Henry posted:Technically, because we peddle influence, we told Bob to tell TT to cut Sitton. I would like an explanation from all of you.
I don't remember encouraging that but FIDO!
DH13 posted:I already guarantee more people will be watching Adams than Taylor.
*Raises hand*
Blair Kiel posted:And then tell me what you do for a living.
2 sources tell @Bill_Michaels that there was an increasingly contentious relationship between Josh Sitton and #Packers Coaches/Management
— 105.7FM The FAN (@1057FMTheFan) September 6, 2016
Not really familiar with how well-connected Michaels is with the orgainzation.
It's a business, it's a business, it's a business. If you don't get along with your boss(es) you will be fired, just like in the "real world" of business...
Ryan Wood on Twitter: "Last time #Packers locker room had a mood like today, and it didn't follow a playoff loss, was after WR Jordy Nelson tore his ACL."
This move has the potential to backfire or conversely galvanize the team moving forward. Either way, this was a big, big decision if the reports from inside the locker room are accurate.
SteveLuke posted:Ryan Wood on Twitter: "Last time
#Packers locker room had a mood like today, and it didn't follow a playoff loss, was after WR Jordy Nelson tore his ACL."This move has the potential to backfire or conversely galvanize the team moving forward. Either way, this was a big, big decision if the reports from inside the locker room are accurate.
Money is a big motivator. The ante just went up for the rest.
And why should everyone feel so glum for their buddy? 21 million reasons to be happy for him.
The more and more I read the more and more it comes down to being a straight up business deal. Lang stating they were both disappointed their contracts were on hold but saying they got back to business.
You really have to pick and choose what info is coming from where but I'd take Lang at his word for most part.
It's a business decision, they ripped off the bandaid and it's done. Could be TT's nail in the coffin, could be "he's a genius" refrain.
BTW, nobody is ****ing "genius" or "hero" or whatever superlative that gets thrown around.
Henry posted:*Raises hand*
Attachments
Henry posted:Technically, because we peddle influence, we told Bob to tell TT to cut Sitton. I would like an explanation from all of you.
I'm in! Let's confuse the players with our super-secret chess moves. They're dumb-ass checkers players anyway.
Henry posted:DH13 posted:I already guarantee more people will be watching Adams than Taylor.
*Raises hand*
I admit I'll be watching both.
If you go around the league this kind of stuff happens
Think Josh Norman and Brock Osweiler
I think there's always more to the story than what's being assumed but at this point the decision was made and my hope is that players like Lang get over it. It's only a distraction if you want to make it one and life moves on. From all accounts Sitton was a good guy and well liked but we don't know more than that and honestly it doesn't matter now anyway.
I'll admit I won't be watching any particular player. I think it is best to just try and enjoy the game.
Henry posted:Technically, because we peddle influence, we told Bob to tell TT to cut Sitton. I would like an explanation from all of you.
There was a rug, and urination. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man.
Grave Digger posted:BrainDed posted:Straw man much?
Because your theory that Ted has given up on this season or any season looking toward the future makes a lot of sense.
Still a strawman. At no point did anyone suggest he "gave up" on the season.
I suggested he is placing more value on the future than he is this season. By cutting a Pro Bowl player 1 week before the start of the season leaving most people to speculate that it was about cap space. Player interviews suggest they were not given a reason, so they too are probably speculating cap space.
Maybe MM addresses it with the team this week and we get different responses from them come Bear week. But right now, we are getting the "it's business" response and that is indicates they assume it was finances IMO.
Floridarob posted:Ted signed Taylor to a two year 4.5 million contract over the offseason. That should have given us an idea something was up.
At the time I took the Taylor signing as a move to address poor OL depth. Something that hurt us during the season last year. Particularly when Barclay stepped on the field.
So the Taylor contract and Spriggs pick, we all thought it was to address depth at the time.
Henry posted:Taylor isn't the future. He's Big Ern backup material. Get Linsley healthy.
This.. You have to assume this is the plan. Sign both Tretter and Linsley, putting Linsley in at Guard,
GBFanForLife posted:I'll admit I won't be watching any particular player. I think it is best to just try and enjoy the game.
