Create Account

Or log in with Facebook


Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Packers Question of the day - Can the Packers fare Without Sitton?

By Category

Packers Question of the day - Can the Packers fare Without Sitton?

The attempted trade and eventual release of all-pro left guard Josh Sitton sent shockwaves across the Packers' fanbase and the rest of the NFL. While general manager Ted Thompson's motives remain questionable and yet, unanswered, the offensive line moves forward without Sitton on the roster for the first time since 2008.

Fourth-year guard Lane Taylor will fill the shoes Sitton left, and whether or not he can do so efficiently is, much like Thompson's decisions, in question.

Will there be an evident struggle on the weakened side of the offensive line? If so, would you prefer to see J.C. Tretter at left guard or possibly, dare I say, Don Barclay?


Zachary Jacobson is a staff writer/reporter for Cheesehead TV. He's the voice of The Leap on iTunes and can be heard on The Scoop KLGR 1490 AM every Saturday morning. He's also a contributor on the Pack-A-Day Podcast. He can be found on Twitter via @ZachAJacobson or contacted through email at [email protected].

NFL Categories: 
  • Like Like
  • 0 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (85) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Sure, we can still win. No, Taylor over Barclay at LG. Still, it will almost certainly lead to more pressure on AR, whose bad case of happy feet probably deteriorates to having a case of jubilant feet. "Rodgers, rolls to his right..." probably is heard frequently this year.

dobber's picture

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.

L's picture

More screen plays would be good news to me as I happen to think the screen play is extremely important in today's NFL. They help keep pass rushers a bit hesitant in how they attack an offensive line to get to the quarterback and they can certainly create big gains when catching a defense off-guard.

KenEllis's picture

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!

Nick Perry's picture

^^^^ THIS, THIS, THIS^^^^

marcopo's picture

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.

The TKstinator's picture

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

dobber's picture

The answer is "yes" by necessity. Ain't no lookin' back, now...

DrealynWilliams's picture

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.

Tarynfor12's picture

If this high powered ( talked at least) offense falters via the loss if Sitton, the definition of ' over rated ' will begin with Green Bay Packers.

Rodgers can't pass because of Sitton.
Lacy can't run because of Sitton.
Receivers can't get open because of Sitton.
The defense plays bad because of 3 and outs because of Sitton.

The failure will not be because of Sitton when we have the easiest schedule in the NFL. : )

DrealynWilliams's picture

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".


Do you think this will be a high powered Offense?

Tarynfor12's picture

We'll certainly be more high powered than last long as receivers do what they need to do regardless of what Nelson can or cannot do. Can we really accept the loss or lack of Nelson to be the excuse blanket again if it plays that way.

I have doubts whether this team is ready for week one and an opening loss to Jacksonville looms larger than many may want to accept. : )

LAS VEGAS-TOM's picture

Tarynfor12, I am no longer betting football. The -5 1/2 all be it on the road would probably keep me off of this game. You are thinking in the right direction. It's hard for me to think in terms of even up. The one mistake you are making, that I wouldn't make is thinking the loss of Sitton hurts us.

I don't want everyone to jump on me here, because this is just my opinion. From the betting angle, the loss of Sitton helps us, the same way the loss of Nelson helped us last year win how many in a row.

I wouldn't automatically pencil in a win or a loss. I've had mostly wins going against a 5 1/2 point favorite, whether it be on the road or at home. I do think GB is the pick here, but if I were bettIng, I would stay away from this one.

Tarynfor12's picture

Tom, you misunderstood my take as I believe a loss is looming whether Sitton was still in GB or since he isn't.
I think this team will be get 11 wins minimum but with a grand opening in Minn week2,even with no Bridgewater, is a game that has us looking ahead being a division game and more important, coupled with some rookie jitters....loss looming.
I'll take the points and lay a little on the money line. : )

LAS VEGAS-TOM's picture

Tarynfor12, You are definitely thinking the right way. When I was betting this line would get my blood boiling. I have to be Honest. I do not have a Good track record when it comes to the GB game.

