All Sitton & Lang & OL threads merged

[Pokerbrat2000]

Pokerbrat I get a similar feeling.

Sadly, I think we all are going to be left guessing, at least for awhile. I think we all know what locker room cancer is and if this was a case of that in management's eyes, we sure haven't heard anything about it from them, the press or other players. But it sure feels like the missing piece to me based on the timing and willingness to just dump a player of value.

 

[jrock645]

Eh, I actually think things will come out in time, probably won't get all the specifics, but I think we'll hear enough to be able to say "ah, that was it."

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Eh, I actually think things will come out in time, probably won't get all the specifics, but I think we'll hear enough to be able to say "ah, that was it."

I hope so, because right now, it just doesn't seem like MM, TT or anyone in GB is giving us an explanation that fully makes sense.

 

[jrock645]

It won't come from them. Things will just slip out via other guys. Sitton will say something to someone in Chicago. Linsley or someone will comment about something. Bakh or someone will leave, and they'll tell someone something. Someone will get a hold of all this, fact check it and ask a couple more questions, and then we find out how it's related.

Might take a good while, but something will come out eventually.

 

[Arthur Squires]

Lane Taylor may not be much drop off in the run game, and he isn't terrible but I know for a fact he will stick out like a sore thumb at least the 1st few weeks. But the 2 games we saw him start he held up ok.

 

[longtimefan]

I'm not so sure about that. IMO, If you listen to what he says and doesn't say about Sitton, certain clues are revealed. MM also seems to be choosing his words very carefully on the subject .

When talking about Sitton, McCarthy's emphasis on "players being evaluated in the locker room" and "the locker room is the most important room in our building" seems telling. Then MM ducks the question about the timing of the Sitton decision, has me thinking that the move was a result of something not right with Sitton in the locker room and it was rather recent. Which explains why trying to trade him was last a minute thing. Based on what Chicago, the first team to interview Sitton, paid him, I really can't imagine that there wouldn't have been other teams willing to trade something for him, if he had been on the trading block earlier then Saturday.

We may never know the full story and it may have been a compilation of things, including cap space, but it sure feels like it was a last minute decision, possibly based on conduct (not just on money and performance) and sadly, one that saw the Packers get absolutely nothing in exchange for a pretty damn good football player.

it was a "leading" question about chemistry in locker room....does this hurt or does this help. I think Mm addressed both sides

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But if Sitton has a good enough year this year to earn that $10M but first begins to tail-off noticeably in subsequent years and Sitton's replacement(s) prove adequate, then it may have been a decent move for all parties concerned, all things considered. If Sitton's performance tails-off noticeably this year or he is injured fairly early and throughout much of this season then TT gets the last laugh - but only if Taylor or whomever else is solid.

This will actually be interesting to observe as it all unfolds.

Taylor's, or whoever ends up playing the majority of snaps replacing Sitton, performance is the only thing I'm interested in.

The Packers have moved on from Sitton and his play with the Bears won't have any effect on the Packers chances to win another Super Bowl.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well, he did sign Jones.

James Jones was signed before the start of the season. The post you replied to referred to the trade deadline though.

I think the release of Sitton tells us they are comfortable with that development behind Sitton and Lang.

Most likely that's true. Unfortunately Taylor is the only other guard on the roster.

You're looking backwards. I think to assess this move you need to look forward.

I'm looking forward to this season. Releasing Sitton results in the Packers being weaker on the offensive line. Not a smart move for a Super Bowl contender.

I am fairly confident that EVERYONE in the Packers brass understands that there could be a drop-off in production at LG in 2016. Of course, that's not a given and Lane Taylor or Tretter could surprise us all. More importantly is how this pans out in 2017 or 2018.

The Packers aren't in a rebuilding mode but one of the favorites to win the Super Bowl. Therefore being fine with a drop-off in production for this season is unacceptable.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

When talking about Sitton, McCarthy's emphasis on "players being evaluated in the locker room" and "the locker room is the most important room in our building" seems telling. Then MM ducks the question about the timing of the Sitton decision, has me thinking that the move was a result of something not right with Sitton in the locker room and it was rather recent. Which explains why trying to trade him was last a minute thing. Based on what Chicago, the first team to interview Sitton, paid him, I really can't imagine that there wouldn't have been other teams willing to trade something for him, if he had been on the trading block earlier then Saturday.

We may never know the full story and it may have been a compilation of things, including cap space, but it sure feels like it was a last minute decision, possibly based on conduct (not just on money and performance) and sadly, one that saw the Packers get absolutely nothing in exchange for a pretty damn good football player.

The reaction from several players about Sitton's release makes me believe conduct within the locker room wasn't the reason for this move.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

As someone else mentioned I doubt TT made this cut without input from MM. If McCarthy had said I just don't think we have someone capable of replacing him I don't think the cut is made. As it stands MM obviously thought we had someone on the roster (Taylor apparently) who could adequately replace him so it made Sitton expendable along with his cap hit. I'm guessing TT had pretty much made up his mind that he was not going to pursue resigning Sitton after this year for whatever reason so he approached McCarthy on the ramifications of cutting him and saving the money.

MO this is what I would call a luxury cut. We could release a guy, who we had no plans for after this season, without a noticeable drop off in performance (according to the guys doing the cutting, obviously not all fans agree) and save a bunch of money in the process. It's not often teams can do that.

All I know is judging this move now is pointless. If, and I know it may be a big if, Taylor can step up and perform as well as Sitton I wonder how many fans ragging on TT now will admit they were wrong. I'm sure some will but some will always contend that it was a stupid move. The move itself does not matter. What matters is the results of the move and that won't be known for some time yet.

There's no reason to believe Taylor is capable of adequately replacing Sitton. Unfortunately I expect there to be a significant drop-off in performance at left guard.

While there probably won't be a lot of posters admitting they were wrong if Taylor performs at a high level I wonder how many would agree that Thompson was at fault if the move backfires.

This is another example of TT making long-term moves, even if it sacrifices the short term.

I don't agree sacrificing short-term success by releasing a starter shortly before opening week is a smart way to handle a Super Bowl contender.

 

[Croak]

By outward appearances this is a dumb move. I agree with Capt. However the dramatic timing of this whole thing speaks more to the issue. Even Matt Millen wouldn't have pulled such a bone headed move, unless there is more to this than meets the eye. The sheer timing of it leads me and apparently quite a few others to think there is something bad at play here of which we have not been informed.

 

[OCBP]

I always thought Sitton was a stand up guy but to go to the Bears just to stick it to Ted Thompson ... I just don't know any more. He probably would have had offers from several teams but he chose to go to a hated division rival and all because Ted Thompson cut him. I hope he knows he just destroyed his legacy in Wisconsin.

That is just a ridiculous statement. Ted's always right.?! Amazing.

 

[Carl]

Interesting fact about Taylor is he was very good his last regular season game, which was wee 17 last year.

He was one of the Packers top players according to Pro Football Focus.

TE Richard Rodgers (+4.6)
HB Eddie Lacy (+3.0)
RG T.J. Lang (+2.9)
LG Lane Taylor (+2.7)
S Micah Hyde (+1.8)

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-min-gb-grades-griffen-pass-rush-rattle-rodgers/

He does have the ability to play well. Hopefully, he can stay at that level.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The reaction from several players about Sitton's release makes me believe conduct within the locker room wasn't the reason for this move.

I read TJ's reaction, but haven't seen much from others. TJ seems equally in the dark as the rest of us. While it may not have been any major incident in the locker room, I have read the theory that Sitton had become agitated about his upcoming contract renewal and had taken on kind of a negative attitude about things. Possibly this is something coaches as well as TT finally decided they didn't want in the locker room and made the last minute decision.

I keep returning to the fact that the decision to jettison a player with obvious trade value, in what seemed like a last minute decision and getting nothing for him didn't have a lot to do with his or anyone else's performance, but was more of a team building move for now and into the future. As Pete Dougherty labeled it, "A Lombardi like move".

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I love the spin control going on right now. Packers cut Sitton and suddenly it's a locker room issue. Mind you, Sitton has been a terrific locker room presence for the majority of his career, until, he dares to point out that McCarthy's offensive game plan in the regular season game against Arizona was, well, offensive. NOW he's a bad locker room presence...

 

[Curly Calhoun]

With respect to Lane Taylor, I'm taking a 'wait-and-see' approach. There is obviously something the coaching staff likes about the guy, and although Sitton will be a tough act to follow, Taylor has the benefit of relative youth and relative health. There had been some media reports that Sitton's play had begun to decline over the course of last season, although I cannot definitively attest to that. He has had back issues and was in the last year of his contract.

Sitton was a solid player while he was here, but I'm not ready to jump off a bridge over his departure. Let's see how the o-line holds up over the next few games first.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Sitton was a solid player while he was here, but I'm not ready to jump off a bridge over his departure. Let's see how the o-line holds up over the next few games first.

I'm not ready to jump off a bridge either but Sitton was not only a solid player during his tenure with the Packers but one of the best guards in the league.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I love the spin control going on right now. Packers cut Sitton and suddenly it's a locker room issue. Mind you, Sitton has been a terrific locker room presence for the majority of his career, until, he dares to point out that McCarthy's offensive game plan in the regular season game against Arizona was, well, offensive. NOW he's a bad locker room presence...

Speaking from my perspective, I haven't heard anyone from the Packer staff point to it as being a locker room issue. But of course, media and fans have been left having to speculate as to what it was, since the Packer organization hasn't really defined the exact reasons a pretty decent player was just released and not traded.

 

[longtimefan]

It prob is contract, his way of speaking the truth, and his back.

One year to soon than one year to late

 

[pfcmsh]

The reaction from several players about Sitton's release makes me believe conduct within the locker room wasn't the reason for this move.

Of course this is not related to locker room behavior. It is related to questioning the coaching staff on play calling. It is MMs "my way or the highway" penchant to run the team. If a player has input, the better staffs at least give the input an ear. The players know what is going on better than the coaches do on any team.

 

[pfcmsh]

Let's face it, unless you are Brett Favre or Aaron Rodgers, you don't get a voice at the head table. The nail that sticks up gets pounded down, and Sitton just learned it. There already was a good chance that he wouldn't get re-signed after the season but some apparent issues made the decision easier and come quicker. I was surprised by this move but not shocked.

This is another example of TT making long-term moves, even if it sacrifices the short term.

I agree with you, 100%!!

 

[HardRightEdge]

We may never know the full story and it may have been a compilation of things, including cap space, but it sure feels like it was a last minute decision, possibly based on conduct (not just on money and performance) and sadly, one that saw the Packers get absolutely nothing in exchange for a pretty damn good football player.

I would not assume this to be a last minute decision; more a measuring of pros and cons over a period of time. Once they paid Sitton the $300,000 roster bonus, there was no financial advantage to acting earlier.

People don't change overnight. The locker room is not a pre-teen sleepover; some thick skin is required. Peccadilloes are tolerated if the game day play is up to snuff. If there was a pattern of bad locker room behavior, then the question becomes a balancing of expected performance, cost of any disruption, and cap cost. This guy's been around a long time; if he's an a**hole in the lockroom, that did not happen just last week.

Questioning the head coach's judgement is always a checkbox on the negative side, yet they brought him back at that $300,000 cost. They could have cut him before the draft and picked a guard instead of 2 tackles.

Something may have happened recently that tipped the scales, but it's reasonable to think the measuring of pros and cons was ongoing.

 

[Vince Lombardi]

IF there were locker room issues it had to be something that happened in the last week or so. Otherwise why wouldn't they have tried trading him 3 weeks ago? Something just doesn't smell right here!

 

[sschind]

That is just a ridiculous statement. Ted's always right.?! Amazing.

Not amazing, sarcasm. I thought people would figure it out but I was wrong.

 

[HardRightEdge]

If a player has input, the better staffs at least give the input an ear.

That would be expected to occur in private. I don't think there's a coach around who doesn't put a check mark in the negative column when he hears complaints in the morning paper, metaphorically speaking. Nonetheless, Sitton's kvetching about the Arizona game plan wasn't enough to earn him the boot all by itself, otherwise he would have never made it to camp.

As noted previously, there are parallels to the Woodson situation. So why was Woodson summarily fired and Sitton was not? Probably because Woodson did not have a good year playing safety whereas Sitton was still projected as a good player. Behavior is weighed against performance and the always present question of "who else ya got? Evidently there were enough Sitton negative check marks accumulating while the positive check marks in Taylor's ledger were sufficient, even if the latter point is hard to see on the field.

Maybe a lesson was taken from the Woodson situation. When you look at what Oakland paid him, how he played there, and how Jennings played for the Packers, perhaps it was concluded that a little more kvetching should be tolerated at least until you get a better look at the "who else ya' got?" alternative.

If Sitton's cap cost was $2 million, it might have been a different story, as that would have been a big fat check mark in the positive column rather than a negative in light of the FA class coming up.