I'm guessing there is far less to the story.
Therein lies the mystery of Thom Tedson
This may have been covered in the analysis of how this played out, but I think what this essentially comes down to is a player at the end of his career faced with the realization that his body isn't what it was at 25 and realizing that he'll probably be dealing with lingering repercussions from a career in football looking for one last payday from his team that will cement his monetary security for life (as if it wasn't already). The player looks to the organization he's been with his whole career as a reward for the loyalty and performance he's provided them, but the team looks at it as a long term ill advised use of their salary cap monies given the long term health risk. It's a story we've seen again and again and I really think it's as simple as this, nothing more. It just blows when it happens to a player like Sitton who was so likeable as a Packer.
Pakrz posted:Fandame posted:For a guy who hit 30 and who's had more than one year of back trouble? Good for Sitton and par for the Bears. I'm betting he plays well this year and then dramatically tails off...
All the more reason to let him play out his contract in GB and let him walk in FA, no?
Not if he's being a piss ant. It's an easy call. The guy is already pissed off about his contract and hasn't been cooperative with the front office. That's enough for me. I don't care who you are, you aren't bigger than the team.
Tschmack posted:TT doesn't owe us or the media jack schit for an explanation. We playing checkers and he playing chess.
Some of us prefer playing Go, thank you very much.
Call me pragmatic, but I can't sit back and romanticize about player loyalty. Or organizational loyalty for that matter. There is no more of a harsh and cruel work environment than pro football. Guys get cut for just about no reason all the time, and coaches and GMs get run in similar fashion. In other words, you aren't owed a damn thing. Tough place to earn a living but it is what it is.
Maybe, just maybe, it's like Sitton says- "it's business"
I can't analyze it anymore and even if I did it wouldn't matter. Time to move on and hope and trust that both sides made the best decision. If not, I'm sure there will be countless articles written and gnashing of teeth threads out there. It's what we do. I'm just ready for the season to start already.
I think it's pretty obvious. Sitton thought he was the **** and TT proved otherwise. NO ONE is bigger than the team. Analysis done.
The timing sucked, but if GB thought they have capable replacements and this was something that had been going back and forth for a while now better to cut your losses now rather than have it linger into season.
In the past six months, the Bears have committed $87M to the ILB and G position, spots seen as less and less essential in today's NFL. Not that popular thinking is always correct - and I do think all four are good players -, but it sure looks like the Bears and old-school Fox are building a team to run and stop the run in a passing league.
Well sucks he signed with the Bears but clear that TT wasn't happy with paying two guards that much money and with cap room rolling over to 2017, he thought he needed that $6m more than he needed Sitton. Part of me wonders if TT regrets giving both Lang and Sitton that money, as we all know he does not value the guard position from the Wahle/Rivera thing.
Having the two best guards in the league didn't do a whole lot for our offense last year, so what's the point of investing $12m per year into the position? Running game sucked last year b/c Lacy was fat and the OT's struggled with injuries. Pass pro was awful b/c of the OT's. Looking at last year, it might have been better to have Lane Taylor play LG and put that $6m into a better backup RB and a better backup OT than give it all to Sitton.
Still, I would have rather Sitton be traded to get something out of it and had it done 6 months ago, but how much worse off is this team on the field?
Sitton turned 30 in June. Back issues the past season plus, and dropped weight in hopes that would alleviate some of the stress, is a red flag for longevity. Unless he starts talking to a guy name Sly, his health should be questioned.
Like Henry and others, I get there are reasons, valid reasons, for cutting Sitton. The timing was the odd part.
EKB noted that Thompson did him a favor... that may be the most valid reason, mutual respect and understanding. That would also put some sanity to the timing, Sitton was at his hottest right now in regard to available G's. At the end of 2016 he'd be more worn, and maybe had missed a game or 3. Hanging on to him for 2016 looks great from a fans perspective, but long term he was not in their plans so they decided to move on now and let him get his payday from someone else. It worked before.
Thompson and McCarthy don't do this without confidence in the plan. Duh, I know.
brainded - I have not watched the ALL-22 from each PS snap for Sitton, Taylor, or Barclay to tell you if the drop off will be noticeable. That said, Rodgers mentioned something the other day when he talked to A.Brandt - essentially: the practice reps for the young guys are more important than the PS game snaps since offenses and defenses show so little in the PS, but in practice they'll get multiple looks.
Interesting point on the offensive failings last year in spite of the league's best G tandem, CUP. Great Guard play is an asset, but obviously can't carry a team. Bears could have the best tandem in football this year. Let's see what it's worth with half a QB, no RB or TE and 11 games of one good WR.
Pakrz posted:Fandame posted:For a guy who hit 30 and who's had more than one year of back trouble? Good for Sitton and par for the Bears. I'm betting he plays well this year and then dramatically tails off...
All the more reason to let him play out his contract in GB and let him walk in FA, no?
Exactly!
Fedya posted:Tschmack posted:TT doesn't owe us or the media jack schit for an explanation. We playing checkers and he playing chess.
Some of us prefer playing Go with ourselves thank you very much.
FTFY
Tschmack posted:Call me pragmatic, but I can't sit back and romanticize about player loyalty. Or organizational loyalty for that matter. There is no more of a harsh and cruel work environment than pro football. Guys get cut for just about no reason all the time, and coaches and GMs get run in similar fashion. In other words, you aren't owed a damn thing. Tough place to earn a living but it is what it is.
