All Sitton & Lang & OL threads merged

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm just befuddled as to why they didn't keep Sitton for one more year and let him go in the offseason. Would they have lost anything at all by doing so other than not being able to sign Bahk and Tretter to early contracts?

Well, the move allows the Packers to carry over an additional $6.1 million of cap space into next offseason.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Also what needs to come with that explanation is, why did the Packers wait so long and get nothing for him?

Well, I've offered illustrations of the risk mitigation factors in waiting. While it is hard to believe they are entirely satisfied with Taylor (or other possible candidates), could have shown worse in this preseason and disqualified themselves. That something may have happened as regards the locker room and team chemistry, as has been rumored, is plausible and may have tipped the scales.

Every decision involves multiple factors and trade offs. Or shall we say they better not be binary decisions blind to the alternatives and the relative costs.

Perhaps there is an overestimation of what 30 year old Pro Bowl OGs draw in trade, regardless of when you make the offer. The prospective trading partner is already paying in the way of cap for an associated level of performance, with performance in a new system being speculative. Further, when a 30 year old vet drops weight to restore some quickness, which happens to be the case with Sitton as he did not get out to the second level last season the way he once did, that should be at least a yellow flag. Adding some high draft pick to his cost moves it into the uneconomical category.

 

[PikeBadger]

I don't recall this anecdote being refuted but I remember someone saying that Sitton was publicly vocal about contract extensions not being worked for Sitton/Lang because the front office was wanting to handle the younger guys ( Tretter, Bakhtiari) contracts first. Those younger guys locker stalls are right next to Sitton and Lang's. If I were coach or GM that would cause alarm bells to ring. That could very easily become a festering wound and cause problems throughout the season. I think it was McCarthy that stated recentlythat the locker room was the most important room in the building. I think he may have had a reason for stating that so adamantly.

Yes, it is disappointing that we didn't get anything in return for Sitton. I suspect that Sitton might get loud about this but I hope he's above that. I'm almost certain that Thompson/McCarthy won't talk much and most likely will not trash talk Sitton. Thompson was very quiet through the Favre situation.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Both Sitton and Mike Daniels were compensatory picks, so I kind of get excited about them.

And they might have been drafted with the prior pick had the compensatory pick not been available, or they might have been drafted at the same spot in a trade up with a low round pick.

Drafting Sitton at #102 instead of Jeremy Thompson, rather than Sitton at #135 would not have constituted a loss. Obviously Thompson was valued above Sitton, which hardly supports the argument.

Daniels at #132 and McMillan at #133, both comp picks, helps to illustrate how the 4th. round is a crap shoot.

Accumulating a small handful of mid-to-low round picks merely provides an edge in increasing the odds, but it is not particularly substantial.

You could go the next ten years not getting a core player out of the 4th. round.

Getting a small edge against the odds is not something I get especially excited about.

 

[Half Empty]

And they might have been drafted with the prior pick had the compensatory pick not been available, or they might have been drafted at the same spot in a trade up with a low round pick.

Drafting Sitton at #102 instead of Jeremy Thompson rather than at #35 would not have constituted a loss.

Daniels at #132 and McMillan at #133, both comp picks, helps to illustrate how the 4th. round is a crap shoot.

Accumulating a small handful of mid-to-low round picks merely provides an edge, but it is not particularly substantial.

You could go the next ten years not getting a core player out of the 4th. round.

Need we go back and show that rounds 1,2,3,5,6,7 are also crapshoots?

May also get a couple of starters out of the 4th round. I believe the point was supposed to be that having an extra pick is better than not having it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I don't recall this anecdote being refuted but I remember someone saying that Sitton was publicly vocal about contract extensions not being worked for Sitton/Lang because the front office was wanting to handle the younger guys ( Tretter, Bakhtiari) contracts first.

What I've read is that Sitton was not happy being excluded from extension negotiations, but I did not see other names mentioned. Got a link?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And they might have been drafted with the prior pick had the compensatory pick not been available, or they might have been drafted at the same spot in a trade up with a low round pick.

Drafting Sitton at #102 instead of Jeremy Thompson, rather than Sitton at #135 would not have constituted a loss. Obviously Thompson was valued above Sitton, which hardly supports the argument.

