Packer 2026 Roster (Not-Live)

[Pokerbrat2000]

The new NBA CBA is complicated for making trades and figuring out penalties for being over certain salary thresholds, but the contracts themselves are really straight forward and you can't pull off any "cap magic" to restructure them. You can only negotiate a buy out or stretch the contract like the Bucks did with Dame.

MLB has a pretty complicated salary progression with Arbitration and service time. Players typically hit FA after 6 years of service time. But again, once you figure that out, outside of deferring money and options, contracts are pretty straight forward and aren't restructured to create space.

In the NFL there are all these avenues to create cap space that are pretty complicated. When a trade or extension is made, it is always really hard to find a consensus on how it will impact a team's cap. When NBA/MLB trades and contracts it is really easy to find out what the implications are and there is a consensus from reporters almost immediately. That is kind of what I mean.

I guess I am just not a fan of the "cap" systems of either the NBA or MLB, they do not promote parity or competitiveness across the teams.

Like I said, the NFL is pretty "simple", once a players contract is made public. Money guaranteed and/or already paid out, has to be reported under the cap reporting time frame. Money that is not guaranteed, isn't reported on the cap, until it becomes such.

Most importantly, every team in the NFL must follow the same cap guidelines and those, including the cap ceiling, are the same for all 32 teams.

All one has to do is look at the Shohei Ohtani contract to see how messed up MLB is when it comes to cap and contracts.

Shohei Ohtani Dodgers Contract: Details of Record $700M Deal

Ohtani's histroric contract has fans, teams and agents buzzing over its size and unique structure that calls for 97% of the total to be deferred.

www.sportico.com

 

[tynimiller]

Without the extreme time and effort that it would take to compare him to every GM, I would guess Gute is right around league average. Definitely more active than his predecessor. Like most, he has some hits and he has some misses.

I think many of Gute’s signings (not the most recent, obviously), look highly impactful at first and then quickly fade after a year or a couple years.

Amos, Preston and Z, they all fall into that category. Campbell and Turner.

Jacobs and McKinney kind of look like they’re falling along that same pattern.

Jacobs has been playing on one leg and STILL been clearly a starter in there for us, and McKinney is still one of the highest respected safeties in the league if you study how RARE it is for teams to target his side of the field. Sorry but Gute has literally hit home runs in FA outside of Hobbs and Banks...with Hobbs looking fine so long as he is in the slot and not outside.

That's just discussing free agency. Gute has worked some awesome trades for guys that came back to us or got something for a guy heading towards a cut and not getting anything.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Sorry but Gute has literally hit home runs in FA outside of Hobbs and Banks...with Hobbs looking fine so long as he is in the slot and not outside.

Agree with your post and I think with Banks, fans need to be more patient. Yes, his 1st season with the Packers wasn't spectacular, but he started the season injured and has slowly worked his way into playing better.

Hobbs, like you said, is a better slot player and I think many, including the Packers, thought that maybe they were getting a steal on a guy that could play outside at a high level. Thankfully, his contract wasn't structured like that of a top outside CB, it was more like 4 one year contracts with a good slot CB, that the Packers could get out of at any time, without a huge cap hit. I won't be surprised by Hobbs being cut or being back. However, if he is back, he needs to be left at slot CB, plain and simple.

 

[OldSchool101]

Probably almost a forgone conclusion if they keep Banks. We’re not gaining $18.3mil or whatever after seeing the cap pushed around

Jacobs has been playing on one leg and STILL been clearly a starter in there for us, and McKinney is still one of the highest respected safeties in the league if you study how RARE it is for teams to target his side of the field. Sorry but Gute has literally hit home runs in FA outside of Hobbs and Banks...with Hobbs looking fine so long as he is in the slot and not outside.

That's just discussing free agency. Gute has worked some awesome trades for guys that came back to us or got something for a guy heading towards a cut and not getting anything.

It’s actually kinda odd that Gutey missed there in FA. It’s unexpected and honestly if Gute hit gold on just 1 of his 2 bigger FA signings it likely takes us to another level. It was not a good year to have poor return on our draft and poor return on both FA signings.

