GREEN BAY − Green Bay Press-Gazette and PackersNews columnist Pete Dougherty responds to reader questions on the hot topics of the Green Bay Packers’ offseason.
Can we discuss Packers GM Brian Gutekunst’s drafts?
John F: Hi Pete. You deserve true admiration for taking so much time to do this chat. It’s pretty clear it’s not the most desirable of tasks for a writer, but it is quite enjoyable for the fans. Thank you!
And now that I’ve been polite, I have a beef with you. It honestly stuns me when I see criticism of Gutekunst drafts. Not only is that an extraordinarily challenging endeavor, he almost always drafts after the most talented players are gone! That single reason should get him off the hook for having so few superstars. These last three drafts, I would contend, are at least the equal of anyone else’s, if not the very best. Why aren’t there more applause from you and your co-workers?
Pete Dougherty: OK, let’s get started with a few questions about the column I wrote on Brian Gutekunst’s drafting, with the help of research by Yale economics professor John Geanakoplos. Here’s a link if you didn’t read it: https://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/dougherty/2026/03/23/brian-gutekunsts-drafting-is-short-on-difference-makers-for-packers/89274656007/
Though to your first point, I’d just like to say I enjoy doing these chats. It is a big project each week, but your questions are excellent and get me to think about things I otherwise might not, as well as at least reconsider other beliefs, and just in general to share what I’ve learned covering the Packers and NFL since 1993.
So thanks to all of you who take the time to submit questions.
Now, to John’s question.
Yes, drafting is an extremely difficult endeavor, and there are way more misses than hits, that’s the nature of drafting. And yes, drafting higher in the order undoubtedly improves the odds of finding good and great players.
I should also add right off the bat that I think Gutekunst is a good GM. He has fielded good teams, he’s overseen the transition from Aaron Rodgers to a new QB he handpicked, and the Packers have made the playoffs every year since parting ways with Rodgers. The Packers also are in a good position heading into 2026.
But it’s also true that Gutekunst could help his cause a lot by hitting bigger on a pick or two. Just a player two a cut above could help get his team over the hump.
I agree his recent drafting has been much better and said that in the column. His ‘22 draft was excellent. The Packers almost surely will sign four players from that class to second contracts (Zach Tom and Sean Rhyan already have, Christian Watson has a holdover deal and likely will sign a big extension this offseason, and Devonte Wyatt also will probably sign an extension this offseason).
Plus three of his other picks from that draft signed good deals in free agency (Romeo Doubs, Quay Walker and Kingsley Enagbare). That’s an uncommonly high number of solid or better NFL players from one draft.
Considering NFL teams average signing about 1.5 of their picks from each draft to a second contract, re-signing four from one draft is exceptional.
Gutekunst’s 2023 draft has two good players (Tucker Kraft and Jayden Reed) who could end up with second deals, and ‘24 has at least two (Edgerrin Cooper and Evan Williams), with the jury out on whether Jordan Morgan will be a second-contract left tackle.
So those are good classes. I think I’ve said all those things multiple times in columns and mailbags over the last couple of years. No shortage of kudos for Gutekunst there.
But if you look at the lists of All-Pros and Pro Bowlers, they’re not all first-round picks. For instance, Detroit has had 10 players since the 2018 draft make at least one first-team All-Pro or Pro Bowl team. Five were first-round picks, including two in the top seven (Penei Sewell and Aidan Hutchinson). But five were drafted in rounds two through four.
So GMs can find players of that quality in later rounds. I don’t know that Baltimore has routinely picked higher in the draft than the Packers, yet the Ravens rank at the top of both the All-Pro and Pro Bowl lists for players drafted since ‘18.
Hard as it is, it can be done. It takes both good scouting and good luck.
If Gutekunst continues to draft like he has more recently, especially like he did in ‘22, the Packers will be in really good shape. But even if he doesn’t get the quantity of solid players like he did in ‘22, he could help his team enormously by somehow or other uncovering a high-level player or two. Hard to do from where the Packers routinely draft, but doable. And maybe a couple of his more recent picks will get there.
Digger: Hi Pete, great article on lack of Pro Bowlers and All-Pros in Gutey drafts. First, who is “ready for prime time” on the roster? (Definitely Kraft, perhaps Lukas Van Ness, Cooper and Williams?) Second, do weak first-round picks even further justify two R1s for Parsons, since Gutey would blow the picks anyway? Third, is All-Pro a poor measure of draft success? As you point out, teams with more wins get more players named All-Pro, including some less deserving (high tide floats all boats)?
