Was GM Brian Gutekunst Serious About the Packers Keeping Rashan Gary?
By GilMartin

Green Bay Packers GM Brian Gutekunst addressed the media earlier this week at the NFL Scouting Combine. While Gute addressed many issues, one of the more surprising comments he made concerned the future of defensive end Rashan Gary.
Most experts viewed Gary as a likely cap casualty shortly after the new league year starts in a few weeks. Remember, the Packers currently sit above the salary cap and need to free up space in order to sign free agents and even their 2026 draft class. But Gutekunst seemed to indicate that he expected Gary back in green and gold in 2026 despite his high salary and the drastic reduction in his productivity in the second half of last season.
Last season, Gary was expected to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the addition of Micah Parsons. The logic was that if Parsons was being double teamed and getting most of the attention from opposing offenses, Gary would face more single coverage and would have more opportunities to make plays as a result. That didn’t hold up over the full 2025 season.
Gutekunst responded to a direct question about Gary and his future with the team. He claimed that even in the second half of the season, Gary was an “impactful” player. “Sometimes, there is an ebb and flow with production with sacks,” Gutekunst explained. “He [Gary] was impactful towards the second half of the season. Maybe not as much as the first, but he was impactful.”
The numbers certainly don’t seem to back up Gutekunst’s claim. After recording 7.5 sacks in the first seven games, Gary failed to record a sack for the rest of the season. His final sack of the year came on October 26th in the Packers win over the Steelers in Pittsburgh.
Gary also failed to record a tackle for loss in the second half of the 2025 campaign after recording seven in the first half of the season. The only statistic that improved in the second half of the season was pressure rate. That increased slightly from 12.2 percent to 14.9 percent. That is the closest that Gutekunst’s arguments can come to being considered accurate.
Gary’s snap counts also went down in the second half of the season. Over the first eight games, Gary was on the field for roughly 65.5 percent of the Packers defensive snaps. Over the final eight games, that number dropped to 59.6 percent.
You would expect that Gary’s play count would have gone up after Parsons suffered his season-ending injury against the Broncos as the Packers needed Gary and the other edge rushers on the team to step up and raise their level of play. But in those two games (Gary sat out the season finale vs Minnesota), Gary was on the field for just 51.2 percent of defensive snaps.
The other things that upset many fans was what appeared to be a lack of effort and hustle on Gary’s part late in the season. His work ethic had never been questioned before, but in the second half of this season, he seemed to be on cruise control far too often. Even Parsons seemed to allude to this after the season although he did not explicitly mention Gary by name.
The Packers must also consider that Parsons may not be ready to start the 2026 season on Week 1 as he rehabs from his torn ACL. He could also be on a play count early in the season as he works his way back from the surgery. Would the Packers need to keep Gary around to make sure the team has enough proven talent at the position?
As of now, Gary has a 2026 salary of $19.5 million and carries a cap hit of a little more than $28.02 million. That’s a very high number for a player who failed to record a sack or a tackle for loss in the second half of the season.
The Packers have four options. The first is to let Gary play under his current contract. That makes little sense with the team’s need to free up cap space before the start of the league year.
The second option is to release the former Michigan star outright. Letting Gary go could save the team almost $11 million in 2026 but it also creates a dead cap hit for 2026 (or 2026 and 27 if they designate him post June 1st).
The third option would be to restructure Gary’s contract to reduce the 2026 cap hit. That kicks the can down the road and may allow Gary to play at a more reasonable cap hit in this coming season, but eventually, the payment comes due.
They could also try to trade Gary, but that may depend on what the team could get in return and if there are any takers.
Obviously, Gutekunst won’t come out and publicly bad mouth his players to press. But this particular defense of Gary just rang hollow. If he stays in Green Bay next season, the Packers need a better performance from Gary. We’ll know soon how Gutekunst decides to handle the situation.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
You can follow Gil Martin on Twitter @GilPackers
__________________________




Comments (37)
dobber
February 26, 2026 at 07:24 am
As Pete Dougherty says: it's lyin' season. There's nothing that comes out of the mouths of execs at this point that you can take at face value...or even a notch below face value. And that's with other GMs knowing what the Packers' situation is and knowing Gute is not going to undermine his own position and bargaining power. So, yes, he's being serious--serious about the fact that he's trying to work a bunch of different angles.
