Josh Sitton.

[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.