I wasn't even considering the MINN game. I think your betting the right way if Sitton was still here. I'm thinking the loss of Sitton looms large through out the NFL, especially the 1st game. For that reason I think I would go against how I would normally bet. I think the money line is a solid bet, normally with a -5 1/2 point line. I'm glad I'm not betting. I think I'd give the -5 1/2, but I lost doing that more than I've won. Good Luck To You!!

The TKstinator's picture

Sometimes when it gets chilly I wrap myself up in an excuse blanket to get toasty again.

LAS VEGAS-TOM's picture

WHAT PART DIDN'T YOU UNDRSTAND???? I probably shouldn't ask that of someone who has Never made a bet in his life, or Better Yet, WON ONE!!

LAS VEGAS-TOM's picture

WHAT PART DIDN'T YOU UNDERSTAND???? I probably shouldn't ask that of someone who has Never made a bet in his life, or Better Yet, WON ONE!!

The TKstinator's picture

I bet that's not true.

zeke's picture

Put me down for $20 on the under.

LAS VEGAS-TOM's picture

I guess I didn't understand your post. Sorry for that. How do you see the game? What's your take on the -5 1/2, & how does the Sitton move factor into your thinking.

I actually quit betting the GB game for the most part years ago. I always seem to over think it. I usually got it right & then wind up going the opposite way.

I personally think the Big Money on this game is bet on the 1st half. That would be GB -3. Just looking at it, I'd have to go the other way. What's your take? Football 101. Don't bet on your home team. If I factor the Sitton deal in, I see it all together different. That's why I quit betting the GB game. I've always done pretty well going against where I think the money is. Against the grain. I'm glad to have met someone here who bets. What are your thoughts on this one.

The TKstinator's picture

I'm not even sure who you're responding to.

LAS VEGAS-TOM's picture

The TKstinator, I was responding to you. You responded to my post, something about an excuse blanket. I didn't get what you meant. I think I took it the wrong way.

Glad to find someone here who bets. I stopped betting (I Think)? I'd like to get your take on the game. Please Reply.

The TKstinator's picture

Yeah actually I was repeating Taryn's expression "excuse blanket" from a few posts earlier than yours. I don't know jack about betting, but I expect GB to win. 5 1/2 pts? Danged if I know. Too many weird things can happen in any game, and a season opener is probably even more unpredictable than the rest!

Nick Perry's picture

LVT, I find your points interesting at times because I'm not a betting man. If the Packers win by 5 points this weekend they still lose right? Myself I could care less if the Packers win by 1 or 21 as long as it's a win. Obviously the games where their big favorites I'd like to see them win big but at the end of the day a win is a win, even if it's a loss in Vegas.

LAS VEGAS-TOM's picture

Nick Perry, That is basically true, if you bet GB & get the game at GB -5 1/2.
The line moves from time to time. It could go to 6 or sometimes the line will move 2 pt's. Depending on when you bet determines what your line is.

As of right now it is 5 1/2. If you would bet GB & they win by 5, you would lose your bet.

There is also 1st half betting. in this case it's GB -3. You could put up 10% to Buy The Hook, & shave 1/2 Pt off the line. You would have GB @ -2 1/2.
Even though the 1st half line is GB -3, you would win if the 1st half ended with GB 3 PT'S ahead.

I don't recommend you bet. Once you start betting, a Win is not a Win. On the other hand, it's a whole different experience watching a game, when you have something riding on it.

I'm no longer betting. It was fun while it lasted. It was Hell a lot of times too. Make a $5 bet with a friend. You'll soon get a whole new perspective on the game.

Duke Divine's picture

Run that pigskin!

Bearmeat's picture

The worst of TT the team builder showed its face here. He will ALWAYS go young if he has any sort of choice. Bakh, Taylor, Tretter and Linsley all played well at points last year and they think a lot of Spriggs and like Murphy's potential. Its entirely possible that the 4/5ths of the OL from 2013-2015 next year is gone for 2017....

Unless Taylor plays really well, I think (hope) the plan is to move Tretter to LG and put Taylor back as the 6th guy. Perhaps look at trading Bulaga after the year if he stays healthy. Resign Bakh and Tretter. The line for 2017 would then be:


That said, this definitely won't make the OL better the first half of the season this year. I expect some struggles. :(

L's picture

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

al bundy's picture

No ted will let him go to and get nada for him but he will get a pay raise for keeping the salariez down. TT is a bad dream. He is a nightmare thzt is real and happening

zeke's picture

Very well zaid.

