Josh Sitton Released - signs w/CHI 3yrs

BrainDed posted:

I'm not subscribing to the notion that they felt the savings outweighed the drop off.   If this was cutting Shields so Rollins or Randall couple start, I'd buy it.  Josh Sitton to Taylor doesn't make sense in a year where you are the SB favorite.

It's a bad move.  

What the **** are you even talking about?

How is that example even relevant?  They all are starters.

I've known the most twisted of out there thinkers, often they made sense and enlightened me.

You continually make me worry that someone, somewhere, counts on you for common sense.

michiganjoe posted:

Time will tell if it's a bad move. 

It's a bad move. There is a 100 million dollar guy's health at stake with this move. 6 million is not a lot to pay for his protection.

Good schit in this thread.     

If TT and MM didn't think they had options, they wouldn't have made the move.  One pt, about how will they replace, might be the fact that it appears we might use 2 TE sets quite a bit this year.  By using these sets and chip blocks or even staying in to block, it will help the T's, who then should be able to help clean up inside and help the G's.  

After sleeping on this. ...and to coin a Viking phrase that seems all the rage....

"Super Bowl...still in play."

Goalline posted:

6 million is not a lot to pay for his protection.

As with any move, it's not simply an issue of Sitton being worth $6M this year. It's whether one year of Sitton is worth four more of Tretter or Bahk. This move enables them to extend one more player than they could yesterday. 

So if the Packers win the Super Bowl, who gets a conditional pick from them?

I am interested to see what happens with Bak / Bulaga , I don't see a second round pick like Spriggs on the bench in year two. 

I suspect 78 Jason Spriggs, 65 Lane Taylor, 67 Don Barclay, 68 Kyle Murphy had the most to do with Josh Sitton being released.  They are healthier, younger, cheaper, and likely to get much better.

Singing to the Uncle Ted choir with those points. It has also been policy to reward the guys that earn rewards.  I wager Josh Sitton just won a NFL lottery by the Packers allowing him free reign while healthy at a tough time to find stud veteran OL.

I'm glad you're so optimistic about Barclay.

Interesting analysis.

http://www.acmepackingcompany....trying-to-make-sense

This years Why the Packers suck article written by that Viking fan.

http://deadspin.com/why-your-t...y-packers-1785957366

Drew Magery's writing style is reminiscent of those commercial of those commercials that remind you about what a PUSSY you are if you don't drink KICKASSOR ENERGY and BEAT YOUR WIFE every day.

I'll pass on whatever garbage he and his equally worthless website are spewing.

BrainDed posted:

I'm not subscribing to the notion that they felt the savings outweighed the drop off.   If this was cutting Shields so Rollins or Randall couple start, I'd buy it.  Josh Sitton to Taylor doesn't make sense in a year where you are the SB favorite.

It's a bad move.  

Except as more and more info becomes available it points directly to the question of Sitton's health. His health has to be the lynchpin as to why it occurred now and in what appears to be a quick decision. I'm pretty damn sure you're not going to "buy" anything regardless of the facts. Sitton is a top tier fan favorite for many years. That alone makes people get the vapors much like I did. If you don't like it just because you don't like TT then just say your reasoning for the entire argument is you don't like TT.

And no, I don't know how it will shake out.  It's definitely a risk.

EDIT:  The move makes more sense when it's Linsley and Tretter on the interior with Lang.  Unfortunately injuries and contract issues don't play well together.  Again this is my thinking about why it went down so late.  Pretty damn sure they'd rather have a gimped Sitton over a healthy Taylor or Barclay but not at 6 million with impending extensions, which are not part of the equation because they are happening regardless of who is on the roster. I'm sure there is plenty of adaptation going on for the start of the season but thinking Taylor or Barclay are the options to start other than in case of injury is foolish.  

Rusty posted:

Drew Magery's writing style is reminiscent of those commercial of those commercials that remind you about what a PUSSY you are if you don't drink KICKASSOR ENERGY and BEAT YOUR WIFE every day.

