Packers expected to sign Joique Bell

[HardRightEdge]

That's why I also included the 2nd team All Pro designations.

Second Team All Pro doesn't mean much. Many of those guys get a smattering of votes from a small group of media members.

While Pro Bowl designations are sometimes on reputation (Matthews last year) or as a career recognition (Jeff Saturday's Packer season), the vast majority are deserving. It's also worth noting that guys often don't get the Pro Bowl nod until a year or two after they first deserve it, which tends to even things out over the course of a quality career. Each year there's only a small handful of player where the "in or out" are matter for serious consideration.

 

[HardRightEdge]

And now Sitton's overrated a malcontent, blah, blah...
********.
Thompson blew this out his **** from start to finish.

He had back issues. Thompson preferred to save the cap. All in all, not a bad decision in retrospect.

 

[swhitset]

Second Team All Pro doesn't mean much. Many of those guys get a smattering of votes from a small group of media members.

While Pro Bowl designations are sometimes on reputation (Matthews last year) or as a career recognition (Jeff Saturday's Packer season), the vast majority are deserving. It's also worth noting that guys often don't get the Pro Bowl nod until a year or two after they first deserve it, which tends to even things out over the course of a quality career. Each year there's only a small handful of player where the "in or out" are matter for serious consideration.

While true... my response to Mondio who was implying that there was no way Sitton would make the Pro Bowl this year. My contention is that, while I agree that he shouldn't (and probably won't) there is definitely a possibility that it happens anyway.

 

[HardRightEdge]

While true... my response to Mondio who was implying that there was no way Sitton would make the Pro Bowl this year. My contention is that, while I agree that he shouldn't (and probably won't) there is definitely a possibility that it happens anyway.

Sitton is an example of one of those guys who probably got to the Pro Bowl a little late and stuck around for a year too long in 2015. He didn't play all that well last season.

But it's not a case of just how a guy plays. It's also about what he costs for that level of play vs. the cost and level of play of the replacement. Taylor's reasonably cheap and played surprisingly well. It's hard to argue that it was not a good move. They used the money difference to give Bakhtiari a contract well beyond what most expected. While I'm hardly enthusiastic about that contract, it's something to factor into the equation.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The bottom line for me with the whole Sitton thing is still the fact that TT and the Packers got absolutely nothing for a player of his caliber. People can try to rationalize the move by saying we saved cap space, we may have prevented a locker room problem, he may have been on the down swing, the Packer coaches knew Taylor was capable of taking his place. But all of that remains the same, whether you cut Sitton or trade him for a draft pick earlier while we still could. Only plausible reason for the timing and rationale behind the move, in my mind, is that something with Sitton happened very close to the cut date and it finally tipped the scale. Otherwise, someone was sleeping at the wheel with that decision.

 

[OldSchool101]

You didn't think it was going to be a tough decision to cut Abby, Davis, Allison at the end of training camp?

And until we start making the plays right there to make, and still end up losing consistently, I'm not buying the no talent excuse. Until I stop seeing plays with open receivers that Rodgers passes up for a 40 yard attempt, I'm not buying our receivers can't get open, because they have been. Not every guy is open on every play. But there is usually one or two, problem is, they aren't 40 yards downfield or something.

No disrespect to Cobb and Jordy but they are 2 good receivers that Aaron normally makes appear great, not the other way around as some might argue.
I realized how AR clearly makes the WR position look better after watching both Jennings production (or lack thereof) in MN and JJ in Oakland. Take a min to check out both players stats before being a Packer and after and even after returning in JJs case. You don't have to look hard to see the difference in production particularly where there is near a full season of play.

http://www.nfl.com/player/jamesjones/2507183/careerstats

http://www.nfl.com/player/gregjennings/2495867/careerstats

 

[Half Empty]

Second Team All Pro doesn't mean much. Many of those guys get a smattering of votes from a small group of media members.

While Pro Bowl designations are sometimes on reputation (Matthews last year) or as a career recognition (Jeff Saturday's Packer season), the vast majority are deserving. It's also worth noting that guys often don't get the Pro Bowl nod until a year or two after they first deserve it, which tends to even things out over the course of a quality career. Each year there's only a small handful of player where the "in or out" are matter for serious consideration.