Daniels at #132 and McMillan at #133, both comp picks, helps to illustrate how the 4th. round is a crap shoot.

Accumulating a small handful of mid-to-low round picks merely provides an edge in increasing the odds, but it is not particularly substantial.

You could go the next ten years not getting a core player out of the 4th. round.

Getting a small edge against the odds is not something I get especially excited about.

I don't think either Sitton or Daniels would have been picked earlier if the Packers didn't have the compensation picks as the team obviously had other players ranked higher on their board. It's possible both players would have been available later in the draft but there's no guarantee.

I agree that fourth round selections are a crap shoot but therefore accumulating several picks is a definite advantage.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Well, I've offered illustrations of the risk mitigation factors in waiting. While it is hard to believe they are entirely satisfied with Taylor (or other possible candidates), could have shown worse in this preseason and disqualified themselves. That something may have happened as regards the locker room and team chemistry, as has been rumored, is plausible and may have tipped the scales.

Every decision involves multiple factors and trade offs. Or shall we say they better not be binary decisions blind to the alternatives and the relative costs.

Perhaps there is an overestimation of what 30 year old Pro Bowl OGs draw in trade, regardless of when you make the offer. The prospective trading partner is already paying in the way of cap for an associated level of performance, with performance in a new system being speculative. Further, when a 30 year old vet drops weight to restore some quickness, which happens to be the case with Sitton as he did not get out to the second level last season the way he once did, that should be at least a yellow flag. Adding some high draft pick to his cost moves it into the uneconomical category.

I think if Josh Sitton was still sitting here today unemployed and not a lot of people kicking his tires, I would buy into all of that. But I do believe you, as well as many of us, are correct, something happened very recently that tipped the scales enough for the Packers to cut him last minute, with no ability to find a trade partner in the wee hours of cut downs. What we lost by not trading him earlier, maybe a 3rd round or later pick may end up not being a huge deal, since we gained back his salary. The loss/gain will ultimately be measured in what his replacement(s) does or doesn't do and if we ever find out if there were any other reasons why the Packers prefered having Josh Sitton in someone else's locker room.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Need we go back and show that rounds 1,2,3,5,6,7 are also crapshoots?

May also get a couple of starters out of the 4th round. I believe the point was supposed to be that having an extra pick is better than not having it.

That's right; they're all crap shoots which goes to my point.

Add a comp pick and your odds improve from 7 out around 240 picks to 8 out of 240 picks. That's why I don't get particularly excited.

Is having it better than not? Of course; you'd be idiot to say otherwise. But in the case of Sitton, you should ask yourself what would have been gained (a pick of questionable value, probably middle round) in exchange for some risk avoidance/insurance in keeping him until the final hour.

Thompson is a conservative risk hedger...it's shot through and through his approach. You take the good with the bad.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think if Josh Sitton was still sitting here today unemployed and not a lot of people kicking his tires, I would buy into all of that. But I do believe you, as well as many of us, are correct, something happened very recently that tipped the scales enough for the Packers to cut him last minute, with no ability to find a trade partner in the wee hours of cut downs. What we lost by not trading him earlier, maybe a 3rd round or later pick may end up not being a huge deal, since we gained back his salary. The loss/gain will ultimately be measured in what his replacement(s) does or doesn't do and if we ever find out if there were any other reasons why the Packers prefered having Josh Sitton in someone else's locker room.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Thompson didn't fall out of bed one day with a revelation that he should cut Sitton. His cap, the team's cap, his criticism of McCarthy in January...the wheels of risk/reward evaluation were already turning. In kind, Sitton did not just roll out of bed and become a jerk. Whatever personality or locker room issues were in play, they did not materialize overnight. If something happened recently that tipped the risk/reward balance against Sitton, then the complaint becomes that an accurate crystal ball was not on hand. Perhaps such a ball could have acquired with a 4th. round compensatory pick, though the odds would be they'd find a crack in it.

Again, I'm not endorsing the move, I'm simply providing plausible and reasonable explanations for it.

