Josh Sitton.

[ThunderDan]

This once took me by complete surprise. More so than Mastay and Morrell getting canned.

[vince]

Sounds like you either take the view GB mismanaged the situation, or you blame Sitton for being a disruption.

Either way hard to argue this is not a blow to our sb run.

GB management told Sitton that they wouldn't be negotiating a new deal with him until after they addressed the younger starters. You could say that's mismanagement I guess but I think it's good management in this situation.

I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that they mismanaged anything. There is evidence that Sitton became a disruption. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary (which could surface but I haven't seen any), anyone of the "GB mismanagement" opinion is doing nothing more than demonstrating their clear bias against GB management and lack of objectivity.

[Bretsky]

If he is cut and no one claims him, isn't his contract now void? He has to renegotiate a new contract with whom every signs him?

think that is right but if the Packer Brass and Sitton are not on same page (that is assumption) he's going elsewhere

[Bretsky]

GB management told Sitton that they wouldn't be negotiating a new deal with him until after they addressed the younger starters. You could say that's mismanagement I guess but I think it's good management in this situation.

I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that they mismanaged anything. There is evidence that Sitton became a disruption. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary (which could surface but I haven't seen any), anyone of the "GB mismanagement" opinion is doing nothing more than demonstrating their clear bias against GB management and lack of objectivity.

EVIDENCE ? What evidence is there he became a discruption ? A "leak" ? Am I missing something ?

[ThunderDan]

If he is cut and no one claims him, isn't his contract now void? He has to renegotiate a new contract with whom every signs him?

Did not see the reported Chicago contract. Will see if he makes it all 3 years.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

AFC East is what happened. How did the non-Bradys do in the playoffs?

They finished behind the Jets. The bleeping Jets. That's worse then finishing behind the Lions.

Actually, the Pats lost a tie-breaker to the Fins. Both teams finished 11-5 (not 10-6); Fins got the nod due to a better conference record.

I still remember that season vividly b/c that was the season Ted's team with Ted's hand-picked QB went 6-10 after reaching the NFC Title game the previous season as a #2 seed.

And yeah, I remember an old gunslinger tossing 6 TDs in a game for the J-E-T-S while managing to sext his rooster to a fair maiden at halftime.

[ThunderDan]

EVIDENCE ? What evidence is there he became a discruption ? A "leak" ? Am I missing something ?

So when there is a leak about a strained relationship between TT and MM about TT's draft and develope style it is ok but leaks about someone else that doesn't support your view you don't believe it.

[vince]

EVIDENCE ? What evidence is there he became a discruption ? A "leak" ? Am I missing something ?

Maybe I should have said, "information."

If you think that information is untrue, are you suggesting that GB management cut Sitton because they think Taylor's better? What could possibly be their reasoning?

A simple cap management concern would be inconsistent with their keeping Peppers who's even more expensive and will likely have a more limited role.

[Bretsky]

So when there is a leak about a strained relationship between TT and MM about TT's draft and develope style it is ok but leaks about someone else that doesn't support your view you don't believe it.

works both ways; I note often in here real time live interviews from NFL network and am questioned on the source since it's not value without one. But some NFL source outside the organization leaks something and it's valid. I may have missed something here; but did our Packer NFL Beat writers report this ? If it is to me a person is far more valid that "a source outside the organization. The Packer know how to play the PR game. If I were GB I'd be throwing out leaks everywhere. They should.

[Bretsky]

Maybe I should have said, "information."

If you think that information is untrue, are you suggesting that GB management cut Sitton because they think Taylor's better? What could possibly be their reasoning?

Fair enough on the information note. Money perhaps.

But that is where I have a hard time with this. Why let money ruin anything; he's signed through this year. Take a hard line and tell him to play for next yrs contract. Hell if he's a locked room cancer they could suspend him although I'm doubtful it would get to that

[vince]

works both ways; I note often in here real time live interviews from NFL network and am questioned on the source since it's not value without one. But some NFL source outside the organization leaks something and it's valid. I may have missed something here; but did our Packer NFL Beat writers report this ? If it is to me a person is far more valid that "a source outside the organization. The Packer know how to play the PR game. If I were GB I'd be throwing out leaks everywhere. They should.

Making something like that up to cover some other (non-existent as of yet) reason for cutting him would have dire consequences with the rest of the players team. That doesn't make sense.

[vince]

Fair enough on the information note. Money perhaps.

But that is where I have a hard time with this. Why let money ruin anything; he's signed through this year. Take a hard line and tell him to play for next yrs contract. Hell if he's a locked room cancer they could suspend him although I'm doubtful it would get to that

The money motivation makes sense for Sitton to become "haughty" but is inconsistent for the team given Peppers would be a more "valuable" cut if that's the primary driver here.

[vince]

Fair enough on the information note. Money perhaps.

But that is where I have a hard time with this. Why let money ruin anything; he's signed through this year. Take a hard line and tell him to play for next yrs contract. Hell if he's a locked room cancer they could suspend him although I'm doubtful it would get to that

Good chance suspension just exacerbates and escalates the situation to become an even greater distraction. Sitton wanted a new deal. If he was quiet and accepting of not getting one I don't think it would have come to this. Again, I don't see any objective or logical conclusion that can be drawn any other way at this point but I'm open to it.

[Carolina_Packer]

I think this is probably the biggest factor.

I don't know if anyone else mentioned this, and it's obvious, but they DID keep him until the last roster cut down. What does that tell you? They were hoping to see something throughout TC and pre-season that never developed? They could have cut him any time during the off season (if trading him was not possible). Were they hoping to keep him this year, but something told them not to? That's what I'm trying to understand. Unfortunately, front office people are only going to say things like "We thank Josh for his contributions..." blah, blah and blah.

It's a curious move to not let him play out his deal and let him walk next off season for a c-pick. Hard to believe he still wouldn't have been one of their best options, and that the front office wasn't already committed to the cap hit he was going to have. There's something in that situation that nobody is going to air out in the press that doesn't feel right, but perhaps we'll see it in time.

Also, another obvious but curious point is that the Bears gave him a 3 year deal. Of course, it's always look at the guaranteed $$ in the deal and it may only really be a one year deal, especially if his back is cranky.

I don't think this is an arbitrary decision. I think situations like this leave the front office vulnerable to criticism that they are never going to explain/defend because they never say too much in defense of their decisions. Why would you? They are not running for class president, and they are not going to spill secrets, especially if there's anything medical affecting the evaluation of a player's standing with the team.

[hoosier]

An NFL source with ties to the Packers told me that in the team’s eyes Sitton had become haughty and uncommunicative. That jibes with a report by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s Tom Silverstein that the Packers were unwilling to talk contract extension with Sitton and instead placed left tackle David Bakhtiari and center JC Tretter ahead of him on their contract-extension priority list.

Clearly, Thompson thought a problem was festering in his locker room, and Sitton’s age and bad back left him expendable even coming off a second-team All-Pro season.

This report sounds a little flimsy to me. Packers reportedly told Lang the same thing: that they wouldn't negotiate a new contract with him during the season and that Bahk and Tretter were going to be first priority. But Lang didn't get cut for mysterious reasons. Is there additional evidence, aside from one unnamed source, that Sitton had "clearly" become a locker room problem?