Josh Sitton.

[King Friday]

I despise the phrasing "put some positions in front of the others". I understand the sentiment he was getting at, but that choice of wording doesn't sound very good.

Just say that in the era of the salary cap, it is sometimes necessary to forego a large contract to an aging veteran so you can have the resources to keep younger, team-developed talent who also require a payday. While it is true that Sitton's position was one that made him more expendable than other positions might have, it was also his age and injury potential. If Sitton was 26, he'd likely still be playing for the Packers...OG or not.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Sitton just made himself an enemy to the Green Bay fans, which he will come to regret in time...just as others who pulled similar stunts have.

Unreal. Sitton is an enemy of the people because the Packers cut him? You have zero idea what actually happened.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Just say that in the era of the salary cap, it is sometimes necessary to forego a large contract to an aging veteran so you can have the resources to keep younger, team-developed talent who also require a payday.

Fine. so why are you blaming Sitton?

[pbmax]

For the Packer brass, it sends an important message to the TEAM that griping about contracts and looking out for yourself isn't tolerated. While the Packers take it in the shorts a bit on this one, they may head off a larger problems down the road due to how they handled this one. This was an unfortunate situation, but that is how the NFL works and it isn't the last time we'll see it.

Wilde asked the question about the locker room post-Sitton, phrasing it in terms of potential effect. McCarthy did answer that everyone, players included, are evaluated in terms of the effect it might have on the locker room.

I'm not sure this was a confirmation of the haughty and uncommunicative report that it looks out of context. He didn't deny to or go around the question, but he also didn't address it directly. The most I would glean from this is that Sitton *might* have become a problem and that was a cause for concern.

So I don't think we have any confirmation that he was a locker room cancer.

Video: http://www.packers.com/media-center/...6-495e3cc50510

[Harlan Huckleby]

For the Packer brass, it sends an important message to the TEAM that griping about contracts and looking out for yourself isn't tolerated.

So we are in agreement that the PAcker brass was probably sending a message. It is a little funny that Sitton is accused of being both non-communicative and doing excessive griping.

This is all bullshit. The GM gets compared to Vince Lombardi when he plays hardball. The player's character is damned based on no evidence when there is a contract dispute. Always works this way, especially in WI's authoritarian culture.

[Pugger]

Pugger, I generally agree with what you say, but Colledge was not a bad player. He had a long career as an NFL starter.

He was average and yes, a lot of guys like him carve out a nice career playing like he did.

Sitton wasn't the player he is today when he started his career so perhaps Taylor can be developed just like Josh was.

[Pugger]

Yes, but Sitton being mad about management refusing to negotiate could be how McCarthy defines a "locker room issue."

We're judging a situation from afar.

I agree with you Sitton agreed to give his best in 2016 as part of his contract and owes it to the team. BTW, why would he not do that when he is in a critical contract year?

I'm happy for Josh for the deal he got from the Bears. There was no way he was gonna get that from us in 2017. But maybe now we can keep the rest of our line intact in 2017 and beyond.

[smuggler]

Only way I can see Sitton as the bad guy in this is if he was getting shitty specifically to be released and become a free agent. If he has a bad attitude (**if**) and it was earnest and not strategic, he's really no different than any other high-profile player.

[pbmax]

I would prefer strategic bad attitude, actually.

Easier to deal with the predictable than the unpredictable folks losing their heads. For examples, watch any Bengals playoff game.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'll bet Sitton doesn't make it to the end of the season.

I virtually guarantee he doesn't finish out this contract.

I would not be at all surprised if he contracted AIDS.

Sitton got too big for his britches. He was disloyal.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Sitton wasn't the player he is today when he started his career so perhaps Taylor can be developed just like Josh was.

Could be, could be. We'll give him a mulligan for this preseason.

[vince]

Wilde asked the question about the locker room post-Sitton, phrasing it in terms of potential effect. McCarthy did answer that everyone, players included, are evaluated in terms of the effect it might have on the locker room.

I'm not sure this was a confirmation of the haughty and uncommunicative report that it looks out of context. He didn't deny to or go around the question, but he also didn't address it directly. The most I would glean from this is that Sitton *might* have become a problem and that was a cause for concern.

So I don't think we have any confirmation that he was a locker room cancer.

Video: http://www.packers.com/media-center/...6-495e3cc50510

This is bordering on unbelievable. They didn't cut him because they think Taylor's better. It could have all started last year, but if Sitton was a model teammate and wasn't a disruptive presence regarding his position at the bottom of the new contract priority list - or some other reason - then why WOULD they cut him? And THEN make up stuff about his attitude? That's not a sound strategy for team unity.