Dougherty: Lots to address here.
I’d say Kraft, Cooper and Williams are the best bets for All-Pro. I think Cooper and Williams especially have a good chance. Kraft is really good too, though we’ll have to see whether the ACL tear takes much out of him.
I could see Christian Watson having a shot at a Pro Bowl. I’m also curious to see if Matthew Golden might have that kind of ability, I think there’s real talent there. We should get a better idea this year.
I wouldn’t rule out Zach Tom, either, though a torn patellar tendon is a tough injury and could diminish him, too.
And let’s not forget Jordan Love. He could be a Pro Bowler. He’s had some stretches of really good football and should be hitting his prime.
I’m more skeptical about Van Ness’ chances, though. I mean, you never know, players improve at different rates, and maybe he has a big jump left in him. He turns 25 in July, so his best football should be coming in the next couple of years. But I’m guessing he’s shown who he is, a strong, athletic edge guy who’s a solid all-around player but not a pass rusher.
I’m doubtful he’ll ever be a Pro Bowler, let alone an All-Pro. At that position you have to put up sack numbers, and Van Ness hasn’t shown enough to date to think that’s coming. He’ll get his chance this season. He should be a full-time player.
As for playing the odds by trading two first-rounders for Parsons, I’d say Parsons was worth that regardless of Gutekunst’s first-round record as a drafter.
Parsons is a rare talent and young (26) when Gutekunst traded for him. Drafting is a hit and miss prospect for everyone, so to get a proven talent such as Parsons for two first-rounders is worth it, especially if you’re likely picking later in the first round anyway.
As for whether All-Pro is a poor measure of draft success, I’d disagree and say it is one of several ways to measure draft success. Not claiming it’s the only measure or best measure, but I don’t think it should be dismissed.
Yes, some players get named All-Pro because they play for good teams, and thus their names are more recognizable. But it’s also probably true their teams are good in part because they’re a good player. I’m a Pro Football Hall of Fame voter, and I can tell you that All-Pros count for a lot in a candidate’s case.
Like I said, there are other ways to measure draft success, too. Second contracts are as good a way as any. There’s no single, ideal way to measure draft success that I know of. We’re all looking for objective ways to judge drafting, and All-Pros and Pro Bowls is one. Second contracts is another. I’m open to more ideas if anyone has any.
Robert G: For the average Packers fan, we did not need analysis from a Yale economics prof to know the Packers’ top picks of the first three rounds in the last number of years were kind of forgettable. Your thoughts?
Dougherty: I think it’s more Gutekunst’s early drafts were forgettable than his last few. As we just discussed in a previous question, his 2022 draft excellent, and ‘23 and ‘24 have been pretty good too.
Where I thought the data was valuable was to compare the Packers’ drafting with the rest of the league.
And again, All-Pros and Pro Bowls aren’t the only measure of drafting. Second contracts is a good one too.
Jim B: Hi Pete, while it’s true that Gutey’s drafts have been low on difference makers, the Packers for the most part have been drafting in the back end of most drafts in all seven rounds because of their winning records over his time. The Lions, for example, have been able to draft in the top third of the draft for a few years giving them access to the top talent in the draft.
With that said the Packers have missed on some good players when they had the chance. An example was passing on Creed Humphrey, an All-Pro center, over Josh Myers. The best measure of success would be those getting second contracts where Gutekunst has done a nice job. So overall he has done a good job but it will take a Great One to get to the Super Bowl again. Your thoughts, Pete.
Dougherty: Yeah, second contracts are a really good measure also.
In that regard, Gutekunst’s early drafts came up shy, but his more recents have been good. His first four drafts produced four second contracts: Jaire Alexander, Rashan Gary, Elgton Jenkins and Love.
Gutekunst has said the NFL average is about 1.5 per draft.
Ron Wolf drafted 20 players who signed second contracts in his 10 drafts, so that’s 2.0 per draft. Ted Thompson drafted 21 players who signed second contracts from his 13 drafts, or 1.6 per draft.
Now, finding a quarterback should count for extra, but strictly on the numbers, Gutekunst averaged 1.0 second contracts in his first four drafts. As mentioned in an earlier answer, he’ll probably have four from the ‘22 draft alone. His ‘23 draft will have two or three (Kraft, Reed and maybe Van Ness). His ‘24 draft will have at least or possibly as many as four from among Cooper, Williams, Javon Bullard and Morgan.