Now they may and likely will play better in year 2, but it didn’t help us in 2025.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Ok so some information I’m reading on Banks etc. While it is true cutting him saves $4.6Mil etc. The post Jun figure is correct on the freeing up $18-19mil. Unfortunately his remaining guaranteed gets spread into 2027 cap.
So their figures are actually correct but we’d have to eat an additional call it $13Mil area the following season if that makes sense.

I have no big issue with Rhyan. I think he’s starter level but just not going to take us to another level. It’s about the $$ for me.

Also, keep in mind that Banks has a roster bonus of $9.5M that kicks in on the 3rd league day of the year, I think that would be March 6th? So all the cap stuff that you are seeing, assumes he is on the roster after 3/6/26 and the $9.5M is factored into the dead cap. So if I am correct, if he is cut/traded prior to the 3rd league day, his dead cap is $10.75M (not true, corrected in my next post).

So IMO, whatever the Packers are going to do with Banks, will be known by that date.

 

[tynimiller]

Probably almost a forgone conclusion if they keep Banks. We’re not gaining $18.3mil or whatever after seeing the cap pushed around

It’s actually kinda odd that Gutey missed there in FA. It’s unexpected and honestly if Gute hit gold on just 1 of his 2 bigger FA signings it likely takes us to another level. It was not a good year to have poor return on our draft and poor return on both FA signings.

Now they may and likely will play better in year 2, but it didn’t help us in 2025.

Yeah Banks essentially just had a mirror of his bad 2023 season - both his worst in his short career.
Hobbs' this year almost was his worst overall in nearly all graded fields by PFF except run defense.

 

[OldSchool101]

Also, keep in mind that Banks has a roster bonus of $9.5M that kicks in on the 3rd league day of the year, I think that would be March 6th? So all the cap stuff that you are seeing, assumes he is on the roster after 3/6/26 and the $9.5M is factored into the dead cap. So if I am correct, if he is cut/traded prior to the 3rd league day, his dead cap is $10.75M

So IMO, whatever the Packers are going to do with Banks, will be known by that date.

Sure. It’ll be interesting to see but my guess is we will find a way to keto him 1 more year with a contract out in 2027. We pushed too much $ forward.

I guess that’s what happens when we “Banked” on him to perform

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Sure. It’ll be interesting to see but my guess is we will find a way to keto him 1 more year with a contract out in 2027. We pushed too much $ forward.

I guess that’s what happens when we “Banked” on him to perform

My apologies. As I looked closer at what Spotrac is reporting, his current dead cap would be $20.5M and that doesn't include the $9.5M roster bonus he would receive on the 3rd day of the new league year. That $20.5M is the portion of his guaranteed money that wasn't reported against the cap this season.

So yeah, I guess we pretty much are playing with already ...Banked money.

 

[mradtke66]

Elgton Jenkins

Gone. Old, injured, and over-paid is a horrible combination. I think he got moved to C in the hopes he could prolong his career. Nope. I think he should retire.

Rashan Gary

Not playing up to his contract, but the rest of of roster is setup such that I wouldn't be surprised if he's kept or cut. I can't imagine anyone would trade for him with the contract he has.

Keisean Nixon

All but certainly stays. He's not who you want as CB1, but the fact that he can play at all? He sticks. The 5M we'd save is peanuts for a 2/3CB.

Aaron Banks

All but certainly stays. The dead cap is the first, plus we're going to have new LT in Morgan next year. Having him stick around gives us consistency and I like him more than some. A bigger fan after watching mike wahle's film break down. He's better than he appears.

Josh Jacobs -

Not this year, but you're right that the end is coming for him. Being a running back and approaching 30 is not a good combination.

Jordan Love.

I'd guess after 2026. His cap number starts to climb in 2027 and balloons in 2028.