I'm in the camp that says do what you can to get to the SB now before the cap wall hits next season. The NFC North is such a perennially crappy division that even with one more free agent loss from not gaining the Sitton cap space may do little in compromising a division title next season if that's all one aspires to. As long as Rodgers is around, you pretty much start at 8-8 and work from there.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think with the kind of money they paid Taylor to keep him, he was destined to become the starter at one of the Guard positions. Whatever negatives against Sitton and keeping him around beyond 2016 just happen to snowball and its obvious that was enough to speed up the move. So while TT and Co. had a long term game plan when they re-signed Taylor, one would have to think that it wasn't Taylors superior play that tipped the scales to jettison Sitton early, but more an accumulation of something Sitton was doing or not doing and sadly, that scale tipped before the Packers had time to benefit from it (besides the cap savings).

 

[HardRightEdge]

As previously commented, the factors for the late release of Sitton may have had little to do with anything off-field.

Perhaps they concluded that Spriggs is not what they expected and attention turned to figuring out how to afford Bhaktiari under the upcoming cap wall conditions. Or perhaps they needed to see whether Taylor was good enough to make the cap savings aspect compelling. Anything off-field that may have happened is more grist for the mill.

Waiting, watching, weighing...it's not free. A mid-round pick may have been the cost. I can't get excited about losing that pick.

 

[HardRightEdge]

...it wasn't Taylors superior play that tipped the scales to jettison Sitton early...

"Superior play" misses the point. Judging it to be something adequate, something they could live with or work around, is more to the point. If his play was absolutely dreadful rather than concerning, it might have turned the other way.

To take one example, Willie Beavers was a draft prospect discussed in these pages during Amish's project-the-draft contest. His college tape was absolutely dreadful. A few of us agreed he was not a draftable player. Minnesota cut him despite inexplicably taking him in the 4th. round, but I digress.

Go look at Willie Beavers college tape and try to project that mess into the NFL. If Taylor played in preseason like that this story may have come out differently.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm not buying TT and Co. waited until the last second to make the decision on Sitton if it only centered around player performances. It just doesn't make complete sense to lose trade value as well as potentially allowing him to sign with a division rival. No matter how this gets painted, something Sitton was doing off the field (outside of his playing ability) was rubbing management the wrong way. Had they traded him 3 weeks earlier, I would have bought into the idea that this was strictly a move based on player performances on the field with an eye on the future.

 

[Pkrjones]

Sitton stated that management told him that they were working on extending some of the younger guys and that he was OK with that... I think either Sitton or his agent said something that necessitated immediately not keeping him around and in the locker room. The morning of cut-downs is absolutely the wrong time to try to get any trade-value for him.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Thompson didn't fall out of bed one day with a revelation that he should cut Sitton. His cap, the team's cap, his criticism of McCarthy in January...the wheels of risk/reward evaluation were already turning. In kind, Sitton did not just roll out of bed and become a jerk. Whatever personality or locker room issues were in play, they did not materialize overnight. If something happened recently that tipped the risk/reward balance against Sitton, then the complaint becomes that an accurate crystal ball was not on hand. Perhaps such a ball could have acquired with a 4th. round compensatory pick, though the odds would be they'd find a crack in it.

Again, I'm not endorsing the move, I'm simply providing plausible and reasonable explanations for it.

I'm in the camp that says do what you can to get to the SB now before the cap wall hits next season. The NFC North is such a perennially crappy division that even with one more free agent loss from not gaining the Sitton cap space may do little in compromising a division title next season if that's all one aspires to. As long as Rodgers is around, you pretty much start at 8-8 and work from there.

It's not JUST the comp picks. It's that the team gave away the comp picks in order to weaken the starting oline as well as the depth on the Oline (let's not forget that it's VERY unlikely that the oline stays healthy all year) all so the team could save $4 million....that just doesn't make any rational sense.

 

[PikeBadger]

"Something". Unlike many, I don't go gaga over compensatory FA picks either; it's small consolation when what you gain is less than what you lost. It's better than a sharp stick in the eye in situations that are typically a cap necessity. The occasional 3rd. rounder is nice but not a game changer; 6th. and 7th. rounders are barely above UDFA value.

The fact the Bears signed Sitton to that contract instead of trading for him is evidence of how reluctant teams are to trade picks. For a modest draft cost, they could have paid him the final year under the old contract, or they could have used the leverage of that one year deal to fashion a more favorable extension than what they paid.