So judging by the second-contract standard, Gutekunst’s drafts look a lot better than by the All-Pros and Pro Bowls.
Like I said, If Gutekunst keeps drafting like he has recently, the Packers will be in really good shape. But he could help his team a lot by hitting big on a pick or two.
Jack: Hey Pete, I really enjoyed your article about the Packers drafting and how it really boils down to QB play. We spend so much time analyzing football, but doesn’t it just boil down to that Love is a good quarterback, but not generational like Brett Favre or Rodgers?
Dougherty: Honestly, maybe my biggest takeaway from the draft data was that it was yet more evidence, as if any were needed, of what a quarterback-driven league the NFL is.
If you look at the chart that accompanied my column, Pittsburgh was at the bottom of the chart for both All-Pros and Pro Bowls among players drafted since ‘18. Baltimore was first.
And yet, if you switched the quarterbacks of those franchises, the Steelers would be the team advancing deep into the playoffs, and the Ravens, despite the more highly decorated drafted talent, would be just scraping into the playoffs. That’s the difference a quarterback as good as Lamar Jackson makes compared to the QBs the Steelers have been trotting out there in recent years.
As for Love, yes, the fact he hasn’t played as well as Favre and Rodgers goes a long way to explaining the difference in the Packers’ record during his tenure compared to theirs.
But as you note, Love has shown he’s good, and the arrow still should be pointing up for him. He gives the Packers a chance to be very good. Sam Darnold just won the Super Bowl, and he’s a good QB with plenty of talent, but I’m not convinced he’s any more talented than Love.
Let’s not forget that Darnold melted down at the end of the ‘24 season (big losses in the regular-season finale and then wild-card round of the playoffs) with the Vikings after leading them to a 14-3 record. That raised big questions about whether he’d improved as much as the Vikings’ record suggested. But then he capped a 14-3 season this year with Seattle by playing well in the playoffs and winning the Super Bowl. He’s in his late ‘20s and suddenly blossoming.
So Love doesn’t have to be as good as Favre and Rodgers to win a Super Bowl. He just has to keep getting better.
Are there leaguewide stats on injury recovery in the NFL?
Troy T: The Packers are expecting (counting on?) a number of really good players to overcome significant injuries and return to a high level of play. However, they have had a number of similar players in the past that never really overcame their injuries. I realize there are a number of factors affecting a player’s recovery, such as injury type, position and age. But are there any statistics or other information on how many players are able to successfully overcome a significant injury?
Dougherty: This is the one thing I’d be holding my breath on if I’m the Packers going into this season.
They lost four good to great players to serious injuries last season: Parsons (ACL), Kraft (ACL), Tom (torn patellar tendon) and Wyatt (broken lower leg). The Packers are counting on all to return and still being top players. It’s possible they will, but as you note, not all players return to form after a serious injury.
Watson’s strong comeback from a torn ACL last year bodes well for Parsons and Kraft. As far as I know, they were all only torn ACLs, no other collateral damage. But just because one player recovers well doesn’t mean another will. Nothing is a given here. I don’t think Rashan Gary was quite the same after his torn ACL, for instance.
There are only a few publicly available studies online looking at recovery of NFL players from serious injuries such as ACLs and patellar tears, and I don’t think they’re all that recent.
You can glean some info from online searches of well-known NFL players who have had any particular injury, just search the injury and “NFL” for stories. But those are more anecdotal and usually don’t have much hard, updated data.
Teams share injury data with the league, so I’m sure the Packers can access that and find far more detailed studies and actuarial tables on return from injuries than what is available to the rest of us.
Anyway, the Packers are in fact counting on several of their best players to return to form from serious injuries. Whether those players can do it will be one of the big stories of the Packers’ season.
Could Jon-Eric Sullivan hurt the Packers’ draft?
Don from Green Bay: Hi Pete, thanks for the chat. Just wondering how Jon-Eric Sullivan’s move to Miami might affect Green Bay’s draft. I assume he’ll have the same draft board as Green Bay’s, and the Dolphins pick just ahead of the Packers in Rounds 2, 3 and 5. Depending on how needs align, do the Packers need to fear that he’ll know their preferred players and swoop in and grab someone before our pick comes up? Thanks.
