JOSH SITTON>>>LOCK HIM UP>>>>PACKER PERSON [Archive]

Bretsky

07-12-2011, 08:45 PM

LOVE THIS PART

Sitton is in the last year of his current contract with the Packers. He said he is aiming to stay in Green Bay.

"I will play with the Packers for as long as they will have me," Sitton said. "I would love to play there as long as I can, finish my career there. It’s a top-notch organization. They do everything first class. I believe we have the best coaching staff in the league. I’m probably biased because I have only played for one coaching staff. But from what I hear from a lot of guys around the league, things are not done quite as nice everywhere in the league as the Packers do.

"I think with the talent we have, and the young talent we have, we can win a lot of football games, maybe win a couple more championships. So I would love to be part of that," Sitton said. "I would hope they would want to give me an extension. I have played pretty good damn football for them for a couple of years."

Lurker64

07-12-2011, 09:07 PM

They want to give him an extension. His agent is probably angling for crazy money, which the Packers probably don't want to pay. It remains to be seen how this is going to work out. But once the rookies and free agents are signed, extending Sitton and extending Matthews are the two big projects for Ted this season.

vince

07-12-2011, 09:09 PM

Damn straight. Lock that man up Ted. He's one of the league's elite young linemen. I don't care if he's a guard and while there's some evidence that TT generally doesn't value guards, I think he values this one quite a bit. As soon as Ted gets this year's flurry of business taken care of with spring training, I think he'll move on to Sitton and Finley. Nelson needs to prove himself some more yet. Matthews' time will come as the cap rises.

bobblehead

07-12-2011, 09:12 PM

I see this getting done unless Sitton decides that breaking the bank is his priority. TT will give him a very fair and competitive offer to stay in GB.

wootah

07-13-2011, 03:09 AM

I don't care if he's a guard and while there's some evidence that TT generally doesn't value guards, I think he values this one quite a bit.

Can you elaborate on that? Because when I think of TT & guards I always think about this fellow:
http://images.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/_photos/2006-08-30-hutchinson-toppe.jpg

vince

07-13-2011, 09:29 AM

I don't have a link, but I think there was some quote by Thompson when he replaced Wahle and Rivera in the same year that guard was the easiest position to replace or something to that effect. I'm not suggesting for a second that Thompson lacks understanding of offensive line play or misjudges the relative value of the various positions on the team. Quite the opposite. I was just acknowledging a past critique of Thompson while stating my belief that he values Sitton on this team and will get him re-signed sometime this season.

ThunderDan

07-13-2011, 09:46 AM

Can you elaborate on that? Because when I think of TT & guards I always think about this fellow:
http://images.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/_photos/2006-08-30-hutchinson-toppe.jpg

Not really the same situation.

MN in their offer to Hutchinson said that if he wasn't the highest paid lineman on Seattle than the full $49M was guaranteed. SEA had just signed Jones their All-World LT to more. So for SEA to keep Hutchinson they would have had to guarantee the whole 7 year $49M contract even if Hutch got hurt or play dropped off. No team could resign their players with that clause in the the contract.

Maybe that leason taught TT to extend his core players before their contracts have expired.

Fritz

07-13-2011, 10:05 AM

Oh - a contract extension. I thought Sitton wanted hair extensions.

Patler

07-13-2011, 10:11 AM

Deputy Nutz

07-13-2011, 02:12 PM

there is this thing called a lockout going on and players have a really tough time getting extensions at the moment. I am sure that Sitton will get his "Straight Cash homey!" when he is allowed back into the building.

retailguy

07-13-2011, 02:13 PM

Thompson had been in GB for a full year before Hutchinson signed with the Vikings. Besides, weren't TT's responsibilities in Seattle primarily limited to the draft and scouting? How much did he have to do with veteran player signings? Holmgren was the GM while TT was there.

This.

But I believe that the whole reason folks are skeptical is because Ted won't talk, and is misleading when he doesn't need to be. Looking back at the roster between now and when Ted took over 3/4ths of the team is new. When Ted and McCarthy took over the prevailing statements were "We are not rebuilding, we're just painting the dream house" or something to that effect.