*will toss in* Nate Hobbs -

He's played worse than Banks and we have the obvious, better player in Bullard. And looking over his contract, he's due a roster bonus the 3rd day of 2026's season. I think that sinks his chances for sticking around next year.

 

[mradtke66]

I think many of Gute’s signings (not the most recent, obviously), look highly impactful at first and then quickly fade after a year or a couple years.

Amos, Preston and Z, they all fall into that category. Campbell and Turner.

Jacobs and McKinney kind of look like they’re falling along that same pattern.

TBF, Free Agents normally are already 25 or 26. A couple of years later, they are already staring down 30, so this is an expected outcome. Based on pro football reference:

Amos left after 29.

Preston left 32 years old (I think, anyway. I don't know his birthday vs. when we cut him)

Z left after 29.

Turner left after 30.

Campbell left after 30.

Jacobs is about to turn 28 as a running back. While not 30, he's old for the position.

If you think McKinney is slipping, we'll have to have a different conversation.

 

[adambr2]

McKinney I probably should have just left as “still a great signing” and not compared him to others who fell off after a year or two.

He’s definitely still a very high end safety. It’s probably fair to say he isn’t currently as high level as last year when all the turnovers were coming, but that’s a pretty high bar when he was basically performing like a DPOY candidate most of 2024.

 

[adambr2]

Maybe I am comparing Gute to the wrong team but it’s frustrating when I look at just the most recent draft class of the Bears and see Loveland, who is already one of the top young TEs in the NFL. (Yeah yeah I know, easier in the top 10).

Burden, who already looks head and shoulders better than Golden.

Trapilo, an above average starting OT.

And Monangai, one of the better 1B committee RBs.

So they get four immediate contributors, and so I constantly have to hear we shouldn’t expect so much from our rookies?

Nah. I don’t buy it.

 

[Magooch]

Maybe I am comparing Gute to the wrong team but it’s frustrating when I look at just the most recent draft class of the Bears and see Loveland, who is already one of the top young TEs in the NFL. (Yeah yeah I know, easier in the top 10).

Burden, who already looks head and shoulders better than Golden.

Trapilo, an above average starting OT.

And Monangai, one of the better 1B committee RBs.

So they get four immediate contributors, and so I constantly have to hear we shouldn’t expect so much from our rookies?

Nah. I don’t buy it.

It has often seemed like we want to handle rookies with kid gloves. Like there’s this belief that if we ask/expect too much of rookies or work them in too quickly and “throw them in the deep end” that it’ll ruin them - there’s a belief (whether explicit or implicit) that rookies need eased into the game, to the pace and intensity of the league.
Philosophically it just feels like a bit of a dated approach at times. Maybe that was broadly true a few decades ago but I’m not so sure today. Elite college programs today are closer to “NFL-level” complexity/intensity/pace etc than ever before. NFL concepts continue to trickle down to the college level more and more. Top college players are physically miles ahead of where they were a decade or two ago. And practically speaking practice limitations and rookie pay scale changes make it more prudent to get contributions early.

Now of course that’s not to say there’s still not a huge gap, there is. But by and large top rookies entering the league today are (or broadly speaking *should be*) much more ready to immediately contribute than their counterparts 10, 20 years ago. And it feels like we are still stuck in that line of thinking that requires them to have a very long “onboarding” period to get up to league speed.

 

[adambr2]

It has often seemed like we want to handle rookies with kid gloves. Like there’s this belief that if we ask/expect too much of rookies or work them in too quickly and “throw them in the deep end” that it’ll ruin them - there’s a belief (whether explicit or implicit) that rookies need eased into the game, to the pace and intensity of the league.
Philosophically it just feels like a bit of a dated approach at times. Maybe that was broadly true a few decades ago but I’m not so sure today. Elite college programs today are closer to “NFL-level” complexity/intensity/pace etc than ever before. NFL concepts continue to trickle down to the college level more and more. Top college players are physically miles ahead of where they were a decade or two ago. And practically speaking practice limitations and rookie pay scale changes make it more prudent to get contributions early.