Now I'm really confused. Sitton had both designations, and somebody just said Pro Bowl isn't significant, so I included All Pro. Just trying to establish some way to rate players when someone suggests a particular guy isn't worthy. What guideline would be appropriate if the basic contention is that Sitton was a really, really good guard when he was cut?

 

[Mondio]

No disrespect to Cobb and Jordy but they are 2 good receivers that Aaron normally makes appear great, not the other way around as some might argue.
I realized how AR clearly makes the WR position look better after watching both Jennings production (or lack thereof) in MN and JJ in Oakland. Take a min to check out both players stats before being a Packer and after and even after returning in JJs case. You don't have to look hard to see the difference in production particularly where there is near a full season of play.

http://www.nfl.com/player/jamesjones/2507183/careerstats

http://www.nfl.com/player/gregjennings/2495867/careerstats

I argue it takes 2 to tango. Gennings gave so many stats to AR by his route running and then making defenders look silly when he had the ball. He was so smooth. And Aaron helped Genninngs look as good as he could by putting the ball on target every single time. Watching him hit those receivers in stride like that time and time again was a thing of beauty.

Receiving stats aren't a one way street.

 

[Mondio]

Not everyone. I can't say I ever saw much of a future in Janis or Abbrederis; the flaws were considerable.

I never thought they kept 7 because they believed all of these guys represent valuable talents. It was because Nelson and Montgomery were coming off IR seasons, and if they had somebody else who could play last season Adams might have ended up there himself. Going with 7 represented an insurance policy.

As a result, a roster position at RB was sacrificed, with the thinking that Montgomery could sub in a pinch. They've used Cobb there as well, but I doubt that was the original plan, just something out of necessity.

It was not a bad plan until Montgomery was injured. Still and all, given how frequently RBs get injured, it's imprudent not to carry at least 3. Some teams carry 4, but with Montgomery that would not be a necessity.

I'll change everyone to a good majority then. And I didn't think they were all going to be great, but a replay of pretty much every radio program dedicated to the packers back in August would be filled with fans talking about how much it was going to suck to have to cut so many young talented players , especially at the WR position.

I'm simply saying, beyond Crockett, and he was marginal, nobody at the RB position earned a roster spot.

I don't think they had a bad backup plan all things considered, but as usual, injuries have affected plan A B and C at times this year

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I argue it takes 2 to tango. Gennings gave so many stats to AR by his route running and then making defenders look silly when he had the ball. He was so smooth. And Aaron helped Genninngs look as good as he could by putting the ball on target every single time. Watching him hit those receivers in stride like that time and time again was a thing of beauty.

Receiving stats aren't a one way street.

While I agree to some extent with you, on the fact that it "takes 2 to tango", I would find it hard to believe that AR hasn't for the most part been the larger contributor of the combined success between him and another wide receiver during his career.

 

[Mondio]

Of course he has, he's a great QB. Giving credit to someone else doesn't mean the other guy is somehow worse because of it

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Of course he has, he's a great QB. Giving credit to someone else doesn't mean the other guy is somehow worse because of it

Glad we agree LOL

Now imagine AR with someone like Megatron or Julio Jones at his disposal.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Only plausible reason for the timing and rationale behind the move, in my mind, is that something with Sitton happened very close to the cut date and it finally tipped the scale.

Yeah, there was something that tipped the scales: Bakhtiari's contract.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'll change everyone to a good majority then. And I didn't think they were all going to be great, but a replay of pretty much every radio program dedicated to the packers back in August would be filled with fans talking about how much it was going to suck to have to cut so many young talented players , especially at the WR position.

I'm simply saying, beyond Crockett, and he was marginal, nobody at the RB position earned a roster spot.

I don't think they had a bad backup plan all things considered, but as usual, injuries have affected plan A B and C at times this year.

I don't listen to talk radio, nor much NFL media of any kind. I watch the games. That kinda sounds like Chauncey Gardiner, doesn't it?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yeah, there was. Bahktiari's contract.

