Designed roll-outs as opposed to forced ones will help this offense (and the OL), too.

What's the over/under on the number of screen passes the Packers call on Sunday? Probably higher than we expect.

I have just as much faith in Lane Taylor or Don Barclay replacing Sitton as I did iin MD Jennings and Jerron McMillian when they replaced Charles Woodson at Safety in 2013.

In TT one must always trust!

The issue is not if the Packer's can still win. The issue is are the Packers a better team without Sitton. Obviously, the answer is no. His loss hurts the teams chances of winning, let alone the Superbowl. It's Thompson's job to give the team the best chance to win in assembling the roster. Clearly, he failed.

I think the question should be "HOW will the Packers fare without Sitton" rather than "CAN the Packers fare..."

Lol, right?

We might not look our best, but we still have Aaron Rodgers and that guy, at times, just seems to just "make it work".

Can we still win? Yes.

Am I confident in Barclay/Taylor? Hell no.

Let's hope Linsley doesn't face any setbacks and can jump right in ASAP.

I can't tell if you're on the fence or not.

It sounds like you want to say we won't be a high powered Offense, but you used the word "if".

Sooooo.....

Do you think this will be a high powered Offense?

It's certainly possible; though, I think Bulaga factors into it somehow as I'm not sure they'll look to trade him.

In general going younger is not the wrong decision. Father time eventually wins against everybody. And we all knew that of the UFA on OL after this season, the likelihood of keeping Bakh and/or Tretter over Sitton and/or Lang was high. At the same time, the decision made last weekend was peculiar due to timing, and an unforced error in my opinion. And one still has to field the best team possible. In certain situations going younger is totally warranted, in other situations it is not.

Applies to any team sport. One of the most successful German soccer coaches once said "I don't distinguish between young and old players, only between good and bad players. But if two players are of equal skill, then I'll always go with the younger one". And I agree with that mantra.

I still think at least 2 OL of the UFA will be kept even in 2017, assuming that no severe injuries prevent that. Bakh and Tretter IMHO will be re-signed. If Linsley is then healthy then they'll form a good core for the OL. I am not sure about Bulaga. He always seems to get injured. could be a bad streak of bad luck, but to quote McCarthy, what counts is "availability and accountability". If either one is missing then one cannot expect to be on the team much longer. I also think that Spriggs will turn into a good player. The question for me really is, will they try to re-sign Lang, if no apparent decline in play and he can stay healthy. Probably depends on how much money they'll have to dish out for Bakh and Tretter...

More time in the Worry Chair ought to do the trick, my friend!

I am not so optimistic about Taylor, but I think he might be serviceable. What I am really nervous about is an injury to any of the 5 starters Sunday. I really do not want to see Barclay or any of the 2 rookies yet as a starter...

What???? Dude, look at injuries of teams winning past Super Bowls. Relax.....

I have to assume that is sarcasm so I won't give it an up or down vote.

The rumblings of "locker room issues" are growing much louder on sports radio around these parts. But I doubt anyone connected to the team REALLY wants to go on the record about it.

How many guards can you name outside the Packers roster in the NFL? I know I don't I can name any... I think we overvalued the position because we had Sitton there for so many years.

Taylor's struggles in the passing game has been talked about, especially his issues on recognizing stunt pass rushes, but he appears to be a good run blocker. As much as everybody is talking about the passing game returning, I could see a healthy dose of running and short passes, with Rip in the backfield for blocking insurance in the passing game which would minimize Taylor's perceived weakness. One thing is certain, Taylor is going to be watched and tested by opposing defenses, so we will know shortly how he holds up. Wishing Lane and the Pack, much success!!

Maybe that gap isn't that big. But in a sport where starters regularly miss games (and the Packer have had their share of injuries last season on OL), one always has to consider the backups too. If Taylor's skill is somewhat close to Sitton, then any injury of any starting OG could be compensated relatively easily by bringing Taylor in. Who do you bring in now, at least in the first 6 games? Don Barclay? And please don't tell me you think his skill is close to any of the starting OGs...

Sitton wasnt that good anymore lately, especially when they run. Saved a lot of money for a small drop of in quality.

No big deal at all. Put it behind you guys!

I thought you said Sitton was let go because of racial issues with Lacy. Now its because they felt they had to because of declining play? I was expecting to hear more about your source. So you really made up a fabrication.

Why do you claim it was "an unnecessary self-inflicted wound"? What information you have to claim that? Can you, please share that information with us, so we can better understand the move made by Packers!
Lets talk with facts. A little we know, but we have some facts.
Fact one, very important is that we can say that Ted Thompson is not lunatic.
Fact two - We also learned from the past that Packers are not doing any knee jerk decision, even when everybody are expecting that kind of decision.
Fact three - We rightfully suppose that Ted Thompson would start trade attempts much earlier than one hour (or 5 hours if you wish) before the dead line, if Packer had plan to cut or release Josh Sitton.
Fact four - We know for sure that Josh Sitton agent was source who told press that Packers try to trade him, otherwise he will be cut. That is why trade attempts fails.
Fact five - There would be no reason for any team to trade with Packers, as they learned Josh will be cut anyhow. He will be much cheaper for interested party with terminated contract.
Fact six - During TC, starter OL was Brian, TJ, JC, Josh and David. If Packers have in mind any sudden change, I'm sure they will be practicing guy at LG position for Josh replacement. They might explain that as keeping josh fresh for the season etc..
After this facts, my only conclusion is that someone, not necessarily Josh Sitton, but his agent (my suspect) tried to blackmail Packers, forcing them to start negotiations about contract extension or to release Josh from contract. I suppose Josh was unhappy (that is fact) with Packers priority for contract negotiations and he told that to his agent. I do not claim that agent told Josh about his plans, but as Josh signed with Bears second day after he was cut tells me he had several deals in his pocket already.
That tells me that Josh's agent had the plan, not Packers.
Again, I'm employer and I tell you that first person who would come to me and try to blackmail me to get something from me, no matter how "important" that person is, my answer would be showing the door with kindly asking that person to left keys and shut the door behind her/himself.
There is no player bigger than Packers franchise. NO PERSON! Somehow I think Ted Thompson knows that. Josh Sitton's agent did not know that fact!
Go, Pack, Go!

Truer words have never been sp...er, blogged. Well played, sir!