Another perspective on Rasheed Walker

A week ago, Peter explained why the Packers might trade left tackle Rasheed Walker this offseason. Today, we dive into the argument against such a move.

Good morning!

The 2025 NFL Draft kicks off in less than a month. That, of course, means the next few weeks represents the height of lying season. A deluge of misinformation will drown out much of the true developments going on behind the scenes.

While The Leap will endeavor to separate the signal from the noise over this period, today's edition of the newsletter will focus instead on the Green Bay Packers' existing personally, primarily an offensive lineman whose future with the franchise remains undetermined.

---

Thank you for reading and supporting our coverage. You can also support our work by following us on social media:

Jason B. Hirschhorn: @by_JBH on Twitter / @byjbh@bsky.social on Bluesky / @by_jbh on Threads

Peter Bukowski: @Peter_Bukowski on Twitter / @peterbukowski@bsky.social on Bluesky / @peter_bukowski on Threads

The Leap: @TheLeapGB on Twitter / @theleap.bsky.social on Bluesky / The Leap's YouTube channel

If you appreciate thoughtful, independent coverage of the Packers and NFL, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support allows us to serve this community with the stories and reporting it deserves.

As always, thanks for making The Leap a part of your day.

---

Another perspective on Rasheed Walker

Jason B. Hirschhorn: Last week, Peter wrote about three players besides Jaire Alexander who the Packers could potentially move this offseason. In that piece, he laid out why each of the players mentioned might not have long-term futures in Green Bay and the value of getting something in return for them now rather than later (if at all).

I want to dig deeper into one of the three: left tackle Rasheed Walker.

First, let's quickly summarize the reasons why Peter thinks Walker could become expendable. Right now, the Packers have invested significant money along the offensive line, including multiyear veteran deals for Aaron Brooks and Elgton Jenkins as well as an expected extension for Zach Tom. Teams can only put so much money into a single unit as other parts of the roster require resources too, and few teams carry more than three huge contracts for the O-line alone.

Between the large commitments to Banks, Jenkins, and eventually Tom, as well as the recent first-round selection of Jordan Morgan, Peter surmised that the Walker -- who enters the final year of his contract -- might not have a home in Green Bay beyond 2024.

I think Peter has a valid point about asset allocation and the limits to how much the Packers can reasonably invest in the unit at a single time. However, I think he picked the wrong candidate to get left out in the cold.

The situation the Packers will face between now and 2026 doesn't look dissimilar to the one they encountered a decade ago. At that time, David Bakhtiari had proven himself a more than capable left tackle who would soon require an extension, and right tackle Bryan Bulaga had already signed a multiyear deal. Meanwhile, the interior featured stud guards Josh Sitton and T.J. Lang.

Faced with a similar issue of asset allocation, the Packers opted to cut Sitton shortly before the 2015 season and ultimately let Lang walk in free agency a year later. Those moves freed up the resources to pay for Bakhtiari's extension, among other things.

Now, let's return to 2025. Walker hasn't played to the level that Bakhtiari did through three seasons, but he has established himself as one of the league's better young left tackles. In 2024, he allowed just three sacks over 18 games, playoffs included. He also hasn't missed a game over the last two seasons. Even if Walker's performance doesn't improve beyond what he showed last year, that still would merit a long-term extension. Certainly, other clubs have already considered making a run at him next offseason should he become available.

To keep Walker, the Packers would probably need to free some money, currently committed or otherwise, along the O-line. That won't come from Tom who has developed into the team's best offensive lineman and also plays tackle. Banks just signed his deal and, barring a Jonah Jackson-level disaster, will return for 2026. That leaves Jenkins as the potential odd man out.

Considering the circumstances, such a move makes more sense than trading Walker now. Jenkins turns 31 in 2026, two years older than either Sitton or Lang during their final seasons in Green Bay. With one exception, the Packers haven't rostered a starting interior lineman that age or older over the past decade and change. That exception, Jahri Evans, signed as a one-year stopgap in 2017 and played mostly because the team's bet on Justin McCray didn't hit.

Currently, Jenkins will cost just under $25 million against the cap in 2026, more than $7 million more than he will this year. If the Packers trade or cut him before June 1 of the next offseason, they would save exactly $20 million in cap space. That represents significant savings on a player who, given his age and recent downturn in play, probably won't receive a third contract in Green Bay.

And those resources could go right back into the offensive line. Peter speculated that Walker could land a deal worth $20 million annually, and the money saved from Jenkins could cover that cost. And with Walker and Tom secured at tackle, Morgan could slide into guard where he spent his rookie year. That could provide an upgrade over Sean Rhyan whose contract expires after 2025 regardless.

The Packers would need to find a replacement for Jenkins at center, but they'll have to find a replacement for someone next offseason in essentially any scenario. And with Jenkins unlikely to remain in Green Bay beyond 2026, getting ahead of that while retaining both of the team's talented young tackles makes sense.

Putting aside the long-term considerations for a moment, the Packers also have to consider the present. General manager Brian Gutekunst has already stated his desire to push chips toward the middle of the table in 2025, and trading the starting left tackle now doesn't align with that vision.

"We need to continue to ramp up our sense of urgency," Gutekunst said at his season-closing press conference in January. "These opportunities don't come (often). The life of a player in the National Football League is not very long. We've got a bunch of good guys in that locker room, we've got a bunch of talented guys in that locker room, and I think it's time we started competing for championships."

Holding onto Walker for 2025 better serves that mission, and the Packers will still retain financial flexibility along the offensive line in the future. That makes for a more compelling plan than creating a massive hole on the blindside before the start of such an important season.

Certainly, none of the decisions the Packers have to make along the offensive line this year or beyond look easy. All of the players mentioned have plenty to offer, and the roster looks stronger with each of them on board. But the NFL forces teams to make tough personnel choices, and Green Bay will have to decide how best to allocate its resources in the short and long term.

Accordingly, finding a way to keep Walker rather than move on now seems like the more sensible option.