Social media moves fast. A week ago, after a rough Family Night performance, Jordan Morgan couldn’t play tackle and should move definitively to guard. Now, after a strong preseason game against the New York Jets where Morgan didn’t give up a single pressure, he’s the left tackle of the future, and the Green Bay Packers should trade incumbent starter Rasheed Walker.
We went from Jordan Morgan can't play tackle to let's trade Rasheed Walker in record fashion.
— Wendell Ferreira (@wendellfp) August 11, 2025
Not all the way to heaven, not all the way to hell. If Morgan can play outside and inside, that would be great news for the Packers, but moving on from Walker at this point is an unnecessary risk for limited return.
Why the Packers took Morgan
When Green Bay selected Jordan Morgan in the first round last year, positional versatility was a big part of the appeal. If they wanted a pure interior offensive lineman, Graham Barton was still on the board. If they wanted a pure tackle, Tyer Guyton was available. In 2024, the Packers tested Morgan at tackle in the offseason program, but soon moved him inside where he would have more chances to play—he did, until a shoulder injury affected and then finished his rookie season.
This year, though, the Packers have been more willing to test Morgan at left tackle. That makes sense, because it’s a more valuable and impactful position on the field and on the salary sheet. It’s valid to have playing guard as an exhaust valve, but being a good tackle is the best possible outcome for Morgan and the Packers.
Contract situation
That is especially true because Rasheed Walker, a seventh-round pick in 2022, is now entering the final year of his rookie contract with the Packers. Based on market projections, his extension could be something around $14 million and $16.5 million per year.
With Jordan Morgan and second-round rookie Anthony Belton in the fold, it could be smart for the Packers to let Walker leave in free agency next offseason. And that’s why the trade scenarios started to be discussed—if the Packers will lose Walker anyway, there would be credence to the logic of moving on now and get a decent draft pick in return.
Compensation and future
The questions are how much the Packers could get in a trade, and how worthy would it be. There aren’t many examples of what Walker’s trade could look like, because young average starting tackles don’t get traded frequently. Laremy Tunsil, Trent Williams, and Cam Robinson got traded, but Tunsil generated a haul for the Miami Dolphins as an elite tackle, while Williams (elite) and Robinson (average at best) generated mild returns because of their contract situations.
Ideally, Green Bay would ask for something like a second-round pick. The problem is that it would be hard to find a trade partner. The new team has to be willing to part ways with a high draft pick, plus give Walker his extension—while the Packers are trying not to give him the contract whatsoever, even without the draft capital burden.
So realistically, Green Bay would be looking for a third- or fourth-round pick. At that point, a trade simply doesn’t make sense. Walker’s contract projection indicates he would generate a fourth-round compensatory pick after he leaves in free agency—and while you cannot always count on comp picks, the Packers tend to be cautious in free agency, which gives them more control over the process.
More importantly, losing Walker next March would give the Packers six months until the season to establish Morgan (or Belton) at left tackle and develop backup options. Doing that in August is much riskier. Right now, it’s unrealistic to regain depth, and the possibility of being forced to play Belton as a rookie or worse players like Kadeem Telfort and Jacob Monk should be enough to scare the Packers.
Yes, Jordan Morgan being a good left tackle would be an extremely positive outcome. But not enough to justify a hurried move.