Dougherty: Sure, that’s something Gutekunst will have to keep in mind. Though without a first-round pick, I’m not sure how inclined he’ll be to spend extra draft capital just to jump ahead of Sullivan. Guess it will depend on just how much he likes a player.
It’s also worth pointing out that Gutekunst and Sullivan surely don’t see all players the same, either, so their boards still will differ. And that’s without even taking into account scheme and staff influence on each draft board.
Also, the serious setting of draft boards doesn’t happen until just before the scouting combine, and Sullivan was in Miami by then. So he was gone by the time those meetings were held in Green Bay. From what I know, teams conduct their biggest draft meetings just before the combine, and then again in the three weeks leading up to the draft.
But still, yeah, Sullivan and Gutekunst will know a lot about which players the other likes. There’s always the chance there could be some interesting cat and mouse between them.
Why don’t the Packers have a kicking coach?
Rich Streeter: When I look at the bios of the Packers’ three special teams coaches, I see a lot of stats about field position. I only see one mention of field goal percentage, and that is from the guy who was a defensive coach in GB last year. Why is it that there is no coach that seems to be an expert in kicking, punting or long snapping on the staff when that is arguably the ST’s most glaring issue(s)?
Dougherty: I’ve asked about this over the years, and from what I can tell the main reason teams don’t have a kicking or punting coach is that all these specialists already have their own coach.
Everyone in the NFL is a hired gun, but kickers and punters especially are in a separate category. They’ve been working at their niche crafts since they were teenagers, and by the time they get to the NFL they have established a relationship with a personal kicking coach. They usually don’t want another voice in their ear who might give them contradictory advice. If they think they need a new swing coach, they’ll find one. But from what I can tell it’s just not worth it for teams to have placekick and punt coaches on staff.
Maybe this will change in the future. Coaching is getting more and more specialized in the league. But the thinking is, if these guys are having any trouble or want advice, they go to the specialty coach they’ve been working with since before they got to the NFL.
Off the top of my head I don’t know of any team that has a full-time assistant who specializes in kicking or punting.
Is tight end a draft need?
Pete in Cape Coral: Hello Pete, thanks again for the chat. This is Luke Musgrave’s final year on his contract, and he hasn’t lived up to the second-round pick he is. Do you see GB drafting a TE later in the draft and if so, would it be more an in-line blocking TE or a receiving threat that Musgrave was supposed to be?
Dougherty: I’d say there’s a pretty good chance the Packers will draft a tight end at some point in this draft, and yeah, I’d think it would be one who leans more to the blocking side of things. If they don’t draft one, seems a given they’ll sign one or two as undrafted rookies.
The Packers’ best blocking tight end is Kraft. Musgrave is a bad blocker. Josh Whyle, who for now is their No. 3, is more a receiver than blocker. So it seems a given LaFleur wants a good blocking option at tight end if he can get one. He likes using multiple tight-end personnel, so he can never have enough players at that position.
For that matter, the Rams last year got a lot of mileage out of three tight-end sets, and LaFleur undoubtedly keeps an eye on what his former boss (Sean McVay) is doing. They run the same scheme. McVay went to the three tight end sets out of necessity because of early-season injuries at receiver, and he liked it so much he used it a lot even as his receiving corps got healthy. LaFleur might want to give that a shot himself as a change of pace.
So yeah, the Packers are in the market for many things, and tight end surely is one. I’d think they’d lean more toward a blocking-type, but the more complete a tight end is, the better.
Rhinelander Blair: Given the moves so far this offseason, it appears like Packers are gearing up for the 2027 season hoarding compensatory picks rather than going in on 2026 season. Do you see them signing some old veterans on short-term contracts to fill some of the holes on the roster and then being all-in for 2027?
Dougherty: I can’t shake the feeling that there’s more to come for the Packers than just the draft. Not predicting earth-shaking moves, but I just wonder if Gutekunst will end up signing a veteran stopgap or two either just before or just after the draft.
Bob Harlan’s greatest contributions?
Gerard: Pete, you began reporting on the Packers and had a birds-eye view of the Bob Harlan era. What do you think his most significant contribution was to the organization, or do you have any personal stories of an interaction you had with him during your time together?
Dougherty: Harlan’s most significant contributions were big.
The first was hiring Wolf and giving him full authority over football matters. The Packers had made bad football hires ever since Vince Lombardi left, which is why they were one of the NFL’s worst franchises in the ‘70s and ‘80s. And the power-sharing setup they had with the coach and GM in the later ‘80s and start of the ‘90s simply wasn’t working.
