Josh Sitton.

[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, 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