Packers 2026 NFL Draft Simulation: What Happens If Green Bay Follows the Consensus Board?

What would happen if the Green Bay Packers ignored roster needs and simply drafted based on pure consensus board value?

That’s the premise behind this 2026 NFL Draft simulation. Instead of prioritizing immediate holes at cornerback, along the offensive line, or across the defensive front, this exercise isolates value relative to draft position. The goal is simple: identify where Green Bay’s picks intersect with the consensus board rankings — without allowing team needs to distort the process.

By removing positional urgency from the equation, we can better understand surplus value opportunities, tier breaks, and how positional runs may shape the board when the Packers are on the clock.

Here’s how the draft unfolded when value alone dictated the decisions.

Round 2, Pick 52 — Gennings Dunker, OT, Iowa

Iowa Hawkeyes offensive tackle Gennings Dunker aligns well with Green Bay’s historical offensive line profile.

At 315 pounds, Dunker brings prototypical NFL size along with meaningful positional versatility. The majority of his collegiate snaps came at right tackle, but he also logged reps at guard — a trait the Packers have consistently valued under general manager Brian Gutekunst.

Across 2,209 career blocking snaps, Dunker was penalized just 11 times. That discipline stands out.

He may not possess elite tackle athleticism, which could limit his long-term ceiling on the edge. However, his body control, strength, and experience project well to a potential move inside. From a consensus value standpoint, landing Dunker at 52 would represent a strong alignment between projection and draft slot.

Round 3, Pick 84 — Sam Hecht, C, Kansas State

If Green Bay allows veterans to depart this offseason, the interior offensive line could quietly become a long-term question mark.

Enter Sam Hecht from Kansas State Wildcats.

Hecht’s athleticism defines his profile. Kansas State’s run game leaned heavily on his ability to climb to the second level and operate in space. That mobility allowed the Wildcats to maintain a versatile ground attack.

In pass protection, Hecht was steady and efficient. Last season he allowed just eight pressures and zero sacks across 392 pass-blocking snaps. He also earned a 77.7 run-blocking grade, reflecting consistency in multiple phases.

Even if center isn’t viewed as an urgent need, Hecht’s consensus value at Pick 84 would justify the selection. Developmental upside combined with movement skills makes him intriguing in today’s NFL.

Round 4, Pick 120 — Beau Stephens, G, Iowa

With Beau Stephens, the Packers would double down on Iowa offensive linemen.

Stephens primarily played guard during his time with the Hawkeyes. While he brings ideal size and physicality, his role specificity differs from Green Bay’s typical preference for versatile linemen who can play multiple spots across the front.

From a value-only lens, the selection makes sense if Stephens grades appropriately in this range. However, drafting three consecutive offensive linemen — even in a value-driven simulation — feels unlikely in reality.

Still, this exercise isn’t about probability. It’s about board alignment.

Round 5, Pick 158 — Sam Roush, TE, Stanford

Tight end might not headline Green Bay’s offseason needs, but depth and blocking consistency remain under-the-radar concerns.

Stanford’s Sam Roush fits the mold of a traditional in-line tight end — a player willing to do the dirty work in the trenches.

Stanford Cardinal has produced technically sound tight ends before, and Roush’s blocking ability carries real value in Green Bay’s run-heavy concepts.

As a receiver, Roush remains a work in progress. Drops and inconsistency at the catch point limit his immediate upside. But as a developmental TE2 or TE3, his physicality and effort profile would justify a mid-round investment based strictly on consensus ranking.

Round 6, Pick 199 — Aamil Wagner, OT, Notre Dame

At this point in the simulation, Green Bay selects its fourth offensive lineman in six picks — and fifth overall.

Notre Dame Fighting Irish tackle Aamil Wagner was a two-year starter and team captain. Leadership traits are evident, but his overall experience level is lighter compared to some early-round prospects.

Wagner played exclusively at right tackle, which could limit his immediate versatility. The Packers typically prioritize multi-position flexibility, particularly among mid-to-late round linemen.

Still, if Wagner’s consensus ranking matches this slot, the value argument stands. Late-round offensive line swings are a hallmark of Green Bay’s roster-building philosophy.

Round 7, Pick 236 — Eli Heidenreich, WR, Navy

This might be the most exciting value pick of the simulation.

Navy Midshipmen wide receiver Eli Heidenreich boasts an absurdly efficient production profile — 3.94 career yards per route run.

That number signals consistent separation and capitalizing on opportunities.

Heidenreich’s versatility makes him especially intriguing. He can line up:

Outside
In the slot
In the backfield
On special teams

That multipurpose skill set expands schematic flexibility and adds depth across phases. Even if wide receiver isn’t a pressing need, this selection would represent outstanding surplus value in the seventh round.

Round 7, Pick 254 — Logan Taylor, G, Boston College

Boston College Eagles guard Logan Taylor feels like a quintessential Packers pick.

With over 1,000 career snaps at both tackle and guard, Taylor embodies positional flexibility. He also carries the size profile Green Bay historically targets in developmental linemen.

Yes, this would mark the fifth offensive lineman in the class. But in a value-based simulation, positional redundancy becomes secondary to maximizing board alignment.

Taylor arguably offers one of the clearest pathways to earning a roster role due to his versatility.

Round 7, Pick 257 — Namdi Obiazor, LB, TCU

The lone defensive addition in this simulation comes from TCU Horned Frogs linebacker Namdi Obiazor.

Obiazor was a productive run defender with strong tackling efficiency. He posted an 8% missed tackle rate last season and an even better 6.3% mark in 2024.

However, coverage remains a concern.

In today’s NFL, linebackers must offer value in space to stay on the field for three downs. Obiazor’s combine performance will be critical in determining whether he has the movement skills to expand beyond early-down responsibilities.

From a pure consensus value perspective at Pick 257, though, the selection carries minimal risk.

What This Simulation Reveals About Green Bay’s Draft Positioning

This exercise highlights several important takeaways:

Offensive line value aligns frequently with Green Bay’s slots.
The board repeatedly intersected with trench prospects at each stage of the draft.
Positional runs can overwhelm perceived needs.
Even without targeting offensive line intentionally, the board naturally funneled the Packers toward that group.
Late-round value often favors versatility.
Heidenreich and Taylor stand out because of their multi-role capabilities.
Defensive needs may require strategic movement.
If Green Bay wants impact defenders, simply sitting at consensus value spots may not align with their needs.

Final Thoughts

If the Green Bay Packers drafted strictly off the 2026 consensus board, they would walk away with five offensive linemen, one tight end, one wide receiver, and one linebacker.

That outcome likely wouldn’t reflect their actual strategy. However, it underscores how draft value can diverge from team need — and how front offices must constantly balance both forces.

Value maximization and roster construction rarely align perfectly.

But by examining where consensus projections intersect with draft positioning, we gain a clearer picture of where Green Bay might uncover hidden surplus — and where they may need to get aggressive to secure difference-makers.