Thats why you record it. Enjoy it on Sunday, watch it again when you are bored on Wed but this time pick apart the player you hate the most and notate every failure,
michiganjoe posted:2 sources tell @Bill_Michaels that there was an increasingly contentious relationship between Josh Sitton and #Packers Coaches/Management
— 105.7FM The FAN (@1057FMTheFan) September 6, 2016
Not really familiar with how well-connected Michaels is with the orgainzation.
Gotta believe there is something to this. TT does not give away comp picks, especially one that promises to be high.
GBFanForLife posted:I don't hate any players.
FF
BrainDed posted:Still a strawman. At no point did anyone suggest he "gave up" on the season.
I suggested he is placing more value on the future than he is this season. By cutting a Pro Bowl player 1 week before the start of the season leaving most people to speculate that it was about cap space. Player interviews suggest they were not given a reason, so they too are probably speculating cap space.
Maybe MM addresses it with the team this week and we get different responses from them come Bear week. But right now, we are getting the "it's business" response and that is indicates they assume it was finances IMO.
Thats nonsense. The message this sends is that this year isn't that important. We're not 100% committed to winning this year.
You got me, you didn't use the phrase "give up". Let me walk that back and say this instead:
Your theory that Ted isn't 100% to winning the current season or any season is truly what is nonsense. It's a ridiculous idea to think anyone involved with the organization isn't committed 100% to winning every season. Ted plays the long game, he's 100% committed every year and 5 years beyond that.
BrainDed posted:Henry posted:Taylor isn't the future. He's Big Ern backup material. Get Linsley healthy.
This.. You have to assume this is the plan. Sign both Tretter and Linsley, putting Linsley in at Guard,
This was my thought--it's a move to get both Tretter and Linsley on the field (after week 6).
BrainDed posted:Henry posted:Taylor isn't the future. He's Big Ern backup material. Get Linsley healthy.
This.. You have to assume this is the plan. Sign both Tretter and Linsley, putting Linsley in at Guard,
It has to be. Plus I'm sure TT will be going to Oline well a couple times in the next draft.
Henry posted:The more and more I read the more and more it comes down to being a straight up business deal. Lang stating they were both disappointed their contracts were on hold but saying they got back to business.
You really have to pick and choose what info is coming from where but I'd take Lang at his word for most part.
It's a business decision, they ripped off the bandaid and it's done. Could be TT's nail in the coffin, could be "he's a genius" refrain.
BTW, nobody is ****ing "genius" or "hero" or whatever superlative that gets thrown around.
I'm gonna go ahead and agree. The article re Lombardi, the comparisons to decisions belichick has been known to make... At first glance they have the look of tyrannical to an extent. But track record and history tends to bear them out as decisions made with some amount of foresight and reason. It's a bold move, and one that may backfire if they haven't done due diligence. I'm still perplexed by the timing of it, but none of us are privy to the weeks and months that led to this. Sitton got as good a deal as he was gonna get, and it's up to his former teammates to be the professionals that they are. Time will certainly bear out the value of the move.
And Sitton will be singing with Long and VaJayJay in Pitch Perfect 3.
BrainDed posted:Henry was right, my ass is seriously chapped.
Since Thompson has been the Packers GM, I can think of only 1 year where he may not have been 100% committed to winning. 2005
The goal every year, from the BOD to the cafeteria staff is to win a Superb Owl trophy.
Yep. TT was committed to the future in 2005. ****er. How could he do that to the fans.
Grave Digger posted:Henry posted:*Raises hand*
You're' showing us on the doll where Henry touched you?
I just hope people give Lane Taylor a fair shake. It's not his fault he was pushed into the job. TJ Lang took some time to develop and turned himself into a good player. I don't expect Taylor to play as well as Sitton has in the past. I'm not sure Sitton can play as well as he has in the past, either.
I think there's a strong possibility Sitton and his agent wanted the extension last year and he got pissy when he was rebuffed. If that's the case perhaps TT wanted to keep 71 for the 2016 run, did everything he could, but the situation deteriorated to the point where he couldn't keep him around anymore. Perhaps Sitton was hoping that by losing weight he showed the team he was doing everything he could to extend his career and was hoping for one of those training camp extensions that come right before the season. Jordy got one of those off the top of my head.
