1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

All Sitton & Lang & OL threads merged

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Scotland Yard, Feb 1, 2016.

  1. Scotland Yard

    Scotland Yard Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    34
    Ratings:
    +33
    2016 Cap numbers:

    Sitton = $6.6 million
    Lang = $6.2 million
    Tretter = $788,850
    Lane Taylor = RFA (last year's RFA 2nd round tender was about $2.4 million)

    So, I have to ask why are the Packers going to spend almost $13 million on Sitton & Lang? Why not just pay Tretter and Taylor a combined $3.5 million and use the excess $9.5 million elsewhere (like ILB or TE)?

    IMO, Tretter would be an upgrade, mainly because Sitton has had so many nagging injuries and chronic back problems. We saw first hand how much more athletic Tretter is when he played LT the week after Sitton got destroyed playing LT. Not saying Sitton is a bum, he's a fine guard, MM should never have stuck him at LT. But, Tretter is an ascending player, and Sitton is entering his twilight.

    Lang is also a fine guard, but, is he that much better than Tretter or Taylor in 2016?

    They gave up 49 sacks in 2015. Wasn't really Sitton and Lang's fault, I'd probably blame the injuries to Bakhtiari and Bulaga for most of the sacks. But still, they're allocating $13 million on what are supposed to be a couple of stud OG's, and the line ain't getting it done anyway...what's the point?

    Also, in 2014 and 2015, the Packers struggled mightily to convert 3rd & 4th down with a yard or less to go. Again and again the RB's got stuffed in those situations. If Sitton and Lang are so darn good, why is that?

    I'd be fine with a 2016 offensive line like this:

    LT Bakhtiari
    LG Tretter
    C Linsley
    RG Taylor or Walker or Rotheram
    RT Bulaga

    (I could be talked into keeping Lang, and playing Tretter at RG.)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  2. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    595
    Ratings:
    +290
    Honestly? Tretter doesn't have the bulk to excel at guard. He doesn't really have the size to hack it long term at tackle either, but at least he has those dancing feet.

    Tretter has played a little guard, though I don't remember exactly when. He looked over matched. At center, he has the luxury of either being uncovered and going after linebackers (4-3 and 4-2 nickel) or getting help double-teaming a nose (3-man fronts). If he was a guard, he'd have more one-on-one battles with a defensive tackle. He'd probably lose more than he wins.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. adambr2

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,792
    Ratings:
    +2,175
    Ok, first of all, Lang has a 1.1M cap hit if cut, so his true savings if cut is only 5M. Also, even if you don't want Lang or Sitton, you're going to get comp picks for them after 2016 if you just let them walk for free. 4ths at least, maybe even 3rds. You forfeit those picks if you cut them.

    So now the football related things wrong with this. I can tell you with certainty that the football world would be pretty shocked at these moves, and we'd quickly go from having a line that most will still expect to be pretty good, to having one that most would expect to be one of the worst in the NFL. Lang and Sitton would immediately become 2 of the most prized O linemen on the market, especially with no compensation pick implications attached, and they would quickly get long-term deals probably in the neighborhood of 8M per season. This would absolutely decimate our O line depth. Tretter is a good backup at three positions. He's also untested, however, as an NFL guard.

    And yes, Sitton and Lang are much, much better guards than Taylor or Tretter. They are top 5 in the NFL guards according to PFF, so they're actually slightly underpaid by market value. You can't just send them packing, replace them with Walker and Rotheram and not miss a beat.

    Guard play was our strength on the line last year. It's a huge leap to say that Lang and Sitton must not be so good if we struggled on 3rd or 4th and short. That's like saying Aaron Rodgers must not be very good since we struggled on 3rd and long. In any event, the strength of our line is in pass blocking, which is key when you have a QB like Rodgers.

    This isn't something that should be or will be considered. Even if we were tight against the cap, which we're not, cutting our starting guards wouldn't be our first solution to shedding salary.