Harlan realized that to get a good football man to run the team, he’d have to give him full authority to hire and fire the coach and run all things football. He’d learned that when he had a late-night, three-hour dinner with Wolf when the latter was in Green Bay to interview for the Packers’ GM job in 1987.
Harlan wasn’t doing the hiring then, he was assistant to team President Robert “Judge” Parins at the time. But the night before the interview Harlan learned a lot about Wolf, and then when he took Wolf to the airport after his interview with Parins, Wolf said he’d taken himself out of the running because it was a power-sharing position with the coach. So Harlan knew then that to get a highly regarded football man such as Wolf he’d have to give him full say over football.
Harlan had the credibility with the Executive Committee in November 1991 with his plan to fire Tom Braatz and hire Wolf. The Packers’ post-Lombardi failures made his case compelling, and the Executive Committee OK’d his plan. We all know how that turned out.
Harlan’s other big move was pouncing on the Packers’ Super Bowl win in the ‘96 season to plan the refurbishment of Lambeau Field and hold the stock sale the Packers needed to help finance it. He also later pounded the pavement to help convince Brown County voters to pass a sales tax increase that also was needed to finance the project.
The Packers’ success under Wolf, and the income brought in by refurbishing Lambeau, is the foundation upon which the Packers and Titletown District are built today. Harlan was the prime mover.
Tom S: Not so much a question but a comment for the mixed-legacy department. Shortly after being hired as Packers coach in January 1971, Dan Devine was looking for help with contracts and various administrative duties. At the time, Bob Harlan was working for St. Louis Cardinals GM Bing Devine (no relation) but looking to move up. Dan Devine knew Bing from his days as coach at the University of Missouri and asked for a referral. Long story short: Dan Devine, the man who set the Packers franchise back by half a decade or more with one of the worst trades in NFL history, may actually have saved the franchise by hiring Bob Harlan as assistant general manager in 1971. Legacies are complicated.
Dougherty: Thanks for pointing that out, legacies are complicated. Devine was mostly a disaster, but his hiring of Harlan ended up changing the trajectory of the franchise. Even if no one had a clue at the time.
My understanding is that Harlan essentially handled Devine’s administrative duties but didn’t work on contracts until later in his time with the Packers. Harlan had a PR background – he’d been the Cardinals’ director of public relations from 1968-71.
He later negotiated contracts, worked his way up the ladder, and you know the rest of the story. What an interesting way to think of Devine’s legacy. Not that it was at all in Devine’s plan.
Are the Packers’ safeties that good?
Jesse: Hello Pete. I have often read comments in the sports articles on this site that the Packers may have one of the top safety tandems in the NFL. Can you point to any particular plays that make that stand out to you and others? I just don’t see a lot of splash plays. What is the reason for the high evaluation of Xavier McKinney and Evan Williams? Is it PFF grades? Tackles made? Thanks.
Dougherty: Yes, McKinney and Williams are one of the best safety duos in the league. McKinney is already well decorated, and I suspect Williams will be before it’s all said and done.
McKinney didn’t have as many splash plays last season as he made in 2024 (eight interceptions and 11 passes defensed), but he still was a second-team All-Pro last season. He was first-team All-Pro his first season with the Packers.
One reason his interception numbers were down last season is teams also didn’t throw downfield at him nearly as much as they did in ‘24. All those interceptions scared them away. He also dropped three or four good chances at interceptions. That’s another reason he had only two interceptions last year. He’s just a good, all-around player.
Williams has a nose for the ball and stood out mostly on run defense. It seemed like he had a play or two every game where he flew up from the safety position and made a tackle at the line of scrimmage where it looked like he was blitzing but in fact he’d just read the play and filled quickly.
If you’re looking for specifics, he had an exceptional game in the Packers’ win at Detroit on Thanksgiving Day. Eric Baranczyk and I wrote about him in our film-review column that week.
Williams made eight tackles that day, and they weren’t downfield, they were near the line of scrimmage. He was a key factor in the Packers holding Jahmyr Gibbs to 3.4 yards a carry and 68 yards rushing that day. Gibbs is one of the best backs in the league and had 219 yards rushing the week before.
Are the Packers better today?
Kurt: PD, I think we got better this offseason. A young man’s game. Thoughts?
