![\"Green](\"https:\/\/platform.acmepackingcompany.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2026\/01\/gettyimages-2248191987.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0.019275250578261%2C0%2C99.961449498843%2C100&w=2400\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The Green Bay Packers<\/strong> are once again approaching an offseason defined less by splashy additions and more by difficult financial decisions.<\/p>\n According to Over the Cap\u2019s latest cap casualty rankings<\/strong>, four Packers players appear among the top 100 most likely cuts league-wide heading into the 2026 offseason. Only three franchises \u2014 the Arizona Cardinals<\/strong>, Minnesota Vikings<\/strong>, and Washington Commanders<\/strong> \u2014 have more players listed than Green Bay.<\/p>\n While four names may sound alarming at first glance, the reality is more nuanced. Not every player on the list is equally vulnerable, and when Green Bay\u2019s roster philosophy, contract structures, and long-term planning are considered, only two of these four players truly project as near-locks to be released<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s a breakdown of each situation \u2014 and what it means for the Packers\u2019 broader cap strategy.<\/p>\n OTC Rank:<\/strong> #7 If there is one move that feels inevitable, it\u2019s the release of Elgton Jenkins<\/strong>.<\/p>\n This decision has been looming for over a year. Jenkins\u2019 massive 2026 cap hit<\/strong>, combined with a noticeable decline in play dating back to 2024, made him a logical cap casualty even before the 2025 season began. His offseason holdout, aimed at securing an extension, was a clear signal that Jenkins understood where things were headed.<\/p>\n General manager Brian Gutekunst<\/strong> and cap strategist Russ Ball<\/strong> never budged.<\/p>\n Jenkins returned to the lineup as a center, but the position change failed to reverse his downward trajectory. His performance did not rebound after slipping at left guard the year before, and in Week 11<\/strong>, he fractured his fibula \u2014 an injury that almost certainly marked the end of his tenure in Green Bay.<\/p>\n From a financial perspective, the move is unavoidable.<\/p>\n Releasing Jenkins would immediately free up $20 million in cap space<\/strong>, money the Packers badly need as they prepare for a transitional phase of the roster. Given his age, injury history, declining performance, and cost, there is no realistic scenario where Jenkins remains on the team.<\/p>\n Verdict:<\/strong> Locked-in cap casualty.<\/p>\n OTC Rank:<\/strong> T-33 Despite appearing high on the list, Keisean Nixon<\/strong> is far from a sure thing to be cut.<\/p>\n In fact, all signs point to Green Bay keeping him.<\/p>\n First and foremost: cost<\/strong>. Nixon is scheduled to earn just $5 million in cash<\/strong> in 2026 \u2014 roughly one-quarter the going rate for veteran starting cornerbacks on second contracts. For a Packers team facing cap pressure and limited draft capital, affordability matters.<\/p>\n Second, usage tells a story. When Trevon Diggs<\/strong> returned to the field late in the season, his snaps came at right cornerback<\/strong>, not Nixon\u2019s spot on the left side. That suggests Nixon remains entrenched as a starter in the coaching staff\u2019s eyes.<\/p>\n Perhaps most telling was Week 18 against Minnesota. In a game where the Packers actively protected their most valuable players, Nixon was pulled after the opening drive (which he requested to start), while safeties Javon Bullard<\/strong> and Evan Williams<\/strong> continued to play \u2014 even at the risk of injury. That choice speaks volumes about how the staff values Nixon.<\/p>\n With Green Bay\u2019s limited draft flexibility \u2014 currently slotted to pick 84th overall<\/strong> at the earliest for a cornerback \u2014 cutting Nixon would open a hole the team has few realistic ways to fill.<\/p>\n Verdict:<\/strong> Unlikely to be cut.<\/p>\n OTC Rank:<\/strong> T-43 The idea of cutting Josh Jacobs<\/strong> sounds logical only if you ignore context.<\/p>\n Yes, Jacobs is 27. No, that is not \u201cold\u201d in any meaningful sense \u2014 particularly given how the Packers\u2019 offense is constructed. The struggles of Green Bay\u2019s run game in 2025 were far more about blocking issues<\/strong> than running back performance.<\/p>\n Just as importantly, Jacobs\u2019 competition doesn\u2019t inspire confidence. The only other backs on the roster, Chris Brooks<\/strong> and Emanuel Wilson<\/strong>, are restricted free agents. Tendering either would cost approximately $3.5 million<\/strong>, a number the Packers are expected to decline \u2014 sending both players to unrestricted free agency.