The TKstinator's picture

I zee what you did there!

Packer_Pete's picture

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...

L's picture

Bet you Lang will be looking for a higher amount of guaranteed money in exchange for perhaps a lesser overall amount of salary pay given what he just saw happen to Sitton.

Bearmeat's picture

Yep. Lang is going to want out. And honestly, I don't blame him. 30 somethings don't stay on TT fashioned teams for long. The first sign of slippage and they're goners.

Unless Taylor flops, I'd almost count on Lang being gone. They know Tretter can play all 5 positions, and they love him everywhere but LT.

Spock's picture

I hear what you are saying, but 30 something for LINEMAN is not all that old and I don't think Ted views the lineman -as much- from that perspective. However, I imagine Lang is not happy that after making the switch from left to right guard -for the team- now he is stuck there.

NMPF's picture

This team has much bigger problems IF indeed they struggle because of the loss of a LG with rumored attitude and severe back problems.

zoellner25's picture

is Lane Taylor as good as Josh Sitton? No. Sitton was a Pro-Bowler and All-Pro 2nd teamer. But if he wasn''t worth a crap, do you think TT would have cut Sitton and MM named LT the starter? No. It'll be fine over time.

EdsLaces's picture

I'm so nervous for Sunday...

The TKstinator's picture

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

Point Packer's picture

I am cautiously optimistic about Lane Taylor. Though he's stumbled, he's also at times, held his own.

Don Barclay, on the other hand, hasn't been the same since the ACL injury and was an absolute disaster last season. And hasn't been good this pre-season against the benchwarmers.

I cringe thinking about how he is likely the next man up at either guard position and potentially RT.

Packer_Pete's picture

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...

Ferrari Driver's picture

Looks like the Packers blew the Super Bowl with the release of Sitton.

However, on the bright side, they can get the 1st pick in the 2017 draft after they finish in 32nd place while losing 16 straight.

Just goes to show you how important a 30 year old guard with health issues can be to a Super Bowl team.

NashvilleCheesehead's picture

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

marpag1's picture

Maybe there was just a smidge of sarcasm in FD's post?

The TKstinator's picture

I second that notion.

Spock's picture

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

EddieLee's picture

Yes, but why do you have to win without him? It sure would be nice to know why it was so important and in the Packers best interest to release a probowl guard a week before the season. There are ways to get info out without standing behind a podium.

The TKstinator's picture

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.

RCPackerFan's picture

My question is how big of a gap is there really between Sitton and Taylor? Is it as great as some think or is the gap closer then most realize?

I have to believe the coaches and scouting department determined that the gap between Taylor and Sitton was closer then most think.

Taylor played pretty well overall last year as a fill in starter. He got a pretty nice contract in the offseason which shows that the team thinks he is ready to step up.
I think he will do ok.

Spud Rapids's picture

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.

RCPackerFan's picture

I can name a few off the top of my head. But not everyones.

I don't think we overvalue the position mostly because of what happened after they lost Rivera and Wahle and had a couple of pedestrian OG's for a few years unitl Sitton and Lang came along.
Having good guards solidifies your OL.

If anything I think we undervalue good guards.

RobinsonDavis's picture

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!!

RCPackerFan's picture

Yeah, I think we will see a heavy dose of running going on. We saw a lot of that in the preseason and I expect that to continue.

I completely agree that he will be tested hard by opposing defenses. They will try and attack the weak link, which right now would be Taylor, but also the inexperienced Tretter. I expect the Jaguars and Vikings to try and attack them them most.

Packer_Pete's picture

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...

RCPackerFan's picture

That is where my biggest concern is. In the backups...

If Taylor is equal or close to equal with Sitton then there will be a big drop off if there is an injury. At least until Linsley comes back.

I do think Barclay's best position maybe guard. He hasn't had many opportunities to play there though. I won't write him off yet, but I do think there will be a drop off.

fastmoving's picture

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!