Dougherty: Definitely a young man’s game.
But I have to point out, the Packers recently signed an old guy (34-year-old Javon Hargrave) to play a significant role on their defense line, so they didn’t get younger there.
Again, when we talk about the Packers getting better, are we talking the Packers at the end of the season, when they didn’t have Parsons (and Kraft, Wyatt and Tom)? They should be better just getting those guys back.
The Packers’ chances of getting better elsewhere will rely on a lot of things. Golden emerging as a playmaker, Reed staying healthy, Morgan proving to be an upgrade at left tackle over Rasheed Walker, finding a cornerback in the draft who’s ready to help this year, and Anthony Belton blossoming at guard, among other things.
Do the Packers need more help at linebacker?
Jeff M: Thanks for the chat, Pete. Does it seem to you that the Packers still have work to do at linebacker? From what I’ve read Zaire Franklin is not a cover guy. Neither is Isaiah McDuffie. That leaves Cooper as the only linebacker with coverage ability, and that would limit his blitzing and play at the line of scrimmage. If they can’t get a better a linebacker with better coverage ability would it make sense to play three safeties in certain situations?
Dougherty: I don’t think there’s a starting linebacker still to be acquired this offseason, if that’s what you’re asking.
They traded for Franklin and then gave him a $2M raise, so I don’t see them bringing in another veteran. It would help them if Ty’Ron Hopper made a big jump in Year 3 and beat out Franklin for the starting job. But after Hopper’s disappointing performance when he got his chance to play all game at Minnesota in the regular-season finale, I can’t say that’s likely to happen.
So I’d expect Franklin to play a lot, but for new defensive coordinator Jonathan Gannon to use him in a way that won’t put excessive pressure on him as a cover man. Franklin would have been a bad fit for Jeff Hafley’s defense, because Hafley’s scheme (like Robert Saleh’s and DeMeco Ryan’s) relies heavily on having fast linebacker who can cover a lot of ground in coverage.
But if by playing three safeties you mean using Bullard as a second linebacker in a nickel defense that includes five defensive linemen and Cooper, then yes, I could see that being part of Gannon’s plans. It sounds like Gannon played a lot of three-safety lineups in Arizona, and using Bullard would be one way to fortify coverage at linebacker while still having five defensive linemen on the field to stop the run.
Those are the kinds of things we’ll be looking for in training camp and early in the regular season from the Packers’ new DC.
Why bring back Brandon McManus?
Michael: Brandon McManus is 1-for-4 on field goals in his two playoff games with the Packers. In what universe does that merit a $1M roster bonus? There were several elite veteran kickers available in free agency; it’s mind-boggling that Brian Gutekunst chose to stick with McManus.
Dougherty: I can’t say I find the decision mind-boggling, though after the Packers’ playoff loss to the Bears I have to admit I thought the missed kicks more likely than not would cost McManus his job.
But there were no elite kickers available in free agency that I know of. Nick Folk was the biggest name available, and he’s a 41-year old who signed for $4.5M this year.
There is no getting around that McManus’ missed kicks against the Bears – two field goals and an extra point – were huge. He makes his kicks, the Packers win that game. Tough, windy conditions that night, but still. I walked out of Soldier Field that night thinking the Packers more likely than not would move on from him, but I did not think it was a given.
McManus did finish the regular season by going 13-for-13 on field goals and 16-for-16 on extra points after he returned from his quad injury in midseason. Gutekunst mentioned that after the season when asked whether McManus would be back. Sounds like that was enough to convince Gutekunst to bring him back despite the three big misses against the Bears in the playoffs.
I get your point. Some teams have a quick hook with kickers, others don’t. Gutekunst apparently doesn’t want to get caught in the bind he was in two years ago, when he went through several kickers. He likes McManus as a veteran who’s had success in the league and has won a Super Bowl.
So yeah, chances are really good McManus will be back. But if he has a bad camp, the Packers might have eat that $1M bonus they paid him recently and find somebody else. They do still have Lucas Havrisik on their roster as competition for him.
And with that, we’ll call it a wrap on this mailbag. Thanks again to all who submitted questions, just know it’s all greatly appreciated. We’ll be back next week. Until then, take care everybody.
This article originally appeared on Packers News: Pete Dougherty has answers on Gutekunst’s drafts, Harlan’s legacy
Reporting by Pete Dougherty, Green Bay Press-Gazette / Packers News
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