Maybe, just maybe, it's like Sitton says- "it's business"
I can't analyze it anymore and even if I did it wouldn't matter. Time to move on and hope and trust that both sides made the best decision. If not, I'm sure there will be countless articles written and gnashing of teeth threads out there. It's what we do. I'm just ready for the season to start already.
That is exactly why I will never shout down a player for holding out. This is a tough business with no loyalty. Get what you can when you can.
There has to be more to this story that the Fans will never know. Packersnews had an interesting take about possibility of Sitton taking the path of playing his last year and tainting potential of Lang looking elsewhere at year end.
Yes, it sucks to lose an All Pro Guard. Yes it sucks to lose him to the Bears. Yes it sucks it seems Taylor/Barclay/FA or some other Schmuck will be plugged into his spot on the line protecting the franchise.
I'm usually a TT guy. In the short term, this is confusing and Fans don't see the whole picture or know the true behind the scenes stuff. In the long run, though, maybe solid components of the OL get extended for fair deals (Bakh, Tretter, Lang).
One thing for sure though, until this all shakes out over the season, OL guys extended, Arod extended, etc - or not - the Sitton deal is going to be a hard pill to swallow. Good play by Sitton's replacement and W's will make it easy. An Arod injury and holes on the line won't.
With my G&G colored glasses on, Go Pack Go!
Taylor gets the start vs JAX.
ammo posted:Pistol GB posted:Well since it is the Bears, it seems to me like now would be a good time for TT to let some information leak out. You know, "unofficially" or "off the record" or whatever.
Well that might be the politician way, most which are attorneys. Real men wouldn't do that.
I'm not in the camp that believes he doesn't have to explain himself to fans now and again, which would be the actual manly way. Like I said, now that he is signed, what's the harm? Man up and show your work. We pay your salary.
Short of that, you don't believe it will all come out soon enough? You want to take potshots at me because you know my job? **** you, too. What's yours?
Be a man and tell us.
Different titles, but I think the jobs are similar. 
I'd like Thompson to explain his moves, but what's the point? He could go on record like Spielman and say he has no plan?
I pay TT's salary? Cool!
"Hand over those scouting reports, old man"!
Dammit Hungry5, yes Guard.
I should have at least a 2-cup coffee pill before I post in the morning.
Pistol, they tease you because they fear your profession....that, or they are intimidated that your profession means that you are educated. 
SDPF again demonstrating the intuition, grasp of subtlety and critical eye we've grown to appreciate.
I haven't been impressed with Lane Taylor in the past but the coaches know better than I do whether he can play. He just needs to be decent, if he's holding guys off long enough for Rodgers to get a throw off cleanly and he's not blowing assignments he'll be okay there.
That said, it's a risk, one that I wish the Pack hadn't taken, but now that it's done, let's hope they didn't misjudge this like they did Allen Barbre a few years ago. At least Taylor is a guard so he can be helped a little bit easier if it is needed than in the case of Barbre where he was so completely overmatched that it was singlehandedly wrecking the offense.
and...EKB once again thinking he's better than every other poster. This is what makes TimesFour great! Low-Class members can mingle with all the others. Thank you Boris for inclusion.
Anyone else notice MM's non-answer on Sitton included some comments about the locker room?
fightphoe93 posted:I haven't been impressed with Lane Taylor in the past but the coaches know better than I do whether he can play.
Options are pretty limited. Also remember that this is the coaching staff that gave us Don Barclay and Josh Sitton at LT.
As to the offense faring not so well last year in spite of the guards, the receiving corps was so depleted that I don't think this is a credible point.
As to TT explaining things, I do not think that is a part of his R&R.
It will be interesting to see how "easily" or not the rest of the OL FA's are signed before 2017. Did TT/MM set an ill precedent that will drive them to find better deals outside of GB or will they be more willing to "stay home" where they are. Any 2017 OL FA's re-signed during the season will give us an idea.
fightphoe93 posted:I haven't been impressed with Lane Taylor in the past but the coaches know better than I do whether he can play. He just needs to be decent, if he's holding guys off long enough for Rodgers to get a throw off cleanly and he's not blowing assignments he'll be okay there.
I haven't been impressed with Lane either and MM's statement about how they have all the confidence in the world in him was predictable. What else is he supposed to say?
I agree though... He just needs to be decent. While I don't like the release of Sitton, the offensive line will most likely be fine if they can stay healthy. Injuries to that group are what really concerns me.
What's done is done. Onward to Jacksonville.
There is bound to be cramping somewhere on the OL in JAX so we'll get an early glimpse of our OL depth.
vitaflo posted:Anyone else notice MM's non-answer on Sitton included some comments about the locker room?
Link? Sounds leaky to me and would explain it.
SanDiegoPackFan posted:Pistol, they tease you because they fear your profession....that, or they are intimidated that your profession means that you are educated.
Pistol GB posted:vitaflo posted:Anyone else notice MM's non-answer on Sitton included some comments about the locker room?
Link?
Pistol GB posted:I'm not in the camp that believes he doesn't have to explain himself to fans now and again, which would be the actual manly way. Like I said, now that he is signed, what's the harm? Man up and show your work. We pay your salary.
Short of that, you don't believe it will all come out soon enough? You want to take potshots at me because you know my job? **** you, too. What's yours?
Be a man and tell us.
Real simple. You don't reveal what's behind the curtain. Quite honestly, I think the show Ballers is pretty damn accurate portrayal of some of the **** that goes down. I'm guessing TT is protecting the image of the team as much as protecting how things went down. You get into a piss and shout match in the media that's also going to have an effect on FAs, contracts, etc.
Keep it clean and boring. Sausages, it's all sausages.