Packer_Pete's picture

I wouldn't call a guy who gave up a grand total of 2.5 sacks in 3 seasons "not that good anymore", especially since he was practically always available. He missed a total of 2 games during his entire time with the team. Compare those numbers to anybody else along the OL, and you will see that I'd rather have Sitton than most other players there...

Of course there's no way back, but let's not downplay what veteran presence the Packers just gave up on, voluntarily I might add!

Crackerpacker's picture

I think after the club is no longer needed, Patrick will replace Taylor and have just as good a rookie season as Bakhtiari and Linsley.

Horse's picture

The combo blocks with DBak will suffer for a few games, probably. Not enough practice.

Sitton was let go because the team felt it had to. With one week left before the season. That's not due to declining play or a back issue.

stockholder's picture

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.

Packer_Pete's picture

"Sitton was let go because of racial issues with Lacy" - has anybody posted any reliable link from a reliable source on that? Seems to me there are a lot of lies and a smear campaign going on. Nobody wants to say what the real reason was, but unless I see something from a reliable source, I'm not going to believe anything like that.

The TKstinator's picture

All fabrications are made up, aren't they?

Horse's picture

stockholder: Try reading comprehension 101 again.

"Sitton was let go because the team felt it had to. With one week left before the season. That's not due to declining play or a back issue."

I stand by what I wrote. It came from someone who's on the Packers corporate side.

stockholder's picture

So your standing behind your sept.5, 6:11 comment. That there was an explosive locker room situation. etc. The beef , Sitton and Lacy. Sitton went with the racist epithet. Sitton was let go ; not due to declining play or a back issue. Yet everyone is quoted they have no idea why he was released. Even Sitton. Seems to me , we need a couple of players to comment on the Beef. Some other players had to see it.

stockholder's picture

removed double post. Pretty easy to edit.

Packer_Pete's picture

If you listen to Nagler's podcast, you'll hear that he got from 2 sources within the organization that there is nothing to those fabrications. So you Sir are a liar. If not then just name your source. I find it interesting that nobody of the players heard anything about something that supposedly happened in the locker room, but someone from the "corporate side" knows about it. BS that is all what it is...

MarkinMadison's picture

Per Wilde yesterday, Taylor gave up more pressures during this pre-season than Sitton did during all of the 2015 regular season. Let that sink in a bit. A guy playing part-time in four games gave up more pressures than another guy starting for 16 games. Yeah. I'm sure Taylor will get better by playing more. I'm not sure how much better. If he flops there is always the option to insert Linsley at C and Tretter at LG in six weeks.

Patrick Helms's picture

One thing can be certain....the whole league will be testing that side and when we send help to the left, they will be rushing both ends. Hopefully Arod isn't over throwing his targets under pressure like last year. Doubt it's going to change much though and I am usually I agree that change is sometimes good, too much change is detrimental as already proven from this staff. Also run stop is going to be issue. Hopefully I am wrong....Go Pack!!!!

Since '61's picture

This team has faced all types of injuries and has lost several good players over the last 7 seasons to free agency and retirements and every season we have still made the playoffs. Lose Cullen Jenkins go 15-1, lose Nick Collins make the playoffs, lose Charles Woodson continue to make the playoffs, have 15 players on IR win the SB in 2010, lose Jordy Nelson make the playoffs in 2015 and so on. While the release of Sitton is an unnecessary self-inflicted wound IMO, I don't think it will affect our chances to make it into the post-season. By that point Taylor will either have established himself as an effective guard or he will no longer be starting. Or Tretter will be at LG following Linsley's return to Center from PUP. The bottom line is this is where we are and Josh is not coming back. It's up to MM, the OL coach and the players to get the job done now. It's SB or bust with or without Sitton. Thanks, Since '61

croatpackfan's picture

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!

