Josh Sitton.

[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/videos/McCarthy-About-growth-for-our-football-program/329f660e-6e22-40fd-b356-495e3cc50510
This is bordering on unbelievable. They didn't cut him because they think Taylor's better. It could have all started last year (http://www.espn.com/blog/green-bay-packers/post/_/id/26908/packers-coach-mike-mccarthy-its-the-players-job-to-run-the-plays), 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 (http://www.espn.com/blog/green-bay-packers/post/_/id/26908/packers-coach-mike-mccarthy-its-the-players-job-to-run-the-plays), 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.

[vince]

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.You've caught right up Joe. Passed up a bunch even.

[Harlan Huckleby]

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

Edgar Bennett got released and is now a Bear. Back to nappy.

[red]

You've caught right up Joe. Passed up a bunch even.

The whole taking care of our own thing is kinda proven to be a myth now. Even if hes hurt, he's wad still our best lineman.

And hes only 30, it's not like he was 36 or something
I
And he was the leader of the o-line. If you aren't gonna take care of one of your leaders who's o my 30, then who will you take care off?

[Maxie the Taxi]

F*****G Ron Wolf!!!

[Joemailman]

The whole taking care of our own thing is kinda proven to be a myth now. Even if hes hurt, he's wad still our best lineman.

And hes only 30, it's not like he was 36 or something
I
And he was the leader of the o-line. If you aren't gonna take care of one of your leaders who's o my 30, then who will you take care off?

"Taking car of our own" doesn't mean you never cut anybody. The cap room they saved will likely be used to offer extensions to other current Packers.

Was Sitton the leader of the o-line any more than T.J. Lang? I never really thought so.

[red]

"Taking car of our own" doesn't mean you never cut anybody. The cap room they saved will likely be used to offer extensions to other current Packers.

Was Sitton the leader of the o-line any more than T.J. Lang? I never really thought so.

You cut the players that aren't performing up to their contract. That was not the case with sitton

[Harlan Huckleby]

Each player that touches the locker room is evaluated because the locker room is the most important (place) in our building, in my opinion.

So MM kicks Sitton in the ass on the way out the door.
Sitton says nothing negative about the team when he leaves, saying simply that football is a business. When he is later interviewed, he further refuses to blame the Packers.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2016/09/05/sitton-not-seeking-revenge/89889508/

Which side is taking the high road?

[pbmax]

Which side is taking the high road?

I am.


As a vested veteran, Sitton wasn't subject to waivers, so he could have signed with anybody he wanted.

HA! I WAS RIGHT! I WAS RIGHT! I WAS RIGHT!

[pbmax]

So MM kicks Sitton in the ass on the way out the door.


The question M3 got asked was very generic. You have to really want it to both apply directly to Sitton and be a critique. Not saying he wasn't worried (probably about future) but its not slam dunk he was confirming haughty and uncommunicative.

That said, I bet Greg Jennings felt the same way even though he had a contract offer in hand.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You've really taken the low road now.


JK

[gbgary]

he would have given his all this year, being a contract year, so they should have kept him and put the best o-line possible out there for Rodgers. now you've got a backup starting and a #3 backing him up. maybe a wise $ decision but not a good football decision.

[gbgary]

You cut the players that aren't performing up to their contract. That was not the case with sitton

this!

[Harlan Huckleby]

maybe a wise $ decision but not a good football decision.

Since Sitton's contract is expiring at end of this season, it isn't even that compelling of a money decision, at least from cap perspective.

(What's that quote from some rich guy, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you are talking serious money.")

[Joemailman]

Since Sitton's contract is expiring at end of this season, it isn't even that compelling of a money decision, at least from cap perspective.

Sure it is. That money can be used to sign other players to extensions, or the money can be carried over to next year.

[Rastak]

Sure it is. That money can be used to sign other players to extensions, or the money can be carried over to next year.

Although you must admit, Ted usually lets them play out that last year so he can get a pick in the compensation system. Plus, I believe they already have plenty of cap space.

[hoosier]

Don't let it be said that TT never cuts his own draft picks.

[pbmax]

if he is playing on big contracts to a few of them, then the money from this year can be used to mitigate the hit.


Julius Peppers OLB 36 GB TBD $10,500,000 UFA
T.J. Lang G 28 GB TBD $6,181,250 UFA
Nick Perry OLB 26 GB TBD $4,875,000 UFA
Jared Cook TE 29 GB TBD $2,750,000 UFA
Datone Jones OLB 26 GB TBD $2,455,280 UFA
David Bakhtiari LT 24 GB TBD $1,784,850 UFA
Micah Hyde SS 25 GB TBD $1,715,527 UFA
Eddie Lacy RB 25 GB TBD $1,079,404 UFA
J.C. Tretter C 25 GB TBD $778,977 UFA
Don Barclay RT 27 GB TBD $700,000 UFA

[CaptainD]

Packers G T.J. Lang on Josh Sitton: "He loved it here. He wanted to be here. He wanted to finish his career here." So much for the theories many of you are throwing around.

Meanwhile >Jermichael Finley " You can't just let a Pro Bowler walk out the door like that. PERIOD! @jsitton71 was the BEST O-Linemen the @packers had!"

Leroy Butler added in " The shortest path to Aaron is up the middle,confused why did the packers cut JOSH SITTON. Smh "

[Bossman641]

he would have given his all this year, being a contract year, so they should have kept him and put the best o-line possible out there for Rodgers. now you've got a backup starting and a #3 backing him up. maybe a wise $ decision but not a good football decision.

Agreed. Hard to imagine what Sitton could have said/done where the Packers decided they are better without him than with him. OL skill level and depth have taken a big hit, even accounting for whatever slippage Sitton has had. I normally back TT/MM but this is a headscratcher for me.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Sure it is. That money can be used to sign other players to extensions, or the money can be carried over to next year.

extensions - so they can take cap space from this year to pay for contracts for future years? That sounds unlikely.

money carried over to next year - increased cap space for this year can be carried over to increase next year's cap?

What you are saying is passing strange, but perhaps it is right in some complicated sense.

[Harlan Huckleby]

if he is playing on big contracts to a few of them, then the money from this year can be used to mitigate the hit.

Could you explain this? I get that they save some money this year. What are you saying is mitigated? What "money from this year"? I get it from a profitability standpoint, but not from a cap perspective.

[pbmax]

extensions - so they can take cap space from this year to pay for contracts for future years? That sounds unlikely.

money carried over to next year - increased cap space for this year can be carried over to increase next year's cap?


Doesn't change the calculus of helping sign others to extensions. That money still helps, it just lets you spend it over a longer window.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So money saved in 2016 (cap space, the dollars don't matter, they got plenty dollars) can pay for extensions - contracts for future years can be applied to the 2016 cap? Is this what you and that wretched postal worker are saying?

(Pretend you are talking to your mildly retarded step son. Talk slowly and use gestures.)

[pbmax]

So money saved in 2016 (cap space, the dollars don't matter, they got plenty dollars) can pay for extensions - contracts for future years can be applied to the 2016 cap? Is this what you and that wretched postal worker are saying?


Yes.

Cap space used to be a use it or lose it deal. There was a near end of season deadline for applying any contract extension money to the current year. It was like Week 12 or something. So if you signed Rodgers to an extension that paid him an immediate bonus (which, if you wanted to use up your cap dollars and save room going forward, you would want to do) that immediate bonus counted on the current year cap, even though the contract ran 3 more years or whatever.

So under that old system, any deal the Packers signed this year would be eligible to be paid for partly with 2016 cap room. But there was a hard deadline and agents knew it.

Now, under the new CBA, those 2016 left over cap dollars, if they exist at the end of the year, can be pushed forward to create more cap room in the following League year.

Meaning that for 2016, any contact signed during the season AND any contract agreed to next year, can be paid, in part, with the leftover cap. And Sitton's cap savings will add to that amount.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Now, under the new CBA, those 2016 left over cap dollars, if they exist at the end of the year, can be pushed forward to create more cap room in the following League year.

well, I'll be a monkey's uncle

[vince]

OK Lang and Bulaga say nothing happened in the locker room. It's not hard to understand why they'd say that, and none of this makes sense based on what we know. I still think we don't know the important information but until/unless we learn something else I'll back off the haughty interpretation. Happy Belated Labor Day Harlan. Power to the people and all that.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Vince,
I'm willing to give management the benefit of the doubt for the most part, although Fat Mike was a knucklehead to spread innuendo about Sitton being a cancer. Maybe that wasn't his intent, but we certainly took it that way.

All the players and most of the media, including former players, are pushing back against the notion that Sitton was a bad egg. As the postman suggested, it could be that management simply feared that Sitting might become disgruntled in time, and this whole story got blown out of proportion by one over-eager reporter, Daugherty I believe.

Pbmax's explanation of the finances further puts things in perspective.

Edit:: When I type "Sitton" autocorrect keeps changing it to "sitting".

[vince]

Vince,
I'm willing to give management the benefit of the doubt for the most part, although Fat Mike was a knucklehead to spread innuendo about Sitton being a cancer. Maybe that wasn't his intent, but we certainly took it that way.

All the players and most of the media, including former players, are pushing back against the notion that Sitton was a bad egg. As the postman suggested, it could be that management simply feared that Sitting might become disgruntled in time, and this whole story got blown out of proportion by one over-eager reporter, Daugherty I believe.

Pbmax's explanation of the finances further puts things in perspective.

Edit:: When I type "Sitton" autocorrect keeps changing it to "sitting".I still believe there was some kind of incident or series of incidents that undermined team chenistry but I acknowledge that there is nothing concrete to support that. In my opinion it's a mistake to conclude with certainty that nothing of that sort is at play.

[Bretsky]

I still believe there was some kind of incident or series of incidents that undermined team chenistry but I acknowledge that there is nothing concrete to support that. In my opinion it's a mistake to conclude with certainty that nothing of that sort is at play.


I have to side with Vince here; if there is none of that involved the move is simply stupid. So I have to think chemistry issues had to be involved

[hoosier]

So I'm looking at this discussion and thinking it has now arrived at some kind of resolution concerning the charges of lockerroom cancer and the circumstancial evidence supporting that charge. I am wondering how Kafka would describe the state's case against Sitton: Definite acquittal? Ostensible acquittal? Or just indefinite postponement?

[Patler]

Yes.

Cap space used to be a use it or lose it deal.

Now, under the new CBA, those 2016 left over cap dollars, if they exist at the end of the year, can be pushed forward to create more cap room in the following League year.


Even under the old CBA, unused cap dollars were pushed ahead using "likely to be earned" bonuses on players who would not earn them. The "likely to be earned" bonuses were bonuses paid for a defined list of things like number of games played, and certain other personal statistical achievements. Per the then existing CBA, these bonuses automatically counted against the salary cap in the year they could be attained, thus "using" the cap dollars. If the player did not actually earn the bonus, the cap dollars were added back into the next season's salary cap, effectively moving unused cap dollars from one season to the next.

Near the end of the season, there was always a flurry of contract revisions giving some players "likely to be earned" bonuses that they had no chance of earning at that point of the season, just so the unused cap dollars could be pushed ahead. It was sometimes ridiculous, with teams rewriting the current season compensation to give a backup QB a huge bonus if he played in 10 games, for example, when there were only 3 games left in the season and he hadn't played in a game yet. However; it still "used" the cap dollars in the current season, then refunded those cap dollars to the team the next year when the bonus went unearned. The Packers were one of the earlier teams to exploit this "loophole", and did it every year thereafter to push ahead the majority of their unused cap dollars, but it was never 100% because they always had to retain some cap space for contingencies at the end of the season.

The change in the CBA simply recognized what teams had always done, and eliminated the ridiculous procedure they used to do it.

[Fosco33]

Late to the party but my 2 cents.

Sounded like they were trying to trade him but teams realized the Pack was in the losers chair for negotiations. Teams would simply wait for FA if they weren't in des parathion mode - which as M3 stated, LG is not high on the list of key positions (qb, wr, lb, safety, tackles).

I think they should've kept him around for the year and let him walk. But maybe that would've caused some perceived issues with their next year extension plan.

But I'm not paid to be a GM - I get to pay to be a fan. Sitton doesn't suddenly make the Bears a 10 win squad nor does it change the fact that outside of a collapse/injuries that we are still a legit 1-3 seed in NFC which is the ticket to play to make a SB run.

Ted has been right more than being wrong. So I'll save the homerism and witch hunt while hoping M3 can get the oline's head back in the game for the season to start.

[Pugger]

Colledge got a serious second contract from the Cardinals and played through the majority of it. Lane Taylor isn't there yet, agreed. But if you are going to have a weak link, better there than at LT.

And this might have been TT and MM's thinking too. The more I ponder this situation the more I suspect Ted and Mike wanted to free up cap space for players playing positions of greater value - in their eyes - going forward and felt they could roll the dice with Taylor at RG. With the line perhaps the whole will be greater than the sum of its parts?

[Patler]

I think it is obvious that something happened, or the team perceived that something was about to happen to sour the relationship with Sitton. The facts that we know:

- We have a long history of TT's and MM's handing of players, contracts and issues.
- They have allowed many veterans to play out their contracts. They did not do that with Sitton.
- They have retained somewhat malcontent veterans, like Scott Wells, through the ends of their contracts. They did not do that with Sitton.
- They have retained overpaid veterans, like Donald Driver, who were no longer worth their salaries. They did not do that with Sitton.
- They have released long-standing veterans for salary cap and/or performance reasons, but that has occurred early in the off-season, generally shortly after the end of the previous season. They did not do that with Sitton.
- They had salary cap room to keep Sitton.
- They have no history (except the unique Favre situation) for making radical roster adjustments at the end of training camp.
- We know that MM considers the atmosphere of his locker room to be of significant importance.
- We know also that TT is concerned with the atmosphere of the locker room, and the interactions of players, one of the reasons he walks the sidelines during preseason games.
- Sitton has always been mentioned as a team leader, so everyone would know his release would cause some waves; yet the team went ahead and did it.