One thing is pretty clear: the Packers really can't afford to let Gary play at his scheduled contract level in 2026. The other thing that's clear is that there are no unusual option or roster bonuses in Gary's deal that are going to guarantee and hamstring the Packers' cap further, so there are no real deadlines for the Packers to act. Gary is a "bank" that the Packers can tap for more cap space when they need it, but I don't expect them to act until they need to use that space. Unless we hear "the Packers have granted Gary permission to seek out a trade" we won't know what the Packers are going to do until they do it...but, make no mistake, Gute probably has about a dozen scenarios worked out on and around Gary and his contract.
Guam
February 26, 2026 at 07:39 am
Well said Dobber. I guess I've seen too many years of "lyin' season" to take seriously anything an NFL exec says at this time of year. We all want clarity on what our team is going to do, but patience is our only option now. Things will be much clearer in a few months.
LambeauPlain
February 26, 2026 at 07:49 am
Yes, the usual blah blah blah of the offseason. This offseason is going to be very telling. Hubris often precedes the fall.
Policy's first year as President/CEO and Chairman of the Football Committee was a surprising dud. Wow...he seems an unwilling, and not a very good communicator (very private and quiet) to the "owners"...loves the status quo...and is content to run the team operation like a Board meeting. In other words...get awarded the 7th seed and it's all good for 2026.
Gutekuenst has been shrinking in my view. Acquiring Parsons gave me hope he was making a statement to be a real GM. Now he seems very content to run the HR department, just happy to get a new contract and "a seat at the Committee Table". It could be Brian just does not want to be the Football Team GM...prefers being a back bencher with reduced responsibilities.
But Brian did tip his hat a bit regarding Gary by saying "if he is on the team next season". Strange comment for "Mr. Impactful."
Guam
February 26, 2026 at 09:30 am
I shouldn't have been surprised that Policy was an advocate for the status quo, but I am certainly disappointed. Like many here I wanted a return to the "Harlan structure" where there is a true GM of football operations, but Policy believes otherwise. And I don't think that is going to change unless LaFluer screws up royally.
TKWorldWide
February 26, 2026 at 04:23 pm
Could it be that Policy does think this season’s downfall was the key injuries? So he extended BG and MLF with the idea that 2026 is their last chance? And if that is true, would he say so? Of course not.
T7Steve
February 26, 2026 at 07:50 am
What he said. Good job dobber! After that, there's nothing that I can add because there's no way to believe anything right now except to question.
Were those fading snap counts that we were questioning and commenting on in TGR's "Snap Counts" due to some sort of lingering unacknowledged injury? Even before Parsons was injured, I thought they were low in comparison to previous seasons (but of course didn't verify that).
greengold
February 26, 2026 at 09:03 am
Thanks, dobs. Needed that. All I could think upon reading that headline was, "Please, no." I know what my 6 >decades of watching NFL football saw from Rashan Gary's last few seasons, and, no more in a Packers uniform, please.
Bitternotsour
February 26, 2026 at 09:16 am
The operable sentence is that there are scenarios worked out. They've been planned for years. It's shocking to some people that the Packers have actual plans. That the windows extend beyond today, tomorrow and the start of the season. This is a multi-billion dollar company, and they run it on much more than vibes, reactivity, and the scouting prowess of guys who watch tape in their basements.
Which is why it's better to react to what actually happens rather than what might happen, though I know it would spoil the entire off-season for people.
WestCoastPackerBacker
February 26, 2026 at 04:36 pm
Wow, common sense in February! You are a rarity my friend.
TKWorldWide
February 27, 2026 at 06:31 am
(That’s why he doesn’t belong here.)
😉
Bitternotsour
February 27, 2026 at 10:43 am
To be fair, I'm a complete killjoy.
LeotisHarris
February 27, 2026 at 10:48 am
I worry about you a lot. This sentence tells me you're likely low on iron, and may be in need of a stool softener.