Patrick Helms's picture

That's a lot of a-s-s-u-m-p-t-i-o-n

Since '61's picture

Croat - as I wrote in another post (yesterday I think) I believe that Josh was simply the victim of a numbers game due to a talented Packer roster. I even wrote that TT has assembled for 2016 one of the best if not the best roster of his tenure as Packer GM . When the time came to reduce the roster to 53 players the Packers chose to protect their younger talent like Callahan, Trevor Davis, and K. Brice and others from being poached by other teams before they made it to the PS. Also, TT and MM knew that they would not resign Josh after this season and they prefer OLs who can play multiple positions on the OL. Josh is really only effective at OG, unlike Barclay, Tretter and Lang who can all play multiple OL positions. The Packers also obviously decided to go heavy with WRs and RBs on the offense especially if you include Cobb and Monty as part time RBs. MM mentioned that there is a hierarchy of positions and OG is obviously lower in the hierarchy that QBs, WRs, RBs and OTs. So Josh became expendable when compared with other OLs and other position groups. We also know that Bakh and Tretter are FAs at the end of the season and TT can use Josh's 2016 salary as part of a contract extension offer prior to the end of this season. They tried to trade him, found no takers so he was released. Those are the actual facts. That's how these things happen in the NFL. Now why do I say that this is an unnecessary self inflicted wound? Because in spite of all the reasons, yours and mine, the Packers could have easily kept Josh and released another player like Callahan or Trevor Davis or Evans or someone else. It is unnecessary because the Packers now have a questionable position where they didn't have one before and this decision could affect Aaron Rodgers and the effectiveness of the ground game. But the Packers placed a higher priority on those other players and position groups than on a 30 year old guard, with one year left on his contract and an injury history, even though he only missed 2 games since 2010. The result is an unnecessarily weakened OL. As for the blackmail scenario you describe, what leverage does Josh or his agent have over the Packers if the Packers choose to keep Josh? What threat do they have over the Packers? The Packers could put Josh on the bench for the season and there is nothing they could do about it. Of course the Packers wouldn't waste a roster spot that way but this blackmail, conspiracy theory is pure speculation. I realize that many negotiations take place behind the scenes, I've been involved in some myself, but that only works until full disclosure which is required in everything that I do. As for the Packers, I doubt that the Packers or any other professional sports organization is blackmailed into anything. Why would they be? As you say no player is bigger than the organization. There is no mystery, blackmail or conspiracy here. Josh is just the victim of a cold, calculating business in a young man's game. As for me I believe that the Packers would be a stronger team if another player was the victim. I hope this helps you to understand what happened concerning Josh's release. For me, it's over now, time to focus on Jacksonville. Thanks, Since '61

LAS VEGAS-TOM's picture

Since '61, While I agree with much of what you say, the fact is, as I posted the other day, GB does not Value the OG position.

Having said that, Can there be that much difference between a 31 year old Starting OG, & a younger 2ond string player?? This is the NFL. There should be an abundance of OG's that can plug the hole. It's hard for me to believe that there are 32 Good OG's in the league, & the rest are also rans. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there is such a thing as an Elite OG. Do you agree?

Like I said the other day, I think GB should have gone ALL IN this year. If they don't have a guy who can take Sitton's place, there's something wrong with the NFL. Go out and get somebody. I'll be surprised if it's that big of a deal?

Since '61's picture

LVT - I agree with you that there should not be that significant of a difference between Josh and Taylor or Tretter maybe later in the season. I also agree that there are not many elite guards but Josh was at least one of the league's better guards. We also should not expect that Taylor will play at the same level as Sitton. Taylor may get there and I would say that he has more potential upside than Sitton at this point. As I mentioned in my earlier post I don't think this will impact our chances to make the post-season but I do believe that you put your best players on the field and Josh was one of our best players, at least before Saturday. Time to move on to the Jags. Thanks, Since '61

croatpackfan's picture

Since, thanks for your answer. I have no problems with your conclusion that this was mentioned to be last Josh seson with Packers. I think we can agree on that. But, they knew what they have for sure after third, if not second preseason game. Whay to wait to the last moment to try to trade Josh Sitton if you already knows that he will be casualty of roster reduction. That does not have any sense. You would try to trade him earlier, not jeopardizing your trade attempt with dead line behind the nearest corner... I mentioned blackmail, because I can not imagine at the moment what else could be "crossing the line" situation. But it may be smething else. Anyhow, Josh might play bad, or become locker room poison (that is not likely regarding what we knows about Josh, but anyhow there is possibility) and he will occupy roster spot which might be used much better. That is decision which is not hard to see and to proceed.
Also, Packers are known as very fair franchise when they are cutting or releasing their veterans - last example - AJ Hawk. Why is that procedure not kept with Josh Sitton.
There is so many indications that something ugly was behind the closed doors that I can not ignore it. I'm sure that Ted Thompson is not the guy who are prone to "an unnecessary self-inflicted wound".
And yes, this, what I wrote is pure speculation, but my speculation is based on some facts. "An unnecessary self-inflicted wound" is term that tells us nothing but Ted Thompson cracked down and made impulsive self distructive moment. Sorry, but I can not see that!