The team acted uncharacteristically based on their previous history. That tells me that something occurred, or the team anticipated something much different than with previous veterans entering the final year of their contract.

[Pugger]

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

When the Bears come to town nobody is gonna boo Josh Sitton.

[red]

what are the chances the TJ lang gets pissed off at the team for what they just did to his good buddy and decides not to re sign?

[Patler]

Whatever the reasons were for releasing Sitton, I have little doubt that MM was on board with the decision, and may even have had final say. While a GM may act somewhat autonomously to release a player of Sitton's stature in the off-season for salary cap and or performance issues, it is highly unlikely he would do so at the end of training camp without having the head coach's agreement. You don't take a starting player of that caliber away from the coach without giving the coach a chance to adjust or prepare unless the coach is in agreement with the decision.

[Patler]

what are the chances the TJ lang gets pissed off at the team for what they just did to his good buddy and decides not to re sign?

Slim to none. TJ Lang will do and should do what is best for him.

[gbgary]

I believe they already have plenty of cap space.

i don't know the numbers or the names but i heard yesterday that the Packers will be in cap trouble very soon due to several big FA contracts looming. so this looks like a pure money deal and maybe a message. i think if a message was part of it it backfired as sitton got a multi-year deal with a raise and a big guarantee.

[Carolina_Packer]

This was an interesting watch. I was struck by how subdued he is, understandably so. When you don't see it coming, it's harder to process, and in the immediate aftermath, his reaction is totally understandable. Think about your best friend where you work. If they were suddenly fired, and no reason was given, you'd probably have some mixed emotions as someone who is remaining with the employer.

http://www.packers.com/media-center/videos/Lang-It-was-a-tough-weekend/f4a39816-e41c-48bc-99d1-1c9b52009efc

It's understandable that the front office and players can't talk about things, but it's interesting to note Lang's comment about the rumor about Sitton showing open discontent were false. If there was no immediate reason for not letting Sitton play out his deal and letting him move on next off-season, then perhaps we'll see if they re-up any of the expiring deals in-season. That's the only thing I can think of is that they knew they weren't going to bring Sitton back and they wanted his cap number freed up for deals they felt like they needed to complete sooner than later. Does that sound right to anyone else?

[Harlan Huckleby]

The team acted uncharacteristically based on their previous history. That tells me that something occurred, or the team anticipated something much different than with previous veterans entering the final year of their contract.

It's a unique situation. We have 4 starters on the line becoming free agents at the same time. It's clear that TT wants to use Sitton for a year and then dump him. And he likely tried to trade him for months. This sets up a potential conflict that I doubt we have a comparison for. We've seen the suggestions that the team set up Lane Taylor as the new starter last spring.

As far as the "something occurred", we can scratch that. The entire team would not be ignorant, word would leak out.

The team being worried about future hard feelings is plausible. But I think TT really didn't want Sitton, he wanted to develop his younger and cheaper prospects. That explains it all well enough.

[Harlan Huckleby]

i think if a message was part of it it backfired as sitton got a multi-year deal with a raise and a big guarantee.

The message of "the beatings will continue until morale improves" probably wasn't going to do much anyway. The more I think about it, I'm tossing out the send-a-message theory, even though that's what a sportswriter thought, the TT-is-the-new-Vince damn fool.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So I'm looking at this discussion and thinking it has now arrived at some kind of resolution concerning the charges of lockerroom cancer and the circumstancial evidence supporting that charge. I am wondering how Kafka would describe the state's case against Sitton: Definite acquittal? Ostensible acquittal? Or just indefinite postponement?

Wasn't Kafka a character on "LAverne and Shirley"? He'd say good riddance to the bum and the Bears are still gonna suck.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Maybe if MM had relaxed TT BEFORE he talked to Sitton this all could have been avoided.

I have a new chapter of "Ted is Trapped in the Closet" to post if y'all want to read it.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Duh.

[Rutnstrut]

I have to side with Vince here; if there is none of that involved the move is simply stupid. So I have to think chemistry issues had to be involved

You think TT is incapable of stupidity? This is TT being a tightwad, egotistical ass, plain and simple. Don't be surprised when this makeshift line gets Rodgers hurt badly by week 5.

[Patler]

I don't see that the Packers had any impending cap issue of significance that required releasing Sitton now to save his salary from this year. Sure, it helps, but I don't see that the situation was anything dramatic compared to what they have faced other years.

They had the four OL with expiring contracts along with Hyde, Cook, Lacy, Perry and Jones and a few others; but they had room to do a couple of those this year even without releasing Sitton, and next year they have $10M coming off the books from Peppers, and around $30M from the expiring contracts, plus any salary cap increase for next year. They probably weren't going to renew both Sitton and Lang anyway, nor are they likely to sign both Perry and Jones to big contracts. By next year, Hyde might look like an unnecessary expense, too.

[Pugger]

This was an interesting watch. I was struck by how subdued he is, understandably so. When you don't see it coming, it's harder to process, and in the immediate aftermath, his reaction is totally understandable. Think about your best friend where you work. If they were suddenly fired, and no reason was given, you'd probably have some mixed emotions as someone who is remaining with the employer.

http://www.packers.com/media-center/videos/Lang-It-was-a-tough-weekend/f4a39816-e41c-48bc-99d1-1c9b52009efc

It's understandable that the front office and players can't talk about things, but it's interesting to note Lang's comment about the rumor about Sitton showing open discontent were false. If there was no immediate reason for not letting Sitton play out his deal and letting him move on next off-season, then perhaps we'll see if they re-up any of the expiring deals in-season. That's the only thing I can think of is that they knew they weren't going to bring Sitton back and they wanted his cap number freed up for deals they felt like they needed to complete sooner than later. Does that sound right to anyone else?

This was kinda my guess as I said above. This is the only explanation that makes any sense with what is known.

[Pugger]

You think TT is incapable of stupidity? This is TT being a tightwad, egotistical ass, plain and simple. Don't be surprised when this makeshift line gets Rodgers hurt badly by week 5.

Of course you haven't been a fan of TT for a while so you automatically think the worst. I'm no fan of this move but without all the facts I'm not going to blast Ted and call him a stupid egotistical ass until we know exactly what went down behind closed doors.

Do you really think losing our LG is gonna get Rodgers killed? I could understand if we were talking about a LT. When Bak was out last season Rodgers was running for his life even with Sitton in there. When David went back in at LT in the playoffs not so much.

[Patler]

I will accept that Sitton wanted to stay in GB. Nothing indicates he didn't.
No one (players) seems to know of any bad relationship beyond the normal negotiation stuff.
The team told Sitton and Lang they would have to wait for now. Nothing surprising in that. While neither liked it, I'm sure they understood.
Sitton has a chronic back issue and may have more than average risk playing the year without a new contract.
MM values his locker room attitude.
MM mentioned the locker room and team benefit.
The team acted quickly and very unexpectedly.
Sitton was somewhat uncharacteristically under spoken about what happened after the fact.
Sitton redirected questions about the "why" to his agent (meaningless point by itself).

Simple wild speculation that fits with all of the above: did Sitton's agent quietly suggest that Sitton would hold out at the start of the season unless the team began immediate negotiations for an extension? May have been just a negotiation ploy that backfired on them. Obviously, I have no direct evidence of this, but it fits the scenario as well or better than some other things that have been suggested.

Chances are, we will never know the reason for sure.

[MadScientist]

Cutting Sitton may turn out to be the right choice for the Packers, due to injuries, declining skills and salary. However, none of that matters if whoever replaces Sitton is noticeably worse. Also this quote:

Not since receiver Jordy Nelson tore his ACL last preseason was the Packers' locker room such a solemn place. From lineman to lineman, devastation was written on faces.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2016/09/05/emotions-raw-packers-bid-sitton-farewell/89876314/
makes me think that the line might wind up preforming like the receivers did last year.

[Harlan Huckleby]

did Sitton's agent quietly suggest that Sitton would hold out at the start of the season unless the team began immediate negotiations for an extension?

And how would that have worked out for Sitton if it came to that? Not a credible threat or plausible theory.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It seems like only yesterday we were complaining that it was a boring, uneventful preseason. Maybe "we" is me.

[Guiness]

I recall Ted letting a couple other guards go a few years back and everyone freaked out. Rivera played about 10 more games in the NFL. Maybe this is Marco 2.0. Let's just hope Lane doesn't suck like that kid he picked up from NE.

I was thinking the same thing. Riviera was an iron man in GB, but broke down awful quick when he left. That one was definitely an example of getting out at the right time. He also had back issues, btw.

Where the difference is here is that Riviera played out his last contract. GB will let vets walk when a contact is up, but as a rule let them play it out if they're still serviceable. I'm trying to think of another example of them acting this way and I can't, which makes me think there's more to this...not that we're likely to ever hear about it.

[MadScientist]

Simple wild speculation that fits with all of the above: did Sitton's agent quietly suggest that Sitton would hold out at the start of the season unless the team began immediate negotiations for an extension? May have been just a negotiation ploy that backfired on them. Obviously, I have no direct evidence of this, but it fits the scenario as well or better than some other things that have been suggested.

Chances are, we will never know the reason for sure.

I thought the CBA basically made such holdouts futile.

[Patler]

And how would that have worked out for Sitton if it came to that? Not a credible threat or plausible theory.

Fine, if the team opened negotiations. I'm not saying he would have held out, but the agent could have threatened it in an attempt to spur immediate negotiations. Negotiations often go off on wild, weird tangents (see Bosa). However, my major point was that it is just as easy, and perhaps easier to formulate scenarios putting the "blame" on Sitton as some of the allegations that have been made against the team. As I said, I have no evidence to support it, other than one can make it fit the facts we know.

I am sure of only one thing, something happened beyond what has happened with other major players who have hung around to the bitter end. Maybe MM really believes in Taylor to replace Sitton, just as he believed in Rodgers replacing Favre. Maybe it was something else. In the end, it really doesn't matter.

[Patler]

Where the difference is here is that Riviera played out his last contract. GB will let vets walk when a contact is up, but as a rule let them play it out if they're still serviceable. I'm trying to think of another example of them acting this way and I can't, which makes me think there's more to this...not that we're likely to ever hear about it.

Yup, my point too in all the various forms I have tried to explain it. This one is different, for whatever reason.

Could be as simply as MM honestly believing in Taylor, or the medical staff rendering an opinion on Sitton's back. Some teams medical staffs will red flag a guy that another team's staff passes.

[hoosier]

You think TT is incapable of stupidity? This is TT being a tightwad, egotistical ass, plain and simple. Don't be surprised when this makeshift line gets Rodgers hurt badly by week 5.

Thanks for adding such luminous insight to the discussion.

[hoosier]

Here is something nobody has suggested yet (and which is therefore either completely ridiculous or brilliantly on point). Sitton got cut because the Packers got word from the NFL home office that he was implicated in the PED scandal. Hey, it came just two weeks after the Matthews/Peppers interviews, so we at least have chronological proximity. My hypothesis has the added benefit that it accounts for the general befuddlement of his teammates: nobody saw it coming because nobody knew he was juicing.

[pbmax]

And how would that have worked out for Sitton if it came to that? Not a credible threat or plausible theory.

He just signed a new three year deal with more guaranteed money. If it happened, it worked just fine.

[pbmax]

Here is something nobody has suggested yet (and which is therefore either completely ridiculous or brilliantly on point). Sitton got cut because the Packers got word from the NFL home office that he was implicated in the PED scandal. Hey, it came just two weeks after the Matthews/Peppers interviews, so we at least have chronological proximity. My hypothesis has the added benefit that it accounts for the general befuddlement of his teammates: nobody saw it coming because nobody knew he was juicing.

Its possible. Unlike a lot of theories, we will find out sometime this season.

[Pugger]

Go to: http://www.espn.com/nfl/team/_/name/gb/green-bay-packers

And click on the link to the podcast on ESPN Milwaukee about the drop-off without Sitton.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Sitton got cut because the Packers got word from the NFL home office that he was implicated in the PED scandal.

I said "sounds like PEDs" 7 seconds after word broke that Sitton was cut. Silverstein didn't print my comment on his live blog because I suppose I sounded like an ugly rumor monger.

[Harlan Huckleby]

He just signed a new three year deal with more guaranteed money. If it happened, it worked just fine.

So you think the Pack would have allowed him to become a FA after a sitout? Not likely. He'd be sitting home, off the active roster, off the books. A lot better for Pack than him playing for the Bears.

[pbmax]

So you think the Pack would have allowed him to become a FA after a sitout? Not likely. He'd be sitting home, off the active roster, off the books. A lot better for Pack than him playing for the Bears.

So the distraction explanation is completely off the board as far as you are concerned?

[red]

So the distraction explanation is completely off the board as far as you are concerned?

it doesn't sound like his teammates think there was or would have been an issue. the only person that came close to saying there was an issue was fat mike, and judging by how sheltered his assistants kept him from his players in practice, he might not ever even go in the locker room other then to give that post game speech

[hoosier]

I said "sounds like PEDs" 7 seconds after word broke that Sitton was cut. Silverstein didn't print my comment on his live blog because I suppose I sounded like an ugly rumor monger.

Yeah right. I put it out first. Poser.