Of course, Thompson may not have offered a trade to the Bears for obvious reasons. In that case, we have no idea how anybody in the rest of the league might have valued him. It's not worth getting jazzed up over what might have been a 4th. round pick under other circumstances.

I think compensatory picks are very important. The more picks you accumulate, the greater trading flexibility it gives you with your normal allotment of picks.

I think you are correct about how more teams today are reluctant to trade picks. Quite a few GM's have taken notice how Belichick and Thompson have been building their teams. Belichick is absolutely amazing with draft pick maneuvering. I don't think he's nearly as successful at picking players with all those picks.
Thompson on the other hand, imo, does not trade back often enough though I'm sure that trading picks is not as easy as it would seem to us draft day warriors. Imo, Thompson's draft board probably does not look a whole lot like other GM's draft boards. Just my gut feeling. I think he could often trade back and still get the guy he wants.

 

[PikeBadger]

What I've read is that Sitton was not happy being excluded from extension negotiations, but I did not see other names mentioned. Got a link?

No link, it was something I read in one of these Sitton threads.

 

[El Guapo]

So what I hear some of you saying is that TT went crazy and just cut arguably his best offensive lineman for no reason? That's possible but not plausible. I agree that we don't know anything, and nobody is saying anything, but that doesn't mean that something didn't happen.

Half Empty could be right that this is the first of many crazy personnel moves. I find that highly unlikely. More likely is that something happened. The absence of evidence doesn't preclude the existence of evidence.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So what I hear some of you saying is that TT went crazy and just cut arguably his best offensive lineman for no reason? That's possible but not plausible. I agree that we don't know anything, and nobody is saying anything, but that doesn't mean that something didn't happen.

Half Empty could be right that this is the first of many crazy personnel moves. I find that highly unlikely. More likely is that something happened. The absence of evidence doesn't preclude the existence of evidence.

Currently the only explanation I'm able to come up with for releasing Sitton is the cap savings the move resulted in. The necessity of gaining additional cap space could have been prevented by not overpaying to re-sign several of the team's free agents this offseason though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The thing with the whole Sitton "situation" is you have to differentiate between a comp pick and a pick we would have gotten had we been able to trade Sitton, while they may have ended up being around the same pick, they are completely different in value. I know most get this, but it seems like the 2 terms are being used interchangeably in some posts.

The comp pick value would only have been if we had kept Sitton, paid him his salary and not resigned him and were eligible for a comp pick. We would have had the value of Sittons services this year, a potential comp. pick at the cost of paying him and getting no cap savings.

The trade value would have been what we would have received from another team (our choice) had we been able to trade Sitton. We would have gotten a future draft pick and a cap savings of $6 + M but no services from Sitton.

What we got was no Sitton, no trade or comp pick, but the cap savings.

 

[Half Empty]

So what I hear some of you saying is that TT went crazy and just cut arguably his best offensive lineman for no reason? That's possible but not plausible. I agree that we don't know anything, and nobody is saying anything, but that doesn't mean that something didn't happen.

Half Empty could be right that this is the first of many crazy personnel moves. I find that highly unlikely. More likely is that something happened. The absence of evidence doesn't preclude the existence of evidence.

Seems to me we're at the point where semantics rears its ugly head. I don't think anyone said 'crazy' or 'no reason', it's more a matter of probably for a reason that was part emotion and one with which we probably wouldn't agree. We certainly don't know anything, and we probably never will, and I agree with 'something' happened - just not the something many of feel justifies the move.

I didn't mean to imply that I think a lot more of this would follow. I was referring to your comment about a lack of history and noting that, whether something is a unique event or becomes routine, the first time it happens, it comes from a background of no history. Again, sure, something happened, and while the lack of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it does mean that we either speculate or shut up.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The thing with the whole Sitton "situation" is you have to differentiate between a comp pick and a pick we would have gotten had we been able to trade Sitton.

The point of making the comp pick/trade pick comparison is that comp picks range from 3rd. to 7th. round. The trade pick would fall in the same range.