ON EDIT: I just read this article... Interesting speculation!

Since '61's picture

Hi Croat - it is unlikely that we as fans will ever know all the facts about why Josh was released. As MM stated there are many factors involved.
Age, roster considerations, contract and Josh's attitude probably all contributed to the final decision. We don't know for sure when the Packers began trying to trade Josh. It may have begun earlier in camp than we are aware of. It's also possible that until the final week of camp they did not know that they would want to keep as many of their UDFAs as they ended up keeping. Every roster projection that I read, either here or on other sites included Josh on the Packers final 53. Maybe they were going to place Callahan or another player on the PS and realized that they was no way they would make it through waivers and decided to protect them on the 53 and Josh as I suspect became the odd man out. The timing of Josh's release makes it seem like something very bad took place behind the scenes but if you look back over the years and at other teams you will find that veteran players have been released at the end of TC with regularity. As for how Josh was treated, the Packers did him a favor by releasing him since the contract he signed with the Bears guarantees him $10 million. It's unlikely he would have received the same contract a year from now as a free agent with another year of OL play on his body. In any case he was a good Packer and I wish him well. Thanks, Since '61

croatpackfan's picture

As I said, nothing against anybody. We do not know the facts of this event!

Spock's picture

Since '61. Well said. I know you weren't happy with me when I reported what I had read about rumored contract issues and an unhappy Josh, but Croat is going WAY overboard in his conspiracy theories IMO. Always enjoy your well thought out posts (and, as I've said before, "gentlemanly demeanor" even when being attacked by other posters, as has happened in the last few days"). Glad it seems like CHTV is back to being a place for intelligent discourse on the Packers by knowledgeable fans as the previous few days have not been pretty and why I haven't posted during that time period. IMHO I thought that Jersey Al's AGBP site did a better job of policing the comments section and I've been disappointed in CHTV from that standpoint, although it does save from clicking to another site as I always read both.

PaulRosik's picture

No team can ever say that the reason they were not successful today was because they were missing their guard.

ricky's picture

Oddly, even though the Packers seem to not have a lot of D Lmen, we obsess about the loss of an OL man. The game this weekend in Jacksonville is going to be hot and humid, and a lot of defensive linemen to rotate in to keep them fresh is going to be very important. If the game is close in the fourth quarter, and the Dline is panting and reacting more slowly, we could see the cost of not having enough bodies there, with a loss.

Packer_Pete's picture

The secret is out. I think I know why they cut Sitton. Based on Ted's statement:
"“I will say this,” Thompson added. “Josh Sitton is a heck of a football player and a good teammate. He’s one of the better picks I’ve ever made.""
So, heck of a football player - no on the field performance issues. Good teammate - no issues in the locker room.
that only leaves one possibility - he ate Mike McCarthy's breakfast burrito! Kids, don't come close to the head coach's food, or you'll be looking for work elsewhere :-(

The TKstinator's picture

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

Samson's picture

Go ahead, guess all you want. The Pack are a weaker team because Sitton is now a Bear. By the end of the season, all will realize that cutting Sitton was the act of an ego minded GM.

joe packer's picture

What concerns me is why we dont know the reasons behind the release. Where is the reportage here? Not blaming anyone, just asking how it is that Thompson does what he does, and - unlike other organizations - has no oversight from team management, the media, nor the fans who supposedly own the team.

Okay. Failing a way in to Ted's bunker, can someone at least offer an impression of how Rodgers, or the rest of the OL feel about this?

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.

Or log in with Facebook

Packers Tickets, Ticket King


"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."
"The Bears still suck!"