[hoosier]

So you think the Pack would have allowed him to become a FA after a sitout? Not likely. He'd be sitting home, off the active roster, off the books. A lot better for Pack than him playing for the Bears.

Agreed, a threatened SittOut doesn't explain his getting cut, that would be a horrible precedent to set. And don't think SittOut's teammates wouldn't get wind of it. The more I think about it, the more I think this smells like a missing link in the PED scandal.

[red]

oh good news, TT also has told lang that his contracts negotiation would be put on hold until the younger guys have their contracts done up

i'm guessing lang will be gone by the start of next season too

[red]

and sittons deal with the bears is 3 years 21.5 million with 10 million guaranteed

[Harlan Huckleby]

i'm guessing lang will be gone by the start of next season too

Barclay can move to guard for Jacksonville.

ps. And don't forget, Brett Goode can play center in a pinch.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So the distraction explanation is completely off the board as far as you are concerned?

Events can be explained without going there. Certainly the threat of him sitting out is far fetched and illogical. I can't rule out anything.

[vince]

105.7 The Fan @1057TheFan
2 sources tell @Bill_Michaels that there was an increasingly contentious relationship between Josh Sitton and #Packers Coaches/Management

[red]

105.7 The Fan @1057TheFan
2 sources tell @Bill_Michaels that there was an increasingly contentious relationship between Josh Sitton and #Packers Coaches/Management

the 2 sources could be TT and M3 and they feel that way because sitton didn't wave to TT on saturday when he passed him in the parking lot

[hoosier]

105.7 The Fan @1057TheFan
2 sources tell @Bill_Michaels that there was an increasingly contentious relationship between Josh Sitton and #Packers Coaches/Management

Contentious doesn't meet the standard for me. You can keep contentious around for the rest of the year; you reap the benefits of a guy playing for his next contract and you avoid setting a precedent for other players who might want to get out of their old deals in the future. The only sane explanations for cutting Sitton are that he had become or was about to become so toxic that you don't want him around the team (I'm talking about Terrell Owens-level distraction), or he was caught in the hot tub with the babysitter, or you discover that he is a PED pipeline into the lockerroom.

[Harlan Huckleby]

the 2 sources could be TT and M3 and they feel that way because sitton didn't wave to TT on saturday when he passed him in the parking lot


The Crimson Curmudgeon strikes again.

[Rutnstrut]

Here is something nobody has suggested yet (and which is therefore either completely ridiculous or brilliantly on point). Sitton got cut because the Packers got word from the NFL home office that he was implicated in the PED scandal. Hey, it came just two weeks after the Matthews/Peppers interviews, so we at least have chronological proximity. My hypothesis has the added benefit that it accounts for the general befuddlement of his teammates: nobody saw it coming because nobody knew he was juicing.

That would have been known to any team he tried to catch on with. If true he would still be unemployed, not signed to a very lucrative contract.

[Patler]

Tauscher with Wilde reminded me of something I had forgotten. Last year Sitton had been quite critical about play calling as a guest on several shows and in discussions for several weeks. Finally in his own interview, MM somewhat angrily said Josh Sitton needed to worry about playing left guard, and quit complaining about play calling. Tauscher's comment reminded me that at the time I thought MM sounded quite pissed, and I wondered if it would be a factor in him resigning with GB. I kind of dismissed it because MM came across as very irritated most of the second half of the season.

Maybe Sitton irritated MM more than we realize.

[pbmax]

^ Well now I am on Sitton's side.

[texaspackerbacker]

I doubt there is anything to the Sitton/PEDs thing.

I'm gonna just take McCarthy at his word - he sees some positions as less of a priority money-wise than others. In other words, Sitton wanted too much money. I have thought for a long time that the Packer O Line is overrated. What I see is Aaron Rodgers needing to escape the pass rush - and generally doing so very successfully - no thanks to mediocre O Linemen getting too much credit. Whatever success we have in run blocking also is related to Rodgers' escapability and passing - and often (although not always often enough for me) a pass first mentality which sets up other teams' D for running plays.

I don't think very highly of Lane Taylor, but I'm glad it's him rather than Barclay getting the start.

Losing Sitton ain't gonna hurt much. It's a 50/50 question IMO whether he does much to help the Bears. Either way, I don't see the Bears as being any threat.

[red]

Tauscher with Wilde reminded me of something I had forgotten. Last year Sitton had been quite critical about play calling as a guest on several shows and in discussions for several weeks. Finally in his own interview, MM somewhat angrily said Josh Sitton needed to worry about playing left guard, and quit complaining about play calling. Tauscher's comment reminded me that at the time I thought MM sounded quite pissed, and I wondered if it would be a factor in him resigning with GB. I kind of dismissed it because MM came across as very irritated most of the second half of the season.

Maybe Sitton irritated MM more than we realize.

then the cut shoulda/woulda happened much sooner

and everyone and their mother was critical of the playcalling last year

[Harlan Huckleby]

Maybe Sitton irritated MM more than we realize.

If this is the reason then it counts as a major fail by MM. Sitton has reportedly been cantankerous his whole career. MM should have found a way to deal with his irritation short of handing a good player to a division rival. MM put his own comfort ahead of the team. The team was fine with Sitton.

[hoosier]

And for just that reason it cannot be the reason. That would be cutting off his nose to spite his face. Even if McCarthy were that impulsive and a slave of his own emotions, which I don't believe for a minute, no way would TT let him follow through on it.

[King Friday]

I don't believe for a second that Sitton was cut due to something that happened last season...or else they would've cut him LAST SEASON. There was no reason to wait until the last days of camp to make this move if you knew you were going to do it 8 months ago.

I do believe that when it came time to evaluate the roster spots available for this year, hard choices had to be made. When it comes down to hard choices, little things can suddenly matter FAR MORE than usual. In this case, the negative association Sitton's gripes had put an additional mark against him that, when combined with other negatives such as the likelihood of his departure after the season in free agency and relative importance of his position, added up to the final tally to vote him off the island.

His attitude/griping did not lead to his cutting...but they also did not score points for Sitton in terms of making the final roster over other guys who the team also wanted to keep, and probably made it difficult for the decision makers to make the choice in his favor when all things were laid bare for evaluation.

[pbmax]

Bill Michels has been unreliable in the past. Not sure what his recent record has been. Don't listen regularly.

[KYPack]

I think memory is in play here. This way, TT & MM will go into '17 with two experienced G's. TT especially remembers '05 with Whittaker and Klem manning those spots. Would have felt better if we had drafted a replacement G to serve under Taylor, Lane makes me a little nervous.

Maybe they think Lane is the better run blocker, but I've seen him get bull rushed PPro.

I'm shakey on this whole deal.

[pbmax]

I think memory is in play here. This way, TT & MM will go into '17 with two experienced G's. TT especially remembers '05 with Whittaker and Klem manning those spots. Would have felt better if we had drafted a replacement G to serve under Taylor, Lane makes me a little nervous.

Maybe they think Lane is the better run blocker, but I've seen him get bull rushed PPro.

I'm shakey on this whole deal.

He's not fantastic on the move getting to second level either.

[Bretsky]

"Taking car of our own" doesn't mean you never cut anybody. The cap room they saved will likely be used to offer extensions to other current Packers.

Was Sitton the leader of the o-line any more than T.J. Lang? I never really thought so.




I think he was the leader of the OL much more than Lang; in a JS article Lang noted how he'd sometimes call out signals and make them aware of things other OL would not know about. Initially my reaction was WFT is Tight Teddy doing ? Then Vince talked me down and convinced me of logistics. After reading a couple JS articles I may have flipped back to TightTed

[Patler]

I didn't mean to imply it was that one thing (criticizing play calling) that might have been responsible. That was an example meant to show that maybe MM was reaching his limit of tolerance.

Tauscher was really quite interesting. He talked for a half-hour about it. Among his comments:

From a strict football view, it makes no sense.
Sitton may have slipped a bit, Taylor will be OK, but not what Sitton would have been this year.
Outspoken players are not uncommon in the locker room, but Sitton could go beyond that.
Even as a rookie, Sitton could be overly critical and outspoken.
Bulaga admitted the other day that when he was a rookie, it took a long time to learn how to take Sitton.
Teams will tolerate more from a star QB, for example, than from a star guard.
Sometimes player succession requires throwing the new player in there even though it is a step back that season.
Probably many layers to this decision, including age, injuries, personality, relationships, cap, contract status, etc.
Wanting another spot for a WR or DB they liked was also a probable factor.

[vince]

http://www.espn.com/espnradio/playPopup?id=17480611

A must-listen for anyone looking to get to the heart of this situation.

Chmura says he knows what happened. It was "something" - an incident in the locker room that was the last straw of a pattern for Sitton. He's unwilling to say specifically what happened. It has something to do with today's "sensitive" world. He thinks he wouldn't have been cut in '96 but things are different today. "The Packers are a family."

He also say that he thinks Sitton is too good and the Packers should have kept him. Perhaps he's not as sensitive to the issue in this specific incident.

Let the source bashing commence.

[Spaulding]

A pretty emotional topic for many (myself included). Been reading through all the posts on this since it occurred (thanks PackerRats for keeping me off the ledge) and I'm still at a loss to the logic. It seems to go against what Ted normally values which is having good players (skill wise) play out their contract and then letting them go and gaining a compensatory pick.

The cap for this season isn't an issue (outside of early extending of key Packers prior to the offseason) and so from a purely financial stance it wasn't necessarily needed to cut Sitton to field the best roster of 53 for this season.

As many have already mentioned, it seems to have boiled down to one or a combination of the following factors:

- Sitton's back wasn't getting any better and it was believed it would impact his play this year and there might be a substantial drop off sooner rather than later
- Lane Taylor was viewed as a player that could start with little drop off (I certainly haven't seen that though between last year and this pre-season though) and so have to hope that the coaches and front office know something we don't
- There is a high concern that several key players up for contracts will test the market at the end of this season unless offered a good extension prior (and the money saved from cutting Sitton was highly valued to help achieve this)

What I don't believe is that Sitton was a locker room cancer or wanted out of Green Bay. He's been with the team what eight years and they know his vocal warts and all and he's given no indication that he wouldn't at least play out his contract. I also don't believe that they had a young player they didn't think would clear waivers and be able to sign to the practice squad (unless it's one of the safeties that they view as a successor to Burnett should Morgan price himself out of Green Bay when his contract is up).

This move just seems to weaken a team we hope will contend for a Lombardi trophy with no immediate upside. Then again Ted thankfully has always had an eye to the next (or even subsequent) years to keep the team consistently competitive.

I understand (but disagree) when I see fans clamor for going for broke on a season and mortgaging the future of the franchise for one year. when so many other variables come into play. Why give up having a consistently competitive team to go for broke one year and almost definitely fail. It's almost always the team playing the best football late in the season and has stayed relatively healthy - none of which can be predicted when a team goes all in during the off season. It's also a statistical fact that by simply making the playoffs each you then have a chance to win it all (see the recent wild card teams like the Ravens, Steelers, Packers, etc. that have won the SB).

I just hope that Taylor doesn't get Rodgers killed and the risk ends up being worth it in the long run.

[texaspackerbacker]

http://www.espn.com/espnradio/playPopup?id=17480611

A must-listen for anyone looking to get to the heart of this situation.

Chmura says he knows what happened. It was "something" - an incident in the locker room that was the last straw of a pattern for Sitton. He's unwilling to say specifically what happened. It has something to do with today's "sensitive" world. He thinks he wouldn't have been cut in '96 but things are different today. "The Packers are a family."

He also say that he thinks Sitton is too good and the Packers should have kept him. Perhaps he's not as sensitive to the issue in this specific incident.

Let the source bashing commence.

The source, of course, is Chmura, not the media guys from the show. I'm not gonna bash him, but I'm not 100% sold on the idea "he knows ....." either.

If he is correct, the key line in there is his hint - "things are different now; this is not 1996; the world is different now." So WHAT is different now? I don't want to turn this into another Kaepernick type thread, but the WHAT that stands out the most to me regarding the world being different is the disease called political correctness. I still think Chmura is wrong, and this is salary related more than anything else, but IF he is right, then the most likely thing is that there is either a racial or homosexual component about the "incident". Neither I nor probably anybody else in this forum are close enough to know the who or what details of it, but something like that seems like the main way the "world is different" now. He also mentioned that it might be different if this was "the Titans or the Cowboys". I know the Cowboys are basically one-man rule; I'm not sure about the Titans. It's safe to say, though, that the ownership is not spread as widely as with the Packers - nobody else is like that. So reading between the lines, according to Chmura, the "incident" was something that would upset the big cross-section which comprises the Packer ownership. In any case, we supposedly will all find out after the season.

I just hope Sitton plays like shit for the Bears and the Packers win big time without him.

[Patler]

The source, of course, is Chmura, not the media guys from the show. I'm not gonna bash him, but I'm not 100% sold on the idea "he knows ....." either.

If he is correct, the key line in there is his hint - "things are different now; this is not 1996; the world is different now." So WHAT is different now? I don't want to turn this into another Kaepernick type thread, but the WHAT that stands out the most to me regarding the world being different is the disease called political correctness. I still think Chmura is wrong, and this is salary related more than anything else, but IF he is right, then the most likely thing is that there is either a racial or homosexual component about the "incident". Neither I nor probably anybody else in this forum are close enough to know the who or what details of it, but something like that seems like the main way the "world is different" now. He also mentioned that it might be different if this was "the Titans or the Cowboys". I know the Cowboys are basically one-man rule; I'm not sure about the Titans. It's safe to say, though, that the ownership is not spread as widely as with the Packers - nobody else is like that. So reading between the lines, according to Chmura, the "incident" was something that would upset the big cross-section which comprises the Packer ownership. In any case, we supposedly will all find out after the season.

