Inbox: What a conversation starter

Matt from Waunakee, WI

Hi Mike, when at home do you use your job as an excuse to watch sports?

No, it's my excuse for being on my phone all the time, which drives my wife nuts. Understandably so.

Jennifer from Middleton, WI

Hey Spoff, any word yet on that office? Or will you be moving to a bright shiny new cube? I assume with the upcoming move, a cleanout has commenced. After nearly 20 years, I'd love if you would share the forgotten gems you may have found, or perhaps something old but definitely makes the "move pile."

We have moved to our new workspaces and are anxiously awaiting the completion of the new studio for our video/podcast endeavors. But due to the ongoing office construction around the building, it's the third time I've moved in the last three years, so I've purged quite a bit along the way. My biggest regret since leaving the second floor after the '23 season is this: From the top of the cube cabinets, I took down my collection of "Division champs" souvenir hats from my tenure so far ('07, '11-14, '16, '19-21, plus the NFC title and Super Bowl hats from '10) and have not found an adequate place to re-display them. My new cube doesn't have the same style cabinets. They'd always generate fun conversations from passers-by, including the occasional lost player. Right now they're in a box under my new desk, fate uncertain.

Reed from Myrtle Beach, SC

Now that we have had to digest the past season, I feel in my gut that if the Packers had the services of Tucker Kraft and Micah Parsons at the end we were good enough to reach the Super Bowl. When you consider how competitive we were without them, that's not hard to visualize.

Throw in Devonte Wyatt and I'm right there with you, but I applaud Gutey's offseason message of not falling back on the injuries as an excuse. No matter how frustrated, leadership cannot simply throw up its collective hands in resignation.

Jack from Chicago, IL

My opinion on GB's inconsistent ability to close games came down to a few key deficiencies. Primarily lack of strength and depth on the lines. Teams like the Eagles and the '24 Lions for instance just controlled you at the LOS, which there is no way to adjust around. GB's short-yardage runs were atrocious this year and the rush sans Parsons fell back to the previous year. I also think the lack of YAC without Kraft is a sneaky killer. The best teams seem to often break out a checkdown to seal games.

And yet, amidst all that, you can point to at least two plays in each of the games that got away late that would've produced a different outcome had just one of them gone another way.

Jeff from Waterford, WI

Is it worth trading up in the second round? Considering the pack drafts at the back end.

It would probably cost the Packers their third-round pick to move toward the top of the second round, according to the trade chart. With the Packers having only five total picks from rounds 2-6, I'd consider it unlikely.

Jeff from Ely, MN

Regarding the combine/draft process, it seems the Packers rarely pick a player that fails the "attitude test"; at least I can't remember one. Whereas other teams seem to be more willing to gamble with a player who's had a few behavioral issues. Sometime it works, while other times definitely not. Would you say that's a function of our coaching staff, GM, willingness to draft and develop (and mature?) or the fact we don't have a single owner pressuring the choice we make? Or something else?

Think of it as factoring into how the Packers build their draft board. Sometimes, behavioral or other issues are enough to keep a player off the board entirely. Other times, they might knock a player with, say, second-round talent down to fourth-round consideration on the board. So if he's there at a spot the risk could be worth the reward, they might take him, but another team might've swooped in to grab him earlier because it had a different view of those issues/risk.

Andy from Danvers, IL

Can you explain how adding void years to a contract help a team create space with their salary cap? Are there any current Packers that might be a candidate for this to free up some space on the 2026 cap?

Anyone with a sizable salary or roster bonus for the coming year would be a candidate. Here's one way it would work (sorry for the math): Say a player with three years left on his contract has a $10M salary or roster bonus due. The team could convert that $10M into a signing bonus, which spreads it out over five years for cap purposes, so $2M per year on the cap, with the last two years of those $2M charges added as "void" years beyond the expiration of his deal. That immediately frees up $8M in cap space, as the $10M on this year's cap drops to $2M. But $2M has been added to the cap for each of the next two years of his current deal, and if the player's contract is not extended (or if it's terminated before it expires), all the signing bonus money that hasn't yet counted against the cap, including the $4M from the void years, accelerates onto the cap immediately.

Brett from Smyrna, GA

Was wondering if the lack of first-rounders this year and next can be a positive? Outside of potentially missing out on a game-changer, which is hit or miss in the late stages of the round, could it be a positive that you do not have to allocate first-round money for the next two years and "spread the wealth" a little more given current cap restrictions?

No one wants to go into a draft without a first-round pick. It does mean there will be less cap space allocated to the draft class, but let's be honest – the massive investment in Parsons is where that money went.