Had he told us we were rebuilding, I don't think we'd be talking about personnel moves like this.

There is a case that can be made for "all's well that ends well", however, I do think that label will follow Ted, along with our respect for achieving the pinnacle with his fortitude and belief. (It was damn hard to type that....)lol

mraynrand

07-13-2011, 02:15 PM

Ted won't talk, and is misleading when he doesn't need to be.

It's hard to be misleading when you don't talk. :crazy:

Lurker64

07-13-2011, 03:00 PM

I don't have a link, but I think there was some quote by Thompson when he replaced Wahle and Rivera in the same year that guard was the easiest position to replace or something to that effect.

I think Ted was mostly trying to spin "Okay guys, don't panic... it's not that big a deal, guards are the easiest kind of offensive lineman to replace" (all of which is true, Wahle and Rivera never accomplished much after leaving Green Bay and Guards are easier to find that Tackles or Centers).

I think Ted understands though, that if you have a young guy who's top 5 at his position, you don't let him walk unless you have no choice.

retailguy

07-13-2011, 03:40 PM

It's hard to be misleading when you don't talk. :crazy:

Just for you, how about if we re-phrase so you can keep up with the rest of us:

Ted frequently won't talk, and when he does, he is sometimes misleading when he doesn't need to be.
(italics added for emphasis and clarity)

Deputy Nutz

07-13-2011, 04:32 PM

A guard isn't as valuable as a left tackle, but that doesn't mean they are easy to replace. A turd at left guard is still a turd.

bobblehead

07-13-2011, 06:47 PM

This.

But I believe that the whole reason folks are skeptical is because Ted won't talk, and is misleading when he doesn't need to be. Looking back at the roster between now and when Ted took over 3/4ths of the team is new. When Ted and McCarthy took over the prevailing statements were "We are not rebuilding, we're just painting the dream house" or something to that effect.

Had he told us we were rebuilding, I don't think we'd be talking about personnel moves like this.

There is a case that can be made for "all's well that ends well", however, I do think that label will follow Ted, along with our respect for achieving the pinnacle with his fortitude and belief. (It was damn hard to type that....)lol

It would have been impossible for TT to be honest in the beginning with the former GM as his coach.

TT: My predecessor left this team largely devoid of talent and in contract hell. I will rebuild the roster while still remaining competitive with that dolt as my coach.

Plus, no GM says his team stinks or that he is rebuilding (very rare if any). He also did accomplish a 13-3 season rather quickly. I would also like to see how many NFL teams HAVEN'T turned over nearly 3/4ths of the roster in 6 years. But I get your point and I wish GM's were a bit more honest with the fans. Its just that saying we are rebuilding isn't good for morale or ticket sales....sort of like a politician telling you he is going to increase spending and taxes.

RashanGary

07-13-2011, 08:26 PM

Guiness

07-13-2011, 11:14 PM

Not really the same situation.

MN in their offer to Hutchinson said that if he wasn't the highest paid lineman on Seattle than the full $49M was guaranteed. SEA had just signed Jones their All-World LT to more. So for SEA to keep Hutchinson they would have had to guarantee the whole 7 year $49M contract even if Hutch got hurt or play dropped off. No team could resign their players with that clause in the the contract.

Maybe that leason taught TT to extend his core players before their contracts have expired.

Getting somewhat OT here, but this isn't the 'poison pill' as I remember it. I thought it had to do with playing more than x games in a certain state?

edit: checked, you're right. It was Seattle's 'retaliation' that had the home game clause.

Patler

07-13-2011, 11:38 PM

But I believe that the whole reason folks are skeptical is because Ted won't talk, and is misleading when he doesn't need to be. Looking back at the roster between now and when Ted took over 3/4ths of the team is new. When Ted and McCarthy took over the prevailing statements were "We are not rebuilding, we're just painting the dream house" or something to that effect.