Bitternotsour
February 27, 2026 at 10:57 am
Thanks for the concern. The iron thing could be an issue, but softened stool is not a concern.
I'm cutting down on my alcohol intake, for no particular reason, though it has probably made me less entertaining at parties...
PhantomII
March 01, 2026 at 06:35 pm
I don't think it would help our pass rush. Definitely not our CAP.
crayzpackfan
February 26, 2026 at 08:18 am
My main concern is, are we going to kick more money down the road on player who seems average, and who is now half assing it on plays, while ending up taking snaps away from developing new talent? For a team who supposedly has built a reputation on draft and develop, they seem too willing to hang onto those players who get in the way of the develop part of the equation. MLF also appears guilty of ignoring new talent or playing them out of position, often stunting their growth. I see the word status quo in here a lot. It is starting to feel like too polite of a term, where it should be replaced with stagnation. Anyway, hopefully Gute is just full of shit here and fully intends to not "stagnate" on Gary while showing him the door.
dobber
February 26, 2026 at 12:02 pm
It's entirely possible that if they want to work out a trade on Gary, they'll have to restructure his deal and eat some of his money to make him palatable to a trade partner, contract-wise, and to get more in return in terms of capital.
LeotisHarris
February 26, 2026 at 08:35 am
Hmmm...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0hK1wyrrAU
greengold
February 26, 2026 at 09:10 am
Leotis, that's beautiful. Tears.
I loved Mac's "Excuse me..?" - which was like the moment when all fuel & power connections fell off seconds before any Apollo launch and you knew the shit was on!!! LOLZ
"YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!" - apt. 100%.
BuckyBadger
February 26, 2026 at 08:36 am
"Most experts viewed Gary as a likely cap casualty shortly after the new league year starts in a few weeks."
Which experts are these? I always thought a rework could be in order here. His play wasn't as bad as many want to say and if you cut him than you have to spend something to replace him. Not going to defend his play much but sacks are only one indicator and most scouts look at pressure rate more. They can't just loose all their depth at Edge and expect to be better next year. He showed signs of being a good edge player in a previous schemes so it isn't out of the realm of possibility that he can return to that form under a new coach.
If they cut Gary than LVN must become a full time starter and even than they will need to fill out their depth.
crayzpackfan
February 26, 2026 at 01:32 pm
I have heard the phrase rose colored glasses, but I think super soaked beer goggles might be at play with this take.
BuckyBadger
February 26, 2026 at 02:13 pm
Fans are emotional have the memory of a gold fish. If they cut Gary what will be there in his place? Maybe Hafley just couldn't use him right.
crayzpackfan
February 26, 2026 at 03:02 pm
If they cut Gary what will be there in his place?
More money?
Players who give more effort?
Depth building?
If you like paying a lot of money to watch a dude jogging around on the football field, then maybe you can pay for his contract?
BuckyBadger
February 27, 2026 at 08:22 am
Cutting Gary brings a lot of dead cap space with it and you still have to replace him. Fans want to cut everyone who mad them recently mad. Can't make every move from emotion and see what you have.
Can't build depth when you have over $30M in dead cap space and that is exactly what the number will be if they cut him. Already have a lot of dead cap with Clark gone.
GregC
February 27, 2026 at 09:16 am
Yes, cutting Gary will create more dead cap space, but it will save them money overall. It's a legitimate question whether Gary is worth keeping even at a reduced rate. Of course that depends on exactly what the team is willing to pay him. His career trajectory has been on a downward arc for two years, and at this point he may need to be demoted to the #3 edge position and paid accordingly. I doubt that Gary would be happy with such an offer, so the Packers may not even bother making an offer. Without Gary, the edge players will be Parsons, Van Ness, Sorrell, Oliver, probably Cox, maybe Enagbare, and they may draft another one. That sounds reasonable to me.
dobber
February 27, 2026 at 09:55 am
"Yes, cutting Gary will create more dead cap space, but it will save them money overall. "
I think you hit on an important part of the calculus, Greg, as is "can you replace him on what you save?" or, "can you risk leaning into younger, less proven players without Parsons?"...as well as, "what can you do in sum with his cap savings", in addition to "it gets him off the '27 cap altogether".