Rich from Bannockburn, IL

I heard an internet pundit say, in defense of Rashan Gary, that playing under Hafley's 4-3 defense the past two years were not playing to his strengths, and that he played much better under the previous 3-4 defenses. And because of the Gannon hiring and his 3-4 focus, Gary should be retained with a salary restructure and should shine again. So Ms. Vito, does the defense's case hold water?

I'm as curious as anyone what's going to happen with Gary. I believe he improved considerably as a run defender under Hafley. What I've wondered is whether the discipline required to play the run well took away some of his pass-rush impact. Don't know that for a fact, just pondering. Do the Packers see what he can do in Gannon's scheme? Deem him too expensive and move on? Ask him to take a pay cut, which he certainly could refuse and take his chances on the open market? We'll find out soon enough.

Bob from Emmaus, PA

With the success that Malik Willis brought with his mobility, will we see Jordan Love be coached to run if necessary, or is this too risky and he'll utilize rollouts and other motions to extend plays?

All of the above. Love will continue to pick his spots when to run, but there's always risk and he has dealt with injuries (knee and groin in '24, shoulder in '25). But he's first and foremost a pocket passer who's at his best with the offense timed up and in rhythm. The priority is always to get into that mode and build from there.

Ronald from Edison, NJ

Are we going to keep Luke Musgrave or go after a tight end in the draft?

Probably both.

Hannes from Glendale, WI

Are we all making the wrong comparison when looking at the Willis situation like Darnold in Minnesota? Maybe we should look at Darnold in San Francisco and see what Willis can make of his next opportunity first.

Right.

Doug from River Falls, WI

There are two things I would call fallacies in general. The first is playing a (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th) place schedule. This isn't 1999 when teams truly played schedules according to how they finished in their divisions. Today, only three games are different for all four teams in a division. The other is 3-4 vs 4-3 defense. Since most defenses only play a true 3-4 or 4-3 about 10% of the snaps, and 4-2-5 on about 80% of the snaps, it doesn't seem to be enough of a difference. Where am I wrong?

I think those three games in the schedule can make a difference if they fall a certain way, but there are so many variables over the course of a long season I still believe in the adage "it's not who(m) ya play but when ya play 'em." Nickel became the "new" base defense at least a dozen years ago.

Joe from Swansea, IL

Just wondering this as I hear chortling out of a certain city in northeastern Illinois. When you assess a team's success year to year, how much do you look at whether it played a first- or a fourth-place schedule? I think the Commanders are a good example of a team playing well in a softer schedule, but then cratering when all the first-place teams came calling the next year. Is that overblown?

In the case of the Commanders, their starting QB played only seven games.

Jeff from Monticello, WI

Hello II, can two shutdown corners and a dominant nose tackle fix this defense?

I don't think a defense that finished just outside the top 10 in yards and points allowed, and ranked much higher than that before Parsons' injury, necessarily needs fixing. It needs reinforcements, and those two positions are important to reinforce.

Josh from Playa Majagual, Nicaragua

I just saw a certificate from the first Packers stock sale in '23 sold for $64K, not a bad $5 investment especially considering no ownership was conveyed with the sale. I know stock ownership is limited to 200K shares to prevent a hostile takeover, but do we know who our majority shareholders are? 539K people own about 5.2M shares so there must be some "big fish." Does anyone own a share from all six offerings (via inheritance/gift)?

I have no idea on your "big fish" question, but I have wondered whether a family out there has a certificate on the wall from every stock offering. What a conversation starter.

Peter from Wauwatosa, WI

So far, the talk of the town is Green Bay's first selection will be at cornerback, do you agree? If so, could you provide us with a few players the Packers could pursue?

I don't know if it'll be a cornerback, but regardless, this week I've begun my Prospect Primer research into Day 2 (Round 2-3) players who could be available to the Packers. I need some time to put it together and the series will launch in April.

Mike from Ellicott City, MD

I fear the NFL has devolved into an untenable situation regarding the salary cap. The formula for playing in the Super Bowl is to have a solid QB, still on their rookie contract, so they still have lots of cap room left to load up on the rest of the players. Once the QB "gets paid" and is re-signed after his rookie contract, the whole economic dynamic changes, and in my opinion not for the better. Have you heard any rumblings from NFL execs or team execs about addressing this situation?

Ha, no. They don't view it as a "situation" that needs addressing. It's the reality in a QB-driven league that other challenges arise once you've found "the man," but dealing with those challenges beats crossing your fingers you can find the next one. Darnold, Hurts, Mahomes and Stafford are QBs from the last five Super Bowls who were not on rookie contracts.

Sean from Palatine, IL

Good morning Mike! Apologies for the math but ATMR (WCBR), there have been 18,235 games played in NFL history. Not counting ties, 45% of all NFL games have been one-score games. Turns out it's pretty hard to win by two scores.

Happy Wednesday.

HAVE A QUESTION?