<\/p>\n That would leave MarShawn Lloyd<\/strong> as the only remaining option \u2014 a player who has appeared in just one career regular-season game<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Saving $8 million<\/strong> by cutting Jacobs only to enter the draft with one unproven back would be an unnecessary self-inflicted wound. Unless Lloyd\u2019s development drastically changes the equation, Jacobs remains essential to roster stability.<\/p>\n Verdict:<\/strong> Highly unlikely to be released.<\/p>\n OTC Rank:<\/strong> T-98 Rashan Gary<\/strong> represents the most complex decision of the group \u2014 but also one that likely ends with his departure.<\/p>\n After an outstanding year-and-a-half stretch in his prime, Gary\u2019s performance has steadily declined. The 2025 season may have marked his low point, as he finished among the least efficient pass rushers<\/strong> in the league despite logging heavy snap counts.<\/p>\n From a production-to-cost standpoint, the numbers simply don\u2019t justify keeping him on the current deal.<\/p>\n Cutting Gary would create $11 million in cap savings<\/strong>, a critical figure when combined with the Jenkins release. That flexibility would allow Green Bay to re-sign key contributors like Sean Rhyan<\/strong>, retain depth players, and enter the draft with a workable financial baseline.<\/p>\n A restructure is possible, but unless Gary is willing to accept a significant pay cut, a clean break appears more likely.<\/p>\n Verdict:<\/strong> Strong candidate to be cut or heavily reworked.<\/p>\n If Green Bay ventures into free agency this offseason, it will do so cautiously.<\/p>\n Borrowing cap space from future years would accelerate the post-2027 teardown<\/strong>, something the organization wants to avoid. This roster\u2019s competitive window realistically runs through 2025 and 2026<\/strong>, with a reset expected in 2027\u201328.<\/p>\n As a result, any external additions are far more likely to come from other teams\u2019 cap casualties<\/strong>, not expiring free agents.<\/p>\n Why? Compensatory picks<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Projections currently have Green Bay in line for:<\/p>\n A 2027 fourth-round pick<\/strong> (Rasheed Walker)<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Three 2027 fifth-round picks<\/strong> (Malik Willis, Romeo Doubs, Quay Walker)<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n The maximum number of comp picks a team can receive is four, and the Packers are unlikely to jeopardize those selections by signing outside free agents that would cancel them out.<\/p>\n This is not a team that offsets comp picks. It never has been.<\/p>\n When all factors are weighed \u2014 performance, cost, depth, and long-term strategy \u2014 the Packers\u2019 path becomes clear:<\/p>\n Elgton Jenkins:<\/strong> Gone<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Rashan Gary:<\/strong> Likely gone or restructured<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Keisean Nixon:<\/strong> Staying<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Josh Jacobs:<\/strong> Staying<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Green Bay isn\u2019t rebuilding yet \u2014 but it is preparing for what comes next. The moves made this offseason will be less about splash and more about positioning the franchise for its next competitive cycle.<\/p>\n And if history is any guide, that discipline \u2014 not urgency \u2014 will define how the Packers navigate 2026.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Packers Face Tough Salary-Cap Decisions in 2026: Two Veterans Stand Out as Likely Casualties The Green Bay Packers are once again approaching an offseason defined less by… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":136981,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-136974","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-nfl"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nElgton Jenkins (OL): A Near-Certain Departure<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n
Negative Fate Probability:<\/strong> 78.6%<\/p>\n
\nKeisean Nixon (CB): Likely to Stay Despite the Rankings<\/h2>\n
![\"Green](\"https:\/\/platform.acmepackingcompany.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2026\/01\/gettyimages-2250601389.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0.0043825050398851%2C100%2C99.99123498992&w=2400\")
<\/p>\n
Negative Fate Probability:<\/strong> 65.9%<\/p>\n
\nJosh Jacobs (RB): Age Narrative Doesn\u2019t Match Reality<\/h2>\n
Negative Fate Probability:<\/strong> 64%<\/p>\n
\nRashan Gary (EDGE): Cut or Restructure Feels Inevitable<\/h2>\n
Negative Fate Probability:<\/strong> 50%<\/p>\n
\nPackers\u2019 Broader Cap Philosophy: Draft, Develop, and Delay Spending<\/h2>\n
\n
\nThe Bottom Line<\/h2>\n
\n