Flat out cutting a pro bowl G is beyond stupid. Even if there was a blow up or if Sitton would have been disgruntled over a lack of negotiations, tough ****... Man up and play ball. I see no advantage what so ever in cutting Sitton.
Did they finally trade for Joe Thomas?
Rusty posted: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.
Sittons agent has nothing to do with this.
If you're making a deal with another GM, you have exactly ZERO agents in on the discussion.
FML.....
I have to believe if Sitton was wanting an extension, his agent would've been in TT's ear long before today. He may have gotten the same answer then as now, but it wouldn't have just exploded all of a sudden. He could've sat out OTAs/TC or more...
I could see where the Packers wanted Sitton to restructure his contract that may or may not have been part of an extension, and he could've refused, but I don't know why the team would have needed the cap space this year.
Henry posted: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.
Hang on young grasshopper...take deep breaths...all is not yet revealed.
Grave Digger posted: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.
Again with the bull****. TT was already negotiating those contracts. I'm pretty damn sure both MM and TT would've preferred Sitton play out the final year and come what may at that time, not a week before the season.
Jesus, stop with the ****ing "we'd give away 5 players". It's about the timing stupids.
ChilliJon posted:Well. S**t. Sitton won't be a FA long.
I hear ya. But, if he thinks that he needs a certain amount of money, or if things need to be a certain way, or whatever, THEN he will be someone else's problem.
There is very little that can be said to justify this ****ed up move. Very unhappy with it.
Rusty posted: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.
Doubtful.
scottgb posted: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
"This years team" always makes the playoffs. 2010 proved this is all you need to win it all. I'll take a perennial playoff team over a one-and-done team that doesn't make the playoffs for the next decade.
I would have preferred they keep him on the 53 and trade him during the season. The trade would have been there.
If 12 is pushing to get an extension it explains everything.
scottgb posted:Rodgers will never win another Super Bowl as long as Teddy is at the helm clutching his change purse.
It's not TT's fault the Packers screwed up the last five minutes of the Seattle game six ways from Sunday. 
Packy posted:Did they finally trade for Joe Thomas?
It would be about time. Some would call it "rescuing" Joe Thomas.
I'll wait for a little clarity on the situation to emerge. Still believe there's more the story than is presently known.
Timmy! posted:I have to believe if Sitton was wanting an extension, his agent would've been in TT's ear long before today. He may have gotten the same answer then as now, but it wouldn't have just exploded all of a sudden. He could've sat out OTAs/TC or more...
I could see where the Packers wanted Sitton to restructure his contract that may or may not have been part of an extension, and he could've refused, but I don't know why the team would have needed the cap space this year.
Because the cap space rolls over to the next year if they cut him. See who is an UFA next year...
If they can flex Eddie between G and RB, this all makes total sense.
CAPackfan posted: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
This is what I see. I don't believe losing Sitton scrubs the Packers Super Bowl chances but it does create some chaos. Even with those weak ass slugs Barclay and Taylor the essential core of the Oline will be enough.
With that said, I have no doubt this may adjust the offensive play calling initially to keep guys in for protection to make sure Rodgers doesn't get killed.
If this is really true, then you have to question TT's sanity. They kept frickin Don Barclay instead?
From Silverstein:
Talked briefly with Josh Sitton and he told me that there was no showdown over his contract and that he was completely caught off guard with the call he received this morning. Said he assumed the team wanted to go with younger players and they just didn't plan on going forward with him.
Ted wins more than he loses.
Ghost of Lambeau posted:ChilliJon posted:Well. S**t. Sitton won't be a FA long.
I hear ya. But, if he thinks that he needs a certain amount of money, or if things need to be a certain way, or whatever, THEN he will be someone else's problem.
I don't think this is $$$ related. If anything Josh might have been looking (demanding?) an extension instead of playing out his last year without a back up plan.
Fedya posted:scottgb posted:Rodgers will never win another Super Bowl as long as Teddy is at the helm clutching his change purse.
It's not TT's fault the Packers screwed up the last five minutes of the Seattle game six ways from Sunday.
You've got me there! 
michiganjoe posted:I'll wait for a little clarity on the situation to emerge. Still believe there's more the story than is presently known.
