It at one stage seemed plausible that the Green Bay Packers could move on from Josh Jacobs. Not anymore.
Reading the tea leaves on the Packers' offseason, every sign points toward Jacobs returning, and Bill Huber of Sports Illustrated has emphatically confirmed that.
"Rumors are like an avalanche in that once they get going, they are impossible to stop. One such rumor is that Green Bay Packers running back Josh Jacobs was on the trade block or even a potential cut candidate," Huber writes. "Well, that's not happening. It was never happening. Jacobs was not on the trade block. He was not a potential cost-cutting release."
Packers have left no doubt about where they stand on Josh Jacobs' future
Huber is absolutely right. General manager Brian Gutekunst made it clear he wanted Jacobs back, but it's his actions, not his words, that tell the full story.
When the Packers surprisingly released Aaron Jones in 2024, they had already pivoted to Jacobs in free agency. Gutekunst made no such move this offseason. He actually took a step in the opposite direction, surprisingly choosing not to bring back Emanuel Wilson, who signed a bargain one-year deal with the Seattle Seahawks worth $2.1 million.
If anything, Gutekunst has left the Packers too thin at running back, a problem they will now likely need to address in next month's draft.
MarShawn Lloyd is presumably the RB2 when healthy, but injuries have limited him to just one game in two seasons. Any role he plays in 2026 should be considered a bonus, not the expectation. That leaves Chris Brooks, who has just 82 career carries, as the next man up should Jacobs suffer an injury.
There was logic to a potential parting of ways with Jacobs after the Packers' playoff exit in January.
The three-time Pro Bowler is entering his age-28 season and has amassed 1,840 career carries. At some point, it's reasonable to expect his production to decline. Critics could argue it started last season, as Jacobs' rushing total fell by exactly 400 yards.
Other factors played into that, though. Jacobs missed time due to injury, while Green Bay's offensive line offered, quite frankly, pathetic run blocking for much of the season. Pro Football Focus ranked the Packers' run-blocking 22nd in the NFL, and that feels generous, as 758 of Jacobs' 984 rushing yards came after contact.
But if the Packers had any serious intention of moving on from Jacobs, they likely would've entered the free-agent market at the position. They undoubtedly would've retained Wilson, at the very least.
As Huber notes, trading or releasing Jacobs is "not happening." That's not to say there wasn't a convincing argument for why the Packers should've considered it, though, and time will tell whether they've called it correctly or left it a year too late.
For now, the number one question at running back is whether Green Bay adds another player to the backfield to compete for the backup role.
Will the Packers draft Jacobs' long-term successor? Could they trade for a veteran? Jacobs isn't going anywhere this offseason, but Green Bay absolutely needs to bolster its depth behind him.