After taking on some potential cap casualties that could result in actual roster movement, we\u2019re now firmly in what I\u2019d gently refer to as the \u201cbad news\u201d portion of this project.<\/p>\n
Elgton Jenkins<\/a>? Probably gone, and for understandable reasons. Same goes for Rashan Gary<\/a>. Even Josh Jacobs<\/a> might make some sense. But as much anger as Keisean Nixon<\/a> might generate among Packers fans, it doesn\u2019t make much sense to move on, which is bad news if you were out for roster blood.<\/p>\n And the same is true for Nate Hobbs who, if not for Nixon, would probably be bearing the brunt of Packers\u2019 fans\u2019 ire this offseason.<\/p>\n Hobbs signed with the Packers on a four-year, $48 million contract last spring. The deal included a $16 million signing bonus and another $10.25 million in in guarantees, a rich deal for a player who had never been a full-time starter with his previous team, the Las Vegas Raiders, and had never been healthy enough to play an entire season start to finish.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, his first season in Green Bay was much the same. He was only healthy enough to appear in 11 games, missing the other six due to a variety of injuries; Hobbs finished out the season on injured reserve.<\/p>\n Now heading into his second season with the Packers, Hobbs\u2019 cap hit is set to more than double. Can the Packers justify keeping him around for this season and beyond?<\/p>\n Hobbs\u2019 best attribute was perhaps his least utilized in 2025: he has some legitimate inside\/outside versatility. With the Raiders, Hobbs regularly played both outside and in the slot, and it was as a slot defender that he put up his best performances in Las Vegas.<\/p>\n The Packers, however, played Hobbs primarily as an outside corner; he only logged double-digit snaps in the slot in two games last year. That\u2019s partly due to Javon Bullar\u2019s ascendance there, but it\u2019s odd that a player who succeeded there before wouldn\u2019t get more of a crack at the spot.<\/p>\n Hobbs also showed himself to be an aggressive tackle, bringing a hard-nosed mentality the Packers\u2019 defense has sorely lacked in recent years. Unfortunately, Hobbs may have gone a little too hard; one of his injuries early in the season appears to have been at least partially to blame on Hobbs\u2019 being a bit too aggressive in practice. Still, with the Packers constantly facing accusations containing some kind of insinuation or outright criticism that they\u2019re soft, it\u2019s hard to complain too much about that kind of mentality as long as it doesn\u2019t get Hobbs or his teammates regularly hurt.<\/p>\n The case against Nate Hobbs<\/p>\n Unfortunately, for all his aggression Hobbs, to put it bluntly, was just not very good when he was on the field. Even before his second injury of the year cost him Weeks 10-13, he had essentially been phased out of the defensive lineup in favor of Carrington Valentine \u2014 which is saying something, considering Valentine\u2019s own struggles in 2025.<\/p>\n In raw numbers terms, Hobbs was arguably the worst cover man on the Packers. Quarterbacks were 17 of 25 for 239 yards and two touchdowns. Only Kingsley Enagbare and Jamon Johnson, an edge rusher and a practice squad linebacker, respectively, gave up more yards per completion than Hobbs (14.1 per completion), and no player surrendered a worse passer rating 125.3 allowed). Of NFL the 255 players who logged at least 245 coverage snaps, only 22 allowed a worse passer rating, and that includes five linebackers.<\/p>\n And for that performance, the Packers paid the aforementioned $16 million signing bonus and are now on the hook for a $6.25 million roster bonus on the second day of the league year. If they stick with Hobbs and pay the bonus, that means he\u2019ll have made more than $22 million dollars in signing and roster bonuses alone before he\u2019s even appeared in a dozen games for the Packers, to say nothing of his per-game roster bonuses and workout bonuses. That\u2019s a heavy amount of cash flow for very little return.<\/p>\n The bottom line: Nate Hobbs was expensive, injured, and ineffective in 2025, but it\u2019s not like the Packers have a ton of other options<\/p>\n Now here comes the \u201cbut.\u201d<\/p>\n All of the criticism of Nate Hobbs is true and inescapable. He wasn\u2019t healthy often enough, wasn\u2019t good when he was healthy, and will make a disproportionate impact on the Packers\u2019 2026 cap.<\/p>\n But the problem is, the Packers can only gain about $1 million in cap space by parting ways with Hobbs, hardly a worthwhile savings considering it\u2019d put them exactly where they were a year ago at the cornerback position. Brian Gutekunst has a lot of tendencies as a general manager, and one of his strongest is refusing to get boxed in at a spot. Releasing Hobbs (or Keisean Nixon or both) would put him in a position where he has to draft or sign a cornerback, or maybe do both.<\/p>\n It\u2019s hard to envision Gutekunst or the Packers biting that particular bullet. They\u2019re not in a position to turn over all or most or even a significant part of their cornerback room: short on bodies and low on talent. They\u2019re looking at a multi-year project, and if that\u2019s going to be how it\u2019s going to be, you may as well see what you can squeeze out of Hobbs in the meantime before he\u2019s ultimately squeezed out of a job, either when the cap economics make more sense or when some new prospect outperforms him.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"After taking on some potential cap casualties that could result in actual roster movement, we\u2019re now firmly in…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":707190,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2072],"tags":[7,41,345,52919,2514,2513,6,428],"class_list":{"0":"post-707189","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-green-bay-packers","8":"tag-football","9":"tag-green-bay","10":"tag-green-bay-packers","11":"tag-green-bay-packers-analysis","12":"tag-greenbay","13":"tag-greenbaypackers","14":"tag-nfl","15":"tag-packers"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/channels.im\/@nfl\/115963330943858438","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/nfl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/707189","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/nfl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/nfl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/nfl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/nfl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=707189"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/nfl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/707189\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/nfl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/707190"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/nfl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=707189"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/nfl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=707189"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/nfl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=707189"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}