All Sitton & Lang & OL threads merged

Vince Lombardi

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 5, 2016
Messages
117
Reaction score
9
Location
Menomonee Falls
The lack of a trade move prior to the cut deadline has me quite certain "sudden move" was the case. What created the sudden move? Couldn't have been cap, that was known. Doubt it was the play of Sitton and or Taylor, that too was pretty well established. So what is left to make it sudden? All I can come up with is something physically wrong with Sitton that concerned the Packers or something he said or did/didn't do pretty close to the time of the final cuts.

My guess whatever he did/said was directly to TT & or MM because it seemed like the players where shocked. So I'm doubting that he was causing waves in the locker room!
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,505
Reaction score
8,798
Location
Madison, WI
My guess whatever he did/said was directly to TT & or MM because it seemed like the players where shocked. So I'm doubting that he was causing waves in the locker room!

Or....if that was the case, the guys who have spoken up about the subject, weren't bothered by it or are protecting a friend/team. I think there is a lot that goes on in a locker room, at practice, in the huddle, etc. that we as fans and the press are not fully aware of. Also, actions of one player may not be seen as detrimental by other players but viewed quite differently by the coaches/TT. Its common knowledge that Sitton criticized the offensive game plan after the Packers loss at Arizona in Week 16, maybe that was what got this ball rolling? MM and TT may have just finally decided that having Sitton's potentially surely disposition in probably his final season in GB, along with the salary cap savings out weighed the step down in talent.
 

rodell330

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 18, 2012
Messages
5,611
Reaction score
494
Location
Canton, Ohio
Maybe they talked about a deal? they couldn't agree? It's possible, Sitton took what they "may" have tried to offer him as an insult? Said eff this...trade me, or cut me!!! they couldn't find a trading partner so they cut him.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,491
Reaction score
2,619
Location
PENDING
My guess whatever he did/said was directly to TT & or MM because it seemed like the players where shocked. So I'm doubting that he was causing waves in the locker room!
My take. Sitton was complaining about not getting a contract extension by now. He also questioned the game plans last season in a non-polite manner. I think at the final cut down, they took those incidents along with cap savings, Taylor's ability, Sittons age/health, and line chemistry into account and decided the Packers have a better shot at a SB without Sitton than with. They probably called teams to let them know he was available, and nobody wanted to trade, knowing that Sitton would likely be cut.

One positive effect, this sends a message to every single player that their job is not safe. Work your butt off or possibly get cut. Also, if you are 2nd string, work your butt off as well, because there is always opportunities to unseat a veteran.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,505
Reaction score
8,798
Location
Madison, WI
Maybe they talked about a deal? they couldn't agree? It's possible, Sitton took what they "may" have tried to offer him as an insult? Said eff this...trade me, or cut me!!! they couldn't find a trading partner so they cut him.

Good theory. Or they may have even potentially been trying to trade him (prior to Saturday) and teams not wanting a one year rental were in negotiations with the Packers, Sitton and his agent. When no trade could be worked out, Sitton may have had the type of response you are talking about. But I did read that Sitton said the news "shocked even him". Whether that was true or not.
 

Vince Lombardi

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 5, 2016
Messages
117
Reaction score
9
Location
Menomonee Falls
Or....if that was the case, the guys who have spoken up about the subject, weren't bothered by it or are protecting a friend/team. I think there is a lot that goes on in a locker room, at practice, in the huddle, etc. that we as fans and the press are not fully aware of. Also, actions of one player may not be seen as detrimental by other players but viewed quite differently by the coaches/TT. Its common knowledge that Sitton criticized the offensive game plan after the Packers loss at Arizona in Week 16, maybe that was what got this ball rolling? MM and TT may have just finally decided that having Sitton's potentially surely disposition in probably his final season in GB, along with the salary cap savings out weighed the step down in talent.

If this is the case you just have to wonder why they waited so long. We all know how TT loves draft choices. He could have traded him after the season and at least rec'd a draft pick instead of waiting till cut down day and getting nothing.

Lets just hope were not talking about this all season long. I'm hoping for the best with Taylor and we can put this issue to bed!
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,505
Reaction score
8,798
Location
Madison, WI
My take. Sitton was complaining about not getting a contract extension by now. He also questioned the game plans last season in a non-polite manner. I think at the final cut down, they took those incidents along with cap savings, Taylor's ability, Sittons age/health, and line chemistry into account and decided the Packers have a better shot at a SB without Sitton than with. They probably called teams to let them know he was available, and nobody wanted to trade, knowing that Sitton would likely be cut.

One positive effect, this sends a message to every single player that their job is not safe. Work your butt off or possibly get cut. Also, if you are 2nd string, work your butt off as well, because there is always opportunities to unseat a veteran.

Well said. It took you what.....a minute or two to type that? So if this was the case, why can't TT or MM come out and say it? Your last part of being a message to the rest of the team is implied whether or not its said in public. So not sure why MM and TT feel like the whole decision has to be kept secret.

