You are right, of course, but we all want a decent line to keep our fabulous QB upright and healthy. *Fingers crossed*Originally Posted by pbmax
You are right, of course, but we all want a decent line to keep our fabulous QB upright and healthy. *Fingers crossed*
Sitton was never a good run blocker ya know...
HOFer
If Thompson is shopping a guy at this point just hours before final cutdowns, then's he's probably going to release him if he can't move him. That's common knowledge. That is why he didn't get anything for Sitton at this point.
My point was that if this was a scenario put into play months ago...and I assume it was...then I'm surprised Thompson didn't make the move earlier to get some value for Sitton. I guess he and the brain trust were not confident enough in the OL depth to do that until they went through all of camp. Perhaps the debacle that was the HOF game hurt the Packers chances of evaluating their OL depth sooner to give Thompson the chance to make the call a little sooner.
It's such a GOOD feeling...13 TIME WORLD CHAMPIONS!!
I'm guessing this is sarcasm since Sitton was a good run blocker in past years. His release calls into question where he stands now, at least in my mind. It is harder for a couch cowboy to judge an interior lineman than a tackle; there's just so much more conjestion on tv.
That's a valid point - to a point. It's not the low round draft pick that deters a deal. I assume teams prefer to wait till he's a free agent so they can negotiate a lower contract. But the fact that there are no takers means that Sitton's skills have declined - he'd be worth his contract to some team if he was still a really good player.
You're right that we'll get a fuller measure of Sitton's market value once he becomes a free agent. I overstated the case when I called Sitton a goose egger.
Possibly Thompson has been putting out feelers for Sitton for months. It became a fire sale on Saturday. We don't know.
Of course we don't know how long Ted has been shopping Sitton.
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.
Last edited by 3irty1; 09-04-2016 at 08:29 AM.
70% of the Earth is covered by water. The rest is covered by Al Harris.
I think I had this wrong. Masthay had an article written about him but the vested vet caveat was about his contract not waivers. Radio was probably right.
I'd be stunned if someone picked up Sitton's deal on waivers.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Doesn't the veteran's salary become guaranteed when he is on the roster for the first game? In the past we have seen teams release a veteran on Saturday and resign him on Monday to get away from the guarantee if he is looked at as a backup, or otherwise not yet ready to play. Sitton may be on the street until a week from Monday.
The fact that GB intended to release Sitton didn't discourage teams from trading for him, his salary versus perceived value did. Trading for him ensures that you get him, and a low draft pick, or a conditional pick isn't much to pay for it. If you let the Packers cut him, you are competing against other teams to get him. The fact that no team was willing to trade for him shows that no team was willing to give up anything to ensure that they got him. Teams were willing to take their chances in not getting him.
Yep. That is part of the vested veteran.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
TT didn't wake up Saturday morning and suddenly decide to get rid of Sitton. I suspect this has been under consideration all off season, and TT has floated the possibility of Sitton being available for quite some time.
Signing Taylor to a $4M contract has always felt a bit odd for several reasons. Taylor isn't the typical backup lineman, he has no versatility. Having him as your backup guard on game days puts you at a disadvantage unless you keep 2 other OL active, and GB likes to go with just 2 backups, with each having at least some versatility. While Sitton and Lang both had injuries last year, and Sitton almost never practiced in recent years, both guards showed up on game days ready to play until Lang missed a game last year. Taylor's contract seemed a bit generous for the role it seemed he would have. OL and QB are the only positions that don't commonly use rotations of players. The backups play only if the starters can't. Other backups play a few regular snaps on a routine basis, or factor into ST plans, etc. Taylor would not.
TT made the mistake of keeping Driver longer than he should have. Sitton's back isn't likely to allow him to play well for more than a short time, and they may have concluded that it already diminished his value below his 2016 salary, and that Sitton's money can better be used to extend contracts for Bakhtiari, Tretter or even Lang.
Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter
Looks like former Packers' Pro Bowl G Josh Sitton's first visit will be to...division-rival Chicago Bears, per sources. Saints could follow
9:01 AM - 4 Sep 2016
HOFer
yipee
I just wished I saw the improvement in Taylor that apparently the coaches and Ted have seen. Because he looked abominable in 2 of the preseason games. Especially versus the Chefs.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
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.
This regime has always been behind the curve at certain positions - the OL in general is one of them.
They're just as retarded about ILB, and defense in general.
Take away Aaron Rodgers, and everyone would have been calling for Ted's head years ago. QB may be the most important position in the league, but the Packers completely fall apart - as in completely - without Rodgers. That doesn't speak well of Ted's drafting philosophy and chops.
wist
Take away any teams All Pro QB and everyone would be fired every two years. For my evidence, I give you the Cleveland Browns. Or the Bears.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
What he said.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
Is NE likely to fall apart without Brady??
They lost him for an entire season, and went 10-6 with what proved to be a below average QB.
We lost the division last year, at home, against a team QB'd by Teddy Bridgewater... and that was with having our All-World QB under Center. What does that tell you??
Face facts guys, Green Bay is the most QB, 1 player dependent team in the league. We are average, to below average at just about every position - and that is on Ted.
It is what it is.
wist
What took you so long wist?
Thompson built what has become, when healthy, one of the best o-lines in the league. In general, he's proven to be among the top team builders in the league. Your assertion that the Packers are "behind the times" and void of talent outside the QB position is ridiculous IMO.
Their o-line has been ranked 10th, 4th, 5th and 3rd going into each of the last four seasons by PFF. Their overall record over the last decade speaks for itself.
Why not observe and learn from the masters of their profession rather than rushing to (mis)judge what you don't understand?
With 4 of the top 6 linemen having expiring contracts and physically declining players, it's clear a transition is occurring on the line.
What might be the most productive way to manage the transition?
Perhaps Ted might be showing us that the most effective way to do it is through incremental change and adaptation over time rather than revolutionary disruption all at once.
Some people choose to go for broke and then blow up the house when they're bankrupt. Ted likes his house and wants to keep updating and maintaining it. Sometimes that means you have to downsize a room here and there.
Last edited by vince; 09-04-2016 at 11:10 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote