If Shields career is over, they may have the money to sign Hyde.
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?
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.
I agree on helping Sitton out. Makes me wonder how the Lang thing will play out.
I was terrified that Lang would stand down against Jax. Lang was a warrior on Sunday. He loves his QB and his compadres on the OL. AR threw him plenty of love Sunday during the game. I'd sign him right damned now just based on his love of Sitton and his alliegence to Green Bay. You can't let his level of care of the franchise walk. I'll be pissed if he leaves.
Hungry5 posted:With Bakh done, who's next?
If I had my wish, it would be Tretter and then Perry. Perry before he breaks out this season would be nice but you must protect the franchise first and foremost.
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.
Maybe now Marco Rivera can shut the hell up. He was on Packer Report with Bill Micheals tonight and said the Packers have no loyalty except to QBs. He stated he wanted a 3 year deal to retire a Packer and they wouldn't even talk to him. Sounded very bitter that he was not re-signed. Screw you Marco. If you are a good young player the Packer will take care of you.
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
Thompson was running things when Rivera signed the contract with Dallas in 2005. Maybe Rivera was in contract talks with Sherman before he lost the GM job in January of that year, and Thompson shut them down when he took over. We all know how stupid Sherman was with this team's salary cap, and he had the team in a "win now" mode (to Favre's delight).
Sorry guys. I reported the wrong show. It was the Titletown Report with Bill Scott. Link here, click on red listen now:
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 doesn’t work for the Packers or Sitton but was familiar with the dynamic that led to the left guard’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 teammates’ abilities in any and every setting at the Packers’ 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-old’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 wasn’t a priority for a contract extension while younger linemen were, they were fostering a poisonous atmosphere. So they made the move." |