To prepare for a successful offseason, the Detroit Lions should focus on three key priorities that will determine their flexibility and competitiveness heading into free agency and the draft.
This analysis uses Spotrac’s Multi-Year Cap Table as the primary source for contract and cap information.
1. Create Financial Flexibility Through Strategic Restructures
Restructure candidates:
- Jared Goff
- Amon-Ra St. Brown
- Penei Sewell
- Alim McNeill
The Lions can technically be cap-compliant in 2026 without restructuring any of these contracts. However, doing so would leave Detroit with roughly $10 million in cap space, assuming:
- No major cuts
- No retirements
- All currently rostered contracts remain intact
That level of flexibility would limit the Lions almost entirely to minimum-salary free agents, making free agency both boring and ineffective.
There are analyses showing Detroit could open up north of $100 million in cap space through restructures and cap manipulation. While this would push money into future years, it would also allow the Lions to operate without financial restrictions in free agency.
Given Detroit’s established winning culture, the organization no longer needs to overpay to attract talent. That makes the opportunity to be aggressive — and efficient — in free agency very real.
2. Release (or Renegotiate) Graham Glasgow
Graham Glasgow may choose to retire, which would make this discussion moot. However, if he does not, his contract deserves scrutiny.
- 2026 cap hit: $8.44 million
- Cap hit after release/retirement timing: $2.88 million
- Cap savings: $5.56 million
Glasgow’s consecutive seasons of diminished performance no longer justify his current cap number. While he could be valuable as a veteran backup or mentor, that role is more appropriately priced around $4 million total cap, not $8.44 million.
Additionally:
- Glasgow carries a $1.44 million dead cap hit in 2027 due to a void year.
- If he retires this offseason, the $2.88 million (2026) and $1.44 million (2027) dead cap charges will remain regardless.
Flexibility Gained: $5.56 million
3. Extend Jahmyr Gibbs and Jack Campbell Early
The fifth-year options for both players pose a serious cap issue in 2027:
- Jahmyr Gibbs: projected $14.1 million
- Jack Campbell: projected $23 million
Those numbers would be extremely difficult to absorb in the same year other cornerstone contracts peak.
The solution is straightforward: extensions.
Both players are eligible for extensions this offseason. Realistically, each would require:
- 4–5 year deals
- $15–20 million average annual value
- 60%+ guaranteed money
By using signing bonuses, void years, and backloaded structures, the Lions can significantly reduce early cap hits — especially during peak years for Goff, Sewell, McNeill, and St. Brown.
Even if Detroit chooses not to restructure those larger contracts, extending Gibbs and Campbell now avoids a looming cap timebomb.
Bonus: Get Clarity on Taylor Decker and Frank Ragnow Before Free Agency
The Lions must get early answers from Taylor Decker and Frank Ragnow before free agency opens.
- There is very little depth at left tackle or center in this year’s free-agent class.
- There is no clear heir apparent to Decker currently on the roster.
- Frank Ragnow’s late retirement decision put Detroit in a difficult position in 2025 — a scenario worth avoiding this time around.
There are no clear starting-caliber left tackles available in free agency, depending on how one evaluates Green Bay’s Rasheed Walker. There are a few quality right tackles, which could theoretically allow a move of Penei Sewell to the left side, but that’s far from ideal.
Detroit is likely drafting Decker’s eventual replacement regardless. Still, knowing whether Decker plans to return would clarify whether the Lions also need to pursue an early free-agent signing.
While threatening a veteran with a cut is not good business, Decker does have:
- No guaranteed money remaining
- Over $39 million in cap implications over the next two years
Given how thin the market is, Decker could likely command that money elsewhere. Transparency — not leverage — should be the priority here.