I just hope Sitton plays like shit for the Bears and the Packers win big time without him.

Have to agree with you on that. I'm never impressed by reports of "I know, but I can't say...." I have to ask myself how Chmura would know about an incident when the gaggle of Packer beat reporters can't seem to get any inkling of a specific incident. It's doubtful that Chmura would have an exclusive inside source willing to divulge information that other reporters' sources wouldn't know or be willing to hint at anyway.

However, if Chmura's statements are taken as true, he sure seemed to be alluding to the types of issues you mentioned.

[Patler]

One thing I forgot to mention from Tauscher's long discussion about Sitton, he suggested that this could be very much about how much the Packers like both Tretter and Linsley, and while Lane Taylor might be the place holder for the time being, it could really be about getting both Linsley and Tretter on the field 6 weeks from now. He emphasized how much the coaches really like Tretter.

[Pugger]

oh good news, TT also has told lang that his contracts negotiation would be put on hold until the younger guys have their contracts done up

i'm guessing lang will be gone by the start of next season too

Maybe not. He is better and younger than Sitton so he probably will be resigned. TT will probably take care of Bak first because he is a tackle.

[Pugger]

and sittons deal with the bears is 3 years 21.5 million with 10 million guaranteed

Good for him! There is zero chance he would ever get that kind of deal from us. The Bears better hope his back holds out.

[Cobra Kai]

The source, of course, is Chmura, not the media guys from the show. I'm not gonna bash him, but I'm not 100% sold on the idea "he knows ....." either.

If he is correct, the key line in there is his hint - "things are different now; this is not 1996; the world is different now." So WHAT is different now? I don't want to turn this into another Kaepernick type thread, but the WHAT that stands out the most to me regarding the world being different is the disease called political correctness. I still think Chmura is wrong, and this is salary related more than anything else, but IF he is right, then the most likely thing is that there is either a racial or homosexual component about the "incident". Neither I nor probably anybody else in this forum are close enough to know the who or what details of it, but something like that seems like the main way the "world is different" now. He also mentioned that it might be different if this was "the Titans or the Cowboys". I know the Cowboys are basically one-man rule; I'm not sure about the Titans. It's safe to say, though, that the ownership is not spread as widely as with the Packers - nobody else is like that. So reading between the lines, according to Chmura, the "incident" was something that would upset the big cross-section which comprises the Packer ownership. In any case, we supposedly will all find out after the season.

I just hope Sitton plays like shit for the Bears and the Packers win big time without him.

I heard rumors that the "incident" involved the N word. I wrote that off because they were just rumors and everyone was just trying to figure out why the fuck they would cut one of their top 10 players. However maybe there is some truth to that. I'm not saying that Chmura knows more than the Packers beat writers but its not that much of a stretch either. Its funny you mention Kaepernick, because that is a current and relevant story that affects NFL player. I know its just more speculation but its very plausible that Sitton, a openly vocal person, went off on a N word laced tirade over Kaepernick's actions in the locker room and that was brought to the attention of Packer's brass. That incident coupled with other factors such has his age, chronic back issues and contract situation all played a part in the release...

[Cobra Kai]

Its also possible that Sitton fucked Holmgren's daughter...

[gbgary]

http://www.espn.com/espnradio/playPopup?id=17480611

A must-listen for anyone looking to get to the heart of this situation.

Chmura says he knows what happened. It was "something" - an incident in the locker room that was the last straw of a pattern for Sitton. He's unwilling to say specifically what happened. It has something to do with today's "sensitive" world. He thinks he wouldn't have been cut in '96 but things are different today. "The Packers are a family."

He also say that he thinks Sitton is too good and the Packers should have kept him. Perhaps he's not as sensitive to the issue in this specific incident.

Let the source bashing commence.

well that boils it down to one or more of these options: race, sexual preference, bullying, religion, bathroom preference, global warming/hoax, creamy/chunky, boxers/briefs. all of which can be grounds for dismissal.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I heard rumors that the "incident" involved the N word.

JAson Wilde thoroughly debunked that one on Homer's show. He did the research, talking to lots of players.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Its also possible that Sitton fucked Holmgren's daughter...

I'm thinking he didn't call for two weeks afterwards.

[Harlan Huckleby]

A must-listen for anyone looking to get to the heart of this situation.

Chmura says he knows what happened. It was "something" - an incident in the locker room that was the last straw of a pattern for Sitton.

must listen. Hee hee hee. Look, I love Chmura, he's funny and has a damn good head on his shoulders for a Republican. But he has thrown more shit against the wall in the past decade than a dung hut builder.

You want some intelligent analysis? Listen to Mike Lucas's conversation with Tom Spoon Silverstein. Its midway in the show.
http://thebig1070.iheart.com/media/play/27287548/

Silverstein is bewildered like all of us, leaves an opening for a degree of truth in a lot of factors. But he says the largest factor was saving cap money on a declining veteran that TT wanted to replace.

[Harlan Huckleby]

From a strict football view, it makes no sense.

I've come around to seeing that it does make sense. It's just that you and I don't agree with TT's call

I've been very negative towards Dougherty's Vince Lombardi II column, but I'm seeing now he was right on at least half of it. TT sees Sitton as a guy in decline, and he simply wants to develop younger players for the long term, including later this season. You and I don't see eye to eye with him in this case.

The starting guard-center for this season is Tretter-Lindsley, not Taylor-Tretter. Taylor and Barclay are the plan Bs for the playoff run.

TT wants to build team chemistry now around his younger players. Lets see if he is a mad genius or merely mad.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

JAson Wilde thoroughly debunked that one on Homer's show. He did the research, talking to lots of players.

I agree.

Mike Daniels, a proud African-American, was not too happy with Sitton's release. Had Sitton used the N-word, Daniels would be like, fuck that cracka, yo!

My guess is, Sitton probably called Ted the other F-word. Not fuck, but the other one, you know, the one that means cigarette in England.

[pbmax]

http://www.espn.com/espnradio/playPopup?id=17480611

A must-listen for anyone looking to get to the heart of this situation.

Chmura says he knows what happened. It was "something" - an incident in the locker room that was the last straw of a pattern for Sitton. He's unwilling to say specifically what happened. It has something to do with today's "sensitive" world. He thinks he wouldn't have been cut in '96 but things are different today. "The Packers are a family."

He also say that he thinks Sitton is too good and the Packers should have kept him. Perhaps he's not as sensitive to the issue in this specific incident.

Let the source bashing commence.

At least two years ago, Chmura did get the Finley injury right. So somehow, someone is still talking to him.

[pbmax]

One thing I forgot to mention from Tauscher's long discussion about Sitton, he suggested that this could be very much about how much the Packers like both Tretter and Linsley, and while Lane Taylor might be the place holder for the time being, it could really be about getting both Linsley and Tretter on the field 6 weeks from now. He emphasized how much the coaches really like Tretter.

Ultimately, this is what I think they want.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Just a cautionary note: the F-word "fanny" in England is a synonym for "cunt." Such a pretty word, "fanny."

[Patler]

I've come around to seeing that it does make sense. It's just that you and I don't agree with TT's call

I've been very negative towards Dougherty's Vince Lombardi II column, but I'm seeing now he was right on at least half of it. TT sees Sitton as a guy in decline, and he simply wants to develop younger players for the long term, including later this season. You and I don't see eye to eye with him in this case.

The starting guard-center for this season is Tretter-Lindsley, not Taylor-Tretter. Taylor and Barclay are the plan Bs for the playoff run.

TT wants to build team chemistry now around his younger players. Lets see if he is a mad genius or merely mad.

You aren't disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Tauscher. What you quoted from my post was a summary of what Tauscher said in his half-hour discussion about Sitton.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Well then fuck that guy.

[Fritz]

One thing I forgot to mention from Tauscher's long discussion about Sitton, he suggested that this could be very much about how much the Packers like both Tretter and Linsley, and while Lane Taylor might be the place holder for the time being, it could really be about getting both Linsley and Tretter on the field 6 weeks from now. He emphasized how much the coaches really like Tretter.

I think this might be a large part of what's behind the release. You can tell, based on the JSOPG stuff, that they really, really do like Tretter - plus he's four years younger than Sitton. And they really like how rugged Linsley plays. And my guess is that they see Taylor as a competent backup at guard. Plus this gives them the chance to extend one more player than they might have with the extra money. Had Linsley not gone on PUP, you wonder if they'd maybe have released Sitton sooner.

Nonethelss, I still don't like the move. Normally I applaud The Thin White Duke for his work, and for looking out for the long term, but in this case I think he's jumped the gun. Sitton is very likely still going to be a better guard this year than Linsley or Taylor, and it seems his back issues can be managed for one more season. Sure, let him go at the end of the season - and get a comp pick. But come on, this is a possible Super Bowl team, and you just weakened yourself at a position. Why do that?

[Patler]

But come on, this is a possible Super Bowl team, and you just weakened yourself at a position. Why do that?

Many reason, at least 6,850,000 of which were very tangible reasons. I doubt that the Packer brain trust thinks that the net result of this decision negatively impacts their SB aspirations significantly, or they wouldn't have done it. They have too long of a history of letting players play out their contracts. While they may have accepted decreased performance at LG to be one result, in their minds there are perhaps intangible benefits to offset it, and they are willing to accept the decrease in performance at LG as a result.

[Patler]

Well then fuck that guy.

Might be your thing, not mine.

[Rutnstrut]

Everyone says this is in part or mostly to help the young guys. Well the young guys don't stay young forever. If you have a history of fucking over your vets, it will eventually bite you in the ass.

[vince]

Coincidences?

1. Josh Sitton comes from a military family.
2. On Aug. 30, Sam Barrington tweeted, "I support Colin Kaepernick 100%"
3. Four days later, Sam Barrington and Josh Sitton were surprise cuts.
4. The Packers are known for emphasizing keeping locker room issues out of the media.

[pbmax]

As an org, the Packers re-sign more of their own vets that any other team. Going to be hard to rewrite the reputation with one cut down day waiver.

[pbmax]

Coincidences?

1. Josh Sitton comes from a military family.
2. On Aug. 30, Sam Barrington tweeted, "I support Colin Kaepernick 100%"
3. Four days later, Sam Barrington and Josh Sitton were surprise cuts.
4. The Packers are known for emphasizing keeping locker room issues out of the media.

So is Aaron Rodgers the next one to go?

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2016/08/31/rodgers-weighs-kaepernick-labor-negotiations/89671186/

[Patler]

Everyone says this is in part or mostly to help the young guys. Well the young guys don't stay young forever. If you have a history of fucking over your vets, it will eventually bite you in the ass.

Do the Packers look like they have been bitten in the ass? Thompson has been at this a long time now.
Even if Sitton wasn't treated fairly, one player doesn't make it a "team history".

[Patler]

Coincidences?

1. Josh Sitton comes from a military family.
2. On Aug. 30, Sam Barrington tweeted, "I support Colin Kaepernick 100%"
3. Four days later, Sam Barrington and Josh Sitton were surprise cuts.
4. The Packers are known for emphasizing keeping locker room issues out of the media.

Even more interesting because one of the rumors was a dust-up between Sitton and Barrington, according to Wilde. Wilde said he couldn't reach Barrington, and Sitton denied it.

[vince]

So is Aaron Rodgers the next one to go?

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2016/08/31/rodgers-weighs-kaepernick-labor-negotiations/89671186/
Maybe the dots need to be connected one or two steps beyond answering a question about an issue in the media... I'm sure if something happened, it will be denied til the cows come home so there will probably never be conclusive proof of any incident.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Given all the rumors flying, I think it's safe to say the season can't start soon enough.

[red]

Not that theory is interesting

Cause Barrington wad a bit of a surprise cut too imo

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm sure if something happened, it will be denied til the cows come home so there will probably never be conclusive proof of any incident.

If there were an incident, lots of people would know about it and would come out. I say give the speculations a rest.

[Patler]

If there were an incident, lots of people would know about it and would come out.

Depends on how many were there to witness it, and how tightly MM can close the doors.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Depends on how many were there to witness it, and how tightly MM can close the doors.

If nothing else, you can tell when people are uncomfortable and hiding something. With the frenzy to find out what's there, I easily conclude that there is no there there.

I've never known any group of people who can conceal a controversy where the individuals are conflicted or upset.

[Harlan Huckleby]

heee heee heee. On second thought, TT and MM seem uncomfortable and appear to be hiding something. TT was spotted entering the building wearing a Groucho Marx nose and glasses.

[ThunderDan]

Given all the rumors flying, I think it's safe to say the season can't start soon enough.

Now this I can agree with.

[hoosier]

heee heee heee. On second thought, TT and MM seem uncomfortable and appear to be hiding something. TT was spotted entering the building wearing a Groucho Marx nose and glasses.

TT always appears uncomfortable. Nothing significant there.

Your statement about groups concealing controversies is redundant: if the parties are known to be upset then by definition the controversy is not concealed; if nobody can see they're upset then the controversy probably hasn't been made public.

If Sitton and Barrington got into it over Kaerpnick and Black-and-Blue lives, which seems to me only remotely more likely than Sitton as PED pipeline, the rest of the guys in the lockerroom probably don't want to talk about it among themselves, let alone to the press. Who can tell whether TJ Lang is capable of masking his discomfort when talking to a reporter.

[pbmax]

Depends on how many were there to witness it, and how tightly MM can close the doors.