Now of course that’s not to say there’s still not a huge gap, there is. But by and large top rookies entering the league today are (or broadly speaking *should be*) much more ready to immediately contribute than their counterparts 10, 20 years ago. And it feels like we are still stuck in that line of thinking that requires them to have a very long “onboarding” period to get up to league speed.

100% agree. Stop handling the rookies with kid gloves. It’s an outdated philosophy, like you said.

And frankly, an inefficient philosophy, when you only get them for 4 years on their rookie contracts.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

While I was disappointed with Goldens rookie season, he also had pretty decent WR's playing in front of him. Throw in his injury and it was an up and down year for him, so far.

I think when Gute drafted Golden it was somewhat of a team PR move but also an eye on the future. The Packers were hosting the draft and really wanted to give the home crowd something to go crazy about. How do you do that? For the 1st time in 22 years, draft a WR in round 1, with the last name "Golden". Yup, the fans and ESPN ate it up.

All the glamour of the draft aside, give Golden another year or 2. Gute knew that he could be potentially losing both Doubs and Watson after this season. With Reed to possibly follow after 2026. Seems Packer fans always want an instant Pro Bowl player in the first round, but when you are picking at pick #23, one needs to temper their expectations.

 

[tynimiller]

While I was disappointed with Goldens rookie season, he also had pretty decent WR's playing in front of him. Throw in his injury and it was an up and down year for him, so far.

I think when Gute drafted Golden it was somewhat of a team PR move but also an eye on the future. The Packers were hosting the draft and really wanted to give the home crowd something to go crazy about. How do you do that? For the 1st time in 22 years, draft a WR in round 1, with the last name "Golden". Yup, the fans and ESPN ate it up.

All the glamour of the draft aside, give Golden another year or 2. Gute knew that he could be potentially losing both Doubs and Watson after this season. With Reed to possibly follow after 2026. Seems Packer fans always want an instant Pro Bowl player in the first round, but when you are picking at pick #23, one needs to temper their expectations.

Folks screaming about Golden are placed in the same bucket labeled "noisy fools" that I place a lot of folks in.

 

[OldSchool101]

Seems Packer fans always want an instant Pro Bowl player in the first round, but when you are picking at pick #23, one needs to temper their expectations.

Totally agree.
Captain and Myself used to disagree on a later Day 1 selections and expectations.
My contention is that once you fall out of drafting in that Top 20 area it seems like most position groups have their most “NFL Ready” draft prospects plucked from the list of choices at WR or QB or Edge or LT. Thats not to imply you can’t find an occasional anomaly that garners ROTY type honors, but it’s long shot.

With Jordan at #26 Captain would argue that we spent “a ton” of draft capital and it was a waste not to get production immediately. While I understand firsthand where the frustration comes from? I’ll steal a common tool Whimm’s toolbox.
“I’m not convinced” that a 20-something QB or WR or Edge should just explode as a Rookie.

Now if he’s a Top 10 overall selection at WR? I’m expecting us to reserve that type draft expenditure for someone who contributes on Day 1

 

[adambr2]

I notice that Pro Football Focus has Quay Walker as the 74th ranked out of 88 qualified ILBs for 2025.

Is he really that bad? Not that PFF is the end all be all, but that seems really low. I thought general consensus seemed to be that he was putting it together.

 

[mradtke66]

I notice that Pro Football Focus has Quay Walker as the 74th ranked out of 88 qualified ILBs for 2025.

Is he really that bad? Not that PFF is the end all be all, but that seems really low. I thought general consensus seemed to be that he was putting it together.

I like PFF, but I only trust it so far.

Quay's value is his athletic ability. He isn't the smartest linebacker on the roster (that honor probably goes to McDuffie), but he's fast and agile enough to do things others can't. Just being able to get deep and wide in coverage counts for a lot.

It also didn't help that our roster construction ended up a little goofy this year. Like most fast, sideline to sideline linebackers, he's a little smaller. He's dependent on good DTs to protect him. Trading Kenny for Parsons, while a great move, hurt us a little in the short term this year. Then losing Wyatt compounded the issue.

