All Sitton & Lang & OL threads merged

[Deleted member 6794]

While I agree with you that a locker room should be able to handle a disgruntled player, based on past history in GB, I think that when given a choice, the Packer organization tries to avoid it at all costs.

While I generally agree with that approach conducting a move like that less than 10 days before the opener while not having an adequate backup doesn't qualify as a smart move.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

While I generally agree with that approach conducting a move like that less than 10 days before the opener while not having an adequate backup doesn't qualify as a smart move.

Agreed. But again, its all speculation and could be just one layer of the onion. While TT and MM are pretty well known for not being point blank and direct when it comes to answering some questions, the way they have handled this one almost has to lead you to believe that it was a rather complicated decision, one that they viewed as a risky move either way they went. It may go down as one of the dumbest moves during their tenure or one of the smartest, but really hard to judge it without all the facts or seeing how it plays out.

 

[sschind]

Just because Thompson felt the necessity to release Sitton doesn't mean he was right about it either. Remember his plan to replace Woodson with Jennings or McMillian???

I expected the Packers not to offer Sitton a contract after this season because of his injury history and the limited cap space available. I don't agree with releasing him without having an adequate replacement on the roster.

I'm not disappointed about Sitton being released because of a personal attachment to him. The reason I'm concerned about the move is the lack of another offensive lineman being able to perform on the same level as him as well as not having a single backup best suited to play guard on the roster.

I'm not saying it was right and if you would limit your argument to whether or not it was the right decision that would be fine. However, you keep saying there was no necessity and that is BS.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I have hard time believing a player has no say in what is released to the public.

I know for a fact last year rodgers knee was an issue after the charger game but they said nothing. They just never reported it

They did not report it because, as you said in your next post, he practiced and played.

Beyond that, how prudent would it be to say your franchise QB has a knee issue? What would it buy you? No and nothing.

We're being conditioned to think this game is about "athleticism", "technique", schemes and other cerebral things, rainbows and unicorns. C'mon man. There are guys out there like Vontaze Burfict, James Harrison, Ndamukong Suh, et. al., who might go after that knee if they knew about and the opportunity presented itself. These are "bad, bad men", and not just in the positive way we may use that term.

Or taking a real world example close to home, if anybody believes those 2 Jennings TD passes in Super Bowl XLV weren't designed to exploit Polamalu coming off an Achilles injury, of all things, they would be naive.

It just so happens the organization's and the player's interests are aligned when it comes to injury disclosure. Neither benefits from saying anything the league does not require. It has nothing to do with HIPPA.

 

[sschind]

Agreed. But again, its all speculation and could be just one layer of the onion. While TT and MM are pretty well known for not being point blank and direct when it comes to answering some questions, the way they have handled this one almost has to lead you to believe that it was a rather complicated decision, one that they viewed as a risky move either way they went. It may go down as one of the dumbest moves during their tenure or one of the smartest, but really hard to judge it without all the facts or seeing how it plays out.

Given what precious little I know about the situation I do not think it was a smart move for Ted to release Sitton. However, Ted felt it was necessary to release Sitton and since he is probably the only one who is privy to ALL the information I don't see how I can not give him at least some benefit of the doubt. I can't simply categorically declare it to be a dumb move because I don't know if there was more behind it. First we do not know the "real" reason he was let go (or maybe we do if we choose to believe Teds simple explanation) second, we have no idea how it is going to play out. Depending on your goals this may not be a move that we can evaluate until February but one thing is certain it is not something we can evaluate until we at least play a few games.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This article is a pretty good summation of my feelings about it. The only part left out and I know I have beaten this drum, is the part about losing the ability to trade Sitton because the decision seems to have been made last minute. There again, I have to assume without further knowledge that the reasons behind the move finally triggered the decision on cut day, or a very smart organization like the Packers, would have traded, not just released Sitton well before that day.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/sports/...cle_538e1f15-9b0f-5fe0-bc24-11a22ea63e5a.html

 

[Mark Andrew Hooley]

Don't people remember how average our O-Line was last time we won the Super Bowl? We have a much better line in terms of depth sand starters even with Sitton gone. Our pass rush and secondary look great. We could have a top 5 Defense to go alongside a top 5 Offense. Who else can say that?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Don't people remember how average our O-Line was last time we won the Super Bowl? We have a much better line in terms of depth sand starters even with Sitton gone. Our pass rush and secondary look great. We could have a top 5 Defense to go alongside a top 5 Offense. Who else can say that?

