Deserves it own crawl space.
Took these at camp on August 10th. Told anybody within earshot that 71 was one of my favorites on the team.
Pretty good run for a 4th rounder from a smaller program. Good luck big guy.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Once the agent made it public to ESPN and NFL Network that Sitton was being cut, it cut the Packers' knees out for trading him. Now everyone knows he's going to be cut and if he goes unclaimed he can negotiate a new deal with another team.
by Tom Silverstein 3:30 PM
WTF? What the hell happened?
You can say cap concerns and everything else but at this time of year right before the start of the season? Who the hell are they putting in at LG? Some washout like Barclay?
Henry posted:WTF?
Henry, x4 discussion on this started near the bottom of page 33 of the "2016 Offseason Cuts Thread". Lots of speculation including my own but nothing close to definitive yet.
Beat reporters are pretty unanimous this is going to happen, barring a trade. Hence my starting a new thread.
Maybe a mod can slip some of those posts over here...
I know this about negotiations. The Packers have always worked on younger guys first and it's possible they weren't working on Sitton's deal at all. If they reached an agreement with someone else, maybe they thought he wouldn't be happy. This is speculation on my part, not a news report.
by Tom Silverstein 3:42 PM
I am very unhappy about this and confused...
Repeating my take from the earlier thread. The more I think about it the more it holds water (but what do I know).
Sitton is a strong willed no BS guy. He pretty much called out McCarthy in the last half of the 2015 regular season for the playcalling especially the lack of a sustained commitment to the run game.
He is also the de facto leader of the OL group which by all appearances is the closest-knit group on the team.
I suspect Ted and Mike aren't willing to let 71, who is no shrinking violet, raise a little hell either internally and/or externally about getting paid. Guy with his resume probably expects his last contract to be a bell-ringer.
With all the other impending FAs queued up I can see Ted wanting to send a shot across a lot of bows. 1265 will make a fair offer but won't overpay. Especially for a vet with back issues on the backend of his career.
Not much else makes sense unless there's a big personality conflict between Sitton and the coaches that has been under the surface for a while. We heard rumblings of bad juju in the locker room as the latter half of last season unfolded.
EDIT: Or a possible PED issue as mentioned above. That could explain why there aren't any trade partners.
What in all manner of happy hores**t is this all about? Why was he starting all preseason instead of giving someone else work with the starters? Did his back go south fast after the 49er game???
I'm stunned right now and maybe this tweet is a bit hyperbolic, but I can't believe their is any logical reason for doing this. Unless there is a PED suspension coming (and there is nothing to indicate this), this is not a move a team with Super Bowl aspirations should be making.
| Michael Rodney @PackersNotes | 4m |
If offensive line falters and Packers disappoint, Ted and Mike could be following Sitton out the door - unless move was simply unavoidable. | |
There has got to be a backstory on this!
Rumors have already started about something he may have said...But I do not believe anything yet. In fact I don't believe that he has even been formally cut until 4pm EST rolls around.
That NO other team was willing to trade with GB tells me something else is going on or is pending that would not go well for Sitton. Either a legal issue or an upcoming suspension.
Something to consider: #Packers made it clear to Sitton they were taking care of young guys deals first. No work being done on his extension
— Tom Silverstein (@TomSilverstein) September 3, 2016
ChilliJon posted:Did his back go south fast after the 49er game???
According to Silverstein/Demovsky, it is NOT health related.
cuqui posted:Repeating my take from the earlier thread. The more I think about it the more it holds water (but what do I know).
Sitton is a strong willed no BS guy. He pretty much called out McCarthy in the last half of the 2015 regular season for the playcalling especially the lack of a sustained commitment to the run game.
He is also the de facto leader of the OL group which by all appearances is the closest-knit group on the team.
I suspect Ted and Mike aren't willing to let 71, who is no shrinking violet, raise a little hell either internally and/or externally about getting paid. Guy with his resume probably expects his last contract to be a bell-ringer.
With all the other impending FAs queued up I can see Ted wanting to send a shot across a lot of bows. 1265 will make a fair offer but won't overpay. Especially for a vet with back issues on the backend of his career.
Not much else makes sense unless there's a big personality conflict between Sitton and the coaches that has been under the surface for a while. We heard rumblings of bad juju in the locker room as the latter half of last season unfolded.
EDIT: Or a possible PED issue as mentioned above. That could explain why there aren't any trade partners.
This is essentially my first thought/reaction, except the PED issue.
His salary is cap space we can use to sign the rest of our line, many of whom are going to be FA's soon. Sitton, Lang, Tretter, Barclay and Bakh are all FA's at the end of the year. If cutting Sitton now means we can keep the rest of them, then it's a good move. Otherwise you risk losing a bunch of guys all at once.
I think they're just making a hard decision now so their line isn't totally thrown into disarray next year.
Here's what I know about Sitton: They made it clear to him that they were working on extensions for the young guys first. His deal was going to have to wait. Not sure if he expressed displeasure and they decided to part ways or what.
by Tom Silverstein 3:58 PM
I'm worried about the line in disarray this year. Who's playing G???
