All Sitton & Lang & OL threads merged

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,491
Reaction score
2,619
Location
PENDING
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.
Its only arrogant TT haters that ignores salary cap and can only myoptically look at one season rather than a few down the road.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Its only arrogant TT haters that ignores salary cap and can only myoptically look at one season rather than a few down the road.

I'm convinced you're not capable of understanding it but criticizing Thompson doesn't mean hating the Packers general manager. Actually I have posted repeatedly that he's one of the best in the league. That doesn't mean he hasn't made some questionable transactions though.

Once again, if salary cap implications were the only reason to release Sitton it doesn't make any sense to make this move less than 10 days before the season opener. In addition it wouldn't have been necessary if the Packers wouldn't have overpaid to re-sign several of their free agents this offseason. Something several posters around here pointed out would lead to trouble but was vehemently denied by blind supporters of TT.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,797
The reason it doesn't make sense leads me to believe that Sitton played as large a role of this decision as anyone. We're not going to know the details and everything is a guess. MM and Ted will never divulge a reason they had a falling out, because they maintain professionalism and move forward. I don't expect Sitton to say anything now that he's signed with another team and moving into the season either.

anyway, as a team, I think GB can overcome the loss of Sitton just fine. I'm not convinced that Taylor was their plan, but rather a mix of Barclay, Tretter, Linsley on the line, but with Linsley being hurt, they are moving forward with what they have.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,678
Reaction score
1,964
I'm convinced you're not capable of understanding it but criticizing Thompson doesn't mean hating the Packers general manager. Actually I have posted repeatedly that he's one of the best in the league. That doesn't mean he hasn't made some questionable transactions though.

Once again, if salary cap implications were the only reason to release Sitton it doesn't make any sense to make this move less than 10 days before the season opener. In addition it wouldn't have been necessary if the Packers wouldn't have overpaid to re-sign several of their free agents this offseason. Something several posters around here pointed out would lead to trouble but was vehemently denied by blind supporters of TT.
Do you think salary cap implications were the only reason Sitton was released?

Apparently so, because otherwise you're just building a strawman in order to tear him down and we know you wouldn't do that because you're not a "TT hater".

So, they knew back in March and May what the salary cap situation was, why didn't they trade or cut him at that time? If it doesn't make sense to do it now, you must think Thompson is stupid, not paying attention to the future or out to sabotage the Packers.
 

JBlood

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
467
Maybe this has already been pointed out, but Sitton's release may well destroy the main escape route Rogers used when under pressure, since he liked moving up the middle to buy time when under pressure--something that occurs on pretty much every pass play. Maybe MM sees us as becoming a power running offense, something he's always talked about. But a power running team requires a power offensive line, which we've never had under MM. I'm worried for Rogers' health this year, and don't give a crap about the cap savings for next season. If he gets injured because of poor line play it's on both MM and TT--and I think it may well have been MM who convinced TT to release Sitton. As has been pointed out, it certainly makes no sense from a personnel or business standpoint.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,678
Reaction score
1,964
Maybe this has already been pointed out, but Sitton's release may well destroy the main escape route Rogers used when under pressure, since he liked moving up the middle to buy time when under pressure--something that occurs on pretty much every pass play. Maybe MM sees us as becoming a power running offense, something he's always talked about. But a power running team requires a power offensive line, which we've never had under MM. I'm worried for Rogers' health this year, and don't give a crap about the cap savings for next season. If he gets injured because of poor line play it's on both MM and TT--and I think it may well have been MM who convinced TT to release Sitton. As has been pointed out, it certainly makes no sense from a personnel or business standpoint.
Maybe Sitton AND Mc Carthy convinced Thompson to release him?
 

Virginia Packer Fan

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 7, 2016
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Apparently Bakhtiari has been added to the injury report and is listed as questionable. If he can't go tomorrow, they'll have an all new left side of the line since the last game.
 

RRyder

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
1,781
Reaction score
192
Haven't seen this reported by anyone else so take the source with a grain of salt bit he since everyone's theory crafting anyways....
 

Attachments

  • tapatalk_1473352879593.png
    tapatalk_1473352879593.png
    63.7 KB · Views: 122
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I'm not convinced that Taylor was their plan, but rather a mix of Barclay, Tretter, Linsley on the line, but with Linsley being hurt, they are moving forward with what they have.

Well, at the time the Packers released Sitton the front office was aware Linsley won't be available for at least the first six weeks. With Tretter starting at center that leaves Taylor or Barclay as the only options.

Do you think salary cap implications were the only reason Sitton was released?

Apparently so, because otherwise you're just building a strawman in order to tear him down and we know you wouldn't do that because you're not a "TT hater".