Any team that beats us this year and/or knocks us out of the playoffs won't really care where our defense and offense rank.

I'm excited about this years team, but its hard to argue that cutting Sitton didn't weaken our starting offense as well as our depth. But you have to hope that it was a move made with an eye to the future success of the team, so....Go Pack Go!

 

[Mark Andrew Hooley]

Well that's positive! To be clear. Give Taylor a chance. He played well last season when called upon and it will even help our run game how good he is in run blocking. I'm not so negative. I don't think anyone will 'knock us out', because I expect us to win it this year!

 

[Half Empty]

Don't people remember how average our O-Line was last time we won the Super Bowl? We have a much better line in terms of depth sand starters even with Sitton gone. Our pass rush and secondary look great. We could have a top 5 Defense to go alongside a top 5 Offense. Who else can say that?

As usual, it's all subjective, so I'm just going to say that I think

Clifton/Colledge/Wells/Sitton/Tauscher-Bulaga starting with Lang and Spitz backing up is every bit as good as

Bakhtiari/Taylor/Tretter/Lang/Bulaga with Spriggs/Murphy/Barclay in the wings

 

[Sky King]

There are $6.9 million reasons he had to be released before the final cutdown.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm not saying it was right and if you would limit your argument to whether or not it was the right decision that would be fine. However, you keep saying there was no necessity and that is BS.

Well, as long as the Packers don't talk about the reasons for releasing Sitton there's no evidence the move was necessary. If, for example, Thompson cut the All-Pro guard because of his criticism of McCarthy's game plan at Arizona last year I don't agree it aas justified getting rid of a seasoned veteran.

Don't people remember how average our O-Line was last time we won the Super Bowl? We have a much better line in terms of depth sand starters even with Sitton gone. Our pass rush and secondary look great. We could have a top 5 Defense to go alongside a top 5 Offense. Who else can say that?

The Packers starting offensive line would have been one of the best in the league with Sitton on the team. With Taylor replacing him at left guard I expect the performance at that position to significantly drop off. Unfortunately the team doesn't have any depth at guard as none of the backups is best suited to play there.

Give Taylor a chance. He played well last season when called upon and it will even help our run game how good he is in run blocking.

Taylor was decent blocking for the run but struggled mightily in pass protection last season. Unfortunately keeping Rodgers upright is the most important assignment for an offensive lineman on the Packers.

There are $6.9 million reasons he had to be released before the final cutdown.

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.

 

[Sky King]

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.

If he was on the roster after cut down his 2016 salary would have been guaranteed, no?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If he was on the roster after cut down his 2016 salary would have been guaranteed, no?

True, but keeping Sitton for one a year would have only cost the Packers an additional $2.7 million over having Taylor for two seasons. I would have absolutely preferred the team to go in that direction.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Don't get me wrong, I love Julius Peppers and what he has and will continue to bring to the Green Bay Packers. But IMO, if the Packers were just trying to free up Cap space by cutting Sitton and no other factors were involved, Peppers would have been the more prudent move ($8M cap savings). Again, I'm not advocating that JP should have been cut, but given what each player brings to their prospective position and the depth of each of those positions, its pretty clear this was not solely a move to save money or one made because there was better or equal level of talent waiting behind Sitton.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Don't get me wrong, I love Julius Peppers and what he has and will continue to bring to the Green Bay Packers. But IMO, if the Packers were just trying to free up Cap space by cutting Sitton and no other factors were involved, Peppers would have been the more prudent move ($8M cap savings). Again, I'm not advocating that JP should have been cut, but given what each player brings to their prospective position and the depth of each of those positions, its pretty clear this was not solely a move to save money or one made because there was better or equal level of talent waiting behind Sitton.