I'll pass on whatever garbage he and his equally worthless website are spewing.

He does it for all 32 teams. I think they're funny

I tried and got through 3 of them this year and could barely manage a smirk. Margery is a manchild who thinks generous use of profanity and violence make him some genius writer. And this isn't even going into the fact that his website is part of the loathsome Gawker network.

The only "analyst" I despise more is Bayless, and at least it's obvious Bayless is a self-aware troll. Margery actually believes he is some moral compass in the world of sports and journalism. He is a joke.

YATittle posted:

Interesting analysis.

http://www.acmepackingcompany....trying-to-make-sense

 

Not sure interesting is the word I'd use to describe this analysis. When exactly has Bulaga played quite well at guard? 

Would be much less edgy about the release of Sitton if Lane Taylor was looking like the next stud G in waiting. He's been pretty shaky all preseason and had several awful snaps as recently as Thursday night. Both he and Murphy were getting beat regularly against the Chiefs...and Murphy atleast has the excuse of being a rookie. 

Jason Spriggs didn't get a lot of press in camp but he has played pretty well and could be a reason why Sitton is gonzo. 

JS will be a starter at some point; just don't know if it's this year or not. 

Tretter is the key to all this. He can play Guard & Center. 

We need Linsley to get healthy.

Spriggs got a nice welcoming to the NFL vs. Khalil Mack but I think Spriggs will be ok.

I know Barclay has sucked but he can play inside at Guard. Lord knows he can't play Tackle

I'm understanding the move more this morning. I still don't like it, but I understand it.

Sitton will land somewhere & he won't be making $6 million. 

heyward posted:

YATittle posted:

Interesting analysis.

http://www.acmepackingcompany....trying-to-make-sense

 

Not sure interesting is the word I'd use to describe this analysis. When exactly has Bulaga played quite well at guard? 

People really need to quit thinking Buluga was ever guard material or would make sense to move him into a G position at this point in his career.

Common sense says put your best 5 on the field, which includes Tretter and Linsley right now. You would think Tretter would move to LG long term and Linsley back at Center long term is the goal. Spriggs is the LT of the future though, so where does that leave Bakh? I think they're wanting him to move to LG and will try to pay him accordingly. He obviously will want to be paid like a LT though, so I could see him walking.

8 pages, ya'll must have it solved by now.  what's the consensus? 

a shocking move but they happen and we'll see.  gotta have a little faith, aye, georgie boy?

Cuqui pointed out that Bakh has trouble with strength and I really don't know how effective he would be inside.  The thought I had is who is being slotted for RT considering Buluga isn't a spring chicken and with a mounting injury history.  If Bakh struggles with power that isn't going to help him on the right side but I still think ultimately that may be where he's going.

You've got your interior for the future along with Lang and you're developing your supposed LT replacement.  RT development is the question because you know whatever depth exists on the team can't play T worth two ****s.

I think the only way you see Bakh at LG is if Tretter just starts tearing it up at T should Buluga go down again.  Even then I doubt he's the first option at RT.  That's when you probably get the flip of Spriggs and Bahk, which would be an adventure unto itself and the real cause of concern for the Packers Super Bowl hopes.  I really hope TT does go looking for a better stop gap for this season.  

Tdog posted:

8 pages, ya'll must have it solved by now.  what's the consensus? 

You should read through the thread. Some really good stuff in here

I don't know that he struggles with power, he just handles speed better than power. He reminds me of Lang really, more athlete than stout road grader. Right now Bakh works to improve his speed and quickness as a LT, if he was moved to LG he could spend an offseason adding bulk to handle the inside power. 

Fedya posted:

I'd like to think Tavis was engaging in a subtle joke.

(I'm in a charitable mood tonight.)

Umm...Play along 

Henry posted:

Tavis Smiley posted:

Sitton was probably my favorite player on this team.  Funny as hell too. That said, I have faith in "the process" although I readily rarely understand it. That's why I do what I do and they do what they do. 