So, they knew back in March and May what the salary cap situation was, why didn't they trade or cut him at that time? If it doesn't make sense to do it now, you must think Thompson is stupid, not paying attention to the future or out to sabotage the Packers.

McGinn wrote a great story about the Packers completely blowing the situation with Sitton. I guess you will discount it though and consider him a Thompson hater as well.

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sp...0/mcginn-packers-blew-sitton-gambit/90149052/

Haven't seen this reported by anyone else so take the source with a grain of salt bit he since everyone's theory crafting anyways....

It has been mentioned once around here but if there was any truth to it I think some other members of the media would have picked it up by now.
 

bigbubbatd

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
1,679
Reaction score
166
Sitton will probably be a year long conversation but here is where I land regardless of how the season plays out.

TT and the staff had good reasons to move on from Sitton salary cap wise. If they are able to extend an extra player or two because of this cut that makes sense. With Sitton's back, his small decline in play, and cap number moving on makes sense especially if they think Taylor can hold his own.

At the same time as others have been saying it seems like a mistake to not have gotten a mid round pick for him. A 30 plus year old guard isn't likely getting a first or second. Probably not a 3rd either. But there seems to be no reason to not have received a 4th round pick.

I am not going to get overly worked up over a lost 4th round pick but it still feels like a miss on that part
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
TT and the staff had good reasons to move on from Sitton salary cap wise. If they are able to extend an extra player or two because of this cut that makes sense. With Sitton's back, his small decline in play, and cap number moving on makes sense especially if they think Taylor can hold his own.

If the Packers hadn't overpaid to re-sign several of the teams free agents this offseason there wouldn't have been a need to hain additional cap space though.
 

bigbubbatd

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
1,679
Reaction score
166
If the Packers hadn't overpaid to re-sign several of the teams free agents this offseason there wouldn't have been a need to hain additional cap space though.

I guess but the way Starks and Perry's contracts were set up either could have been cut instead of Sitton and created space. The only signing that I think hindered them and is hard to cut is Crosby. Starks and Perry were short contracts with little cap hit if i remember correctly. I guess i could be wrong. And I can see the need for both at the time they were signed bc lacy is a question mark and Peppers is aging.

I know you disagreed with most of the signings the Packers made this off season and I don't want to restart that debate. They have been thoroughly hashed out. My main thought on Sitton is that it makes sense but they should have been able to get a pick
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Starks and Perry were short contracts with little cap hit if i remember correctly.

Starks and Perry have a combined cap hit of $7.25 million for the 2016 season. Time will tell if that was a smart investment.
 

bigbubbatd

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
1,679
Reaction score
166
Starks and Perry have a combined cap hit of $7.25 million for the 2016 season. Time will tell if that was a smart investment.

I meant cap hits beyond this year and even cap hits had the Packers chose to cut them when they cut sitton
 

JBlood

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
467
Maybe Sitton AND Mc Carthy convinced Thompson to release him?
Sometimes you have to say "no" to the kids....I believe what McGinn says about Sitton's professionalism. He will play his heart out this season, regardless of the team he's on.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I meant cap hits beyond this year and even cap hits had the Packers chose to cut them when they cut sitton

Starks has a cap hit of $3.75 million next season while Perry is on a one year deal. If the Packers decided to release both of them after training camp that would have resulted in $3.3 million of dead money counting against the cap.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,678
Reaction score
1,964
Well, at the time the Packers released Sitton the front office was aware Linsley won't be available for at least the first six weeks. With Tretter starting at center that leaves Taylor or Barclay as the only options.



McGinn wrote a great story about the Packers completely blowing the situation with Sitton. I guess you will discount it though and consider him a Thompson hater as well.

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sp...0/mcginn-packers-blew-sitton-gambit/90149052/



It has been mentioned once around here but if there was any truth to it I think some other members of the media would have picked it up by now.
I won't discount it but I'm pretty certain McGinn doesn't know all the exact details either. Ted don't talk.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,678
Reaction score
1,964
so....

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2016091102/2016/REG1/bears@texans#menu=gameinfo|contentId:0ap3000000700364&tab=recap


Was looking at these highlights, and forgot Sitton was there...I then paid attention to him- and saw Cushing and Clowney get thru-

maybe that was just only 2 plays all game that his man got thru, but was interesting
I suspect it will take a month or so before Sitton gets in synche with the rest of the Bears O-line. I wouldn't try and analyze his play for a while.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,678
Reaction score
1,964
If Taylor had been beaten like a drum today, he wouldn't have gotten that courtesy.
That's because it would fit their agenda. :)
We have folks here who want the Packers to win while Taylor fails.
 
Top