Bahk was resigned 10 days after they released Sitton. Not sure how resigning Bahk, even had it been before releasing Sitton, changes things or forgives TT for getting nothing for him. Again, this was just added things around the whole Sitton decision. The Packers could have even gambled a bit on some of his guaranteed money, put Sitton on their 53 and later found a trade partner who was willing to give up something as well as assume a pretty reasonable contract.

Edit: Or did you mean the apparent upcoming resigning of Bahk tipped the scales with Sitton's attitude?

 

[Mondio]

I don't listen to talk radio, nor much NFL media of any kind. I watch the games. That kinda sounds like Chauncey Gardiner, doesn't it?

Bill micheals at lunch, 10 minutes of bill and rookie on the way to work on Monday is the extent of it for me. But I hear enough

 

[HardRightEdge]

Now I'm really confused. Sitton had both designations, and somebody just said Pro Bowl isn't significant, so I included All Pro. Just trying to establish some way to rate players when someone suggests a particular guy isn't worthy. What guideline would be appropriate if the basic contention is that Sitton was a really, really good guard when he was cut?

I'm not sure why the Sitton situation is being rehashed. Taylor has proved to be a surprisingly adequate replacement, and of all the troubles with this team, the O-Line should be the least of the concerns.

Anyway, how you judge is up to you. First team All Pro or a decent number All Pro votes or Pro Bowl recognition indicates a player had a good season while a few reputational exceptions might be tossed in. But no award vote is foolproof.

Last season Sitton was third in All Pro voting with 11 votes. Lang got 1 vote. The previous year Sitton got 22 votes, Lang got none. On balance, I'd say Lang outplayed him in 2014 and was his match in 2015 while struggling with his own injuries. Where you could see the difference is in Sitton's loss of mobility getting out to the second level.

These votes tell you that Sitton was at least a good guard, but not necessarily a really, really good one, nor does it tell you the relative value of the 2 players in question. Most of the voters know both players were good but probably didn't watch them very much. I'm sure at least some of them said to themselves, "Sitton is the LG, I'll throw him my vote".

With the big free agent class looming after this season, it was pretty obvious they were not going to keep all these O-Linemen. Once it was decided they were going to pay Bakhtiari top dollar, at best there was going to be an offseason choice to be made between Sitton and Lang. So, the only question remains, "why then and not later?"

Two plausible reasons:

1) Baktiari's price tag can in higher than expected; cutting Sitton bought some cap to carryover to 2017.

2) They liked what they saw from Taylor in preseason to deem him an adequate replacement.

There was a lot of chatter about Sitton being disruptive in the clubhouse. That may be. But clubhouse lawyers are not born overnight. He might have been carping to his mates about not being offered an extension, but that's hardly a disqualifier. It would only come into play when other factors, such as those noted above, start to weigh against a guy.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Bahk was resigned 10 days after they released Sitton. Not sure how resigning Bahk, even had it been before releasing Sitton, changes things or forgives TT for getting nothing for him. Again, this was just added things around the whole Sitton decision. The Packers could have even gambled a bit on some of his guaranteed money, put Sitton on their 53 and later found a trade partner who was willing to give up something as well as assume a pretty reasonable contract.

Edit: Or did you mean the apparent upcoming resigning of Bahk tipped the scales with Sitton's attitude?

See post #117.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

See post #117.

I did and I agree, rehashing the Sitton thing in hindsight is pointless right now. Unless, it is being used to evaluate TT and some of his decisions, which was my intention. A move that turned out to be a smart one, all except the part of not getting anything in return for Sitton.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I did and I agree, rehashing the Sitton thing in hindsight is pointless right now. Unless, it is being used to evaluate TT and some of his decisions, which was my intention. A move that turned out to be a smart one, all except the part of not getting anything in return for Sitton.

Well, as I illustrated, circumstances did not align earlier to make that move compelling.

Besides, what would anybody expect in a trade?

Look at the Jamie Collins trade. This is a young, impact player. Cleveland gets him for the balance of this year on his cheap rookie deal ($500,000 in cap for the balance of the season), exclusive negotiating rights up until free agency, and an up close and personal evaluation of his play to decide what they're willing to pay.

What did Cleveland give up? Either a bottom of the 3rd. or top of the 4th. round pick.