An underperforming player relative to his contract is essentially dead cap walking.
A lot of different angles to consider.
PhantomII
March 01, 2026 at 06:50 pm
You do realize Gary only plays 40-50% of the time...so full time players are good ones that are on the field 70 plus % of the time. Gary is already a part time player drowning in 28 mill cash...It's a joke. He's robbing #55 and Cox of playing time for them to ascend...He is not. He used to play harder effort...Maybe it's the Parson trade or injury, but he is trotting around and not putting in the effort he used to.
Coldworld
February 26, 2026 at 09:10 am
GMs are like lawyers; you have to listen/look closely for the “small print” get out clauses.
Gute did not say Gary had a good season. Gute did say that 7 sacks was hard to replace. He did not say Gary would be back. He did say that he would expect a high level of performance from Gary as a returning Packer player, but then reminded us that no decisions on personnel had yet been taken.
In short, while admitting that Gary’s production dropped off in the second half, Gute said nothing that means anything and claimed no decision about what they wanted to do in relation to him had been made yet. He further noted that he does not yet know the shape of the D to be played anyway.
So we’d be wise to realize Gute left us no wiser with respect to Gary, by design. A lot of words that say, and commit to, essentially, nothing.
Bitternotsour
February 26, 2026 at 09:19 am
In other words, Gutekunst did his job.
murf7777
March 01, 2026 at 09:54 am
Yes, and it's an important job to keep things close to the vest this time of the year. Every team is seeking some advantage on Free Agents, players being cut and the draft. So, any intention being leaked could end up detrimental for that team.
GregC
February 26, 2026 at 11:59 am
Q: Was GM Brian Gutekunst Serious About the Packers Keeping Rashan Gary?
A: No.
Coldworld
February 26, 2026 at 05:21 pm
Actually, more like “I’m not telling”.
WD
February 26, 2026 at 01:36 pm
Knowing Gute he will restructure Gary's contract and keep him, Gute has repeatedly said that Gary remains a positive impact for the team. Hopefully the team will both save money and still keep Gary. I can't believe all the exaggerated negativity by the peanut gallery. Luckily Gute does not pay attention to the noise .
dobber
February 27, 2026 at 09:58 am
I actually think this is where they go to avoid hitting '26 shorthanded AND create cap space, and a restructure will make him much more palatable to another team in trade either in camp or at the deadline--assuming health and reasonable performance--once Parsons returns and shows he's capable. It will net more compensation if they go that route, too, even though it hits the '27 cap harder.
I say all of this, but it's starting to have the feel of Jaire a year ago, where it lingered and lingered until it started to look like they might bring him back...then they shut him out of camps and cut him (I say that fully recognizing that we haven't hit March 1 yet).
Bitternotsour
February 27, 2026 at 10:51 am
If he wasn't hurt in the last half of the season, well, he's gone. If he was hurt, if the fall-off is legit, he's back. Easy as that.
That's why you have a scouting dept and a medical staff.
And honestly, why we don't know the half of it.
PackerBackerAZ
February 27, 2026 at 01:19 pm
Gary was never playing up to his draft status or 2nd contract. That's what we know is true. If his play crashing after the Steelers game was due to injury, then what the heck was the coaching and training/medical staff doing? Why was he allowed to be a detriment on the field? There isn't anything about it that could remotely be construed as legitimate.
HarryHodag
February 27, 2026 at 10:13 am
From the Eagles song:
"You can't hide your lyin' eyes and your smile is a thin disguise"..
No one in football management will say what they are doing to the public. If you think they should, well, I have some land in Florida, cash upfront.
You actually get more out of this exchange:
(Media) "Gute, how's the weather?"
(Gute)" I like sunny days."
Most press conferences are more for the media folks to show everyone else they were there.
Since'75
February 27, 2026 at 08:25 pm
It could be, that the Packers and Gary are knee deep negotiating a restructured deal, with a cut in pay.
Gary and his agent must know he won't get half what he averages now on the open market..
The Packers want to keep Gary and i think they will.
.02
We'll see soon enough i guess.