Skip to main content

GrainBelt66 posted:

I think having $ and investing it are 2 different things. 

Sure, he does all he is asked to do and he does it all pretty well. 

But, I think there are players on this team that can do what he does.  His advantage, of course, is that he only requires one roster spot. He kind of reminds me of that guy the Dolphins had once. 

What was his name? Thomas? Zach Thomas?

Which Packer are you talking about with "he does all he is asked to do..."?

He is the type of player that TT likes. 

Someone that can step into many different roles and be successful. 

Unfortunately, for Adams and Ty, I would keep Hyde instead of planning on them. Just because he offers more to the team. 

Besides, there is no shortage of capable WR's. And I think the packets may have WR's that are almost ready. 

Replacing a Swiss Army knife is probably more difficult. 

As more information becomes available (and by more , I mean less) it looks to me that the Packers did Sitton a solid by releasing him. They knew they were not going to give him a long term deal and by giving him an early release allowed him to get one last big contract based on his reputation and not on diminishing performance.

He's still capable but he's not dominant like 2-3 years ago. And having cut weight to preserve his back, it's likely he lost some strength/anchor that would further undermine his performance.

I know, it's off topic. But the Sitton thread is closed and Bak's new contract is at least tangentially related . The Packers aren't the skinflints they were back in the 80's so them opting not to pay is generally a sign of a considered football decision.

Herschel posted:

Top-5 money is probably too rich for Bakhtiari on the surface but a: it is the latest contract, b: he's young and theoretically ascending to his prime, and c: imo, continuity with a good line is HUGE and you never want to change more than one lineman in a year, preferably every couple of years. Add in that he plays at the premier O-line position and it's a solid deal, imo. 

Exactly.   He wont be top five for very long.   It's a fair deal for both sides given his performance.

MichiganPacker posted:

You would have to think Lang is next. There's no one else on that list where you look at it and think "Wow, we really can't afford to lose that guy." However, the Lang extension may depend on what their thinking is with how Spriggs and Bulaga are going to be handled in terms of playing time and position. You have to figure they didn't trade up to get Spriggs to have him sit on the bench for 3-4 years.

If they think Linsley can play guard, than Lang is gone.   The Sitton release tells me they don't value guard play and would rather invest somewhere else.  

grignon posted:

As more information becomes available (and by more , I mean less) it looks to me that the Packers did Sitton a solid by releasing him. They knew they were not going to give him a long term deal and by giving him an early release allowed him to get one last big contract based on his reputation and not on diminishing performance.

 

IF thats the case, TT's head should be on a spike.   You don't give away draft picks to be a nice guy.    

He could have let his agent negotiate an extension with someone else and got a 6th out of it at least. 

I think Lang stays.  He's 2 years younger and has started 30 fewer games than Sitton.  Also seems to be healthier.  Lang is the age you can afford to invest.  Sitton wasn't.  Plus, Lang was better in 2015.  I've read a little about Sitton, that he regressed in 2015 and it wasn't going to get better going forward.  I still fault TT for not getting a pick out of this but it's starting to look smarter and smarter.  

 

Marco Rivera? How the F**K would he know about the Packer current brass?

He was from the 90's with Ron Wolf / Andrew Brandt & you know as well as I do, They took care of everybody that deserved it. 

Marco wasn't going to be healthy enough for another deal. That's why he went to Dallas, got a contract, & then promptly got hurt (his back IIRC) & retired. Wolf/Brandt made the right move at the time for the team.

As far as loyalty to QB's. How'd that work out in 2008? Yeah....think about what you say before you say it.

Jeezus....fellow O-Lineman all butthurt I guess. Jeeenyous

BrainDed posted:

IF thats the case, TT's head should be on a spike.   You don't give away draft picks to be a nice guy.    

He could have let his agent negotiate an extension with someone else and got a 6th out of it at least. 

So a 6th round pick is worth more than treating players well? Shipping one of your guys off to a team who would have rented him for 1 season, meaning no security for Sitton, for basically the equivalent of a priority UDFA. That looks terrible and sends a message to your team that they won't be treated right when their time in GB is over. GB wants to retain guys like Lang, who will probably sign his last deal in GB this season/offseason, and a move like that tells Lang he's going to be screwed by GB when he nears the end of his time in GB. Sitton got a solid deal from GB, his value was at max at a time when camp was done and teams knew whether they needed an upgrade at Guard. GB didn't lose and still did the right thing by a loyal player.

BrainDed posted:

IF thats the case, TT's head should be on a spike.   You don't give away draft picks to be a nice guy.    

He could have let his agent negotiate an extension with someone else and got a 6th out of it at least. 

His agent was trying to get an extension from the Packers for the past year and the Packers brushed him off.  Why would he want to do Ted any favors?  It's more likely he was doing everything he could to get Sitton cut. He has more leverage if Sitton is a free agent. 

From Dougherty column after the game: 

"And that was the point with Sitton. I talked with an NFL source over the weekend who doesnโ€™t work for the Packers or Sitton but was familiar with the dynamic that led to the left guardโ€™s departure. 

