2026 = $12,838,235

2027 = $14,050,000

2028 = $14,700,000

If Hobbs is released and not given a post-June 1st designation, the 2026 cap number is $12,000,000

If Hobbs is released and given a post-June 1st designation, the 2026 cap number is $4,000,000 and the 2027 cap number is $8,000,000

Both of these players (along with McManus) have roster bonuses due March 13.  If any of them are going to get released, it will be before that date.

[jay87shot]

I think we are 5 million over the cap as of now.

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/green-bay-packers

If we cut Gary, Jenkins, and Nixon we save 35 million. We could re-structure Jacobs and McKinney and problem add another 10-15 million in space. So I am going to say we end up with 40 million in cap space and after the draft and leaving a little room have around 30 to spend in free agency.

Free Agents

1)LB/Edge Leo Chanel 3/24     I struggle with the price of linebackers this could be 3/33 or something, Chanel won't be top of the market however. Chanel has been a longstanding favorite of mine since his Badger days. I still believe he can play some edge rusher. As an early down run stuffing ILB and 3rd down edge rusher this would be a steal for a guy who is stil 25. (2nd option= Bobby Wagner 1/10)

2)CB Cobie Durant 2/18    Durant isn't going to be a shutdown corner but has been a consistent quality starting corner for 2 years. That stability is badly needed. Adding him and a rookie draft pick should address a major need. (2nd option= Greg Newsome 3/24)

3) Edge Cam Jordan 1/12     I don't see how the Saints don't re-sign him however he would be a perfect short term veteran add. He still had 10.5 sacks and across from Micah would be nasty. (2nd option= AJ Espenesa 2/16)

2nd= CB DeAngelo Ponds   I think Ponds is my favorite prospect in the draft, he was everywhere for IU and because he is short he could be available in the 2nd. Adding Ponds and Durant should make a big difference in secondary.

3rd= Edge/OLB  Romello Hieght    Overlooked a bit after David Bailey, could help on the edge or off ball linebacker.

4th= OL Jude Bowry     I have avoided offensive adds to this point, Bowry would be a nice depth add. 

5th=RB Nic Singleton    I always liked Singleton at Penn St., spliting time with Allen hurt his production, A bigger back who can catch the ball well fits our backfield.

6th=TE Tanner Koziel    He was suppose to go to Wisconsin but had a big year at Houston. 6'7" tight ends who catch 168 passes in 2 years should be rated higher than what I have seen, steal.

7th=QB Taylen Green  6'6" and ran a sub 4.4. I would use him as a Kordell Stewart style player next year as a 3rd QB and like gadget play WR/RB/athlete.

[jay87shot]

I think cutting Banks would only save 4 million and Hobbs like 1. Maybe after a certain date it would be more but it is probably better economics to give each another year. McManus would save 1.9 milly so cutting him would be fine. I feel like we could draft a guy or pick up a cheap player off the street for the same production.

[LouisEly]

8 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

You don't save much this year, but just like with Banks, you save a lot next year.

I would move on from both of them.

Welcome back.  In a vacuum, that's the right answer.  Up against the cap, without a 1st round pick, and with depth needing to be addressed at other positions, it's not that easy.

The metrics showed that Hobbs played well in the slot.  He wasn't good on the outside, but his overall PFF grade ranked 60th out of 114 CBs, so to end up middle of the pack he had to have been good in the slot (other advanced metrics back that up).  Problem is they already have Bullard there (overall PFF rank of 49th out of 114).  If they didn't have Bullard, there likely isn't any talk of moving on from Hobbs.

If they can draft a guy who can play both guard and center (I'm looking at you, Pat Coogan) with a cheap FA veteran guard, I think Banks is the easiest to move on from.  CB isn't very deep in this draft, so I don't know that there are many outside options better than the guys they have (Nixon and Valentine ranked in the upper 40s) and those few FAs are going to be expensive.

The problem is if they move on from both but then get skunked in the draft... then what?

[JosephC]

Hobbs is the real question mark.  A few weeks ago, Rob Demovsky was on a podcast and basically made it sound like cutting Hobbs is a foregone conclusion.  A few days later, the Journal-Sentinel writers (including Silversteen) all seemed fairly confident that Hobbs would be back.

Gutekunst just messed up with Hobbs  Hobbs bombed as an outside corner with the Raiders, and Gutekunst just ignored that, looked at his measurables and figured the Packers could coach him up into an outside cornerback.  It didn't work.  As I understand it, Hafley rarely, very rarely, went to dime personnel.  Maybe that was his preference, maybe they didn't have enough quality DBs so he was limited with what he could do?  But with the way the game is played today, I would expect Gannon will play with 6 DBs a lot more, and if so, then Hobbs could still have a role on this team.  

