Josh Sitton.

[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...well/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.