Had he told us we were rebuilding, I don't think we'd be talking about personnel moves like this.

There is a case that can be made for "all's well that ends well", however, I do think that label will follow Ted, along with our respect for achieving the pinnacle with his fortitude and belief. (It was damn hard to type that....)lol

I've never understood why it is necessary to be told a team is "rebuilding". As a GM, I'm not sure I would ever admit to it as it seems to give the team a built in excuse for low achievement. Besides, I don't think I would ever think of my job in a category like that. All I would be doing is trying to improve the roster to the extent possible, and that would be continuous. For that matter, I guess I would always be rebuilding.

Tarlam!

07-14-2011, 07:49 AM

For that matter, I guess I would always be rebuilding. All I would be doing is trying to improve the roster to the extent possible, and that would be continuous.

I swapped these sentences because this is basically what TT has done and said. He's always done and said it.

wootah

07-14-2011, 08:06 AM

Not really the same situation.

MN in their offer to Hutchinson said that if he wasn't the highest paid lineman on Seattle than the full $49M was guaranteed. SEA had just signed Jones their All-World LT to more. So for SEA to keep Hutchinson they would have had to guarantee the whole 7 year $49M contract even if Hutch got hurt or play dropped off. No team could resign their players with that clause in the the contract.

Maybe that leason taught TT to extend his core players before their contracts have expired.

I should have made it more clear; I didn't mean the situation where Hutch left for the Vikings, but just the fact that TT will value a guard high enough that he will draft him in the 1st.

vince

07-14-2011, 12:06 PM

I've never understood why it is necessary to be told a team is "rebuilding". As a GM, I'm not sure I would ever admit to it as it seems to give the team a built in excuse for low achievement. Besides, I don't think I would ever think of my job in a category like that. All I would be doing is trying to improve the roster to the extent possible, and that would be continuous. For that matter, I guess I would always be rebuilding.
QFT

RashanGary

07-15-2011, 07:31 AM

Whatever Ted does, he's the reigning champ. He's going to get the benefit of the doubt from upper management, fans and coaches alike.

I'd say the odds of keeping Sitton are between 90 and 95 percent. What he's saying is true. He's expressing how he feels about his play and about playing for the Packers. It's a good, honest intent by my estimation.

Guys like this, reasonable ones who aren't afraid to say how they feel. . . . They tend to be willing to compromise. Ted has a history of paying guys very well for their play/reliability. Sitton is a guy who's high in both. He'll get locked up. My guess is some time shortly after the season starts and things get in order after the lockout.

Again, odds are very high Sitton will be here. His attitude, the Packers attitude lead me to believe that. I felt the same way about Collins. Good guy, great player, great attitude. . . Paid near the top of his position, but not over. That's what Sitton will get. 2nd or 3rd highest paid guard in the NFL and he'll get the contract early. The Packers take the risk of signing him early and risking injury for a year and save a few dollars from letting him get to UFA. Sitton gets the security of an early contract and gets paid near the top of his position anyway. Win/Win.

Tarlam!

07-15-2011, 08:22 AM

Good post, JH.

Patler

07-15-2011, 09:48 AM

I don't think Sitton will be signed early in the season. I think TT will take some time to evaluate the readiness of others to step in for him if he were to leave next year. If TT really learned from Wolf, Wolf was of the opinion that guard was not a position to invest a lot of money in. He felt the same way about punters (but later admitted to regretting letting Hentrich go). Wolf changed his starting guard combination almost every year, and let young, top notch guards leave rather than give them a second contract. Wolf drafted a guard in the first round, then let him leave at the end of his rookie contract.

The Packers don't usually sign someone early for anywhere close to the top salaries at their positions. Within the top 15, yes, but usually in the 8-15 area. If you are going to give him a big contract a year early, it should save some money and take it out of the top 5. If not, you might as well wait until later and get another cheap year before re-signing him.

