Al, a question for you, Is Green Bays need for a NT type bigger than a pass rushing DT? Would you consider dangling Wyatt, who is going to need more money to stay in GB, in a trade for a run stuffing NT or a player that does both things? Would D'Vondre Sweat be that type of player, that fills a bigger need @ run stuffer, if he came to us along with a 5th round pick for Wyatt?. Wyatt fits what Saleh looks for in a D-lineman more than Sweat, so he would be more attractive to the Titans than Sweat is. There always seems to be more of the smaller "Pass Rushing" DTs available in the draft than "Run Stuffers."

Why would any team want Bisaccia after his failure in GB?

It's probably true that GBs special team's personnel are lacking in guys that make game altering plays. The Super Bowl teams had that element. Whether it's a gunner who changes momentum with a hit or blocks a kick. Or a kick returner that flips field position, we don't have that in GB.

A player we had in last year but didn't show enough to be kept as a backup was Isaiah Simmons. He is that type of player that makes impact special teams plays every year, and he is cheap just like our 4th & 5th LBs. There are also really good cheap KRs available like Skyy Moore. If Moore got his pass catching "Mojo" back, he arguably has the same ability as Reed, only cheaper. I am not saying swap out Moore for Reed, but Moore does offer more upside than Wicks who has a contract coming up.

Get rid of players that don't have a surefire future in GB earlier rather than later. Wicks and Musgrave fit this description because we could upgrade from them for less money. Acquiring inexpensive FAs at our needs of LB, NT, CB, TE, or KR lessens the need to draft one with the few picks we have. And depending on the price, they might not affect the comp picks we may have coming.

"Rich Bisaccia...realized the personnel limitations the Packers place on him...were ruining his reputation as a top special teams coach."

So to distill this even more, Bisaccia is a great ST Coach when he is allowed access to the entire starting rosters to staff his teams? What ST coach would not be? Can he coach up guys to do their jobs...like kickers and the LS and holder operation? Gunners? Returners? Blockers? Avoid making constant stupid penalties? Did he want Watson to return kicks?

He was the highest paid ST coach in the NFL and also was the Assistant HC...what did he do with this job? Instill culture how to lose games late with grace? Was he helping LaFleur with his time managment? Playcalls? OK.

I have lost a fair amount of confidence in Gutey. Hiis effusive praise for the highest paid, least effective ST coordinators in the NFL and being "shocked" he would resign. Brian is displaying that he too is a "status quo" man and seems to enjoy just having a seat at the Football Committee table.

Ed Policy has been showing he is a status quo Murphy clone and so far, is a very opaque President, CEO and Chrm. of the Football Committee.

I hope this all works out. Could be a fool's hope.

It would not surprise me at all if, after the season, Bissacia sought additional commitments on player types and availability to him on game days. That would fit the timing.

Gute’s comments suggest that Bissacia had some potential opportunities, but of what type and whether they were fall backs given the above only time will tell. It certainly doesn’t sound as if he will be putting his feet up completely, so we wiill no doubt find out more eventually.

Rich saw the writing on the wall. You are only as good as your statistics say you are. Glad he decided to move along and I can only speculate there was a reason or motive regarding the late notice

Gute clearly stated that he does not yet know how Gannon intends to shape his D. That lends weight to the idea that Gannon is assessing the current roster first and will design his D based on the players we have primarily, which Gannon has claimed is his philosophy previously.

That is encouraging (it’s often said but less often demonstrated convincingly). If true it also makes many assumptions being thrown around based upon what Gannon has run recently (quarters, 3:4 base, for example) look premature along with conclusions based upon them.

I dunno, they have one of the highest paid and best punters in the league, their kicker is highly paid, and so is their long snapper for that matter. Seems like they have a fair number of special teams specialists, although most of them were injured at the end of the season. The one big failing on the roster has been the lack of a good punt returner. They did bring in Mecole Hardman last year, but he bombed out in training camp unfortunately.

four and 99/100...I hear one of us was in a nasty pull-tab accident.

"It speaks volumes about how the league and league evaluators see the Packer situation when Bisaccia's top assistant was hired to run special teams elsewhere."

Yeah, that got my attention too Dobber. That along with Bisaccia resigning but not retiring (at age 65) tells me he was not happy in Green Bay. Since Bisaccia had a top flight punter, the kicker of his choice and a decent long snapper, his dissatisfaction seemingly had to be with the players he was allocated or allowed to use on special teams. He rarely got to use starters and had to use bottom of the roster players for his special teams.

We fans have been pointing the finger at three consecutive special teams coordinators for the failures of Packer special teams. Maybe we need to start looking elsewhere. Like at our HC who refuses to let starters play on special teams.

Also completely agree with your take on Jenkins and Gary. The Packers won't make any moves until they have to/need to, but both are significantly underperforming large contracts and I think are unlikely to accept the level of restructure needed to bring their contract in line with their performance.

As the Eagles had figured out, and his athletic profile suggests, Kinnard is a G not a T, except in emergencies. Why our coaches saw that differently, I do not know, but I would only bring him back if that was clearly understood.

Glover looked promising last summer, as a T not a G. Perhaps another Butkus/Stenavich mis appraisal. If he returns at that level, there’s some depth behind our RT. Banks is definitely worth watching as well. He might prove to be a real steal in time.