[vince]

So we are in agreement that the PAcker brass was probably sending a message. It is a little funny that Sitton is accused of being both non-communicative and doing excessive griping.

This is all bullshit. The GM gets compared to Vince Lombardi when he plays hardball. The player's character is damned based on no evidence when there is a contract dispute. Always works this way, especially in WI's authoritarian culture.

I can't discern any bias whatsoever there.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You got to go with the player today, it's Labor Day.

[vince]

[beveaux1]

I've got nothing but respect for the job that Sitton did in Green Bay. I also don't see this as a calamitous happening. It would surprise me if a decision had not been reached which put signing their free agent linemen in priority order. I also agree that Sitton would be last on the priority list due to his age, health, and free agent worth. Sitton was basically being told that he would not re-sign with the Packers at a salary commensurate with his proven ability. He may or may nothave balked at this. The Packers cleared him out because they felt it would be better for team unity, or that the replacement would soon play near the same level. I don't blame Sitton and I don't blame the Packers. I think some are reminded of the Favre retirement saga. I think it's very consistent with the way we've done business since this regime began. Better to cut someone a year too early than to cut him a year too late.

[pbmax]

This is bordering on unbelievable. They didn't cut him because they think Taylor's better. It could have all started last year, but if Sitton was a model teammate and wasn't a disruptive presence regarding his position at the bottom of the new contract priority list, then why WOULD they cut him?

Presumably because something changed between last year and this year and one side (or both) were disappointed.

The most common cause at this date is a request for salary cut. Many teams do this, but the Packers have been very reluctant to do it. Hawk and maybe one other that I can think of off the top of my head. I doubt this only because evidence for his skill drop-off has been scant. It could be a publicly unknown medical issue but the Bears probably don't sign him if it was egregious.

We do know they had one conversation about order of priority for new contract deals and he low on the list. As a player with a medical issue, he would have found this a sub-optimal position more than Lang.

He could have then threatened to make it an issue with the team immediately, which would explain all. But there isn't anything public to link to this. Oddly, the fact that he is not spilling his guts after signing with the Bears might mean he was OK with how the plan went. But that is inferring a lot.

It is possible he was not his normal self after he got the memo about the order of negotiations (or after his agent reported they refused to budge) but again, no specifics. Only haughty and uncommunicative from anonymous.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Wait a minute! Just one damn minute! Josh Sitton got cut and is now a Bear? Am I awake?

[Joemailman]

I've been out of the loop a bit, but here's my take. Packers weren't offering Sitton an extension. Not a surprise. Of the 4 Packers starting offensive linemen due to become free agents, he's the oldest and the least healthy. He wasn't happy about not getting an extension. Again, not a surprise. He probably feels he's been a good enough player to merit one. MM apparently said it had become a locker room issue. Which means Sitton was likely being vocal about it. An issue that had the potential to become worse as other players on the o-line received extensions. So the Packers released an outstanding player who had in their eyes the potential to negatively affect the locker room, while at the same time clearing significant cap room. Sure didn't see this coming, but there are circumstances that make this less shocking than it would normally be.

[vince]

Presumably because something changed between last year and this year and one side (or both) were disappointed.

The most common cause at this date is a request for salary cut. Many teams do this, but the Packers have been very reluctant to do it. Hawk and maybe one other that I can think of off the top of my head. I doubt this only because evidence for his skill drop-off has been scant. It could be a publicly unknown medical issue but the Bears probably don't sign him if it was egregious.

We do know they had one conversation about order of priority for new contract deals and he low on the list. As a player with a medical issue, he would have found this a sub-optimal position more than Lang.

He could have then threatened to make it an issue with the team immediately, which would explain all. But there isn't anything public to link to this. Oddly, the fact that he is not spilling his guts after signing with the Bears might mean he was OK with how the plan went. But that is inferring a lot.

It is possible he was not his normal self after he got the memo about the order of negotiations (or after his agent reported they refused to budge) but again, no specifics. Only haughty and uncommunicative from anonymous.

It's likely a combination of reasons as McCarthy suggested, but if he's a happy camper, I don't see how they make the move they did. Yes it's "only" offensive guard, and he runs a risk of recurring back problems, and he costs $6.5 mil, but without "arrogantly superior and disdainful" attitude that carries a serious risk of negatively impacting the team, that camel's back doesn't break. It very well could have carried over from the fallout of last year's offensive frustrations linked above. I'd forgotten about that. I'm betting it started there and the contract status added to it. I'd guess there have been other situations as well to reach the point of no return Saturday.

I don't see any other way it comes to this. At the same time, there is ample information (circumstantial evidence) to support this conclusion, going back to last year's blowup.