Welcome back to another mailbag! If you’re a company looking for naming rights to this column, email [email protected]. That’ll make more sense later. If you’re here as a reader, I’m happy you made it! Let’s jump right in. 

“Loved the acquisition of Hargrave, but if Gannon wants to play a 3-4 the Packers are still one nose tackle short of a complete DL.  Even if Gannon plays a 4-3, I still think they need one tree stump of a DT to help with the run defense.  Do you think the Packers will prioritize a run stuffing DT from the draft or try to acquire a NT (Tomlinson?) in free agency?  Or do neither and are satisfied with their DL? I like your new column and hope it catches on in a big way.  Thanks for giving the "commenters" a chance to get specific questions addressed.” - Craig

Hi Craig! I appreciate the kind words. This column has kept things fun for me because I get to talk about so many different topics each week, which I appreciate. I’m excited to see what it’s like once we’re into the regular season. 

I’m in full agreement that the Packers need a true nose tackle. Hargrave is a nice addition to bolster the d-line, but he does more for the pass rush than he does for run-stuffing. You can see the vision with the Packers rostering a guy like Nazir Stackhouse, but that’s a big ask for an undrafted free agent going into only his second season as a pro. My hope is that Green Bay invests a Day 2 pick on a space eater. I’m sure they’ll be shopping the bargain bin of free agency, too (we’ve seen Gute make late moves for players before, like signing De’Vondre Campbell in June), but I’d think a true run defender has to be a draft priority. 

“Has the CBA with its hard restrictions on practice time limited the viability of the draft and develop approach? If so, have the Packers made the adjustment or will we look back at 2026 as an anomaly?” - Hesoder 

This is a really interesting question. If I’m misinterpreting what you’re asking please let me know. But I’m thinking you mean in regards to how many padded practices a team can have during training camp and in the regular season? Or are you talking more about how draft picks (most recently Shemar Stewart with the Bengals) can sit out of practice until they sign their rookie contracts? Because that piece comes down to language in guaranteed contracts, I would say. 

I think the Packers are always a little bit of an outlier in their draft and develop strategy because they do what they can to not have to start rookies, so they really do lean into the development approach. The most notable example of course is quarterbacks with Aaron Rodgers sitting behind Brett Favre and Jordan Love sitting behind Rodgers, but the front office always loves to pair free agents with draft picks. Think of drafting Rashan Gary to play behind Za’Darius Smith and Preston Smith. Javon Bullard and Evan Williams did become starters right away, but they had veteran Xavier McKinney to run alongside them. 

Even going into this draft where cornerback and defensive line are arguably the two biggest needs. The Packers added depth at CB with Benjamin St-Juste. If a rookie corner wins the starting job, great! But it’s not a necessity. And now if Green Bay adds a nose tackle (please!) he’ll have Hargrave and Wyatt as veteran bookends on the line. 

Does that kind of get at your question? I think the Packers try to keep themselves in a unique position so they don’t have to rely on rookies. They certainly can, but I would expect the coaching staff to talk more about the “classroom” aspect of a rookie getting up to speed than actually practicing on the field. I’m not sure the number of padded practices matters too much regarding whether or not rookies are comfortable starting on game day. Even when Green Bay did draft a player who could arguably start immediately in Matthew Golden, his snaps went to other bodies in the room despite the injuries piling up around him. I hope that gets to what you were asking! If not, you know where to find me on Bluesky! 

“Who do you feel are the biggest outliers in FA/Draft strategy as relates to roster construction?” - Charlie

I think the Saints are probably the best example of a team that perpetually mismanages their cap space. It seems like we’re always reading about them being in a problematic cap situation, and they currently sit second in the NFL (behind only the rebuilding Dolphins) with $115 million in dead cap money (per Spotrac). To put that into context, the Packers have just shy of $40 million in dead cap money, and the Super Bowl champion Seahawks have under $1 million. Seriously. Under $1 million. 

There are teams that have established identities, like the Packers being a draft and develop team. Nobody ever expects them to make big swings in free agency (which is why the Micah Parsons trade was so mindboggling). Other teams, like the Jets, are always spending a ton in free agency to try to get back into the mix after poor seasons. For what it’s worth, the Jets are third in the NFL in dead cap. They’re also fourth in the league in available cap space, so they have space to take those big gambles but then mismanage the roster and find themselves repeating the cycle. Drafting so high as frequently as they are, they have better chances at finding immediate-impact players. But as we’ve also seen, some of those players end up traded to other teams to put the Jets in a perpetual rebuilding cycle (sorry Sauce Gardner and Quinnen Williams, but you’re better off now). 

“Hey Maggie! Interested in your opinion on this whole “naming rights” thing. I thought the timing of Ed’s comments was curious, at least. I’m probably not alone in hoping we don’t have to sell the rights, but also probably not alone in realizing that, someday, we’ll have to just to keep up. But for starters, can’t we just name other things around Lambeau? Like the Hudson Center? Or the Atrium? Heck, name the toilet stalls one by one, I don’t care! Just (try) to leave “Lambeau” alone ….for the sake of us purists. Thanks!” - Jim

I mean we already have the named gates, right? The Kwik Trip gate, the Fleet Farm gate. There’s the Johnsonville Tailgate Village. Ed Policy kind of alluded to that in the article, saying “We’re soon to be the only stadium without naming rights. That’s not a threshold we’re looking to cross any time soon, but we might be a little more aggressive with some of the other entitlement inventory we just hadn’t taken advantage of in the past, including things like training facility entitlements and the Titletown campus.”

I really don’t see Lambeau Field itself being renamed, but I definitely think just about everything around it is going to be branded eventually. How about the “Festival Foods Pro Shop” or the “Culver’s Hall of Fame.” Join us for a Snap-On Stadium Tour. 

Policy also talked about how important it is to have non-Packers events at Lambeau Field to continue generating revenue that way. And while none of this will affect the salary cap in terms of contracts players can sign, it may eventually become a conversation in terms of resources, if the Packers fall behind in any way. 

I’m with you, though, from a purist standpoint. I can’t imagine calling it anything else (and I simply wouldn’t, just like Miller Park rolls off the tongue so much easier than American Family Field). I would hope that any “renaming” would be something like “Lambeau Field presented by Lotzza Motzza” and it wouldn’t just be Lotzza Motzza Field. Anyone interested in anything to do with Lambeau Field should recognize its history enough to understand the importance of the name and keep it. But, maybe that’s my fan bias showing and it isn’t that deep to others. I’d be curious to hear what people think! 

That’s all we’ve got for this week’s edition of Ask Maggie: Your Packers Mailbag presented by copious amounts of caffeine (copyright pending). Send your questions in for next week’s mailbag at [email protected].