If this is the case you just have to wonder why they waited so long. We all know how TT loves draft choices. He could have traded him after the season and at least rec'd a draft pick instead of waiting till cut down day and getting nothing.

Lets just hope were not talking about this all season long. I'm hoping for the best with Taylor and we can put this issue to bed!

The lack of getting no value (besides cap savings) in the move is really the only part that has my undies in a bundle.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,491
Reaction score
2,619
Location
PENDING
Well said. It took you what.....a minute or two to type that? So if this was the case, why can't TT or MM come out and say it? Your last part of being a message to the rest of the team is implied whether or not its said in public. So not sure why MM and TT feel like the whole decision has to be kept secret.
I don't think TT or MM say very much in public about their moves. The threat is implied and doesn't need to be said in public. In the locker room - it probably is stated on a daily basis.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,505
Reaction score
8,798
Location
Madison, WI
I don't think TT or MM say very much in public about their moves. The threat is implied and doesn't need to be said in public. In the locker room - it probably is stated on a daily basis.

True on that. I guess it keeps us fans and the media guessing as well as gives us all something to talk about. :coffee:
 

mradtke66

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
1,683
Reaction score
557
Location
Madison, WI
If cap savings were the reason for the move I would have preferred the Packers to keep Sitton this year and save $4.15 million on Taylor over the next two seasons.

I'm still undecided about exactly how I feel about his move, but the salary cap implications aren't equal and may be enough on their own to justify it.

Sitton = 6.9 million for 1 year.

Taylor 4.15 million for 2 years. His cap number for this year is only 1.45 million.

INCOMING SNARK

I've done the math, and it turns out that 6,900,000 > 1,450,000. Specifically 4.75x more.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,505
Reaction score
8,798
Location
Madison, WI
I'm still undecided about exactly how I feel about his move, but the salary cap implications aren't equal and may be enough on their own to justify it.

Sitton = 6.9 million for 1 year.

Taylor 4.15 million for 2 years. His cap number for this year is only 1.45 million.

INCOMING SNARK

I've done the math, and it turns out that 6,900,000 > 1,450,000. Specifically 4.75x more.

Math and $$ still don't explain what you lose in talent and wins on the field, which are purely subjective and speculative at this point. With your Math and 1 year plan, why keep Lang?
 
Last edited:

Sky King

158.3
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
331
Location
Out of the clear blue western skies...
Here's another possibility: Sitton discretely asked for his release.

Why not? It took him a day to get $10 million guaranteed rather than $6.9 million. Plus, he gets 2 more years to make even more money. Wait another year and he may have gotten less or nothing (if injured). He already knew that TT had no plans to keep him beyond this season. It would have been a shrewd move on his part.
 

mradtke66

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
1,683
Reaction score
557
Location
Madison, WI
Math and $$ still don't explain what you lose in talent and wins on the field, which are purely subjective and speculative at this point. With your Math and 1 year plan, why keep Lang?

Well again, I'm still trying process exactly how I feel about Sitton's release. Neither for nor against it at this time. Releasing Sitton carries risk. Keeping Sitton carried risk. I was more pointing out that Cap's 4.5 vs. 6.9 cap numbers are little disingenuous. If, for example, Taylor falls flat and we cut him after one year, his dead cap number for 2017 is 300k, while we we pickup 2.4MM in cap space, for a net of 2.1MM.

Okay, why do we cut Sitton and keep Lang. My speculations/thoughts.

1) Cutting both guards in the same year is carries too great a risk for the FO.

2) As many have pointed out, we don't really have an ideal backup at guard with Taylor's promotion. Presumably Barclay short term, Lindsley/Barclay later, and if things get really pear shaped, something crazy like sliding Bulaga to guard and Murphy or Spriggs at RT. We certainly don't have a second preferred starter at guard.

3a) Sitton is has potentially greater physical risk due to his back.

3b) Maybe because of his bad back, Sitton's run block has slipped bad. Some have written about this. I thought I saw a bit of this last year.

4) Lang's contract appears to have been structured differently. If we cut Lang, he'd count 1.1MM in dead cap. And he'd only save 5MM, for a net of 4MM. More snark, but 6.9MM > 4MM. If the motivation is to use the cap to extend Bhak and/or Tretter, the larger savings for cutting one guy helps more.
 

mradtke66

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
1,683
Reaction score
557
Location
Madison, WI
Here's another possibility: Sitton discretely asked for his release.

Why not? It took him a day to get $10 million guaranteed rather than $6.9 million. Plus, he gets 2 more years to make even more money. Wait another year and he may have gotten less or nothing (if injured). He already knew that TT had no plans to keep him beyond this season. It would have been a shrewd move on his part.