The source said Sitton at times was a fun and engaging presence, but he also was brash and highly opinionated. He openly disparaged personnel moves, coaching decisions and his teammatesโ€™ abilities in any and every setting at the Packersโ€™ facilities, regardless of who was in earshot. He also could be argumentative in meetings and refused to do some blocking techniques and drills on the practice field. 

The source said that while Sitton was at the top of his game, the Packers acquiesced. But as the 30-year-oldโ€™s play began to slip in the last year or so, in part because of his chronic back condition, the team felt less compelled to accommodate him. And when the coaching staff saw some of that behavior filtering to the younger linemen, the team parted ways. 

Sure, you can criticize general manager Ted Thompson and McCarthy for not getting anything for him. They waited until final cuts to try to move him, and thus had little leverage to work a deal. 

I still wonder if there was some final-straw incident that caused the seemingly 11th-hour decision, but no source I consulted even hinted at such a thing. 

The Packers simply thought that after telling Sitton during camp that he wasnโ€™t a priority for a contract extension while younger linemen were, they were fostering a poisonous atmosphere. So they made the move."
titmfatied posted:
BrainDed posted:

IF thats the case, TT's head should be on a spike.   You don't give away draft picks to be a nice guy.    

He could have let his agent negotiate an extension with someone else and got a 6th out of it at least. 

His agent was trying to get an extension from the Packers for the past year and the Packers brushed him off.  Why would he want to do Ted any favors?  It's more likely he was doing everything he could to get Sitton cut. He has more leverage if Sitton is a free agent. 

And this past offseason they should have known they weren't going to keep him.  If they wanted to be fair to Josh, they could do so and still get something in return by letting his agent negotiate with teams that were willing to deal.   

They didn't cut with no comp to be nice.  They tried to trade him last minute and failed.  

Also, I'm pretty sure we all agree that TT values late round picks.  It's part of the reason he doesn't like signing FA's, he doesn't want it impacting his comp picks. 

It always seems like we're on the short end of the stick with trades. 

Either we don't get one (Sitton), Or we have to give up THREE picks to move up & draft Clay Matthews when it should've been 2.

It probably all evens out in the end because like with the Clay deal, TT has flushed Belichick down the toilet a couple times in deals with the Pats. Even when at first it seems like the Pats "won" that trade.

I'm sure Belichick would rather return all 3 picks & have Clay on his team & also if you go back to the Greg Jennings draft, TT fleeced Billy B.

Grave Diggers post & Dougherty's column help me get over my butt-hurt of ZERO compensation for Josh.

Back on topic.....

Bakhtiari....Thought he was excellent against Dante Fowler & glad he got extended. TJ "Orange Tang" Lang should be next. 

Why "Orange Tang"? 

Because he has sweetness to make you smile but enough Citric Acid to knock you on your ass when necessary.

Lang has a lot of miles on him.  He just had surgery on his right shoulder.  His left one he still hasn't fixed. 

Consider they moved on from Sitton after 112 games.

TJ  will be at 97 at the end of this season. 

Marco Rivera played 111 games for the Packers before he moved on.

Scott Wells (center) was let go after 100.

Wahle made it to 83

Colledge they let walk after 76. 

(none of these totals include playoff games)

 

The Packers have a long history of not keeping interior players with similar time of service as TJ.  I'm pretty certain he's gone and they get a compensatory pick for him. 

Interestingly, Sitton, Wells, and Rivera were all drafted using compensatory picks.

 

Yes, many questions still to be answered regarding who will be playing where come next season & beyond. Right now Spriggs' only position would appear to be LT. He is an athletic, finese, guy, who does not appear stout enough to play any of the other positions along the line. However, he was a second round draft pick, who is the most athletic o-lineman we have, gotta find a place for him, but with Bak's contract it does not appear LT is in his future. 

Last edited by FLPACKER
FLPACKER posted:
Sure, you can criticize general manager Ted Thompson and McCarthy for not getting anything for him. They waited until final cuts to try to move him, and thus had little leverage to work a deal. 

Ted and Mike aren't stupid, they didn't drag it out because they were afraid to pull the trigger on a trade until it was too late. Also it's not just a matter of trading for a 6th round pick, the receiving team has to take on his 6.8 cap number or renegotiate a new deal. Based on what he got from CHI it seems Josh still thought his contract should be averaging about 7 mil. If teams suspected he had back issues or were uncomfortable with his age, no way they want to take on kind of deal, even for a 6th round pick. It takes two to tango and I'm not sure Sitton was as wonderful trade bait as some seem to think.

It's more likely that Ted/Mike had thought about this move, waited to see how Taylor/Tretter/Lang/etc. performed so they knew they had healthy replacement(s), put some feelers out for a trade, but ultimately didn't get the response they wanted to warrant shipping Sitton off against his will. Ted values late round picks and team building, but team morale also plays a part in team building and how future contract negotiations go. I don't think they did Sitton a favor because they're nice guys, it just sets a good precedent for how they handle older players. They did the same with Woodson, Jennings, Jenkins, Wells, Colledge, etc. Letting them score one last big deal somewhere else tells your current guys they won't be discarded when they're old.