    If you wanted to make the case for letting one of these guys walk in free agency after next season, sure, I could see that. But cutting them now? No way. I also think that would be a pretty terrible message to send to the locker room.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Ace

    Ace Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Messages:
    1,174
    Ratings:
    +525
    You're right, he's not a bum, he's one of the best LG's in the NFL. IMO Sitton deserves a new deal before Lang does.

    Also, I swore I read this somewhere (possibly on these boards) but didn't Thompson say one of his biggest regrets was not retaining Wahle and Rivera back in the day? I don't believe either of these guys are going anywhere.
     
  5. C-Lee

    C-Lee Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    640
    Ratings:
    +372
    These threads have been sooo bad.

    Sitton is a pro bowler. Ace said it best, one of the best LG's in the game.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. Ace

    Ace Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Messages:
    1,174
    Ratings:
    +525
    And the offseason hasn't even officially started yet lol
     
  7. C-Lee

    C-Lee Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    640
    Ratings:
    +372
    It's going to be a long one.
     
  8. Mondio

    Mondio Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2014
    Messages:
    2,830
    Ratings:
    +1,793
    Not as long as last year at least. Not for me anyway
     
  9. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,686
    Ratings:
    +6,635
    There´s no doubt the suggestion presented in this thread is absolutely ridiculous but the Packers should take a long look at how Sitton´s back holds up next season before signing him to a lucrative extension before Lang.

    A poster mentioned that Thompson once said his biggest regret was not retaining Wahle and Rivera but wasn´t able to come up with any evidence about it. I highly doubt TT ever said something like that as the team was in no position to re-sign any of them at the time he took over.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. C-Lee

    C-Lee Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    640
    Ratings:
    +372
    :(
     
  11. Ace

    Ace Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Messages:
    1,174
    Ratings:
    +525
    Fair point as his back has been an ongoing issue for the past few years now. If all things stay the same though, I have absolutely no issue paying Sitton, he's about as rock solid as they come at the position.
     
  12. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,686
    Ratings:
    +6,635
    Actually I would like to see some improvement with his back to offer him a long-term deal after next season, especially as it´s possible we won´t be able to afford to re-sign both guards.
     
  13. Ace

    Ace Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Messages:
    1,174
    Ratings:
    +525
    Is that possible though? It doesn't seem like it's gotten any better but he's learned to play with it and it doesn't seem to seriously hamper his play.
     
  14. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,686
    Ratings:
    +6,635
    Actually I think that last season it affected his play to some degree for the first time in his career. I agree that it´s unlikely to get any better, that´s why I´m reluctant to offer him an extension with him getting on the wrong side of 30.
     
  15. easyk83

    easyk83 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,523
    Ratings:
    +636
    Not retaining Wahle was his regret, Rivera was at the end of his career back when he was let go and GB would have had to enter a bidding war with Jones and Millen to keep him. Wahle on the other hand had a couple good seasons in Carolina before losing to Father Time.
     
  16. easyk83

    easyk83 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,523
    Ratings:
    +636
    That's the trouble with both Lang and Sitton, maybe the best guard tandem in the league when healthy. But every year nagging injuries take a toll on those two.
     
  17. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,686
    Ratings:
    +6,635
    I´m concerned that Sitton´s back problems are chronic while Lang, who has had different nagging injuries, just needs a bit more luck to stay healthy.
     
  18. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    Thompson had little choice regarding Wahle. His contract contained an $11M cap hit for 2005. The salary cap at that time was $85-$86M. When that contract was signed, both the Packers FO and Wahle and his agent knew that contract wouldn't be in force in 2005. Also, the Packers were over the cap when Thompson took over in 2005 and the roster was in need of several upgrades.

