CUPackFan posted:Maybe TT had bigger concerns with the cap due to the 2017 free agent class than we know.
We'll need to re-sign Pro Bowler Jared Cook, too 
1 day later, this is still a bad decision. While we're debating which of the scrubs (Taylor and Barclay) will fill the void, we haven't even discussed what happens when the inevitable OL injury takes place. My hope is that Linsley is back by then but that is a huge question mark as well. Could Taylor or Barclay be adequate? Sure... but when the injuries start to take place and the line gets shuffled around, that is when GB will feel the pain of this blunder.
Cutting a pro bowl G, even if in a bit of a decline, under these circumstances is stupid. Worse yet, it appears to be some sort of a knee-jerk reaction. Otherwise, why would Sitton line up with the #1's all camp? There was absolutely zero indication that Sitton was on the fence with making this team.
If Sitton was truly not in GB's plans for 2016, I find it hard to believe TT couldn't have traded him near the start of camp. Waiting until the last minute dramatically affects the chances of a trade.
GB is not in cap hell and there is only speculation that cutting Sitton allows for GB to resign younger players. Maybe, maybe not. I would think the most logical thing to do would have been to let Sitton walk in FA after 2016 and at least get a comp pick. We even ****ed that part up.
Love TT all you want (I do as well), but this move was ****ing dumb.
Good one cuqui
Calling it: Sitton will be IR'd by October 1, rendering this whole debate moot. (Or will it?)
Of course its moot. Different teams, different set of circumstances, different everything. None of it is relevant.
Just pissed we don't get anything for him. That's my biggest beef with the move.
C'mon Ted, that's just dumb!
Ted HAD to have SOME idea before the draft, before training camp.....we might get rid of an aging high-priced Guard. WTF? Why do you just out-right release a pro-bowl player when no salary cap implications exist? Makes ZERO sense.
That's what I'm saying Boris. None of it makes sense and I am a bit miffed at the people trying to justify it.
If Sitton would have blown out his knee two weeks ago and went on IR, this place would have blown up with doom and gloom. Yet, TT cuts the guy and it's the right move? I'm tossing the BS flag.
I'm pissed I picked the wrong morning to run out of Bloody Mary mix.
Grave Digger posted: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?
That's my point.
Pakrz posted:That's what I'm saying Boris. None of it makes sense and I am a bit miffed at the people trying to justify it.
If Sitton would have blown out his knee two weeks ago and went on IR, this place would have blown up with doom and gloom. Yet, TT cuts the guy and it's the right move? I tossing the BS flag.
Equal number of fans would have crushed Ted for counting on a 30 year old G that was showing signs of decline last year. GM. No place for pussies.
ChilliJon posted:Pakrz posted:That's what I'm saying Boris. None of it makes sense and I am a bit miffed at the people trying to justify it.
If Sitton would have blown out his knee two weeks ago and went on IR, this place would have blown up with doom and gloom. Yet, TT cuts the guy and it's the right move? I tossing the BS flag.
Equal number of fans would have crushed Ted for counting on a 30 year old G that was showing signs of decline last year. GM. No place for pussies.
I haven't been around here for awhile so I can plead ignorance to the immediate past. However, TimesFour has always been spot on with all things Green Bay.
Has there been much debate around here over the decline of Josh Sitton since last season? You know, before TT cut his ass yesterday? My guess is no. How do you explain that other than the usual "In TT I trust" statement?
heyward posted: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.
Exactly!
Sitton was ready to play the season and I think the front office was too. The difference being not at 6 million. I don't think we're looking at past performance here but overall health through TC. If he has lingering health issues coupled with contract implications then you have to look at the situation entirely different. TT may have screwed the pooch on getting a pick because he was trying to keep Sitton on the squad and now has no leverage. Just like the Bert thing, I'm sure MM had a ton of input and if MM isn't feeling it they aren't going to shoulder a possible risk that would have other long term implications.
Pakrz posted:ChilliJon posted:Pakrz posted:That's what I'm saying Boris. None of it makes sense and I am a bit miffed at the people trying to justify it.
If Sitton would have blown out his knee two weeks ago and went on IR, this place would have blown up with doom and gloom. Yet, TT cuts the guy and it's the right move? I tossing the BS flag.
