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.