    Sitton is a great OG and Lang is a very good OG but both have injury concerns. Sitton's back has been discussed (but he only missed 8 snaps in 18 games according to McGinn) and Lang is due to have shoulder surgery this off season - again according to McGinn. Extending either is a concern because of age and injury but cutting them now makes no sense IMO. Unlike 2005, the Packers should have somewhere between $20-$22M in cap space if they keep Sitton, Lang, and Peppers for that matter.
    http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...eport-card-offense-b99656526z1-366333791.html
     
  19. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,712
    Ratings:
    +2,932
    If we are going to start cutting or trading guys like Sitton and Lang, why stop there? Hundley's cap hit is $581K and Aaron's hit is just shy of $2o million. Think of what we could do with that $19.4 million! We could sign FA's to replace Sitton and Lang and then compete with 3-4 teams for the 1st pick in the 2017-2019 draft.

    Of course, if AR saw his front 5 for 2016 consisted of:

    He might be begging to be traded and let the more athletic Hundley run for his life all season.

    The Packers need to improve their O-line and its depth for 2016, not disassemble it to save cap space...for???
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Scotland Yard

    Scotland Yard Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    34
    Ratings:
    +33
    So, Sitton and Lang are two of the best in the business? Why can't the Packers convert on 3rd-and-1 or 4th-and-1? Why were the Packers near the bottom of the entire NFL in those situations in 2015? If the guards are elite as you say, shouldn't we a least be able to get a one-yard run when we need one?

    Sitton used to be "great", but, not anymore. Time to stop living in the past. Take a look at the 2014 & 2015 seasons and you see a team that cannot run up the middle behind the guards in short yardage with the game on the line.

    Replying to Pokerbrat2000, this is not to simply save cap room. I am asserting that it is a misallocation of funds in a capped system to be paying guards in the top ten of the payroll. Funds need to be allocated to other areas like ILB and TE, as indicated in the OP. Also, Rodgers was sacked 49 times in 2015, he already has to "run for his life all season", so what exactly are they getting out of Sitton and Lang?

    Smart teams put the big money in OT's, and you fill in at your guard position with whatever cap room is left. NE, DEN, SEA have all been going to Super Bowls doing that, the Packers not so much with their wonderful guards.
     
  21. The program 61

    The program 61 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 9, 2015
    Messages:
    20
    Ratings:
    +0
    You did see that and the year after we went 4-12 getting AJ Hawk in the next draft.
     
  22. Ace

    Ace Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Messages:
    1,174
    Ratings:
    +525
    Why do you assume it's the guards in every situation where the Packers couldn't convert in short yardage? Could it have anything to do with the RB being 30 lbs. over weight? I don't believe Bahktiari is the best run blocker either and is much better in pass coverage. Also, I think it's a little premature to assume Tretter would be an upgrade over Josh Sitton, and even with the cap savings I don't think it's worth it. And what the hell have you seen from Lane Taylor to suggest moving on from TJ Lang for him? Tretter is a very nice piece right now, one I absolutely want to keep around and maybe in the near future he could find himself starting on the line.

    Rodgers was sacked 13 times in the final 2 games so I think your sack numbers are a tad skewed seeing as their LT who only allowed 3 sacks all year didn't play in those 2 games
     
  23. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    Yes, you did see that (Thompson saying his biggest regret was not retaining Wahle and Rivera), but the poster who wrote it made it up.

    Imagine the Packers take the OP's advice. Now imagine an injury or two on the OL. :eek:
     
  24. tynimiller

    tynimiller Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,073
    Ratings:
    +331
    When the time comes I believe letting Sitton walk and re-sign Lang is the smarter choice. Letting both walk at once is asinine in my opinion. We have no long term replacement (sit down with your Tretter talk, it's been explained why either C or Tackle are his only real options long term).

    Sitton walking would be tough but if he keeps going as he has been he will command serious pay, his lingering back issues are a worry here as well and we simply cannot afford both.

    Lang is most likely going to cost slightly less...no back issues (although other nagging injuries)...just between the two makes more fiscal sense and I foresee him maybe playing longer than Sitton after 30.
     
  25. NelsonsLongCatch

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,697
    Ratings:
    +850
    Cut and trade everybody!
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1

Share This Page