Arguing against this is that players were lying, if the report is credible, about there being any recent trouble in the locker room. I can see M3 getting them to clam up, but not outright mislead by saying things were really hunky dory. Lang and Bulaga were at a complete loss to imagine the scenario.

Otherwise, you need a scenario where an O lineman and LB were together in a nearly vacant locker room. Even then, it can't be a continuation of a previous disagreement or others probably know.

[pbmax]

T2 on Sitton's release:


“I’m not going to go there,” Thompson said during an interview. “Not right now, no.”


“I will say this,” Thompson added. “Josh Sitton is a heck of a football player and a good teammate. He’s one of the better picks I’ve ever made."

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2016/09/07/thompson-no-comment-sitton-release/89981418/

[Patler]

Arguing against this is that players were lying, if the report is credible, about there being any recent trouble in the locker room. I can see M3 getting them to clam up, but not outright mislead by saying things were really hunky dory. Lang and Bulaga were at a complete loss to imagine the scenario.

Otherwise, you need a scenario where an O lineman and LB were together in a nearly vacant locker room. Even then, it can't be a continuation of a previous disagreement or others probably know.

The place those things sometimes happen are treatment rooms, whirlpools, the weight room, etc. Especially if one intends to confront the other. These are times when only a few are around. An "off day" when only some players are scheduled, just a few at a time, to meet with trainers, undergo therapy, etc. Its a mistake to think the players are always in a pack, and that confrontations occur only on the field or in a crowded locker room, especially if the beef is of a personal nature.

[pbmax]

Sure. All you suggest is possible.

But in all the scenarios where someone wants to confront the other, there is a time element that is longer than heat of the moment. And that suggests that others would know one was seeking the other out. Even in limited number, I would expect such a confrontation to elicit no comments or avoidance on the next media day. Not denials.

They probably didn't interview everyone. But I suspect the odds are against it.

That said, Wilde did say he couldn't get a response from Barrington after Sitton denied it.

[run pMc]

I don't think there's a Barrington-Sitton conflict; it's not like Barrington couldn't spout off now that he's with KC and Sitton's in CHI...plus I'm sure there are other military family guys in the locker room. Also, Kaepernick may be a dumbass, but he's stated he's not against America or the military. If he's gonna put up $1million to back it up, I'm willing to believe him.

I think the contract situation and the fact they think Taylor is at least as good a run blocker but not as good pass blocking have to do with it. Sitton finds out his extension is a lower priority, maybe his agent decides to make some noise or talk to some other teams, and they work to get his release so he can get an early start on that next contract. He's 30 with a bad back; no way TT is gonna give Sitton 3y/$21M with the other players up for free agency (Lacy, Lang, Tretter, etc.) . Getting the cap space NOW gives them more flexibility in signing some of these guys. GB has a LOT of players on their last contract years; I'm confident this has a lot to do with this move.

The other thing is, while Sitton is still a very good player, he's not going to get any better, and he plays LG. It's not like he plays a skill position. (I think they can probably "get by" with having Taylor and Barclay can play there until Linsley gets back and they either slide Tretter over or put Linsley there.)
Anyway, generally I'd think you'd want to acquire and keep as much talent as you can, and by letting Sitton go I would say they DON'T do that in the short term, his cap space helps TT do that long-term.

I wouldn't be shocked if TT drafts a couple more OL next spring either.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Good post, run, the voice of reason.

[George Cumby]

Not a reach. TT almost always drafts a left tackle or two who then get turned into guards much to the fans bemusement.

[Patler]

Drafting OL next year is a safe bet, he has every year except 2015. Often he drafts two.

[Fritz]

Many reason, at least 6,850,000 of which were very tangible reasons. I doubt that the Packer brain trust thinks that the net result of this decision negatively impacts their SB aspirations significantly, or they wouldn't have done it. They have too long of a history of letting players play out their contracts. While they may have accepted decreased performance at LG to be one result, in their minds there are perhaps intangible benefits to offset it, and they are willing to accept the decrease in performance at LG as a result.


I have said before that usually I'm in the camp that appreciates Thompson looking after the long-term cap health of the team. However, in this case I disagree with moving on from Sitton - even if there are other reasons as well, such as the supposed disgruntled attitude.

You're weakening yourself at a position. I don't think many people disagree with this. And this year, as much or more than many, is a year in which your team appears to have a very real shot at getting to the NFCCG and perhaps to the SB. The team's health heading in is pretty good, you're getting an important defensive lineman back after four games, and you have your #1 WR back with what seems a very deep group. Your inside linebackers look moderately better than what you've had before (minus Clay), the secondary is deep, the running back looks better.

And the offensive line is key to any success. You have a line that's played together and has the opportunity to provide one of the league's best QB's the time to make plays, and the opportunity to open holes for what looks like an improved running back.

Now is not the time to look at next year and wonder how to spend an extra six mill. Now is the time to think about now, and use the comp pick you'll get next year to replace the player you won't be able to re-sign because you paid Sitton his six mill this year.

[esoxx]

^^^^this

[Patler]

Maybe they didn't think it was as simple as "which player is better?" even for having the best team this year. Per Silverstein:


GREEN BAY - Josh Sitton had a big presence in the offensive line meeting room and it may be part of the reason the Green Bay Packers let him go Saturday.

The Packers had to estimate how the environment would change should left tackle David Bakhtiari and center JC Tretter become higher-paid players than Sitton this season and whether there was a big enough drop-off in Sitton’s play to justify releasing him.

Ultimately, they decided a change was needed, leaving a big hole in their offensive line that fourth-year pro Lane Taylor is going to have to fill.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2016/09/07/o-line-room-adjusting-without-sitton/89985418/

[Fritz]

Maybe they didn't think it was as simple as "which player is better?" even for having the best team this year. Per Silverstein:


Admittedly, I don't know as much as they do about the dynamics of that room or what Sitton is like. All I can go by is what I've read, which over the years has suggested Sitton is a powerful personality but not a locker room cancer or a poor teammate.

[Patler]

Admittedly, I don't know as much as they do about the dynamics of that room or what Sitton is like. All I can go by is what I've read, which over the years has suggested Sitton is a powerful personality but not a locker room cancer or a poor teammate.

I don't think anyone has said that he has been a locker room cancer or a poor teammate. Just very dominant and outspoken. The concern expressed by Silverstein seems to be about how he might react if suddenly he was #3 on the pay scale, with the team not interested in negotiating with him. If he became sullen and uncommunicative, it wouldn't necessarily make him a cancer, but it could have an increasingly negative impact among the OL as the season went on.

[red]

I have said before that usually I'm in the camp that appreciates Thompson looking after the long-term cap health of the team. However, in this case I disagree with moving on from Sitton - even if there are other reasons as well, such as the supposed disgruntled attitude.

You're weakening yourself at a position. I don't think many people disagree with this. And this year, as much or more than many, is a year in which your team appears to have a very real shot at getting to the NFCCG and perhaps to the SB. The team's health heading in is pretty good, you're getting an important defensive lineman back after four games, and you have your #1 WR back with what seems a very deep group. Your inside linebackers look moderately better than what you've had before (minus Clay), the secondary is deep, the running back looks better.

And the offensive line is key to any success. You have a line that's played together and has the opportunity to provide one of the league's best QB's the time to make plays, and the opportunity to open holes for what looks like an improved running back.

Now is not the time to look at next year and wonder how to spend an extra six mill. Now is the time to think about now, and use the comp pick you'll get next year to replace the player you won't be able to re-sign because you paid Sitton his six mill this year.

Absolutely fritz

Spot on

[Fritz]

I don't think anyone has said that he has been a locker room cancer or a poor teammate. Just very dominant and outspoken. The concern expressed by Silverstein seems to be about how he might react if suddenly he was #3 on the pay scale, with the team not interested in negotiating with him. If he became sullen and uncommunicative, it wouldn't necessarily make him a cancer, but it could have an increasingly negative impact among the OL as the season went on.

I think "sullen and uncommunicative" would translate into a cancer, as cancer grows insidiously and affects the entire organism. So maybe that's why they did it. But I think - or at least I thought - Sitton was more professional than that. But again, I'm not there so I don't really know.

[texaspackerbacker]

Wow, 21 pages, over 400 posts on this topic!

As I wrote earlier, I read that McCarthy said some positions - like O Line - are just not as high priority or as important as others. That is apparently a justification for not paying Sitton or O Linemen big money. I tend to think that's what this is all about. Somebody said no way Ted pays even a quality player like Sitton $21 million for 3 years or anything similar. I'm thinking either that is true at face value or it is the Packers line for deciding not to pay him market value.

[hoosier]

I cannot see how a projected "sullen and uncommunicative" makes a player who is probably your best lineman suddenly become expendable. Are the rest of the OL really that susceptible to the mood swings of Josh Sitton? Cutting Sitton makes no sense from a purely football perspective. And unless there is a big skeleton in the lockerrom that nobody has managed to unearth yet, it doesn't make sense to me from a personnel perspective either. I agree with Fritz. However, I have also learned over the years that TT does a lot of things that don't make sense to the outside observer, and that they usually end up working out. Trust in TT, because the alternative is deciding that he has lost his mind!

[Bretsky]

lots of chatter today about how Land and Sitton are incredibly close and Sitton was the OL leader and Backy gives him a ton of credit for his development as well. All of the OL loved the guy.

Sounds more and more that while certainly there were a few factors, the biggest one as they didn't view Sitton as a 6.5 Million dollar player and the money plays a huge impact on TW TEd's call

To that I say bullshit; we're trying to win a Super Bowl this year; not look toward the future. I wish Ted had a little more Elway like sense of urgency in him.

I don't want to be a fart in the wind with AROD as our QB too

[Fritz]

I'm with you on this one, Bretsky. I haven't seen enough evidence over the years to suggest Sitton's presence would cause problems in the lockerroom if he was paid less than the young bucks. I just don't see it. He might not like it, he might grump about it, but I don't see anything to suggest he'd wreck the lockerroom.

I just don't get it.

Actually, from Sitton's perspective as someone trying to make money at his profession, this was probably as good or maybe better than playing out the year and going into FA in the offseason. His back isn't going to magically get better; it's only going to deteriorate. He might've gotten a bigger payday from da Bears (how much is guaranteed?) than he would've gotten at the end of the year, one year older and one year more used up.

[Patler]

lots of chatter today about how Land and Sitton are incredibly close and Sitton was the OL leader and Backy gives him a ton of credit for his development as well. All of the OL loved the guy.

Sounds more and more that while certainly there were a few factors, the biggest one as they didn't view Sitton as a 6.5 Million dollar player and the money plays a huge impact on TW TEd's call

To that I say bullshit; we're trying to win a Super Bowl this year; not look toward the future. I wish Ted had a little more Elway like sense of urgency in him.

I don't want to be a fart in the wind with AROD as our QB too

Heck, TT continued paying starter's money to used up has beens, one even when he deteriorated to being a healthy scratch now and then. Why would money all of a sudden be the all-important deciding factor with Sitton, who would clearly still be a productive starter? They had to have some concern other than the money being paid to him. That might have been a factor, but there had to be something more.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why would money all of a sudden be the all-important deciding factor with Sitton, who would clearly still be a productive starter? Perhaps TT thinks Sitton is no longer much better than Tretter. TT wants to build experience and chemistry with younger players.

[Patler]

Perhaps TT thinks Sitton is no longer much better than Tretter. TT wants to build experience and chemistry with younger players.

That could be one of the additional factors, I agree. As Tauscher said, this might all be part of a plan to get both Linsley and Tretter in the fold for years to come.

[Bretsky]

Heck, TT continued paying starter's money to used up has beens, one even when he deteriorated to being a healthy scratch now and then. Why would money all of a sudden be the all-important deciding factor with Sitton, who would clearly still be a productive starter? They had to have some concern other than the money being paid to him. That might have been a factor, but there had to be something more.


TT has a lot of guys needing to be upped, perhaps ? Maybe he thinks fricking Lane Taylor can do the job ? Maybe he has a hard time valuing Sitton where he gets paid ? I don't think there is any terrible reason from what I can see other than Tighty Ted not thinking he was worth the ching.

The press is pretty convincing inside the room the OL is heartbroken and very disappointed on this call as they lost a brother

Of course, on the record they say the standard crap....it's a business decision and we just have to move on.

If Ted's history has a say Sitton will probably get a severe injury that will make TWT smell like a rose. If Sitton stays healthy, Taylor struggles, anything less than a Super Bowl Win will be a year of failure and Ted will have added to it by this move

[Patler]

TT has a lot of guys needing to be upped, perhaps ? Maybe he thinks fricking Lane Taylor can do the job ? Maybe he has a hard time valuing Sitton where he gets paid ? I don't think there is any terrible reason from what I can see other than Tighty Ted not thinking he was worth the ching.

The press is pretty convincing inside the room the OL is heartbroken and very disappointed on this call as they lost a brother

Of course, on the record they say the standard crap....it's a business decision and we just have to move on.

If Ted's history has a say Sitton will probably get a severe injury that will make TWT smell like a rose. If Sitton stays healthy, Taylor struggles, anything less than a Super Bowl Win will be a year of failure and Ted will have added to it by this move

I don't think there has to be a terrible reason, but there has to be more reasons than just what he would be paid this year.

Heart Broken? Give me a break. These are professional athletes, not love-struck teenagers. The guy didn't die.

They might also say the "standard crap" rather than to suggest Sitton might have gone ballistic if Tretter or Bakhtiari got huge contracts. It can work both ways on their diplomacy.

[hoosier]

If cutting Sitton was part of the long-term plan to develop and retain Tretter and Linsley, then why didn't they cut Sitton in May? There can only be one answer: they didn't want to give teams like Seattle time to fit him into their picture.

[pbmax]

Wow, 21 pages, over 400 posts on this topic!

As I wrote earlier, I read that McCarthy said some positions - like O Line - are just not as high priority or as important as others. That is apparently a justification for not paying Sitton or O Linemen big money. I tend to think that's what this is all about. Somebody said no way Ted pays even a quality player like Sitton $21 million for 3 years or anything similar. I'm thinking either that is true at face value or it is the Packers line for deciding not to pay him market value.

He paid both Sitton and Lang pretty big money for guards just a couple of years ago. So while Guard is not LT, CB or QB, they have spent some serious coin there. But probably not another deal at age 31.

[Rutnstrut]

Really the weak link in the line is bacteria. Cutting Sitton was a dumb fucking move.

[call_me_ishmael]

I think some here dramatically underestimate how good Bacteria is. He's gonna get paid big bucks. I would guess at least 10M per year. It will be interesting to see what happens with Tretter. He is too small to play guard. So is Linsley. So, one of those two needs to fatten up a bit to play guard. Beat writers have made it clear Bacteria and Tretter will be extended this year.

[RashanGary]

If you like Taylor
If you don't like sittons back
If you know players over 30 always get worse not better
If there is money saved
If you have an extra roster spot to keep a guy like Murphy on ol or Callahan at qb
If you have a lot of contracts coming up

Then there are a lot of reasons why moving on a year early makes sense. Let's see how it pans out. I have a feeling it was an good move.

[red]

Really the weak link in the line is bacteria. Cutting Sitton was a dumb fucking move.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[red]

If you know players over 30 always get worse not better


only for running backs, not any other position

around 35 is when most players drop off, NOT 30

a 30 year old guard is right in the middle of his prime

[Freak Out]

Sitton is gone. These guys are getting paid to do a job just like TT is.....if its a major fuckup he will have to answer for it....along with AROD :) The OL needs to stop talking about it and go out and do their jobs.

[ThunderDan]

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/8112247/nfl-how-long-too-long-o-line

Interesting article from a few years ago. Seems like 30 or so is the starting of the end for OL also.

[denverYooper]

only for running backs, not any other position

around 35 is when most players drop off, NOT 30

a 30 year old guard is right in the middle of his prime

Until you factor in the back issues.

[red]

He paid both Sitton and Lang pretty big money for guards just a couple of years ago. So while Guard is not LT, CB or QB, they have spent some serious coin there. But probably not another deal at age 31.

sitton got about 6 per year, although he didn't see the balloon year, so maybe closer to 5.5 per year

lang got 4 per year, which isn't big money unless your a kicker

actually sittons contract was like the 6th of 7th highest per year and and everyones favorite lane taylor is the 16th highest paid LG btw

lang is the 7th highest paid RG based on average per year

not terrible for what a lot of people called the best guard tandem in the nfl

[red]

Sitton is gone. These guys are getting paid to do a job just like TT is.....if its a major fuckup he will have to answer for it....along with AROD :) The OL needs to stop talking about it and go out and do their jobs.

no he won't be held accountable. the jokes that cover the packers (and are basically packers employees) will just let it slide like any other TT fuck up

"reports today that TT took a giant shit on the G in the middle of lambeau"

packer "reporter", " oh is was a spectacular bowel movement, one of the finest of all time, and it obviously can only help the team going forward. IN TED WE TRUST"

[call_me_ishmael]

only for running backs, not any other position

around 35 is when most players drop off, NOT 30

a 30 year old guard is right in the middle of his prime

??????? The overwhelming majority of NFL players aren't in the league anymore by 30 let alone 35.

[red]

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/8112247/nfl-how-long-too-long-o-line

Interesting article from a few years ago. Seems like 30 or so is the starting of the end for OL also.

article talks about of when the average age of the line is 30 it starts to go down, not when a single member hits 30

and by doing the math, we have one more solid year before we start to drop off according to the whole theme of the article

plus theres this from the article


Guards start wearing down once they get to 32. Letting a guard hang around when he's 34 is stretching it. Centers can go into their mid-30s, but they do risk injuries.

[red]

??????? The overwhelming majority of NFL players aren't in the league anymore by 30 let alone 35.

no, the overwhelming majority of packers are not over the age of 30

and i would guess the big reason why a lot of guys wouldn't be the the nfl by 30 has to do with $$$$$$$$$, not old age

if you have a 30 year of fringe player that you would have to pay the vet minimum of around a million bucks, your probably gonna replace his with a rookie fringe player who will make a third of that

[gbgary]

was just hearing this week that the league is going through a trend where all the teams (except new england) are getting younger and younger. cheap, less experienced, makes for poorer quality football. hoodie drops declining older players for plateauing older players (that are cheaper too) and that's why they're in it year after year. the experience factor is the difference on the field.

[pbmax]

What I loved about that article is that almost EVERY trend mentioned is due to the NFL trying to curb costs.

1. NCAA feeding ground - why have a minor league? **
2. Draft younger players - players want to enter League early to get to second contract exacerbated by very limited first contracts (that last a minimum of 4 years, if not five)
3. Cut expensive vets - while cap has gone up a lot in last two years, cap adjustments now trail actual revenues (and are based on lower percentages of revenues) by a significant margin, something that the last CBA changed.

https://theringer.com/the-nfl-has-an-age-problem-7068825845e4#.hy96hd42l


** I give the early NFL a pass because if they had tried to establish a minor league when college football was king the pros would have been made illegal

[Bretsky]

ANYBODY LISTEN TO MARCO RIVERA"S TAKE ON JOSH SITTON ??????????/ TO PARAPHRASE..............

He can understand how this could easily happen. The players in Green Bay need to understand there is no loyalty to anybody except the quarterback there. He went on to note how he came back to the GM when and was very honest and let GB know he loved playing in Green Bay and he wanted to play 2 or 3 more years and retire as a Green Bay Packer...........and was basically pushed out the door and with no interest from Green Bay he went to pay his last couple years with the Dallas Cowboys. He was a bit outspoken....but not angry...but went on to say unless you are Aaron Rodgers you need to understand it's a business w/o loyalthy and as a player you should go for a contract wherever it is. None of this surprised him and he viewed it being about the money.

Cold

[pbmax]

ANYBODY LISTEN TO MARCO RIVERA"S TAKE ON JOSH SITTON ??????????/ TO PARAPHRASE..............

He can understand how this could easily happen. The players in Green Bay need to understand there is no loyalty to anybody except the quarterback there. He went on to note how he came back to the GM when and was very honest and let GB know he loved playing in Green Bay and he wanted to play 2 or 3 more years and retire as a Green Bay Packer...........and was basically pushed out the door and with no interest from Green Bay he went to pay his last couple years with the Dallas Cowboys. He was a bit outspoken....but not angry...but went on to say unless you are Aaron Rodgers you need to understand it's a business w/o loyalthy and as a player you should go for a contract wherever it is. None of this surprised him and he viewed it being about the money.

Cold

Wasn't Rivera the one they tried to keep, since they had to release Wahle anyway and Rivera would be more cost effective?

I thought he nearly doubled his GB offer with Dallas when a bidding war broke out? I think he is leaving a few key facts out. There is no way the Packers would bring him back on the contract he signed with Dallas.

[Bretsky]

He made it seems like they had no interest in bringing him back

[RashanGary]

You guys, it's gonna be fine. Sitton is on the down slope. Taylor is ascending. The Packers like Taylor.

We moved on fine without Brett Favre. We'll be OK without Josh Sitton. Especially when Lindsley comes back, we're young and two deep, maybe 3 if you count spriggs, who had a decent enough showing. Give him a couple more months in the weight room and fresh legs and he might hold up if he gets tossed in too.

[RashanGary]

R-E-L-A-X

[RashanGary]

Next year it will probably be Bahktiari-Taylor-Lindsley-Tretter-Bulaga with Spriggs, Murphy and a draft pick and who knows what else coming off the bench. It's time to move on.

[Maxie the Taxi]

^^^Agree! I think their high on Lucas Patrick too.

[Joemailman]

Next year it will probably be Bahktiari-Taylor-Lindsley-Tretter-Bulaga with Spriggs, Murphy and a draft pick and who knows what else coming off the bench. It's time to move on.

I think the plan is for Spriggs to play LT. When the Packers drafted Bakhtiari, a lot of people had him projected as a Guard even though he played LT at Colorado. He had to play LT because Bulaga blew out his knee on Family Night. I think the lineup could be Spriggs/Bakhtiari/Linsley or Tretter/Lang/Bulaga.

[RashanGary]

I think the plan is for Spriggs to play LT. When the Packers drafted Bakhtiari, a lot of people had him projected as a Guard even though he played LT at Colorado. He had to play LT because Bulaga blew out his knee on Family Night. I think the lineup could be Spriggs/Bakhtiari/Linsley or Tretter/Lang/Bulaga.

That's possible, Joe. Bahk has been a solid NFL LT. That's gonna be hard to beat. I could see Spriggs being the swing tackle for a couple years or taking a spot. Bahk is in his prime starting right now. Let's see what he's got.

And Bulaga has never been healthy. Spriggs might just be insurance for whichever tackle can't stay healthy.

[call_me_ishmael]

I am tellin' ya... Bahktiari is walking after this season if he isn't the starting left tackle for the foreseeable future. The difference in money between good guards and good tackles is gigantic.

[call_me_ishmael]

no, the overwhelming majority of packers are not over the age of 30

and i would guess the big reason why a lot of guys wouldn't be the the nfl by 30 has to do with $$$$$$$$$, not old age

if you have a 30 year of fringe player that you would have to pay the vet minimum of around a million bucks, your probably gonna replace his with a rookie fringe player who will make a third of that


around 35 is when most players drop off, NOT 30

This is factually not true. Most players are out of the league and retired from the NFL by 30.

[Joemailman]

Regarding the age conversation, 7 Packers out of 53 are 30+.


I am tellin' ya... Bahktiari is walking after this season if he isn't the starting left tackle for the foreseeable future. The difference in money between good guards and good tackles is gigantic.

This is possible. I'm not sure what Bakhtiari's market will be. He's been a starting LT, but I'm not sure if he's considered to be a really good one. I think Spriggs is a more natural LT. One out of Bakhtiari/Tretter/Lang/Bulaga will be gone next year. It could be Bulaga if he has another injury-filled year. I think you could see a couple of guys get contract extensions later this year once the Packers decide which guys they want to go with.

[Bretsky]

You guys, it's gonna be fine. Sitton is on the down slope. Taylor is ascending. The Packers like Taylor.

We moved on fine without Brett Favre. We'll be OK without Josh Sitton. Especially when Lindsley comes back, we're young and two deep, maybe 3 if you count spriggs, who had a decent enough showing. Give him a couple more months in the weight room and fresh legs and he might hold up if he gets tossed in too.


This year is Super Bowl or Bust; no good reason from what I can see to not bring him back for one more year and let him leave in style unless TWT thinks we can win a Super Bowl w/o Josh Sitton

Let the results speak for themselves

[Bretsky]

I am tellin' ya... Bahktiari is walking after this season if he isn't the starting left tackle for the foreseeable future. The difference in money between good guards and good tackles is gigantic.

Lane Taylor has really not played that well
I can't imagine MM and TWT thinking they can last a season with him as the starter

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't much like Lane Taylor either. About the only thing you can say about him his he is better than Barclay. I don't much like Bakhtiari either - better than his first year, but not up to the standard of a good NFL O Lineman. None of them are remotely close to star-quality, and that includes Sitton.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, almost every time our all world QB drops back, he is running for his life. Fortunately, he does that extremely well and hits his targets like nobody else. No thanks to the O Line, though. Run blocking hasn't IMO been a helluva lot better either, especially when they need to just line up and push people back rather than hitting them by surprise when the D is geared for the passing game. I think THAT scenario had a lot to do with McCarthy saying "some positions are more important than others ....." and the team letting Sitton go instead of negotiating a big contract extension for him.

I guess that still doesn't explain cutting Sitton instead of squeezing one more year out of his old contract. Maybe he hit the team with a hold out threat a week before the season was to start, who knows.

[red]

This is factually not true. Most players are out of the league and retired from the NFL by 30.

because of money, not old age

33 out of our 53 guys are on there first contract

that is by choice and that is because of money

[Patler]

This year is Super Bowl or Bust; no good reason from what I can see to not bring him back for one more year and let him leave in style unless TWT thinks we can win a Super Bowl w/o Josh Sitton

Let the results speak for themselves


Lane Taylor has really not played that well
I can't imagine MM and TWT thinking they can last a season with him as the starter

These two statements considered in light of the Packers history dealing with starters and older players nearing the ends of their contracts have me convinced that things we are unaware of or do not fully appreciate caused the release of Sitton in the way it happened.

[Pugger]

Wasn't Rivera the one they tried to keep, since they had to release Wahle anyway and Rivera would be more cost effective?

I thought he nearly doubled his GB offer with Dallas when a bidding war broke out? I think he is leaving a few key facts out. There is no way the Packers would bring him back on the contract he signed with Dallas.

He didn't do much once he went to Dallas either if memory serves after he hurt his back. He did come back and retire a Packer too so he couldn't have been too upset with us.

[Patler]

because of money, not old age

33 out of our 53 guys are on there first contract

that is by choice and that is because of money

Yet, it is required. The Packers have spent more than the basic salary cap every year for the last 4 or 5 years. Their "carryover" cap dollars from the previous year has been declining every year.