That a trade did not take place is obvious. What might have been gotten in trade had it been sought earlier is something, but not something of exceptional value. Which bet Thomson was hedging by keeping Sitton longer remains a matter of speculation. I've given some possibilities of what they might be.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The point of making the comp pick/trade pick comparison is that comp picks range from 3rd. to 7th. round. The trade pick would fall in the same range.

Agreed on where the 2 diff. possible picks would have fallen, but they are 2 different scenarios with each having their own different pluses and minuses. Sadly, we didn't have the draft pick involved in the 3rd scenario that the Packers chose.

 

[Scotland Yard]

On top of the 49 sacks allowed by the Packers' overrated OL in 2015, the Packers finished 31 in the NFL in 2015 in short yardage with a 46.2% conversion rate. Only IND, STL and TEN averaged fewer than the Packers' paltry 2.4 yds per attempt in short yardage.

Here's the stats from Football Outsiders (hard to read, I know, so here's the link: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2016/2015-short-yardage-results)


2015 Offense: Short-Yardage Plays
Rk Team Plays 1st Downs Pct. Yds/Play Rk DVOA Rk Pass% Rk
1 PHI 50 41 82.0% 4.9 15 33.1% 5 34.0% 29
2 NO 43 34 79.1% 6.9 3 45.0% 2 34.9% 26
3 CLE 52 37 71.2% 7.0 2 44.9% 3 69.2% 1
4 SEA 52 37 71.2% 4.9 14 12.4% 11 36.5% 24
5 CAR 48 34 70.8% 5.0 13 30.2% 6 31.3% 32
6 ATL 54 38 70.4% 3.5 24 2.5% 15 55.6% 7
7 HOU 43 30 69.8% 5.8 8 22.7% 8 48.8% 12
8 MIN 31 21 67.7% 7.2 1 52.5% 1 48.4% 13
9 CHI 47 31 66.0% 6.4 6 34.0% 4 44.7% 19
10 SF 44 29 65.9% 5.5 10 5.6% 13 61.4% 4
11 OAK 44 29 65.9% 3.7 23 5.4% 14 45.5% 18
12 NE 55 36 65.5% 4.1 21 9.7% 12 41.8% 22
13 DET 52 34 65.4% 5.1 12 1.7% 16 67.3% 2
14 SD 51 33 64.7% 2.9 28 -23.6% 30 43.1% 21
15 WAS 50 32 64.0% 4.1 19 -7.5% 23 50.0% 11
16 KC 41 26 63.4% 4.7 16 1.3% 17 34.1% 27
17 TB 43 27 62.8% 6.5 5 -2.1% 19 46.5% 14
18 ARI 48 30 62.5% 5.6 9 21.4% 9 54.2% 8
19 IND 56 34 60.7% 2.3 30 -9.4% 24 53.6% 9
20 CIN 53 32 60.4% 6.5 4 29.2% 7 34.0% 30
21 NYJ 50 30 60.0% 3.9 22 -6.6% 22 46.0% 16
22 DAL 37 22 59.5% 4.1 20 -0.1% 18 35.1% 25
23 BUF 44 26 59.1% 3.0 27 -6.3% 21 34.1% 28
24 JAC 35 20 57.1% 3.4 26 -21.5% 28 45.7% 17
25 PIT 49 27 55.1% 6.1 7 15.1% 10 61.2% 5
26 STL 28 15 53.6% 2.3 31 -10.4% 25 32.1% 31
27 NYG 58 31 53.4% 4.4 18 -14.1% 27 56.9% 6
28 MIA 36 19 52.8% 4.6 17 -23.0% 29 44.4% 20
29 BAL 65 34 52.3% 3.4 25 -3.5% 20 46.2% 15
30 DEN 43 22 51.2% 5.5 11 -13.7% 26 51.2% 10
31 GB 52 24 46.2% 2.4 29 -32.7% 31 38.5% 23
32 TEN 43 17 39.5% 1.8 32 -42.3% 32 62.8% 3

Anyway, if Sitton is so elite, why did the Packers fail so often on third and short & forth and short? Did they never run behind him?

The results last year were atrocious, TT and MM had to start asking what are they getting for their money. And if the answer is not much, they had to start cutting the dead wood and rebuilding this OL with younger players.