That is incredibly possible.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,505
Reaction score
8,798
Location
Madison, WI
Well again, I'm still trying process exactly how I feel about Sitton's release. Neither for nor against it at this time. Releasing Sitton carries risk.

Keeping Sitton carries risk as well, as it does with any player.

I just tossed in the name Lang, it could have been Peppers or any player for that matter that if cut, they save the team more money then the team thinks they are worth. BTW, I think the Sitton savings was more like $6.1 M. But that isn't my point, the point is you have to look at everything you spend and services received when you keep a player and everything you save and/or lose by cutting him and how that balances with the teams needs.
 

mradtke66

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
1,683
Reaction score
557
Location
Madison, WI
Keeping Sitton carries risk as well, as it does with any player.

I just tossed in the name Lang, it could have been Peppers or any player for that matter that if cut, they save the team more money then the team thinks they are worth. BTW, I think the Sitton savings was more like $6.1 M. But that isn't my point, the point is you have to look at everything you spend and services received when you keep a player and everything you save and/or lose by cutting him and how that balances with the teams needs.

I don't disagree. My guess is that guard, being a non-premium position, coupled with his injury history, made him an easier cut than someone like Peppers, who even as a part-time pass rusher, can influence a game.

It's also possible they want to prove exactly what they have in Taylor. Sink or swim, as it were. Sometimes, it goes poorly (have a look at those 2013 safeties), but then you know exactly how hard you need to work to replace them the next year. I'd rather be in that position rather than keep an aging Woodson.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,505
Reaction score
8,798
Location
Madison, WI
All things being equal and Josh Sitton was willing to play his a*s off in this his contract year, I would have kept Sitton in lieu of the money saved and used this year to further groom Taylor as well as have him for depth. But I'm pretty convinced, all things weren't that simple and equal and that MM and TT were worried about more then just cap savings and spendings with Sitton.
 

Poppa San

* Team Owner *
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
13,228
Reaction score
3,031
Location
20 miles from Lambeau
Just a tidbit from here: http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com...carthys-media-mindset-boring-design/90065172/
Certain people in the room,” McCarthy said, “have different levels of responsibilities and decision-making, and the reality is it's OK to disagree. But once the decision is made, you can't be disagreeable.
Everybody has to vent … but the complaining is a negative-energy source that you just have to rid from your culture.”
He was talking about assistant coaches being on the same page but I would guess it extends to your team leaders too.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,505
Reaction score
8,798
Location
Madison, WI
Why isnt sitton speaking? He is brutally honest.. But nothing from him?

The closest comment to the situation that I have read from Sitton was "The business side is always the first determining factor". But it was in an article talking about him becoming a Bear so not sure which situation it was intended to cover, maybe both, since it sounds like a philosophy of his?
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,678
Reaction score
1,964
Why isnt sitton speaking? He is brutally honest.. But nothing from him?
That is interesting, isn't it. He apparently talked more before he was released than he has since. Maybe he did ask to be released.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
If you trade him don't you trade the contract with him? So whoever they trade him to would have taken the salary cap hit.

That's true. But the Packers would have had to pay him his full salary if they decided to release him after week 1.

I think at the final cut down, they took those incidents along with cap savings, Taylor's ability, Sittons age/health, and line chemistry into account and decided the Packers have a better shot at a SB without Sitton than with.

It's absolutely ridiculous to assume the Packers have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl without Sitton.

I'm still undecided about exactly how I feel about his move, but the salary cap implications aren't equal and may be enough on their own to justify it.

Sitton = 6.9 million for 1 year.

Taylor 4.15 million for 2 years. His cap number for this year is only 1.45 million.

I've never mentioned the cap implications of Sitton and Taylor are equal but there's absolutely no doubt I would have been fine with spending more on All-Pro guard than a career backup.

It's also possible they want to prove exactly what they have in Taylor. Sink or swim, as it were. Sometimes, it goes poorly (have a look at those 2013 safeties), but then you know exactly how hard you need to work to replace them the next year. I'd rather be in that position rather than keep an aging Woodson.

With the Packers being a Super Bowl contender I would prefer to have a starting guard capable of protecting Rodgers and not possibly having to think about how to replace him next offseason.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,491
Reaction score
2,619
Location
PENDING
It's absolutely ridiculous to assume the Packers have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl without Sitton.
Firstly, you changed my words, I did not assume anything.

Secondly, I know you don't understand, that is why you are so critical of TT. Until you delve deeper into the role of a GM and develop a broader and more practical view of building a team, you may understand.

Its more than just "Player A is better than player B. Therefore we need to sign/keep player A."
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I know you don't understand, that is why you are so critical of TT. Until you delve deeper into the role of a GM and develop a broader and more practical view of building a team, you may understand.

Its more than just "Player A is better than player B. Therefore we need to sign/keep player A."

It's obvious to every Packers fan aside of the blind Thompson supporters than starting Taylor at left guard instead of Sitton decreases the team's chances of winning the Super Bowl this season.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top