I'm in favor of extending him and spending resources at DT in general. I don't know what he's worth, but ILBs are under-valued in the league these days, that even if he can command top 15 money, it isn't all that much in terms of cap percentage.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm in favor of extending him and spending resources at DT in general. I don't know what he's worth, but ILBs are under-valued in the league these days, that even if he can command top 15 money, it isn't all that much in terms of cap percentage.

If Quay demands top 15 money for ILB's, I would wish him luck and let him go find it. I think Quay has his moments, but for me he isn't worth that kind of money. Now the only problem in letting him go, we don't have much on the current roster to replace him. Edgerrin Cooper is another Packer player that has had a disappointing season. After his rookie season, I was really excited about Cooper, now I am just waiting to see if he takes himself to the next level.

 

[OldSchool101]

I

I notice that Pro Football Focus has Quay Walker as the 74th ranked out of 88 qualified ILBs for 2025.

Is he really that bad? Not that PFF is the end all be all, but that seems really low. I thought general consensus seemed to be that he was putting it together.

It’s a good question. Just spot checking them Quay does not have a ranking worse than 32nd in any field he’s recorded a stat (he had zero FF but that’s not uncommon.
In 4 of the 7 remaining categories he ranks between #16-#19. You can’t rank top 20 across the bulk of fields of measurement and bottom 20 as a whole. That math don’t add up.

As an example. In the Combine using RAS as an indicator, a player that ranked 75%+ in the bulk of testing fields with every field over 60%+ percentile in all testing areas? They would not finish with a 2.5 RAS score overall percentile wise. Consistency in the top pack should never bring a score down.

If I have 5 Cross Country Runners on Varsity and 90 total competing athletes. If my guys finish 16,17,18,19,32. They’d be at minimum a 3rd place of 18 teams ribbon and that’s if they didn’t win the entire Meet.

 

[Magooch]

I would be curious how that shakes out as well. Roughly speaking, a top 15-20 salary for ILBs works out to around 10m AAV. Currently Quay is at just around 3m and change. Much like the discussion about Gary, IMO he looked reasonably close to a 10m/yr player before Parsons went out hurt.

Physically he is still remarkable, and while he has his boneheaded moments from time to time I think he has really started to iron that out of his game and has been more dependable to my eye. I guess my gut feeling is ultimately that he's a guy who is probably going to be cheaper to give a new contract to than finding someone else who's better and bringing them in. We don't really have any decent internal replacement and coming from the outside we're probably getting cheaper or better, not both. With limited resources I think we'd do better to focus those efforts elsewhere... And I do agree that in general ILB is a fairly undervalued position (but also one for which there's just not a ton of standout players). Even if we tripled his current salary he's still jumping up to just 4-5% of our cap or thereabouts.

 

[mradtke66]

If Quay demands top 15 money for ILB's, I would wish him luck and let him go find it. I think Quay has his moments, but for me he isn't worth that kind of money.

I don't see the money as that large. 10th is 11M per year, 15th is 10M per year, 20th is 9M per year. As I started with, ILBs are undervalued. Other than top-4, they just aren't paid that much. 10M per year is 3.3% of the cap in 2026, 3% flat (projected) for 2027.

Now the only problem in letting him go, we don't have much on the current roster to replace him.

This isn't surprising. Athletically, he's special. As a player, less so, but he is rare and difficult to replace, so I'm leaning towards us keeping him.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This isn't surprising. Athletically, he's special. As a player, less so, but he is rare and difficult to replace, so I'm leaning towards us keeping him.

As a fan, Quay is too inconsistent for me. That said, whether he is kept or not, will largely depend on how the coaches view his football IQ and his ability to "QB the defense."

I don't know a lot about his ability to be that team leader on defense, nor do I know how well "he wears that green dot".

Obviously, another big factor with Quay is who replaces him if you don't resign him?

 

[mradtke66]

Obviously, another big factor with Quay is who replaces him if you don't resign him?

This is why I suspect he stays.