I gotta say though I'm a little disappointed with my friend Chilli Jon and Henry who I respect. I thought they'd appreciate the potential impact of this move a little bit more and be more vocal in this thread.

Nobody likes you.

We both know this can't be true.

Looks like former Packers' Pro Bowl G Josh Sitton's first visit will be to...division-rival Chicago Bears, per sources. Saints could follow

— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) September 4, 2016

This is what pisses me off about Ted. You telling me you couldn't TRADE Josh Sitton to the Bears? You have to just let him walk?!?!!?

Reading many of the posts above, I think I now understand why Sitton was let go:

1) His chronic back/health problems will prevent him from playing effectively anymore;

2) He is or would be a locker room cancer over his contract status;

3) $ needed to sign all the younger studs on the OL; and 

4) Lane Taylor will seamlessly replace Josh and at a much lower price (or maybe it will be Barclay but either way Sitton's departure will not negatively impact the performance of the OL).

Based on the above, the only conclusion one could reach is good riddance.

However, given the glaring need for the Packers to rid themselves of such an overpaid, declining, malcontent of a player, I'm just surprised I did not see any articles, posts pointing out the obviousness of the need to rid our team of Josh Sitton before yesterday.

Boris posted:

Tdog posted:

8 pages, ya'll must have it solved by now.  what's the consensus? 

You should read through the thread. Some really good stuff in here

I had been reading through the first 4 pages yesterday but this thing has metastasized while I was enjoying a campfire and then sleeping.

.@AdamSchefter

More proof that the @packers cast-offs are better than most of the @ChicagoBears starters.#Word

— Black_Hat (@_Black_Hat_) September 4, 2016

Bakhtiari isn't moving to guard. He's a more than capable 25-year-old left tackle who's going to get paid like a more than capable 25-year-old left tackle by someone.

Tdog posted:

8 pages, ya'll must have it solved by now.  what's the consensus? 

Sitton was fired because he would have gone for two?

/ducking 

Boris posted:

Looks like former Packers' Pro Bowl G Josh Sitton's first visit will be to...division-rival Chicago Bears, per sources. Saints could follow

— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) September 4, 2016

This is what pisses me off about Ted. You telling me you couldn't TRADE Josh Sitton to the Bears? You have to just let him walk?!?!!?

This is what stokes the mystery.  Even if Sitton's agent effectively makes trading infinitely harder by opening his yap you would have to believe there would be some teams that would want to jump in front of others for Sitton.  

They would be on the hook for a 1 year 6.8 million rental though. If his own team doesn't think he's worth that, why would another team? 

I get the sense this Sitton thing happened pretty quickly, and it's hard to trade a high-priced player hours or even days before final cuts. I think a trade would've been much more likely a few weeks ago, but I'm not sure the Packers were thinking that way then.

Boris posted:

.@AdamSchefter

More proof that the @packers cast-offs are better than most of the @ChicagoBears starters.#Word

— Black_Hat (@_Black_Hat_) September 4, 2016

You mean like Julius Peppers? 

Now that I've had a chance to sleep on it, I think this makes more sense (at least everything but the timing).  We arguably had the best guard tandem in the league and it did little to protect Rodgers and little to help the run game.  What good is paying your guards ~$14m when no matter how good they play, guards can only help a team so much.  Maybe TT had bigger concerns with the cap due to the 2017 free agent class than we know.  

That said, the timing is awful.  Why now versus 6 months ago?  Or before the draft?  Or even at the start of camp?  Just makes no sense why it happened on final cuts.  

Boris posted:

Looks like former Packers' Pro Bowl G Josh Sitton's first visit will be to...division-rival Chicago Bears, per sources. Saints could follow

— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) September 4, 2016

This is what pisses me off about Ted. You telling me you couldn't TRADE Josh Sitton to the Bears? You have to just let him walk?!?!!?

Watching the board would've been epic if he had been traded to the B***s. EPIC!