Equal number of fans would have crushed Ted for counting on a 30 year old G that was showing signs of decline last year. GM. No place for pussies.
I haven't been around here for awhile so I can plead ignorance to the immediate past. However, TimesFour has always been spot on with all things Green Bay.
Has there been much debate around here over the decline of Josh Sitton since last season? You know, before TT cut his ass yesterday? My guess is no. How do you explain that other than the usual "In TT I trust" statement?
Any old guy on here knows there are a lot of things that aren't a slow, visible decline. You wake up on day after a night out and all of sudden that **** hurts ten times more. You have an achy back and the next day it's like someone flipped a god damn switch. Just like evolution, health decline, especially in a sport like football, comes in spurts. The risk TT and MM are taking is maybe Josh can pull out another season, maybe. But you have a cadre of doctors and trainers and now you have a full TC to make the evaluation. Getting old is a mother ****er sometimes. If anything they may have waited too long.
If it was me I guess I would've erred on the side of keeping Sitton simply because the depth and other injuries. But if both sides know this could likely be the beginning of the end why wouldn't TT put the contract into young guys and why wouldn't Sitton use the leverage he has left to get paid?
I'm not fully in the Trust Ted camp here. It is well known Josh has been fighting the back for a while now. I don't think he practiced much if at all the second half of last year.
I may have talked myself into being fully ok with this if Linsley was 100%. When news broke he was headed to the PUP list AFTER they cut Josh my head starting spinning.
I don't like the depth of the OL at all right now. I don't get the timing here either. It looks messy and something not handled well. That's troubling. But we still don't know what we don't know.
Let's see what happens after contracts are no longer guaranteed.
They could have been playing him this PS to show tape that he "was fine" after last year's health issues, and raise his trade value. Then something went to crap too late in the plan and they couldn't get a trade done.
The reason Sitton hasn't already been signed by another team may be that the rest of the league knows that GB doesn't kick someone to the curb without good reason. How many cut veterans from GB have gone on to do much afterwards?
I can relate to the old guy thing, but I'm not buying the relevance here. Sitton is a pro bowl G. We can agree that he is declining (As he should at 30), but he is still better than at least half the G's in the league. His salary of around 6m wasn't crazy by any stretch.
PackerRuss posted: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.
That's not how a typical blocking scheme works and it begs the question, why did we only keep 3 TE's if two are going to be on the field most the time.
Does somebody have a subscription to Football Focus? I'd love to see where Sitton graded out amongst his peers.
Edit: In the SF preseason game, Football Focus graded Josh Sitton at 81.3, the highest of any GB offensive lineman and the 2nd highest grade on the team.
50 drunk Irish guys. Don't really trust them 100%
Just like the Bert thing, I'm sure MM had a ton of input and if MM isn't feeling it they aren't going to shoulder a possible risk that would have other long term implications.
bingo.
Lots of angles here to be plumbed.
Henry posted: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.
I don't like the move because this year had that feeling of being a special one. Easiest schedule, low travel and everyone is healthy. It felt like our year to get back to the SuperBowl.
This move puts that in serious jeopardy in my opinion. Even if Sitton's play regressed, I'm confident that it's still better than Taylor or Barclay. I saw nothing in his limited snaps or read anything in practice reports to believe otherwise.
I agree that if it was Sitton to Linsley it would be easier to swallow, but it's not. Linsley hasn't taken a single snap at Guard as far as we know.
In short, I would rather risk having to go after one or two of our FA's in the offseason than have this big of a drop off at guard in a year where we are favorites to win it all. It's putting too much emphasis on the future. You also have to wonder if the players question how committed TT is to this team. It's not out of bounds to suggest he is more committed to 17/18 then he is 16/17 season.
Pakrz posted:Does somebody have a subscription to Football Focus? I'd love to see where Sitton graded out amongst his peers.
Edit: In the SF preseason game, Football Focus graded Josh Sitton at 81.3, the highest of any GB offensive lineman and the 2nd highest grade on the team.
I saw on Reddit that he fell off slightly last year but was still elite at the position.
Those players in a better position to get paid™ will love Ted's commitment.