I think Sitton could be back with the Pack, but not if he wants to be among the 3 or 4 highest paid guards in the league. If he can be satisfied somewhat lower than that, he could be re-signed. TT won't be cheap in what he offers, but he won't be one to test the top pay for the position either.

vince

07-15-2011, 10:23 AM

I think Sitton will become one of the top paid guards in the league - for now. Similar to Rodgers, Williams, etc., in a couple years, he will again be a relative bargain.

Patler

07-15-2011, 11:13 AM

I think Sitton will become one of the top paid guards in the league - for now. Similar to Rodgers, Williams, etc., in a couple years, he will again be a relative bargain.

That will cost the Packers $7 million/year or more. Jahre Evans signed last year for $8 million/year over 7 years, with $19 million guaranteed. Hutchinson, Dockery, Steinbach, and Davis are signed to deals for $7 million/year. Steinbach had 17 million guaranteed, Davis $16 million.
T

vince

07-15-2011, 12:06 PM

That will cost the Packers $7 million/year or more. Jahre Evans signed last year for $8 million/year over 7 years, with $19 million guaranteed. Hutchinson, Dockery, Steinbach, and Davis are signed to deals for $7 million/year. Steinbach had 17 million guaranteed, Davis $16 million.
T
$7 mil/yr. sounds about right to me.

RashanGary

07-15-2011, 01:35 PM

$7 mil/yr. sounds about right to me.

Me too. Sitton is a stud. Shit, if you can replace guards, move him to RT. I'll bet he'd be in the top 2 or 3 RT's in the league too. Big, good feet, nasty, consistent. I don't think he'd be a bad LT if you wanted to put him there.

In order, his best positions are probably:

RG, RT, LG, LT, C

I don't think he'd be bad at any of them and probably great at three of them.

Patler

07-15-2011, 02:52 PM

Depends how much of it is guaranteed, and how much would be earned in the first 3 or 4 years of the contract. $7 million/year can be configured a lot of different ways, and I'm not sure all of them would be palatable to the Packers. For example, I'm not sure the Packers would be too interested in paying out $25 million cash in the first two years, like they would if it has close to $20 million in signing bonus. If they can work in some injury/old-age protection for the team by having roster bonuses and/or higher salaries the last couple years makes a lot of difference.

The interesting aspect is that the big money deals for guards have been quite long term contracts (7 years). Changes the dynamic a bit.

Guiness

07-15-2011, 07:35 PM

Me too. Sitton is a stud. Shit, if you can replace guards, move him to RT. I'll bet he'd be in the top 2 or 3 RT's in the league too. Big, good feet, nasty, consistent. I don't think he'd be a bad LT if you wanted to put him there.

In order, his best positions are probably:

RG, RT, LG, LT, C

I don't think he'd be bad at any of them and probably great at three of them.

Sitton's a great RG, but it's quite an extrapolation to say he could play all 5 positions. He played RT in college, so I'll buy that even though he hasn't played a snap of it in the pros. I don't know, however, that he has the feet to play LT, or the ability to make line calls as a center. I think you belittle those positions to say you can just plug him in there. He's played exclusively RG since getting here, I've never heard of him taking any snaps, practice or live, at any other position.

Lurker64

07-15-2011, 07:56 PM

I think having Sitton play anywhere other than guard would be wasting his best attribute: he moves exceptionally well in tight spaces.

smuggler

07-20-2011, 01:44 AM

Sitton is a top-3 guard in the league, right there with Carl Nicks and Chris Snee, Mankins and Evans. He won the NFL Alumni award for best offensive lineman in 2010. According to the NY Times, he is the best in the business. http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/top-10-guards-in-n-f-l/

He will be hard to sign, but he might just be worth it!

Tarlam!

07-20-2011, 06:48 AM

All I can say is I hope TT signs Sitton long term.

ThunderDan

07-20-2011, 09:20 AM

I think having Sitton play anywhere other than guard would be wasting his best attribute: he moves exceptionally well in tight spaces.

That's what I was thinking! Playing in space at T is completely different than playing in short quarters at G.

Some people have talked about Sherrod at G and I think that would be a huge mistake. To my eye he is a T and T only.