Could Brian Gutekunst's preferences be limiting the Packers?

We just drove to Wisconsin and back in our new minivan.

We’ve never had a van before, but we rented one last year for a family trip and it really stuck with me. It was much easier to get the kids in and out than our other vehicle (a Toyota RAV4), they loved the automatic doors, and it was comfortable and easy to drive. Late in 2024 we got a good price on a used Chrysler Town & Country and pulled the trigger. It’s been great.

The best part, as far as the kids are concerned, was that this van came with a built-in entertainment center. Our six-hour drive to Wisconsin could now mostly be filled with whatever movies they could get from the library, which meant that my wife could sit in the passenger seat and read, which meant that I could pop in an earbud and listen to a podcast.

The podcast in question was Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History, specifically a good chunk of his six-part series on the war in the Pacific titled “Supernova in the East.”

If you’re at all into history, it’s worth a listen. I think the Pacific portion of World War II is too often overlooked, and this trip through Carlin’s saga reminded me of a few things I’d forgotten since the last time I’d listened to this series.

But beyond even the historical information, one thing Carlin mentioned near the middle of the series has stuck with me, and I’ve been rolling it around in my head ever since. I don’t have an exact quote to point you to here, but the gist of Carlin’s take is this: think about how much of World War II was influenced by the personalities of the people involved.

What decisions did the United States make because they had two- and then three- and then four-time elected president Franklin D. Roosevelt calling the shots and not, say, any of his opponents in those elections? How did Winston Churchill’s braggadocious bulldoggery affect British morale, for good and ill? What did it mean for Russia to have Joseph Stalin calling the shots throughout the war? And how did Japan’s Hirohito affect the war simply through his interpretation of what the emperor’s responsibilities were?

These are unknowable but crucially important questions. And, as Dan Carlin likes to say, I had to tell you that story to tell you this one.

Football isn’t war, let’s be clear. But football, like business or politics or so many other things, is shaped by the people who make the decisions within its closed system. Which brings me to the Packers, which brings me to Brian Gutekunst.

I think Gutekunst has generally done a good job managing the Packers roster since he took over in 2018, but one of the things that I’ve been thinking about his how his preferences and personality shape his decisions. I don’t say that to characterize it as a bad thing. People get hired to do the job he does because they have sharply defined preferences that mesh with how they think a football team should be constructed. Their ability to leverage those preferences into reliably identifying good players is the whole of the job. And, from a personality standpoint, you’re going to have a much easier time assembling a staff and doing all the interpersonal things that the job requires if your personality isn’t hard to deal with. 

But there’s always the possibility that someone’s personality and preferences could lead them astray, and I do wonder sometimes if that’s the case with Gutekunst. He clearly has a strong track record, but are there times that his well-defined preferences get in the way of a better path?

At the NFL Combine, my former Acme Packing Company colleague Tyler Brooke posed a question to Gutekunst asking what, if any, role the Packers’ offensive and defensive schemes play in his player acquisition strategy. In short, Gutekunst said scheme doesn’t play any role at all. You can listen to the full answer here, but I’ve transcribed it below. 

Obviously, we know what our scheme is, we know the subtleties and that. I think we’ve always tried — our process has been about getting the kind of guys that can play in any scheme, you know? I think you’ve got to be careful about when you’re selecting players that are, you know, one-scheme fits because that stuff can change, it can change with our staff and, you know, what we started out doing at the beginning of the year last year, as [Jeff Hafley] got familiar with what we could and couldn’t do and injuries played a part in that, we adjust. You gotta have versatile players, you gotta have guys that can do everything, so our process has been in place kinda, almost 30-some years now, and again, we’re aware of our schematic differences from other teams but it doesn’t play a huge role in how we go about it.

I am both skeptical of and a little concerned by this answer!

The Packers have long valued versatility. It’s a hallmark of their offensive line play and has been a part of their roster construction strategy for a long, long time.. I wrote about it nearly a decade ago on this very website. The Packers love versatile players to the point that many of the guys on the roster arguably don’t have a position in the way that we traditionally think of them. 

You’d think this would make the Packers more flexible in their player acquisition, but I think you can find some good examples of how it actually works in reverse.

Take their edge rushers. The Packers want their edges to be able to kick inside on passing downs in the vein of a Za’Darius Smith while having the speed to rush on the outside while also having the power to hold up in run defense. And it’d be great to find someone who can do all of those things! The Packers have successfully found a few in both Za’Darius and Preson Smith and Rashan Gary. But going back to that well again and again gets you a group of edge rushers that all kind of play the same because they’re all built the same. I think that makes you easier to handle from an offensive perspective, but even beyond that, it cuts off wide swaths of prospects who might be better suited for some of the things you’re trying to do, even if they’re not quite as good at all of them.

Look at how the Packers handled their 2023 first-round pick as an example of how this plays out in practice. The Packers selected Lukas Van Ness with the 13th overall pick, while the Jets took Will McDonald two picks later. The two couldn’t be more physically different. Van Ness is a blocky mountain of muscle — 6-5 and 272 pounds — while McDonald is long-limbed and lithe — 6-4 and 236 pounds. And while Van Ness profiles as the traditional Packers edge (a strong edge setter with some pass rush upside), McDonald was a pass rush specialist.

The jury is still out on who will be the better player long term, but Van Ness’s well-rounded game hasn’t resulted in much statistical production to this point. He has seven sacks so far to McDonald’s 13.5, and falls behind McDonald’s advanced pass rushing numbers on virtually every front. Even if McDonald isn’t as good as Van Ness in every facet of his game, he’s ahead of him in the most impactful ones.

Again, I’m a fan of Gutekunst. He’s done a good job with the Packers to this point and they should be a strong team again this year. But if there’s one worry I have, it’s that he’s limiting the Packers through a well-intentioned strategy that also has some significant downsides.

But hey, if that’s how the Packers’ personalities are going to shape this team, you could do a lot worse.