What would you have expected in a Sitton trade, a guy in the last year of a vet contract with back issues?

Too much seems to always be made of trade value, where time and time again the only guys who might earn a high pick are the QBs,

This complaint reminds me of the complaints following the failure to sign Flynn as a FA and then trade him ala the Belichick trade of Cassel, something hat happened 5 years earlier and has not been repeated since, probably because that trade skirted the rules.

Losing out on a lower round pick probably qualifies as the least of anybody's concerns.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Well, as I illustrated, circumstances did not align earlier to make that move compelling.

Besides, what would anybody expect in a trade?

Look at the Jamie Collins trade. This is a young, impact player. Cleveland gets him for the balance of this year on his cheap rookie deal ($500,000 in cap for the balance of the season), exclusive negotiating rights up until free agency, and an up close and personal evaluation of his play to decide what they're willing to pay.

What did Cleveland give up? Either a bottom of the 3rd. or top of the 4th. round pick.

What would you have expected in a Sitton trade, a guy in the last year of a vet contract with back issues?

Too much seems to always be made of trade value, where time and time again the only guys who might earn a high pick are the QBs,

This complaint reminds me of the complaints following the failure to sign Flynn as a FA and then trade him ala the Belichick trade of Cassel, something hat happened 5 years earlier and has not been repeated since, probably because that trade skirted the rules.

Losing out on a lower round pick probably qualifies as the least of anybody's concerns.

Easy answer, I would have viewed a trade of Sitton for a 4th round pick, to a team the Packers chose, as a much better outcome.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I did and I agree, rehashing the Sitton thing in hindsight is pointless right now.

I feel compelled to reiterate it's not pointless only from the perspective of water under the bridge. It's pointless because it worked out pretty well given the cap savings and Taylor's performance.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I feel compelled to reiterate it's not pointless only from the perspective of water under the bridge. It's pointless because it worked out pretty well given the cap savings and Taylor's performance.

No doubt it worked out pretty well, but we would still have the Cap Savings, Taylor's performance as well as an extra draft pick, had it happened in a different way.

I'm going to take a more extreme case here, but how would you feel if Clay Matthews was the last player cut next year and the Packers got nothing in exchange for him besides the cap savings?

 

[Mondio]

Considering a young and absolute stud on defense garnered the patriots a 3rd rounder, I think people are overvaluing Sitton.

Either way, knowing what I know right now today, I'm much happier with getting nothing for Sitton and the savings that came with it and the the cost and production from Taylor over the other scenario of having Sitton still on the team with his level of production and his cost to the team.

 

[HardRightEdge]

No doubt it worked out pretty well, but we would still have the Cap Savings, Taylor's performance as well as an extra draft pick, had it happened in a different way.

I'm going to take a more extreme case here, but how would you feel if Clay Matthews was the last player cut next year and the Packers got nothing in exchange for him besides the cap savings?

The bolded statement above is a fallacy, which is where some may be missing the point.

While the usual cap web sites have deleted Sitton's Packer contract details, putting the Bears deal in it's place, if memory serves Sitton would have counted somewhere in the range of $6.5 - $7.0 mil for 2016 against the cap. In it's place, the Packers are absorbing $300,000 in dead cap, as noted at this reliable site:

http://overthecap.com/salary-cap/green-bay-packers/

That's $6+ million in cap savings. Whether that went into Bakhtiari's deal or adds to cap carryover to 2017 to sign another FA is a distinction without a difference.

In light of the very bad TV ratings this season, something the Packers would not have known at the time, that additional cap space may be even more valuable than originally thought. The player share comes predominantly from TV money. Though we don't know the details of these TV contracts, it's reasonable to expect that there's wiggle room in what the NFL gets based on those TV ratings. We'll have to see, but the cap growth for next season may very well not come in at what was projected. Maybe even Flat? Maybe even negative?

I say this because after the bad Olympic ratings came in, the TV networks said they would be reimbursing advertisers. You would thing the networks are not so stupid as to write contracts where unexpected losses are not shared with the owner of that media property. One would expect some of those losses filtered back to the IOC. In the same way, it is hard to believe bad NFL TV ratings will not meaningfully flow back to below anticipated NFL revenues.