This is crazy one week before the opener, has to be much more to this story. This entire camp they've seemed pretty set at most roster spots and poised to make a really strong run. Like hank alluded, this feels akin to a jordy style loss. Good point too about how this plays with the leaders on the team. Don't blow your **** up before you've even started. I certainly hope they know wtf they're doin.
I get the contract issues and discussions, but why did it have to blow up today ?
Packers didn't need the cap space today and Sitton didn't need the extension today
Cooler heads work it out over the course of the season. Agents threw down the gauntlet ?
Why cut him unless it was his request ?
GB didn't need the roster spot or the money
Pretty crazy watching LSU-WI at Lambeau knowing the conversation with Sitton was probably going on inside the same building.
Here's Packers GM Ted Thompson's statement on releasing Josh Sitton: https://t.co/wL2BxUoZJX pic.twitter.com/czfr198EHO
â Rob Demovsky (@RobDemovsky) September 3, 2016
Henry posted: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.
Not sure how the timing is odd. There was no reason to cut or trade him before the end of the preseason because you never know what is going to happen. Guys get hurt, guys regress, etc. Now they know what their team is going to be and what they have moving forward. Trading him earlier could have shot you in the foot if someone like Lang went down.
Henry posted: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.
The Patriots did it with Logan Mankins a couple weeks before the season started in 2014. They won the Super Bowl that year.
There's more to this. The way TT cherishes draft picks, I can't see any way he just let's a guy of Sitton's caliber walk for nothing. Makes no sense.
You stay in homer land. This isn't normal.
Cleared some space to sign the younger guys, sounds like that's the core of it. That's not surprising for TT. I'm guessing Sitton's age and back issues in the past made the decision easier. Much like Marco Rivera they didn't want to risk paying him a high salary and continuing with chronic issues. Better to rip off the bandaid rather now and resign some guys rather than try and resign with less money.
vitaflo posted: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.
So much for Teds "I want to keep all my little chicks in the barn" line. But yes it does suck lose Sitton, and keep Taylor and Callahan. I don't get it. We don't even have Rotherham and Walker because of IR.
If he ends up on a winning roster like the Seahawks I will be sick!
Ted said this move is best for the team and the growth of the offensive line. Give him an Oscar if he can repeat that with a straight face.
There have been roughly six guards released today, maybe, just maybe "ol TT" has something up his sleeve, "we shall see", said the blind man!!
Satori posted:I get the contract issues and discussions, but why did it have to blow up today ?
Packers didn't need the cap space today and Sitton didn't need the extension today
Cooler heads work it out over the course of the season. Agents threw down the gauntlet ?
Why cut him unless it was his request ?
GB didn't need the roster spot or the money
Why today? If Sitton is on a week 1 roster his 2016 salary is guaranteed. That's why agent blew it up today when it became apparent what was going on rather than wait until too late.
Plus Josh will get to pick the team and bidder now, wouldn't have happened if there was a trade.
Rodgers will never win another Super Bowl as long as Teddy is at the helm clutching his change purse. So Sitton wouldn't want to show other teams he still has gas in the tank this year, and wouldn't play hard just because he's disgruntled? I don't buy it. As long as Thompson is more concerned about building for the future than this years team, we might be competitive, but we will never get back to the top.
Well. S**t. Sitton won't be a FA long.
Ill take Linsley at G and Tretter at C I guess. I don't want Barclay starting.
This is beyond head scratching.
Nobody is questioning the contracts TT is setting up. That's standard fare. But let's tone down the homer here. Something blew up and TT handled it by sticking to his plan. I'm guessing he would've chosen to keep Sitton for this year and come to either a realistic contract to keep him or to move him and set Sitton up properly as well. This doesn't help Sitton on a football level going into a new system a week before the season.
Don't tell me MM is looking at Barclay and Taylor as a logical next man up solution. A healthy Linsley and Tretter would make more sense but we've watched Barclay and Taylor fail all camp and Walker is hurt. No f'in way they made this decision thinking they wouldn't skip a beat without Sitton.
Henry posted:You stay in homer land. This isn't normal.
Outside of having a guy like Linsley step in at guard and do well (we already know Barclay and Taylor suck) or a waver wire gem, this team is probably in big trouble at the position. I won't deny that.
ChilliJon posted:Well. S**t. Sitton won't be a FA long.
Ill take Linsley at G and Tretter at C I guess. I don't want Barclay starting.
This is beyond head scratching.
I think they would go with Tretter at OG and Linsley at C. Tretter can pull, Linsley is pretty much straight up a hogger C.
Grey-haired....Nazi Ass----JOOO!!
Plus Josh will get to pick the team and bidder now, wouldn't have happened if there was a trade.
How many teams have significant cap room on the final day of roster cuts?
Grave Digger posted:Cleared some space to sign the younger guys, sounds like that's the core of it. That's not surprising for TT. I'm guessing Sitton's age and back issues in the past made the decision easier. Much like Marco Rivera they didn't want to risk paying him a high salary and continuing with chronic issues. Better to rip off the bandaid rather now and resign some guys rather than try and resign with less money.