This is the current state of the NFL generally, not just the Packers. Fewer and fewer contracts are using up increasing proportions of the salary cap, requiring that a substantial part of the roster be filled with salary controlled players on their first contracts. The union might want to reconsider the veteran salary cap if they want more veterans in the league.

[Pugger]

Next year it will probably be Bahktiari-Taylor-Lindsley-Tretter-Bulaga with Spriggs, Murphy and a draft pick and who knows what else coming off the bench. It's time to move on.

IF we can keep Bak next year. FA LTs get paid so this is prob why we traded up to draft Spriggs. It will be interesting to see if we can extend him before he becomes a FA.

[Patler]

IF we can keep Bak next year. FA LTs get paid so this is prob why we traded up to draft Spriggs. It will be interesting to see if we can extend him before he becomes a FA.

Going into 2015 I wouldn't have predicted that Bakhtiari would get an elite LT type of contract. Decent, but not special. Now, I'm not sure. Apparently he was absolutely dominating in one on one drills in camp. I have also read that he has quietly overcome the two limitations he had coming out of college, size and strength. He was under 300 lbs at the combine, and even less than that in college. He is listed at 310 now, but I have read he is actually at closer to 320, with a lot of added muscle since his rookie year. One article mentioned he was ready for a breakout type of year last year, but he fought injuries all year right from training camp. He was even questionable for game one and never was that healthy at anytime in 2015.

This will be an interesting season for Bakhtiari.

[pbmax]

Going into 2015 I wouldn't have predicted that Bakhtiari would get an elite LT type of contract. Decent, but not special. Now, I'm not sure. Apparently he was absolutely dominating in one on one drills in camp. I have also read that he has quietly overcome the two limitations he had coming out of college, size and strength. He was under 300 lbs at the combine, and even less than that in college. He is listed at 310 now, but I have read he is actually at closer to 320, with a lot of added muscle since his rookie year. One article mentioned he was ready for a breakout type of year last year, but he fought injuries all year right from training camp. He was even questionable for game one and never was that healthy at anytime in 2015.

This will be an interesting season for Bakhtiari.

He pitched a shutout in camp until the very end in one on one pass protection.

[pbmax]

What I loved about that article is that almost EVERY trend mentioned is due to the NFL trying to curb costs.

1. NCAA feeding ground - why have a minor league? **
2. Draft younger players - players want to enter League early to get to second contract exacerbated by very limited first contracts (that last a minimum of 4 years, if not five)
3. Cut expensive vets - while cap has gone up a lot in last two years, cap adjustments now trail actual revenues (and are based on lower percentages of revenues) by a significant margin, something that the last CBA changed.

https://theringer.com/the-nfl-has-an-age-problem-7068825845e4#.hy96hd42l


** I give the early NFL a pass because if they had tried to establish a minor league when college football was king the pros would have been made illegal

Some data and an argument that the League is getting younger, that it might have nothing to do with it being worse or better, and that the culprit looks like the 2007 CBA not the 2011 version.

http://www.footballperspective.com/yes-the-nfl-is-getting-younger/

[Guiness]

Wasn't Rivera the one they tried to keep, since they had to release Wahle anyway and Rivera would be more cost effective?

I thought he nearly doubled his GB offer with Dallas when a bidding war broke out? I think he is leaving a few key facts out. There is no way the Packers would bring him back on the contract he signed with Dallas.

That's my recollection as well - there was no chance of keeping Wahle, thinking was he was a guard only because of Clifton. Panthers gave him LT money, but I don't think he played there much. Packers thought they could hold onto Riviera, and offered him a good contract, but Jerah threw buckets of money at him. I don't think anyone expected that.

[Guiness]

Going into 2015 I wouldn't have predicted that Bakhtiari would get an elite LT type of contract. Decent, but not special. Now, I'm not sure. Apparently he was absolutely dominating in one on one drills in camp. I have also read that he has quietly overcome the two limitations he had coming out of college, size and strength. He was under 300 lbs at the combine, and even less than that in college. He is listed at 310 now, but I have read he is actually at closer to 320, with a lot of added muscle since his rookie year. One article mentioned he was ready for a breakout type of year last year, but he fought injuries all year right from training camp. He was even questionable for game one and never was that healthy at anytime in 2015.

This will be an interesting season for Bakhtiari.

I don't know. At the end of last year that he was struggling to stay healthy and for some reason I feel like this is going to continue. He's put on 20lbs since college, does he have the frame for it?

[call_me_ishmael]

Great read from McGinn on it. Sounds like the Packers just straight up blew it and there hand was forced. This jives with TT's comments earlier this week about Josh being a heck of a football player.

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/mcginn/2016/09/10/mcginn-packers-blew-sitton-gambit/90149052/

[esoxx]

The article just confirms what most people already understand.

This was an unforced error that cost the Packers the services of one of their better players on the doorstep of a Super Bowl or bust season.

Inexcusable.

[wist43]

There's no putting lipstick on this pig...

Bacteria is a below average LT, now Lane is a well below average LG... what are the odds Rodgers survives the season?? He better have eyes in the back of his head.

And BTW - Sitton's comments about the Packers offense being predictable were entirely accurate.

[Harlan Huckleby]

This jives with TT's comments earlier this week about Josh being a heck of a football player.
TT said Sitton was a heck of a football player and a good teammate. He didn't have to praise Sitton's character. He went out of his way to correct the record. People need to STFU with the "something happened" innuendo.

[Pugger]

Did someone who wanted anonymity tell McGinn Ted and Mike screwed up or is Bob speculating along with the rest of us?

[pbmax]

Did someone who wanted anonymity tell McGinn Ted and Mike screwed up or is Bob speculating along with the rest of us?

He seems to have the fact that Sitton was alerted Saturday morning about trade or cut situation, which apparently was still while trade talks were in early stages.

The Packers, he reasons, expected a frenzy of interest in a good player during a short window. They talked to one team early (week before) and then the Saints were all they had to show for those expectations. But the Packers know the cut market well, they do a good job of both trading during it and getting their preferred players to the PS. Its hard to believe they misjudged this so bad.

So I would estimate he has half the story so far. Still no explanation about why you wait for so long except speculative concern about his attitude if Bach and Tretter each signed deals while he was on team.

Its happened before. Contract years drove Jennings and Finley insane, though somehow the Packers were able to play with them.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

The Great Bob McGinn: "The Packers are in the business of winning football games, and whatever they tried to do reeked of incompetence."

Could not agree more.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Contract years drove Jennings and Finley insane...

Source?

Jennings apparently overestimated his worth, as Teddy reportedly offered Jennings $10 M/yr prior to the season of his contract year. But no fucking way Jennings went "insane." Jennings was extremely professional throughout the whole ordeal.

Ditto, J-Mike, who was resigned.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Maybe he hit the team with a hold out threat a week before the season was to start, who knows.

Why would Sitton holdout? That would be stupid. Dude's in his 30's, has a family to feed and he was due $6.5 M, which is way more than I make in a year rocking on subway platforms for change.

[Bretsky]

Great read from McGinn on it. Sounds like the Packers just straight up blew it and there hand was forced. This jives with TT's comments earlier this week about Josh being a heck of a football player.

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/mcginn/2016/09/10/mcginn-packers-blew-sitton-gambit/90149052/


THIS ARTICLES REALLY DESERVES ITS OWN THREAD

MOTHERLOAD OF F'CK UPS. We'll be fine


THANKSTED

[Harlan Huckleby]

McGinn certainly did a bitch-slap of Pete Dougherty. Dougherty had portrayed the Packer brain trust as cold, calm and cunning, decisively trimming the fat with Vince Lombardi leadership and vision. Dougherty also promoted the "something must have happened" baseless rumor as bonus oral servicing of his bosses, Ted & Mike.

I have come to see that Dougherty was partially right. Probably TT saw Sitton as a declining vet who was near the end in GB. And both McGinn & Dougherty agree that MM might have feared future tension in the locker room.

I think TT miscalculated on all counts. He didn't need to unload Sitton now.

[texaspackerbacker]

There's no putting lipstick on this pig...

Bacteria is a below average LT, now Lane is a well below average LG... what are the odds Rodgers survives the season?? He better have eyes in the back of his head.

And BTW - Sitton's comments about the Packers offense being predictable were entirely accurate.

All true, but carry that one step further: Sitton was overrated and pretty mediocre himself - the whole damn O Line was/is. The escapability and passing accuracy of Aaron Rodgers is what camouflages the line's mediocrity, that and the ability to run when defenses are loaded up to stop the pass. How often does the O Line form a decent pocket and keep the QB from having to run for his life? How often does the O Line just push the D back in clear running situations? Virtually never.

I don't know and still haven't heard a plausible explanation for not squeezing one more year of use out of Sitton, but I'm fairly sure life will go on pretty much as usual without him.

[texaspackerbacker]

Why would Sitton holdout? That would be stupid. Dude's in his 30's, has a family to feed and he was due $6.5 M, which is way more than I make in a year rocking on subway platforms for change.

To get his extension now - or as it turns out, a big contract elsewhere - before playing another season and seeing his value decrease.

I'm not saying that's what happened - just "maybe". It's as good an explanation as any other put forth.

[pbmax]

McGinn certainly did a bitch-slap of Pete Dougherty. Dougherty had portrayed the Packer brain trust as cold, calm and cunning, decisively trimming the fat with Vince Lombardi leadership and vision. Dougherty also promoted the "something must have happened" baseless rumor as bonus oral servicing of his bosses, Ted & Mike.

I have come to see that Dougherty was partially right. Probably TT saw Sitton as a declining vet who was near the end in GB. And both McGinn & Dougherty agree that MM might have feared future tension in the locker room.

I think TT miscalculated on all counts. He didn't need to unload Sitton now.

Without much evidence (not a criticism), when do you think T2 came to the conclusion that Sitton was declining?

Even McGinn could only find one scout in the last year that said it was obvious from tape.

Reading the commonalities between Dougherty and McGinn, the Packers seem to have decided this very late. Why did they think unloading him would be easy? Did they really think it would be easy?

Can I somehow blame this on Eliot Wolf, who McGinn nods to in the article, but has nothing specific on him?

[pbmax]

Source?

Jennings apparently overestimated his worth, as Teddy reportedly offered Jennings $10 M/yr prior to the season of his contract year. But no fucking way Jennings went "insane." Jennings was extremely professional throughout the whole ordeal.

Ditto, J-Mike, who was resigned.

Ted offered $9mil/year I thought, and Jennings was looking for near Vincent Jackson money. Seeing as how he got $8 mil/year with his FA deal, I agree he did overestimate the market.

But the prior to that deal, Jennings was very demonstrably upset during games even while the offense was humming. His attitude toward reporters also changed, he was no longer the gregarious guy good for a quote. And his sister didn't decide this was all a bad thing on her own.

Patler has a long list of details on the way Jennings made it known he was unhappy.

Finley was even more obvious, during the contract drive he developed the yips trying to catch the ball. He no longer fearlessly tread over the middle and when he contested for the ball, it was with an eye toward finding a safe landing spot rather than securing the ball. The longer the season went on and the longer his results didn't improve, he got worse.

His year was so bad an his market so soft that he did a two year deal in his athletic prime to try to get more money later.

[George Cumby]

I like Wolf for the fall guy. Young kid, got the world by the balls, full of vim and vigor, the confidence of youth, the self assurance of the millennial, he's a wheeler and dealer. "I got this Mr. Thompson, I got this. We can get a fourth, guaranteed, I got this." Many of us would ask ourselves "Who does he sound like? That sounds familiar." Familiar because he sounds just like Eddie Haskell.

Yup, I'm on board the Eliot Wolf blame train with Ted as the final decision maker ,sitting coach.

That being said, he's a guard, it's survivable.

I also think Sittons back will prevent him from playing out that contract with the Bears.

[Bossman641]

Great read from McGinn on it. Sounds like the Packers just straight up blew it and there hand was forced. This jives with TT's comments earlier this week about Josh being a heck of a football player.

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/mcginn/2016/09/10/mcginn-packers-blew-sitton-gambit/90149052/

Left unsaid from the article is why the Packers decided to attempt to trade Sitton in the first place.

[Joemailman]

Without much evidence (not a criticism), when do you think T2 came to the conclusion that Sitton was declining?

Even McGinn could only find one scout in the last year that said it was obvious from tape.

Reading the commonalities between Dougherty and McGinn, the Packers seem to have decided this very late. Why did they think unloading him would be easy? Did they really think it would be easy?

Can I somehow blame this on Eliot Wolf, who McGinn nods to in the article, but has nothing specific on him?

If they decided Sitton had declined, I suspect it was based on what they saw in practice. Maybe the back is still a problem. Maybe the lighter Sitton was less stout in the running game. I don't think the decision was made from last year's tape or they would have made the trade earlier.

[Guiness]

McGinn article was garbage, read like a letter to the editor by the old guy down the road who's pissed off about kids cutting across his lawn. Nothing new/relevant in it, other than expressing the surprise (that many of us have) that there was no trade partner.

[texaspackerbacker]

Left unsaid from the article is why the Packers decided to attempt to trade Sitton in the first place.

Excellent Point.

[Maxie the Taxi]

McGinn article was garbage, read like a letter to the editor by the old guy down the road who's pissed off about kids cutting across his lawn. Nothing new/relevant in it, other than expressing the surprise (that many of us have) that there was no trade partner.

Below, from the McGinn article, was a red flag for me:

According to sources, the Packers notified Sitton in mid-August that talks regarding a possible contract extension would be put on the back burner. Sitton, 30, would have to wait while deals were enacted for tackle David Bakhtiari, 25, and center JC Tretter, 25, and possibly guard T.J. Lang, who is to turn 29 on Sept. 20.

Why would Packer management do this? Why would any responsible business owner or manager do this...unless you're trying to send a message to the employee in question that he's no longer valued by the organization? If you want to keep the employee and want to keep him performing pending a new contract, you string him along, frankly. Keep talking, but stall. You certainly don't bring other employees into the picture. Very bizarre.

[Joemailman]

Below, from the McGinn article, was a red flag for me:


Why would Packer management do this? Why would any responsible business owner or manager do this...unless you're trying to send a message to the employee in question that he's no longer valued by the organization? If you want to keep the employee and want to keep him performing pending a new contract, you string him along, frankly. Keep talking, but stall. You certainly don't bring other employees into the picture. Very bizarre.

Maybe they had already decided they would not be offering Sitton an extension. Maybe they felt it would be somewhat dishonest to "string him along" by making him think they were interested in an extension when they really weren't. As for bringing other players into the picture, those players were already in the picture. Everybody knows Bakhtiari and Tretter will be free agents as well. I think most people understand that the Packers weren't going to be able to keep all of them. Is it really any surprise that Ted Thompson would place a priority on keeping the younger players?

[Pugger]

Left unsaid from the article is why the Packers decided to attempt to trade Sitton in the first place.

And why NOBODY wanted Sitton enough to trade for him. Even if word got out isn't it damn curious Ted couldn't find a single GM willing to take Josh for a 7th round pick???? You just don't cut a player like Josh for no good reason. IMO this is the real story here.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Maybe they had already decided they would not be offering Sitton an extension. Maybe they felt it would be somewhat dishonest to "string him along" by making him think they were interested in an extension when they really weren't. As for bringing other players into the picture, those players were already in the picture. Everybody knows Bakhtiari and Tretter will be free agents as well. I think most people understand that the Packers weren't going to be able to keep all of them. Is it really any surprise that Ted Thompson would place a priority on keeping the younger players?You miss my point. Yes, we all know the free agent situation and maybe TT had already made the decision not to offer Sitton an extension. But if you want to keep Sitton playing throughout the year, you don't tell him or his agent that you're not going to extend. Honesty is not a factor. Playing your cards close to the vest is. This is a business negotiation not a morality play. And you certainly don't play one employee against another publicly.

It sounds to me like the left hand of management didn't know what the right hand was doing...and/or didn't think this thing through properly.

[Pugger]

Below, from the McGinn article, was a red flag for me:


Why would Packer management do this? Why would any responsible business owner or manager do this...unless you're trying to send a message to the employee in question that he's no longer valued by the organization? If you want to keep the employee and want to keep him performing pending a new contract, you string him along, frankly. Keep talking, but stall. You certainly don't bring other employees into the picture. Very bizarre.

Didn't they also tell Lang he had to wait? They didn't tell him they weren't gonna do anything - I thought they just informed him the other guys are gonna get extended first.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Didn't they also tell Lang he had to wait? They didn't tell him they weren't gonna do anything - they just informed him the other guys are gonna get extended first.And why would they do this? It makes no sense. Especially when you're dealing with athletes who have huge egos.

Part of the problem is we don't know exactly what was said to whom. But the version relayed to us by McGinn just strikes me as unusual. As if management's plan was to go in one direction and then emotions took over and an abrupt change of direction led to disaster.

[esoxx]

All true, but carry that one step further: Sitton was overrated and pretty mediocre himself - the whole damn O Line was/is

So you think replacing Josh Sitton with Lane Taylor should improve things?

[Fritz]

McGinn article was garbage, read like a letter to the editor by the old guy down the road who's pissed off about kids cutting across his lawn. Nothing new/relevant in it, other than expressing the surprise (that many of us have) that there was no trade partner.



Like several McGinn opinion pieces, this one depends entirely upon whether you believe the "source with knowledge" that McGinn uses on occasion. If you believe the source is trustworthy, then the Packer front office blew this one, big time. If you don't believe the source is credible (maybe it's Torrance Marshall's girlfriend or Greg Jennings's sister), then it's just McGinn getting clicks.

[pbmax]

If they decided Sitton had declined, I suspect it was based on what they saw in practice. Maybe the back is still a problem. Maybe the lighter Sitton was less stout in the running game. I don't think the decision was made from last year's tape or they would have made the trade earlier.

Yeah, that does seem most likely. Given his snap count in preseason (one game two series), it had to be practice or a medical report.

[pbmax]

You miss my point. Yes, we all know the free agent situation and maybe TT had already made the decision not to offer Sitton an extension. But if you want to keep Sitton playing throughout the year, you don't tell him or his agent that you're not going to extend. Honesty is not a factor. Playing your cards close to the vest is. This is a business negotiation not a morality play. And you certainly don't play one employee against another publicly.

It sounds to me like the left hand of management didn't know what the right hand was doing...and/or didn't think this thing through properly.

Its a business meeting schedule. They were telling the player and the agent when to expect contact so as to not set false expectations. If you don't tell him that and negotiations with Bach and Tretter move slowly, what is Sitton left thinking in November? Communication is important. In fact, one consistent criticism of Thompson is that he doesn't do enough of it himself.

A "possible" contract extension means, if they can agree on a price. I don't think McGinn, who's entire article is premised on the need to keep the Pro Bowl Guard, is saying the Packers didn't want him past this year. If he knew that, that would be your headline here.

The Packers have a list like this every year and they communicate it to each player. Daniels was high on the list last year, ahead of Perry for instance. These lists have made the paper each of the last several years.

Final price and cap number is among target in these deals. Both could affect what the Packers think they can spend on Sitton and other FAs. So you have a priority list.

[Joemailman]

But if you want to keep Sitton playing throughout the year, you don't tell him or his agent that you're not going to extend.



What difference does it make? In the last year of his contract, he's playing for his next contract. He's all the incentive in the world to have a great year, whether his next contract is with the Packers or someone else.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Its a business meeting schedule. They were telling the player and the agent when to expect contact so as to not set false expectations. If you don't tell him that and negotiations with Bach and Tretter move slowly, what is Sitton left thinking in November? Communication is important. In fact, one consistent criticism of Thompson is that he doesn't do enough of it himself.

A "possible" contract extension means, if they can agree on a price. I don't think McGinn, who's entire article is premised on the need to keep the Pro Bowl Guard, is saying the Packers didn't want him past this year. If he knew that, that would be your headline here.

The Packers have a list like this every year and they communicate it to each player. Daniels was high on the list last year, ahead of Perry for instance. These lists have made the paper each of the last several years.

Final price and cap number is among target in these deals. Both could affect what the Packers think they can spend on Sitton and other FAs. So you have a priority list.If that's the way it works, then it's crazy! To prioritize negotiations is sensible, but announcing it to the players in question is nuts.

Salesmen are probably the only individuals with bigger egos than pro football players. I was in business for 20 years. I would never think of telling one salesman that he must wait while I negotiate with another higher priority salesman. In fact, if I allowed the contracts of the entire sales department to expire at the same time I would have had to have my head examined. It would destroy all my leverage to say the least.

It was a huge management fail to allow a situation to exist where the contracts for your entire offensive line expire at the same time. Management should have done all in its power to avoid this scenario. Now they are reaping the consequences.

[pbmax]

If that's the way it works, then it's crazy! To prioritize negotiations is sensible, but announcing it to the players in question is nuts.

Salesmen are probably the only individuals with bigger egos than pro football players. I was in business for 20 years. I would never think of telling one salesman that he must wait while I negotiate with another higher priority salesman. In fact, if I allowed the contracts of the entire sales department to expire at the same time I would have had to have my head examined. It would destroy all my leverage to say the least.

It was a huge management fail to allow a situation to exist where the contracts for your entire offensive line expire at the same time. Management should have done all in its power to avoid this scenario. Now they are reaping the consequences.

Players and their agents talk. Your salesmen probably do too, but except for the exceptional ones, have fewer firms known to be interested in them. The players agent can spend the time the team is not negotiating with his client judging his value with other firms.

[Maxie the Taxi]

What difference does it make? In the last year of his contract, he's playing for his next contract. He's all the incentive in the world to have a great year, whether his next contract is with the Packers or someone else.The difference is whether you want him to renew with you or someone else. The difference is his attitude in the locker room toward your organization. I don't see any benefit whatsoever to tell a player that in the eyes of management he's a lame duck, contract or no contract.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Players and their agents talk. Your salesmen probably do too, but except for the exceptional ones, have fewer firms known to be interested in them. The players agent can spend the time the team is not negotiating with his client judging his value with other firms.Yup. You'd have to be a fool to think employees don't talk or compare salaries. My question is: Why encourage the conversation? Keep it private and keep them each guessing and thinking that they are the highest priority. Hopefully, by the time they learn differently, it will be December and other playoff emotions will occupy their minds.

[Harlan Huckleby]

What difference does it make? In the last year of his contract, he's playing for his next contract. He's all the incentive in the world to have a great year, whether his next contract is with the Packers or someone else.
Careful, there. Hate to see the thread moved.

I agree with what you say. It is not any great harm or disrespect for a player not to have a contract extended. Disappointment at having to change teams - sure. But you don't get to be 30 in the NFL without figuring out how the meat market works. Becoming a FA is not a bad deal.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Careful, there. Hate to see the thread moved.

I agree with what you say. It is not any great harm or disrespect for a player not to have a contract extended. Disappointment at having to change teams - sure. But you don't get to be 30 in the NFL without figuring out how the meat market works. Becoming a FA is not a bad deal.Harlan, I'm deeply disappointed that you are wasting time in this thread and not tending to business as President of the Dean Lowry Fan Club.

You're fired!

[Harlan Huckleby]

If that's the way it works, then it's crazy! To prioritize negotiations is sensible, but announcing it to the players in question is nuts.
There is no good option. Negotiating in bad faith doesn't really buy you anything. Also, it is not such a disaster for the player. Neither Lang nor Sitton were all that upset, as both claim.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, I'm deeply disappointed that you are wasting time in this thread and not tending to business as President of the Dean Lowry Fan Club.

You're fired!


This particular shit pile has really attracted us flies. We can't resist landing here and having a sniff. 25 pages and growing every day.

[Maxie the Taxi]

There is no good option. Negotiating in bad faith doesn't really buy you anything. Also, it is not such a disaster for the player. Neither Lang nor Sitton were all that upset, as both claim.Negotiating in bad faith? C'mon, man! I'm simply advocating keeping your cards close to your vest. That's common sense. Everyone knows its a game like Poker. Is not telling everyone at the table what cards you hold "negotiating in bad faith?"

Negotiating in bad faith means promising something you have no intention of delivering. I'm not advocating that.

[Maxie the Taxi]

And that's the truth!
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jJMKupYF14I/hqdefault.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

Negotiating in bad faith? C'mon, man! I'm simply advocating keeping your cards close to your vest. That's common sense. Everyone knows its a game like Poker. Is not telling everyone at the table what cards you hold "negotiating in bad faith?"

Negotiating in bad faith means promising something you have no intention of delivering. I'm not advocating that.


Good faith (Latin: bona fides) is fair and open dealing in human interactions. This is often thought to require sincere, honest intentions or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action.

If you pretend to be seeking a deal when your real intentions are to avoid reaching a deal, you are not "negotiating in good faith." You're right, you aren't engaged in fraud, it isn't as bad. It's a grey area, I get your poker defense.

[pbmax]

Yup. You'd have to be a fool to think employees don't talk or compare salaries. My question is: Why encourage the conversation? Keep it private and keep them each guessing and thinking that they are the highest priority. Hopefully, by the time they learn differently, it will be December and other playoff emotions will occupy their minds.

This depends greatly on the person in question, and those advising them. Some may respond well to the challenge and not be anxious (or suffer a drop in performance) when evidence of their status as a second or third tier option becomes known.

I generally believe that disseminating info produces reliability.

Giving the players and their agents a heads up removes uncertainty. The players would figure out the priority eventually. They might even harbor grudges if one player downplayed his progress.

But it also keeps the agents friendly, which also helps to keep the players steady. If you piss off the agent, then you give them a head start in finding their next contract.

[Maxie the Taxi]

This depends greatly on the person in question, and those advising them. Some may respond well to the challenge and not be anxious (or suffer a drop in performance) when evidence of their status as a second or third tier option becomes known.

I generally believe that disseminating info produces reliability.

Giving the players and their agents a heads up removes uncertainty. The players would figure out the priority eventually. They might even harbor grudges if one player downplayed his progress.

But it also keeps the agents friendly, which also helps to keep the players steady. If you piss off the agent, then you give them a head start in finding their next contract.Good post. I generally agree.

However, when I negotiated EVERYTHING hinged on the "person [or persons] in question. I adjusted my conversation accordingly. In the NFL I think the person in question is usually a hard-boiled agent not the player, so I'm going to assume everything I say is going to be used against me, thus I'm going to volunteer next to nothing.

In reality, everybody has a price. Negotiation is seldom successful if one party goes into it with an inflexible position. You're always adjusting and in the right circumstances you might surprise yourself. As I said earlier, my impression is that something caused management to change course mid-stream, emotions took over and the shit-storm resulted.

[red]

Listening to a chicago reporter talk about it, they think he's looked great in practice. He also said three other spots on the line got better because of guys shuffling to their better positions because of it

[Joemailman]

Listening to a chicago reporter talk about it, they think he's looked great in practice. He also said three other spots on the line got better because of guys shuffling to their better positions because of it

Really? I figured they would say he's looked like shit and he's made the team worse.

[pbmax]

Whenever a young person questions how alcohol can be a depressant, given the behavior often seen, I suggest people show them red's post history.