Josh Sitton.

[3irty1]

The only way I can wrap my head around this is three things are true:

1) Sitton's back is worse than previously thought. We know it affected him on the field last year and that it dictated his offseason.

2) 6.85M is about fair market value for a solid starter, and cheap for a resume like Sitton's. This move must really help the beancounting of next years free agent exodus. If cap space alone were the reason, they would have cut him months ago.

3) When Ted said "best for the team and growth of the offensive line" he wasn't talking about youth for the sake of youth with turds like Lane Taylor or Barclay. For the team to grow in any meaningful sense this gets a guy with serious potential on the field. Put me in the Bak, Spriggs doubleswitch camp.

[vince]

The only way I can wrap my head around this is three things are true:

1) Sitton's back is worse than previously thought. We know it affected him on the field last year and that it dictated his offseason.

2) 6.85M is about fair market value for a solid starter, and cheap for a resume like Sitton's. This move must really help the beancounting of next years free agent exodus. If cap space alone were the reason, they would have cut him months ago.

3) When Ted said "best for the team and growth of the offensive line" he wasn't talking about youth for the sake of youth with turds like Lane Taylor or Barclay. For the team to grow in any meaningful sense this gets a guy with serious potential on the field. Put me in the Bak, Spriggs doubleswitch camp.

He hasn't played one rep at guard as far as I've seen, but maybe Murphy is the best option at guard. He can't handle the edge - yet anyway, but he's as strong as an ox.

[George Cumby]

1) Sitton's back is worse than previously thought. .

I think this is probably the biggest factor.

[wist43]

I think this is probably the biggest factor.

I think the biggest factor wrt the Packers final roster is always Ted's ego... he'd rather tinker around with prospects than keep a good solid vet on the team. Salary cap has nothing to do with it.

Our roster, top-bottom, is average... Rodgers is the only thing that makes us a contender.

Man for man, sans Rodgers, I'd take Minnesota's roster over ours in a heartbeat.

[Carolina_Packer]

I think this is probably the biggest factor.

I don't know if anyone else mentioned this, and it's obvious, but they DID keep him until the last roster cut down. What does that tell you? They were hoping to see something throughout TC and pre-season that never developed? They could have cut him any time during the off season (if trading him was not possible). Were they hoping to keep him this year, but something told them not to? That's what I'm trying to understand. Unfortunately, front office people are only going to say things like "We thank Josh for his contributions..." blah, blah and blah.

It's a curious move to not let him play out his deal and let him walk next off season for a c-pick. Hard to believe he still wouldn't have been one of their best options, and that the front office wasn't already committed to the cap hit he was going to have. There's something in that situation that nobody is going to air out in the press that doesn't feel right, but perhaps we'll see it in time.

Also, another obvious but curious point is that the Bears gave him a 3 year deal. Of course, it's always look at the guaranteed $$ in the deal and it may only really be a one year deal, especially if his back is cranky.

I don't think this is an arbitrary decision. I think situations like this leave the front office vulnerable to criticism that they are never going to explain/defend because they never say too much in defense of their decisions. Why would you? They are not running for class president, and they are not going to spill secrets, especially if there's anything medical affecting the evaluation of a player's standing with the team.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The only way I can wrap my head around this is three things are true:

1) Sitton's back is worse than previously thought. We know it affected him on the field last year and that it dictated his offseason.

2) 6.85M is about fair market value for a solid starter, and cheap for a resume like Sitton's. This move must really help the beancounting of next years free agent exodus. If cap space alone were the reason, they would have cut him months ago.

3) When Ted said "best for the team and growth of the offensive line" he wasn't talking about youth for the sake of youth with turds like Lane Taylor or Barclay. For the team to grow in any meaningful sense this gets a guy with serious potential on the field. Put me in the Bak, Spriggs doubleswitch camp.

I'm with you on #1 and #2. I think #2 is most likely. They want money freed up to sign extensions now to put less burden on the future cap. I wonder if he was offered to take a pay cut. I wish #3 was true, but why wait until the final day to do this?