The OL was terrible last year, hard to see it getting better now.
Yeah, this isn't some formula on contract negotiation. I don't buy the racist **** either. But if they essentially told him he wasn't priority and he had an over the top, say something stupid rant that may make some sense.
Whatever it is something went down. This isn't some business as usual incident. No trade partners is what makes it a real head scratcher.
If they extend Bakh, Lang, Sitton it makes sense. Sacrifice of 1 to sign a bit cheaper now on the others than when they hit the market?
vitaflo posted:His salary is cap space we can use to sign the rest of our line, many of whom are going to be FA's soon. Sitton, Lang, Tretter, Barclay and Bakh are all FA's at the end of the year. If cutting Sitton now means we can keep the rest of them, then it's a good move. Otherwise you risk losing a bunch of guys all at once.
I think they're just making a hard decision now so their line isn't totally thrown into disarray next year.
Yup.
Ted's doppelgänger
Henry posted:Yeah, this isn't some formula on contract negotiation. I don't buy the racist **** either. But if they essentially told him he wasn't priority and he had an over the top, say something stupid rant that may make some sense.
If they cut an All-Pro guard solely because he got upset and screamed about not getting his contract redone, then TT must really be getting a thin skin as he gets older. At worst, Sitton gets pissed and sits out games - he doesn't get paid and the Packers hold onto him until he either decides to play or they trade him.
If Sitton would have gone on IR because of an injury, a lot of us would be comparing to Jordy's injury last year - a season-altering event. Sitton has built a borderline Hall of Fame resume.
And if it's contracts they obviously feel Linsley and Tretter are the future with Lang as the vet. Plugging in Taylor or Barclay seems inevitable at this point, which ****ing blows. They shouldn't even be on the roster.
cuqui posted:Yup.
Ted's doppelgänger
"Spock will now answer questions from the press".
gbIdaho posted:If they extend Bakh, Lang, Sitton it makes sense. Sacrifice of 1 to sign a bit cheaper now on the others than when they hit the market?
If they extend Sitton after cutting him, we have real problems. 
I'm guessing we'll hear from Sitton about this at some point. He's not the type of guy to speak in cliches.
Silverstein's latest:
I've been told by multiple sources that the Sitton release was contract related, he was not happy with the Packers waiting on extending his contract while pursuing deals with other players. There must have been some kind of standoff. Sitton is in the final year of his deal and was set to be unrestricted next year.
by Tom Silverstein 4:04 PMBecause he's in the final year of his deal and he wanted to stick around. He felt he had earned the right to have an extension.
by Tom Silverstein 4:05 PMIt's possible that they felt the situation was untenable that Sitton was not going to be happy and that it was best for both sides to part ways.
by Tom Silverstein 4:06 PM
Wouldn't mind seeing Bulaga moved back inside and Spriggs start at RT
There is more to this story, for some reason something has not made the press.
i also have concerns with how this sits with leaders like Rodgers, CMIII, Nelson. It won't take a rocket scientist to figure out it won't go over well.
mr21mr21 posted:Wouldn't mind seeing Bulaga moved back inside and Spriggs start at RT
no no no
Weaken two positions.
Spriggs isn't strong enough to play RT full time. He was drafted for his pass blocking skill and a frame which could grow into an NFL LT.
The only thing that makes any sense to me is if he went nuts on the coaches or TT like complete insubordination.
Shocking news if this is true
Pretty sure you don't walk away with nothing for a Pro Bowl guard right before the season begins over a contract dispute. If Sitton gave them an ultimatum TT had to make a choice and apparently he did.
I mean yeah it sucks, but making some tough decisions now so we can stay competitive long term I think is the best approach. If they don't cut Sitton there's a possibility they lose both Sitton and Lang, or Lang and Bakh, etc, at the end of the year to FA. There's a reason we are perennial playoff contenders, because we have a long term outlook.
Hell we have a perfect example today of a team mortgaging their future for the "win now" attitude (hello Queens). They gave up a 1st and 4th and are paying $7m this year and $17m next for a guy who can barely stay on the field. If they don't make deep playoff runs they've screwed themselves for years on that deal.
I don't like losing Sitton but at least TT has a little bit of foresight to look beyond just this year.
Henry posted:WTF? What the hell happened?
You can say cap concerns and everything else but at this time of year right before the start of the season? Who the hell are they putting in at LG? Some washout like Barclay?
By releasing Sitton, the Packers will wipe off his $6.150 million base salary plus $400,000 in per-game roster bonuses from their salary cap. There's no dead money because Sitton did not have any remaining signing-bonus proration counting on this year's cap.
I think you're missing the point. The timing is very odd. You can say what you will but if Sitton plays out his final year there is very much a possibility of shifting contract priorities in his favor. Sitton obviously chose the nuclear option.
EDIT: And the fact his agent basically sabotaged the trade talks shows this is a little more than a extension disagreement.