If something comes out about his health, I'll gladly eat crow.
cuqui posted:Those players in a better position to get paid™ will love Ted's commitment.
And those that are not, the majority, will not.
ChilliJon posted:
I'm pissed I picked the wrong morning to run out of Bloody Mary mix.
Bloody Mary's is the most over-rated breakfast cocktail.
Ramos Gin Fizz or a Mid Morning Fizz is where it's at.
Pakrz posted:I can relate to the old guy thing, but I'm not buying the relevance here. Sitton is a pro bowl G. We can agree that he is declining (As he should at 30), but he is still better than at least half the G's in the league. His salary of around 6m wasn't crazy by any stretch.
It is when you've got that many young guys coming up for a payday. Could they have kept Sitton and negotiated at the end of year? Sure, but then all those guys are FAs too and now the process gets harder when you have other teams pitching offers, some specifically to drive up the price.
ChilliJon posted:Pakrz posted:That's what I'm saying Boris. None of it makes sense and I am a bit miffed at the people trying to justify it.
If Sitton would have blown out his knee two weeks ago and went on IR, this place would have blown up with doom and gloom. Yet, TT cuts the guy and it's the right move? I tossing the BS flag.
Equal number of fans would have crushed Ted for counting on a 30 year old G that was showing signs of decline last year. GM. No place for pussies.
I didn't see one post voicing this concern prior to yesterday.
So much speculation as that is pretty much all we have.
Unless there is something highly compelling going on, there is a good chance TT knowingly rolled some dice and part of the reason to roll them is to prioritize the future.
As brainded wrote, I question that. Rodgers is 35. We know fluky things can disrupt what otherwise might be a Super Bowl run (loss to Giants following the death of the coordinators son, freakish loss to Seahawks).
The angle that most gets me is this one and I might have preferred TT holds the dice and gives more priority to Rodgers and this year.
Henry posted:
But if both sides know this could likely be the beginning of the end why wouldn't TT put the contract into young guys and why wouldn't Sitton use the leverage he has left to get paid?
Then trade him at the start of camp. I'ts difficult to believe that not a singl team out there wouldn't be willing to give up a late rounder for one year of Josh Sitton. Once they knew he was getting cut, it significantly reduced the chances.
BrainDed posted:ChilliJon posted:Pakrz posted:That's what I'm saying Boris. None of it makes sense and I am a bit miffed at the people trying to justify it.
If Sitton would have blown out his knee two weeks ago and went on IR, this place would have blown up with doom and gloom. Yet, TT cuts the guy and it's the right move? I tossing the BS flag.
Equal number of fans would have crushed Ted for counting on a 30 year old G that was showing signs of decline last year. GM. No place for pussies.
I didn't see one post voicing this concern prior to yesterday.
And what's posted here is completely irrelevant to Sitton getting cut. You can look at Sitton's whole career and that isn't going to mean squat to what the here and now are as far as health.
Maybe you're just overrating Sitton. I like Sitton as much as anyone, he's a good player, but perhaps the league just doesn't feel he's worth 6 million. It's just a late rounder, it's a late rounder plus taking on that salary. They can't get rid of him until they know what they have to replace him, that includes injuries. If Barclay or Taylor or Tretter looked bad then I doubt they make this move. If they had kept him I doubt anyone complains because none of us thought that 6 million would make a difference. If we had lost Lang or Tretter or Lacy in the offseason after huge seasons and we found keeping Sitton could have prevented that, I doubt many agree that was worth it.
I've seen pictures of your bar CA95. It looks different than mine. You'll get no argument from me.
Two days ago I was much more worried about the pay/production ratio for Peppers than I was for Sitton.
phaedrus posted:As brainded wrote, I question that. Rodgers is 35. We know fluky things can disrupt what otherwise might be a Super Bowl run (loss to Giants following the death of the coordinators son, freakish loss to Seahawks).The angle that most gets me is this one and I might have preferred TT holds the dice and gives more priority to Rodgers and this year.
They cut Sitton and it caused Rodgers to age??? ****
El-Ka-Bong posted:Two days ago I was much more worried about the pay/production ration for Peppers than I was for Sitton.
Absolutely. If there was one player I thought looked far worse than the previous year, it was Peppers.