All of the writers seem convinced that Banks will be back.  Banks got that week off of practice and, then starting with the Detroit game, seemed to play better.  That's not to say he played well.  More like he went from being one of the worst guards in the league to either playing at an "average" or "below average" level down the stretch (depending on who you want to believe).  Nonetheless, the combination of him showing some improvement over the season, combined with the terrible state of the team's offensive line, seems to have convinced everybody that he will be back.

I personally wonder about McManus.  If Banks and Hobbs both return, then Gary is a lock to be a post-June 1st release...with no other obvious post-June 1st release.  I suppose they could do it with Josh Jacobs, but that seems pretty unlikely.  If the Packers release McManus and give him a post-June 1st designation, it would be about a 3.6 million dollar savings.  Pay a new kicker the minimum, and it's 2.6 million they have freed up to spend elsewhere.  This wouldn't shock me, but it can only happen if they only have one other post-June 1st designated release, because I believe they are still limited to two of those per season (for clarity, a maximum of 2 releases per off-season that happen prior to June 1st can be classified at post-June 1st releases, allowing the team to spread the cap hit over two seasons).  If the Packers release him without the designation, they save 1.9 million...so saving is less than 1 million after paying his replacement. 

[CheezWizHed]

2 hours ago, jay87shot said:

I think cutting Banks would only save 4 million and Hobbs like 1. Maybe after a certain date it would be more but it is probably better economics to give each another year. McManus would save 1.9 milly so cutting him would be fine. I feel like we could draft a guy or pick up a cheap player off the street for the same production.

Me reading this and remembering the circumstances that brought McManus to the Packers...

I don't get the McManus hate.  He had a down year, but when you consider the bad blocking and injury there was only a handful of misses that were truly on him.  And every kicker will have those. 

[CheezWizHed]

10 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

You don't save much this year, but just like with Banks, you save a lot next year.

I would move on from both of them.

Hobbs is injury prone and played poorly outside. Banks is owed I think 19.8M this year. Hobbs is owed I think just under 10M this year. Hobbs is more justifiable, but neither is worth it.

You don't save much this year on either but... Micah Parsons had a cap hit of, what, 9.9M last year? You have to look at more than just this years cap hit.

Gutey has been very good in FA. Last year was terrible. No sense in compounding it. Cut them, save the 36M in cap space next year and a couple million this year and structure the contracts accordingly. 

Wyatt Teller, Joel Bitonio... there are several veteran short term options and attack the OL in the draft. Most likely going to need to time to develop. 
CB, guys like Jaylen Watson would be ideal... but bidding will probably take what should be a 3/40 to 4 years and 20M AAV with a lot of it in GTD money. 

We can get by with a mediocre CB group if we have Wyatt, Parsons back, our young edges develop and we create pressure, but there's no sense in compounding past mistakes and adding more dead cap. 

I would be 50/50 on Hobbs being released.  Cash flow + performance says cut him now.  Knowing that we need viable NFL CB bodies (and regardless of what anyone things about him... he is one) makes me doubt it. 

I think Banks will be back (98.37% certainty).  He started terribly, but was passable later in the season.  You still have the injury question mark... but they knew that going in.... 

[jay87shot]

3 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

Me reading this and remembering the circumstances that brought McManus to the Packers...

I don't get the McManus hate.  He had a down year, but when you consider the bad blocking and injury there was only a handful of misses that were truly on him.  And every kicker will have those. 

McManus was 30th in field goal percentage and add in that puke show of a playoff game and the hate us warranted. Is he the worst kicker, no, but shouldn't we be looking to get a top 10 potential kicker.  Every year there are a couple of kickers that come out of relative nowhere to be at least solid kickers.

[docduany]

Bob Harlan has passed away. He leaves an amazing legacy. Brought the franchise out of the weeds from the 70's & 80's.

[JosephC]

RIP Bob Harlan.  He's the best thing that's happened for the Packers since Lombardi.  Completely turned the franchise around by making a grand slam hire in Ron Wolf and then was smart enough to get out of the way and let the professionals do their job.

[JosephC]

Packers did a full restructure with McKinney.  Overthecap now has them at about 2.5 million under the cap after adding in the rookie salaries.  Just cutting Jenkins and doing a post-June 1st release with Gary would get them to roughly 41.5 million under the cap.  I would think they would be looking for a bit more room than that, so I would still expect 1 or 2 more moves.  But if the strategy will be to avoid the top of the market, and just do something like grab a mid-level cornerback, a mid-level linebacker, and troll for a cheap nose tackle and cheap veteran offensive lineman, then just parting ways with Jenkins and Gary might be enough.