Lots of information has come out recently about Sitton's behavior and personality. It's a very consistent picture, he is the gruff, plain-spoken guy who we've seen for 8 years. Bottom line is he is the good teammate that TT testified to, he cares about winning first and foremost.
I do think it is credible that MM perceived he could become a problem in the future. I doubt that was a primary consideration, but judge for yourself.
Actually, there is a lot of consistency even from what his team mates and former team mates said and talked around without saying.Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
The alternative is to believe that for no reason at all, all of a sudden TT paniced (McGinn's suggestion) and acted totally contrary to what we have seen him do for the last 11 years.
I was just referring to Favre. But are you suggesting that Daryl Lasagna was a potential malcontent?
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Got it. I am getting old. Dougherty's source would be McCarthy's agent.
I don't know why that took so long to figure out.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
If Dougherty is correct, that in this camp they saw the negative aspects of Sitton being copied by younger players, it might have been a line in the sand for the coaches.
It has seemed to me since it happened, that this had more the feel of a coaches desire than a GM's decision.
Danny? Now let's not impugn that hard working soul! He has managed to hang around and collect pay checks as a football player for most of 8 years, even make it to being a regular starter in the NFL, yet still be a restricted free agent at age 31. You have to admire that.
I'm the biggest conspiracy kook you'll ever meet when it comes to the government and banking industry, but there is no motivation for TT to do anything but win.
Look the way the line played so far. TT got rid of Sitton because with the team he has right now, he can get more for his money else where. And it would have cost a developmental roster spot.
It's a young mans game, a cold business and the Packers have solid ol depth. I don't think it's as perplexing as y'all are making it out. And TT has balls of steel. He'll move on from Brett Favre before he has to, or josh Sitton. If he likes is young guy, you're gone. Period.
Formerly known as JustinHarrell.
I agree, except that he typically does those things very, very early in the off season, or lets the player play out his contract and then he collects the draft pick compensation. Doing this last-minute as he did is not very TT-like at all.
Thompson might subscribe to Wolf's promise to Holmgren:
I'll never stick you with a player you do not want.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
HOFer
i like how when a guy who "hates the packers" and doesn't toe the company line comes out with a story, everyone questions the unnamed sources , or him for just being nagative and trying to stir shit up
but when a guy who clearly sucks at the meat stick of the team at every stop uses unnamed sources to paint the complete opposite picture, everyone is will to follow him blindly and believe every word he says
I don't like unnamed sources from either guy unless I can figure out who they are. I think its pretty obvious who Dougherty's is.
McGinn's source is far less clear AND suggested the removal of Sitton was flubbed. I can buy that the trade attempt didn't pan out well. But that doesn't explain WHY they wanted to trade him. Dougherty's source comes closer to filling in the key blank, though its still a team source, obviously.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Dougherty says his source is not connected with the team.
OK. But is McCarthy's agent working for the team?
He is connected to the Head Coach. That's a hair easily split.
But even if I am wrong, its got to be an agent of one of the coaches or front office types. Who else would know the inner workings of the team?
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
HOFer
well, whats fat mikes agent gonna say?
"my client is a fat, thin skinned vagina, who cant handle strong willed players?"
cause thats what it sure looks like to me
HOFer
then with the vast crackdown the team has on leaks, the team should be hunting down this source and firing the person they work for
unless of course the "source" is really just "leaking" the story the team wants to tell
then we're just back to the reporter being a mouthpiece for the team, not the fans
someone's sister?
the last thing i read on the haha/sitton situation said it couldn't be verified. why put it out there if it can't be verified.
HOFer
Yep. To let a guy walk who had the street value to sign a $7M/yr contract somewhere is crazy. While I think you can talk yourself into saying that Thompson made the best choice for the LONG TERM well being of the franchise, it is also safe to say that he made at least a couple mistakes along the way on this one for it to blow up at the end as it did.
It's such a GOOD feeling...13 TIME WORLD CHAMPIONS!!
If Sitton had a $7M street value then why wouldn't anyone offer even a conditional 7th for him? Hell, why didn't someone offer "past considerations" for him, which is what Wolf once got when he traded one of his castoffs to Oakland so that a rival wouldn't sign him? The they-were-going-to-release-him-anyway logic is no logic at all, because if more than one team wants him they're not both going to be able to sign him. Evidently there was not a strong market for Sitton.
They were so oblivious to it that the younger ones were starting to internalize it, like a second nature. Why on cutdown day? I can think of three possible reasons. Something happened on the order of a last straw. They were trying to trade him and found no takers and finally had to give up. Or they were holding onto him long enough that some teams would have already committed and would have a harder time competing for him on the FA market. The last possibility is the most devious and therefore the most interesting.
Yep. Just ask Nick Mangold.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote