Trading Kyle McCord
One of the most talked-about moves was the trade of quarterback Kyle McCord to the Miami Dolphins in exchange for a 2028 sixth-round pick. The logic behind trading McCord was straightforward: Green Bay did not want to carry three quarterbacks on the active roster. Acquiring a future draft asset for a player who joined the team on a future deal earlier in the year provided a reasonable return.
However, the perception of value can shift quickly in the NFL, and McCord proved capable of earning significant preseason credibility. By trading him, Green Bay gave up a potential internal option who could have developed into a helpful asset should Jordan Love miss time during the upcoming season. The practical question becomes: was it worth risking a higher-caliber backup quarterback availability in the future for a sixth-round pick that may or may not yield impact players years from now?
An alternative path many analysts considered was keeping three quarterbacks for the short term. The Packers were rostering seven interior defensive linemen, a luxury that could have been balanced by carrying an extra quarterback and still maintaining depth elsewhere. Another possibility would have been releasing Tyrod Taylor, a veteran on a one-year deal, and keeping McCord as the primary No. 2 quarterback. Taylor’s experience could have served as a bridge until McCord matured and was ready for more considerable responsibilities. In hindsight, the choice to trade McCord may create a longer-term quarterback depth issue, especially as the team looks ahead to next offseason.
Waiving long snapper Cal Adomitis
The decision to waive long snapper Cal Adomitis surprised many observers. Adomitis had been a stabilizing presence during training camp and the preseason, developing a strong connection with rookie kicker Trey Smack. The pairing performed exceptionally well, converting all nine field-goal attempts during the preseason and providing a level of reliability in the kicking operation.
By moving on from Adomitis and opting to keep veteran long snapper Matthew Orzech, Green Bay swapped in an incumbent who, while competent, isn’t considered elite at the position. This creates an element of risk in the special teams unit. The timing makes the gamble more pronounced given that the regular season was approaching, and continuity between the long snapper and the kicker is critical for consistency. The decision to favor Orzech, with a known baseline, over Adomitis—who had a proven preseason rapport with Smack—could surface issues if snaps or timing falter under pressure.
Keeping offensive lineman Travis Glover
Another notable choice was retaining 10 offensive linemen, including sixth-round pick Travis Glover. Glover has had limited impact since entering the league and is known more for versatility than proven reliability. His playtime in the preseason highlighted some strengths in the run game, but pass protection remained a concern. The Packers started Glover at guard and tackle in the preseason, signaling versatility that is valuable for roster flexibility.
Despite the ability to swing between right guard and right tackle, there is skepticism about whether Glover’s track record justifies a spot on the 53-man roster. The decision appears to hinge on his versatility rather than consistent high-level performance, a common but risky approach. If Glover’s development stalls, the Packers could face a tougher choice midseason, potentially exposing vulnerabilities in the interior protection schemes or depth at multiple spots along the line.
Bonus concern: only four edge defenders on the 53-man roster
The defensive edge group stood out as an area of concern. With only four edge defenders on the active roster—Lukas Van Ness, Brenton Cox, Barryn Sorrell, and Dani Dennis-Sutton—the Packers are thin at a position that can be pivotal for pressuring the quarterback and generating disruption.
The absence of a veteran addition at edge rusher compounds the risk, especially after the unit’s heavy reliance on Micah Parsons last season, who started the year on the physically unable to perform list. Collin Oliver was placed on injured reserve with a designation to return later in the season, further weakening the early-season pass-rushing presence. While there is hope that Parsons returns soon and Oliver provides a later contribution, the lack of immediate depth could put extra strain on the defense, particularly in games where pressure needs to be generated with a limited front.
In this context, there is a practical argument for keeping a seasoned edge player who can contribute right away. The Packers’ decision to rely on younger players, practice-squad elevations, and potential late-season returns may work in theory, but it also creates a narrow margin for error. If injuries or slow development occur, the team could face tough decisions when relief options are constrained by the opening-game roster.
Bottom line
Cutdown day typically involves balancing immediate needs with longer-term strategy. The Packers made some moves that appear sensible on the surface—such as the McCord trade for future capital and Adomitis’s departure in favor of an established long snapper—but these choices also carry potential downsides.
Positionally, the team faces a need for more reliable depth at edge defender, and a more secure quarterback contingency plan for the coming season could be prudent. The offensive line depth is another area to monitor, given the questions surrounding some players’ consistency and protection performance.
As the regular season unfolds, the impact of these decisions will become clearer. If the decision-making pays off, the Packers will have navigated a tricky process well. If not, the high-cost lessons learned from cutdown-day moves could prompt adjustments in midseason or influence how the organization approaches roster management in the future.
Note: This summary preserves the key facts and context of the discussed roster decisions while avoiding any references to the original publication or promotional materials.
