Last offseason, the Packers were active on the free agent market. Big-ticket deals for running back Josh Jacobs and safety Xavier McKinney helped lead the team to a record of 11-6 and a playoff berth in 2024. 
Given the number of core players Green Bay has attached to a rookie contract at the moment, the team currently sits in the top half of the league in terms of spending power with nearly $50MM in available funds. A portion of that figure will of course be needed for retaining in-house free agents and signing the Packers’ incoming draft class, but room for a notable move exists. As things stand, though, one should not be expected.
“I view every offseason that we have to attack it aggressively,” general manager Brian Gutekunst said (via Jason Wilde of the Wisconsin State Journal). “Every year there’s not going to be a Josh Jacobs or a Xavier McKinney out there to go get… If it’s right for us, then we’re going to attack it. If they’re not there, it’s not there.”
During Gutekunst’s tenure, the Packers have generally not been known for taking large swings in free agency. Especially after the team made a combined $35.5MM commitment in terms of guaranteed money to McKinney and Jacobs in 2024, it would come as little surprise if Green Bay had a quieter March this time around. Few pending free agents of note are on track to depart, although kicker Brandon McManus represents a priority as the new league year approaches.
Of course, Gutekunst and the Packers will need to look ahead on the extension front while mapping out their spending plans for the near future. Wilde notes 2022 first-rounders Quay Walker and Devonte Wyatt could be in line to have their fifth-year options picked up based on how Gutekunst spoke after the season about the Georgia products. A call on both options will need to be made by May 1, but keeping one or both in the fold for 2026 could be followed by a long-term pact being worked out.
Elsewhere on the roster, starting offensive tackles Rasheed Walker and Zach Tom are currently on track for free agency next offseason. Committing to one or both (along with other members of the 2022 draft class) will be key for the Packers, and as a result saving funds for future deals would be a sensible move at a number of positions. As Gutekunst and the Packers look to take a step forward in the highly competitive NFC North next year, a splashy signing or two may not be in the cards.
Seems like every year, less drafting Love, GB drafts defensive and always still needing more on the D side of the ball.
The RAS kings; GB Packers. Drafting the highest rated players (athletically) on the defensive side of the ball each year. I recall last year their fans were beckoning for DeJean, but did not take him. The timing of Love’s contract was tough. I don’t believe he possesses the talent to get them where they want to go, but a WR1 is needed in that offense. Leading the league in drops highlights this, but I’d bet a large chunk of my savings that they take a defensive player higher than where they’re projected to go, simply due to their RAS score. Wild card exit incoming again.
It doesn’t matter….gutey is gonna mess it up per usual. We won’t win a SB again until he is gone.
The Packers have made a seamless transition from Rodgers (which many so called experts said would be impossible). They have the youngest roster in the league yet are very competitive. I don’t know what more you could ask of Gutey…he’s done an excellent job in Wisconsin.
You are an idiot! Gutey has actually did quite well over the years in drafts and in free agency he hit gold last year in the McKinney and Jacobs. Son… you need to get a grip on reality and wake up!
You can worship him, that’s fine. Miss after miss after miss in the draft and wasting Rodgers in his prime is more than enough to counter any point you have. It’ll be a great day when he’s finally fired.
I tend to agree with sooner. Has Gutekunst been the worst? No, but he hasn’t been better than Thompson, who managed to waste the careers of both Rodgers and Favre. People focus so much on the mercurial nature of both those of those quarterbacks, but the fact of the matter is that both were definitely good enough to win more than one Super Bowl. The Packers were close every year.
At first, that would appear to be a compliment to those GMs. However, the reason that I don’t have a high view of them is their refusal to improve once they got there. It’s not just up to the quarterback to win you championships, and if you’re lucky enough to find one who is good enough to elevate your team, you need to do everything possible to push that opportunity. Thompson and Gutekunst refused to take full advantage of being so close, and drafted for depth or ignored top end free agents year after year to save for a nonspecific future.
I don’t think that you should buy a team, aka the Buccaneers, but if you can’t just lose in the playoffs every year and shrug it off as being the quarterback’s fault. You, as the GM, need to not leave it to chance and pursue opportunities as they arise. Gutekumst had at least two great years where the Packers went to the NFCC and lost (narrowly, might I add). They were contenders with Rodgers the entire time that he was there. He might have been a jackwagon and might have not committed offseason effort the way that he should have, but he’s not the only player on that team. Gutekunst could have drafted a starter at a position of need, and possibly given the Packers the extra push that they needed to win. Instead, he drafted Love, who sat for three years, and a bunch of guys who mostly aren’t on the roster, and only one of whom saw any snaps of significance the next year (Dillon).
On top of that, he didn’t sign any impactful free agents, and engaged in a passive aggressive back and forth with his quarterback who has a history of being passive aggressive himself. It was just inept, when instead they probably could have improved the team and possibly won a championship. Just one major free agent signing or one Pro Bowl or All-Pro draftee could easily make a difference in two seasons where the team lost the NFCC (especially in the second game, where lost by a mere 5 points).
So, yeah, I don’t think that it’s impossible that Green Bay wins a Super Bowl with Gutekunst; I do, however, they that they just punted away at least two prime chances in the early 2020s because his decision to just be content and not improve the team. He might have hated Rodgers-a lot of people do-but that’s a stupid reason to not take advantage of him and his ability as part of the team that clearly needed more playmakers. I can hear people saying, “Well, they had Adams, and Rodgers, and Jones!” Yeah, they did. Clearly they needed more. As a GM, it’s your job to improve the team, not sit there and go “Nah, I’ll just pick some depth guys instead.” Besides, a quarterback, running back, and receiver is not a full team. They can all earn their own criticism, but as a GM, you’ve got to address the rest of the team, too. Gutekunst has sown that he’s fine with just being “good enough” with what he’s got, which is why they keep falling just short…no matter who the quarterback is. Take the chance out of it-improve the team. That’s my two cents, anyway.
So who do you credit the Packers good records to? Gutey has missed on some picks but all GM’s do. We’ve got a good team without a lot of needs and you have to credit him for that. Youngest roster in the league makes the playoffs / years in a row he must be doing something right.
Sure, he does do some of it right. But he’s also directly contributed to the Packers missing obvious windows to win the Super Bowl. LaFleur is a great coach, and he deserves a ton of credit for using some midlevel talent to support the legitimate stars on the roster to get them where they are, but Gutekunst really could have given him more to work with over these last few years. That first draft he did was downright awful, and the timing of it-in the midst of a wide open window to win a championship-was really detrimental to the team. For all that “being competitive” has gotten Green Bay, it surely would have been better to have a ring or two to show for it, wouldn’t it?
It’s one thing to miss on a few picks; it’s another to almost spitefully ignore obvious needs in favor of meaningless draft selections and spurning of potentially helpful free agents. This past year’s foray into the market for McKinney and Jacobs was a notable departure, but that same attitude three years ago could possibly pushed those NFCC rosters to the championship round. It’s not the misses, it’s how obvious the needs were and the refusal to address them. That’s Gutekunst’s job, and he missed the opportunity to do it well.
So is it better to have a GM that passes on opportunities but succeeds or have a GM that jumps on every opportunity but fails? I think most owners would choose the first option.
You’re assuming that capitalizing on opportunities ends in failure. You’d want a GM that doesn’t waste them. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
We can debate philosophy all we like, but the fact of the matter is that Gutekunst had golden opportunities to make better choices and capitalize on a contending team, and did not. The needs were obvious, and instead of addressing them, he chose to bide his time. As such, the Packers got nothing out of several talented players that they have, to this point, yet to replace.
I don’t think I’m making any assumptions. An opportunity is a chance to succeed but it also carries the risk of failure. Now I agree with you that having a GM that is totally risk adverse is probably not going to workout very well but likewise I would not want a GM that is recklessly making moves just for the sake of making moves. I think Gutekunst is conservative and willing to give the coaching staff time to work with players. I think he understands the importance of maintaining continuity on a team. Some teams are always is a state of flux which results in them rarely meeting expectations.
Why can’t he ever build DBs no matter how many draft picks he uses?
Perhaps it’s not as easy to find another Willie Wood as some fans think.