Morgan and Tom will start, Glover and banks are depth. Dalton Cooper was a pre draft visitor we kept on our PS after a cut downs pick up from the Chiefs. A very experienced College T who only gave up 10 sacks in 2300 snaps as a pass blocker. He’s big (326) and long too. I would not dismiss him becoming relevant. I was very surprised he wasn’t drafted despite a lower body injury that caused him to miss part of his last college season.

Like Al, at this point I don’t see a lot of interesting Ts in this draft (though I do see some mid rounders college Ts who may be good, physical Gs). At G we also will have an “extra pick” in Williams entering the competition after a medical redshirt that seems to have been understood to have been a possibility in the draft, causing him to drop.

I really don’t see an early T pick or even a OL pick except perhaps at C, in part due to the lack of a first rounder, the tackle class and what we have already. The success or otherwise is going to hinge on Morgan proving to be a starting grade T probably or one of Glover/Banks/Dalton probing to be a hidden gem, whether we like it or not.

I think we are overlooking the promise shown by Jamon Johnson somewhat. He looks like a guy who could be a contributor. He tackles well and hard and seemed to show more in coverage than billed. I wouldn’t be surprised to see us add an ILB, but the first question is do we look to move on from Walker and also McDuffie and to emphasize Cooper more? Hopper looks to be the best cover ILB (maybe Oliver adds something there in time too). I don’t see ILB as being as big a weakness as some do if we make the right choices.

"I always thought it was a good chance Gary gets restructured. I think the same for Jenkins as well. Cutting them saves some money but it also removes depth from the roster. "

Agreed: you can't cut everyone, but if Al's take--that void years and max restructures aren't going to be a tactic they use much in the future--it makes it hard to get much savings in keeping Gary. I think a simple restructure on Gary's $18M cash value saves about $8M, but guarantees an additional $8M on the 2027 cap. A max restructure (3 void years) saves considerably more, but pushes more down the road. Jenkins is in the last year of his deal, so there's no restructure without void years. He'd need to take a considerable pay cut. I think he's a goner.

But is Gary really much better than a replacement level player at this point? I think he is still pretty stout against the run, but he didn't provide much pass rush during the second half of the season. I understand the value of a run-stopping DT who doesn't rush the passer very well, but for an edge defender, especially an older one who will probably be pretty highly paid even with a restructure, that's a tough sell for me.

LH, you're take on the changing RB narrative is spot on. Everyone needs to remember, RB was able to pick his very own kicker, who ended up being a huge failure. Not even sure if he is still in the NFL. RB has a lot a ST experience, but that doesn't always mean he's top shelf. I've been in my profession many years, and have tons of experience, but I would be lying to myself if I thought I was the smartest or most talented guy in the company, or was irreplaceable.

As far as Gary, a restructure or pay cut would be the only preferable options to an outright release. He has basically become a rotational player, and he should be paid as such. I would be shocked if any team would pay him significantly more than what an adjusted salary from GB would be.

I don't think "people are silly" is the right take Leotis. I think people are getting better informed about special teams.

Bisaccia lost his #1 assistant to Buffalo which means he would have to train a new key assistant this year. Rumor has it Gannon might want to play a 3-4 (which he used in Arizona) which means special teams is going to lose at least one key special teams performer as the Packers would only keep four ILBs with a 3-4 (think Welsh or Nieman or both no longer on the team). The Packers also rarely allow starters to play special teams and that won't change with LaFleur continuing as HC.

I think Bisaccia just decided at age 65 that there were too many negatives going into 2026. And a part of that was not having access to starters as special team players (which many NFL teams allow).

The Packers haven't had great special teams in a long while. Either LaFleur is truly lousy at picking special team's coaches or there are organizational reasons beyond the ST coordinator for the poor special team's performance.

Restructuring Gary is either a euphemism for a significant pay cut or an exercise in void year dead cost addition. The former seems unlikely (if workable from a team perspective) and the latter seems both counter to suggested interpretation of Gute’s other comments and the cap profile post Parsons.

To me (and I won’t get an answer) the pivotal question is what the heck happened after mid season? LaFleur has suggested no nagging injuries, no schematic shift has been pinpointed. Justis Mosqueda over at APC had been on a very vocal “Gary is slow/not trying” crusade, but is that any more than a fan rant that fits the stat fall off but is otherwise fiction? Justis is prone to debatable certainties and crusades in my view, despite much other good work.

So I don’t know, but the team better have a very clear idea and high level of confidence in its veracity before we commit to future dead cap to extend/restructure Gary. Gary has never been popular with some, but I’m not one of them. This isn’t based on anything other than production and the very significant drop off (starting before Parsons was lost).

"A weak draft class will make it that much more difficult to find the talent they need that can contribute effectively in 2026."

I think he said the pool of T candidates wasn't inspiring because it lacks high-end guys, and we've already heard that C isn't particularly thrilling, either (but a lot of C in the league were conversion projects). That doesn't mean that there aren't playable guys to be had there. It also likely means that other teams will press the FA market over the draft (and overdraft other positions).

You are right-I have soured on MLF. I do not see him addressing his recurrent problems in game/clock management. He has had every opportunity to hire a sharp offensive mind to stand next to him and provide insight, creativity, a calming influence, and solutions in the heat of the moment (most second halves). He has stubbornly retained Stenavich and most of his mediocre position coaches. I don't like how he is allowed to continue these same mistakes year after year with no consequences.

Coaches under MLF are being promoted and vultured by other teams. Under MLF every QB has not only played well but flourished.

Do you think SF should fire Shanahan?

Yep—I agree with your key point that he does not make a difference.