But they didn't cut Rivera or Wahle that year, they were free agents. How many All-Pro guys do you have under contract for 6 million? He's under contract at a very reasonable level. And for those comparing this favorably with the Vikings panicking on Bradford, we are supposedly a Super Bowl contender. You don't cut All-Pro players to save money to extend mid-level/average OL guys like Bakhtiari next year.
And we did this to save a roster spot for a third QB who played for a D3 school? He played at Wesley college - they played last night against Delaware Valley. Does anyone seriously think that Callahan is an answer either in a stopgap this year or is out future?
I would guess the opposite, Tretter at LG and Linsley at C.
Im wondering if this was a preemptive to move Bakh to LG and insert Spriggs at LT? We've heard talk that they see Bakh as a LG long term.
Can Lacy play G?
Henry posted:No f'in way they made this decision thinking they wouldn't skip a beat without Sitton.
I'm not sure anyone has said that. Of course they're worse off without Sitton this year. The question is if they'd be even worse off the next 3-5 years losing several members of the o-line after this season because they can't sign everyone.
As far as Callahan, nobody thinks he's 2nd in line. He's just a guy that has shown more than enough to develop. He showed some solid chops. I would try to develop him and possibly get a draft pick.
mr21mr21 posted:Plus Josh will get to pick the team and bidder now, wouldn't have happened if there was a trade.
How many teams have significant cap room on the final day of roster cuts?
The Eagles just freed up $7m.
vitaflo posted:Henry posted:No f'in way they made this decision thinking they wouldn't skip a beat without Sitton.
I'm not sure anyone has said that. Of course they're worse off without Sitton this year. The question is if they'd be even worse off the next 3-5 years losing several members of the o-line after this season because they can't sign everyone.
No, that isn't the question. The question is the timing. I'm a TT nuthugger but this is just silly saying this is part of the plan.
And we did this to save a roster spot for a third QB who played for a D3 school? He played at Wesley college - they played last night against Delaware Valley. Does anyone seriously think that Callahan is an answer either in a stopgap this year or is out future?
Read elsewhere Callahan is being viewed as the future backup QB then Hundley could be traded after 2016 season.
Henry posted: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.
No one holds TT hostage. The sooner the players learn that the better off they will be. Remember Javon Walker in TTs first year?
Grave Digger posted:I would guess the opposite, Tretter at LG and Linsley at C.
Im wondering if this was a preemptive to move Bakh to LG and insert Spriggs at LT? We've heard talk that they see Bakh as a LG long term.
I think they would be nuts to put in Spriggs at this point.
So would you have preferred they hold on to Sitton and let him walk in the offseason if it means they can't re-sign Tretter before the offseason where we might lose either him, Lang or Bakh? What if Tretter or Bakh go on to be All Pro players in the future and this move was the catalyst to keep them in GB or if this 6 mil was the reason we couldn't prevent them from walking? Just playing devils advocate.
I don't understand why there wasn't a trade already done.
That's my biggest problem with this head-scratcher.
Orlando Wolf posted:Can Lacy play G?
No, but I bet Janis can.
Boris posted:I don't understand why there wasn't a trade already done.
That's my biggest problem with this head-scratcher.
Sounds like that was the plan until Sitton's agent gabbed off.
Ghost of Lambeau posted:Henry posted: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.
No one holds TT hostage. The sooner the players learn that the better off they will be. Remember Javon Walker in TTs first year?
Agree 100%. TT made the decision and it very likely would've been the same decision at the end of the year. I just don't believe TT's hand wasn't forced by Sitton or Sitton's agent.
Rusty posted:Here's Packers GM Ted Thompson's statement on releasing Josh Sitton: https://t.co/wL2BxUoZJX pic.twitter.com/czfr198EHO
â Rob Demovsky (@RobDemovsky) September 3, 2016
Holy sh!t the Twitter responses are over the top.
Grave Digger posted:I would guess the opposite, Tretter at LG and Linsley at C.
Im wondering if this was a preemptive to move Bakh to LG and insert Spriggs at LT? We've heard talk that they see Bakh as a LG long term.
I just can't see Bak as a Guard. Strength is what gives him fits. Tretter at LG and Linsley at C makes the most sense but again, how long is Linsley out this year? Until Linsley is ready to return, they just got significantly worse at LG for the time being. That's now what you want to see from a team with SB expectations
Again, this is highly unusual for it to happen right before the season. That's not good for GB and it's not good for Sitton. Something must have gone south and it got nasty. That's the only logical explanation.
As for the idots overreacting "GB will never win again" without Sitton maybe you should get on the Rick Spielman bandwagon and follow the Queens. They win the offseason Super Bowl every year.
Hungry5 posted:Orlando Wolf posted:Can Lacy play G?
No, but I bet Janis can.
With one arm.
Probably whip Joe Thomas' ass too.
vitaflo posted:Henry posted:No f'in way they made this decision thinking they wouldn't skip a beat without Sitton.
I'm not sure anyone has said that. Of course they're worse off without Sitton this year. The question is if they'd be even worse off the next 3-5 years losing several members of the o-line after this season because they can't sign everyone.
Building for the future is fine, but Thompson is always more worried about 3-5 years from now than he is with this years team