I don't think the Packers released Sitton solely to free up cap space either. If that was the only reason then it would have been way smarter not to overpay to re-sign several of the team's free agents this offseason though.

 

[rodell330]

I don't think the Packers released Sitton solely to free up cap space either. If that was the only reason then it would have been way smarter not to overpay to re-sign several of the team's free agents this offseason though.

Exactly.

 

[Vince Lombardi]

This article is a pretty good summation of my feelings about it. The only part left out and I know I have beaten this drum, is the part about losing the ability to trade Sitton because the decision seems to have been made last minute. There again, I have to assume without further knowledge that the reasons behind the move finally triggered the decision on cut day, or a very smart organization like the Packers, would have traded, not just released Sitton well before that day.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/sports/...cle_538e1f15-9b0f-5fe0-bc24-11a22ea63e5a.html

Good article and he asks some great questions.

You really have to wonder what the hell Sitton could have done that was so egregious that they felt to need to get rid of him so quickly. I just don't know how keeping him for another week or 2 and then trading him could have possibly hurt the team more than this move.

The fact that most of the players that have talked sound completely shocked by this move doesn't lead me to believe he was a locker room cancer. I guess this is one move we may never know what really went down. I just hope TT & MM truly know what they are doing because this could be a disaster. Could also prove to be no big deal!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I just don't know how keeping him for another week or 2 and then trading him could have possibly hurt the team more than this move.

By putting him on the final roster, they would have been committed to his salary and the cap hit. Yes, a trade would have been nice (prior to the feeble attempt of waiting until last Saturday), but I think whatever were the other factors driving the decision, it appeared to be an urgent decision and not one the Packers thought would work itself out, nor were they probably wanting to disrupt the team with once the season began.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You really have to wonder what the hell Sitton could have done that was so egregious that they felt to need to get rid of him so quickly. I just don't know how keeping him for another week or 2 and then trading him could have possibly hurt the team more than this move.

Sitton's base salary for the 2016 season would have become fully guaranteed and therefore counted against the Packers salary cap if he had been on the roster in week 1.

 

[rodell330]

Sitton's base salary for the 2016 season would have become fully guaranteed and therefore counted against the Packers salary cap if he had been on the roster in week 1.

So basically they never really tried to "trade" him...or this was a knee jerk reaction. I just find it hard to believe that no one wanted him. You can NEVER have to many good o-linemen (all pro ones at that) and the Bears snatched him up real quick... even gave the guy an extension.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So basically they never really tried to "trade" him...or this was a knee jerk reaction. I just find it hard to believe that no one wanted him. You can NEVER have to many good o-linemen (all pro ones at that) and the Bears snatched him up real quick... even gave the guy an extension.

As soon as the Packers released Sitton his contract was voided and he became a free agent as a vested veteran. The Bears then signed him to an entirely new deal.

It seems like Thompson tried to trade him at the eleventh hour but at that point it was too late.

 

[longtimefan]

So basically they never really tried to "trade" him...or this was a knee jerk reaction. I just find it hard to believe that no one wanted him. You can NEVER have to many good o-linemen (all pro ones at that) and the Bears snatched him up real quick... even gave the guy an extension.

No they did..

But as I stated b4, this was such a sudden move, teams were very skeptical as to why are you trying to trade him now? It raised red flags to those teams.

This is why to me it is obvious this was an issue that ted or mike just didnt want to deal with anymore

 

[Vince Lombardi]

Sitton's base salary for the 2016 season would have become fully guaranteed and therefore counted against the Packers salary cap if he had been on the roster in week 1.

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.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

No they did..

But as I stated b4, this was such a sudden move, teams were very skeptical as to why are you trying to trade him now? It raised red flags to those teams.

This is why to me it is obvious this was an issue that ted or mike just didnt want to deal with anymore

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.