Green Bay Packers guard Aaron Banks. Mandatory Credit: Jeff Hanisch-Imagn Images

Packers called out for $125 million free-agency flop

Originally posted on WI Sports Heroics | By John Sbisa | Last updated Oct 23, 2025 4:53 PM ET

The Green Bay Packers‘ top two free agency moves have not panned out as planned. Cornerback Nate Hobbs, signed for four years and $48 million ($16M guaranteed), is banged up and playing poorly — so poorly, in fact, that the Packers would do well to consider upgrading via trade.

Guard Aaron Banks, signed for four years and $77 million ($27M guaranteed), has also been affected by injuries. Not only has Banks missed 2.5 games, but bringing him in at guard forced Elgton Jenkins to shift to center. This sparked preseason contract drama between the Packers and Jenkins, who voiced concerns about his long-term earning potential in a typically lower-paid position.

Let’s face it, both players have been disappointments. ESPN writer Bill Barnwell said as much in his tiered offseason re-grading project for all 32 teams.

Green Bay didn’t get what it paid for

Barnwell bases his tiers on expectations — the project's core idea. Therefore, sizable investments, such as allocating $125 million to two potential starters, are criticized for not producing more than minor-salary flyers. Clearly, the Packers invested quite a bit in Banks and Hobbs.

Overall, despite trading for Micah Parsons and drafting Matthew Golden, the Packers are categorized as "slightly below expectations." Disappointing starts from Banks and Hobbs are the reasons why.

Injury and its impact on their play have significantly reduced the Packers’ return on investment. Like Hobbs, Banks has not performed well when he's played, ranking 65th out of 82 eligible guards by PFF grade. Even more than Hobbs, his hefty free-agency deal was seen as an overpay from the start. Based on six games, that assessment has unfortunately proven to be accurate.

From a durability perspective, the Packers understood what they were signing up for with Hobbs (16 games missed in three seasons). However, when he's on the field, they expect him to perform well. That hasn’t happened.

While Hobbs hasn't ranked as poorly as Banks (60th/112), he played poorly enough that some fans are suggesting Carrington Valentine should replace him as a starter. It’s either that or trading for a replacement. Hobbs hasn't been performing up to expectations, and as long as his knee issues persist, there’s little reason to believe he'll be significantly improved.

In both cases, Barnwell criticizes the Packers for making personnel moves that don’t quite fit. Signing Banks required moving Jenkins to center. Hobbs is better suited for covering the slot, but the Packers have assigned him to outside receivers instead. Parsons and Golden are performing at or above expectations, but it’s fair to say that Banks and Hobbs have been “underwhelming,” as Barnwell states, at best.

This article first appeared on WI Sports Heroics and was syndicated with permission.

More must-reads: