I'm thinking he didn't call for two weeks afterwards.
Printable View
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.
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.
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.
Just a cautionary note: the F-word "fanny" in England is a synonym for "cunt." Such a pretty word, "fanny."
Well then fuck that guy.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
So is Aaron Rodgers the next one to go?
http://www.packersnews.com/story/spo...ions/89671186/
Given all the rumors flying, I think it's safe to say the season can't start soon enough.
Not that theory is interesting
Cause Barrington wad a bit of a surprise cut too imo
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.
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.
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.
T2 on Sitton's release:
Quote:
“I’m not going to go there,” Thompson said during an interview. “Not right now, no.”
http://www.packersnews.com/story/spo...ease/89981418/Quote:
“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."
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.
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.
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.
Good post, run, the voice of reason.
Not a reach. TT almost always drafts a left tackle or two who then get turned into guards much to the fans bemusement.
Drafting OL next year is a safe bet, he has every year except 2015. Often he drafts two.
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.
^^^^this
Maybe they didn't think it was as simple as "which player is better?" even for having the best team this year. Per Silverstein:
Quote:
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...tton/89985418/
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.