While it will be interesting to find out, it really doesn't matter at this point. Either way, GB lost one helluva football player at a position with very little depth. No matter how you slice it, GB took a big step back today.
Lane Taylor and Barclay are making 2 million combined this year. Based on their performances, I'd rather ditch both of them and keep Sitton. Would the 4 million dollar difference really make a difference in retaining players next year?
Packers could be playing against sitton on opening day.
stupid move, don't care how they want to spin it. very bear/viking like on TT's part. at least you keep the guy for the year, wtf are you going to do with cap $ week 1...stupid move really stupid.
Talked briefly with Josh Sitton and he told me that there was no showdown over his contract and that he was completely caught off guard with the call he received this morning. Said he assumed the team wanted to go with younger players and they just didn't plan on going forward with him.
by Tom Silverstein 4:51 PM
oldschool posted:Henry posted: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.
Hang on young grasshopper...take deep breaths...all is not yet revealed.
I guess we'll see if TT gets active looking for a replacement not currently on the team but again this is a tad weird. Maybe Linsley isn't as far off from returning.
I'd be more than okay with Lang, Linsley and Tretter on the interior.
Josh told a couple reports he was prepared to play the season. No issue with his contract. No hard feelings.
So I have no idea WTF went down today.
bvan posted:Ted wins more than he loses.
Ted's always looking long-term. That's not a bad thing, but eventually you have to try to maximize your chances of winning in the current year. That means you don't go crazy and blow out the cap to sign guys like N. Suh for 100 million dollars. Sitton was going to make 6.8 million this year. That's good money, but they are paying Peppers 10.5 million this year. He's 36 and more likely to regress quickly than Sitton.
michiganjoe posted:Talked briefly with Josh Sitton and he told me that there was no showdown over his contract and that he was completely caught off guard with the call he received this morning. Said he assumed the team wanted to go with younger players and they just didn't plan on going forward with him.by Tom Silverstein 4:51 PM
Wow. Maybe TT does have somethin' cookin' in the kitchen.
Fedya posted: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, 2016Holy sh!t the Twitter responses are over the top.
lol, not a lot of love for TT in those comments.
Kind of hard to believe in Gandolf today but I still do. More often than not we end up appreciating this stuff a couple of years down the road, I hope this ends up being one of those situations.
IN THOMPSON I TRUST #ITIT
EDIT - just read the last post... I am lost 
Guy had a bad back and his toe was jacked. He was one play away from IR.
MM has been saying for weeks how this is the deepest OL since he has been here. We will see.
Like Hank said, the only thing makes even remote sense to me would be if Linsley is ready to go and joins Lang and Tretter inside. Still doesn't make sense in cutting a pro bowler though.
MichiganPacker2 posted:bvan posted:Ted wins more than he loses.
Ted's always looking long-term. That's not a bad thing, but eventually you have to try to maximize your chances of winning in the current year. That means you don't go crazy and blow out the cap to sign guys like N. Suh for 100 million dollars. Sitton was going to make 6.8 million this year. That's good money, but they are paying Peppers 10.5 million this year. He's 36 and more likely to regress quickly than Sitton.
To this point, given the choice, I would have rather cut Peppers over Sitton. I'm actually somewhat surprised they didn't go this route.
The next question to ask is how does this benefit the Packers (other than the obvious contract work) and how does this benefit Sitton? I guess if the discussion arose around getting to 53 at least giving Sitton a week is beneficial? Just weird. I just can't believe TT and MM think Taylor or Barclay are starters much less decent backups.
His injuries probably explain why no team would give up anything.
michiganjoe posted:Talked briefly with Josh Sitton and he told me that there was no showdown over his contract and that he was completely caught off guard with the call he received this morning. Said he assumed the team wanted to go with younger players and they just didn't plan on going forward with him.by Tom Silverstein 4:51 PM
Terrible. I figured he wasn't gonna get an extension anyway but you still had him under contract for this year. Makes no sense to forego that last season, get absolutely NOTHING for him, and actively weaken your roster in the process.
Now I want to watch every game from last year and analyze Sitton's performance.