If Sitton got into it with someone on the Packers coaching staff it wouldn't surprise me if MM took the side of his staff and told TT 71 had to go. MM has to be loyal to the coaching staff over the players.
RatPack posted:And Sitton will be singing with Long and VaJayJay in Pitch Perfect 3.
Good point. The fact that Jordan Rodgers was already in Pitch Perfect 2 with Sitton and may talk to Jay Cutler (a fellow Vandy alum) more than Aaron makes this even more likely.
Read on another board (not Packerschatters) that had the "source of a source" mention that Sitton had been in a bad locker room altercation that was kind of the final straw for him. The altercation on its' own, wasn't necessarily the reason for the termination, but he had been on thin ice already (for all the reasons we know publicly, contract/health/age) and the altercation was enough to make the Packers decide to move on.
I'll emphasize, the altercation mentioned in the rumor was not just a typical one, but worse in today's politically correct climate which was why it was hushed up a bit. It's just a rumor, but I would not be shocked if there is some truth to it, and if it's true, I cannot blame TT/MM for making the decision.
titmfatied posted:I just hope people give Lane Taylor a fair shake. It's not his fault he was pushed into the job. TJ Lang took some time to develop and turned himself into a good player. I don't expect Taylor to play as well as Sitton has in the past. I'm not sure Sitton can play as well as he has in the past, either.
I think there's a strong possibility Sitton and his agent wanted the extension last year and he got pissy when he was rebuffed. If that's the case perhaps TT wanted to keep 71 for the 2016 run, did everything he could, but the situation deteriorated to the point where he couldn't keep him around anymore. Perhaps Sitton was hoping that by losing weight he showed the team he was doing everything he could to extend his career and was hoping for one of those training camp extensions that come right before the season. Jordy got one of those off the top of my head.
If Sitton got into it with someone on the Packers coaching staff it wouldn't surprise me if MM took the side of his staff and told TT 71 had to go. MM has to be loyal to the coaching staff over the players.
I too hope people give Lane Taylor's "play" a fair shake this season.
And in 2016, that "play" should be judged in comparison to the play of the player he replaced -- Josh Sitton. Taylor's "play" should not be judged on a curve just because he is an undrafted, free agent who has shown little promise in his 3+ years on the team.
However, my fear is that certain people will go to great lengths to explain away Taylor's deficiencies.
Should be interesting.
The standard Taylor should be held to is competent line play. I don't think anyone expects him to play to the level of Sitton in the near future and such a comparison serves no useful purpose. The franchise apparently views him as an ascending player and fans would be wise to put their disdain for him on hold.
It's fair to criticize management for making the decision. Not fair to criticize the guy who's first full season as a starter is just getting underway. There's going to be moments he learns from. It happens to most players who are seeing their first significant playing time. It's not about making excuses for the guy. It's about being realistic.
09/05/16: Bill Michaels discussing Sitton move
http://www.podtrac.com/pts/red...0516h1-116584597.mp3
At the end Bill Michaels says one of his most trusted Packers sources said the rumors of racial stuff going on in the locker room did not happen. Michaels said his source had no dog in the fight.
Seemed to be good enough for Michaels to put it to rest after talking about the rumor during the course of the hour.
titmfatied posted:It's fair to criticize management for making the decision. Not fair to criticize the guy who's first full season as a starter is just getting underway. There's going to be moments he learns from. It happens to most players who are seeing their first significant playing time. It's not about making excuses for the guy. It's about being realistic.
Just to clarify what is, and is not, "fair" game for criticism -- for those of us who may be confused, if Lane Taylor gives up more sacks in 2016 than Josh Sitton gave up the past 3 seasons, would it be fair to point that fact out or unfair?
Again, I would not blame Lane Taylor the player, but rather the decision to put him in a position he is not, in my opinion, suited for (starting LG).
Come Sunday and the rest of this season, I will certainly be cheering on Lane and the rest of the Pack, but if LG is a weak link -- when Josh Sitton could be playing there, I fail to see why it would be unfair to point that weak link out.
It bothers me, that as a poster on X4, STEVELUKE is not SLAYER.
Is that fair?