Windy City Gridiron article on Sitton

[dachuckster]

Robert Zeglinski at WCG posted an article today (link) about the ramifications of our signing Josh Sitton.  He is a new writer on that site (at least I haven't noticed his byline on stuff over there before).  A lot of it is stuff we have discussed here (what impact will this have on Whitehair and Grasu).

But the point that I found interesting was:

There's also the question of Sitton being a voice of dissent in the locker room. As a valued veteran in Green Bay's locker room for eight seasons, Sitton was one of the Packers' primary leaders that felt he had a say in the daily operations of the team. Last year, he criticized Packers' head coach Mike McCarthy for a lack of commitment to the running game following a blowout loss to the Arizona Cardinals.



Could the Packers have really cut their best offensive lineman because he publicly criticized their head coach?

I was talking about this with a buddy at work (a huge pecker fan) and he told me that McCarthy takes no public criticism form players.  I have no idea if it is true or not.

[Deleted]

First of all that was one of the best and most complete analysis of the signing I've read yet.  I think he covered all of the salient points and covered them well.  Whether or not anyone chooses to agree with his take on it is beside the point.  It's still a well done piece and hits above what we've come to expect from many sportswriters who don't take the time to analyze and cover something this thoroughly.

I've already given my thoughts and opinions on this deal many of which do agree with Zeglinsky's take on it.  I tend to think his release was motivated more by cap issues than by anything Sitton may have said or criticized about McCarthy's game planning or play calling in just one single game.  If there is more to this aspect of it than just that I doubt we'll ever know.  The Green Bay media tends to be far more protective and tight lipped about any sensitive inter-team issues than the Chicago media.

I guess Sitton's age and potential decline could be considered as a reason since he was in a contract year and would no doubt have been asking for an extension with a raise at a time when the Porker's cap space was minimal and simply releasing him if a trade couldn't be accomplished would help solve that problem.  In that regard they acted little differently than the Bears have with players in their contract years who were not part of the long term plan.  Maybe Sitton was no more than their version of Matt Forte.

Whatever the reason or reasons I believe we came out of it with a player we badly needed to stabilize the OL now while our younger OL develop more experience and recover from injury.  I also believe that to have gone into the season as weak and depleted as the OL had become following the retirement of Ramirez and Childers and the loss of Grause would have been a recipe for a disaster that may also have resulted in losing Cutler for several games or more due to injury and if that happened we'd be looking at our third year in a row of drafting in the top ten.

[4dabers]

Well THATS interesting. All this debate about why they let him go and the way they did it (final cuts) makes a lot more sense given this premise.

[dachuckster]

Sept 8, 2016 9:09:06 GMT -6 @soulman said:

First of all that was one of the best and most complete analysis of the signing I've read yet.  I think he covered all of the salient points and covered them well.  Whether or not anyone chooses to agree with his take on it is beside the point.  It's still a well done piece and hits above what we've come to expect from many sportswriters who don't take the time to analyze and cover something this thoroughly.

I've already given my thoughts and opinions on this deal many of which do agree with Zeglinsky's take on it.  I tend to think his release was motivated more by cap issues than by anything Sitton may have said or criticized about McCarthy's game planning or play calling in just one single game.  If there is more to this aspect of it than just that I doubt we'll ever know.  The Green Bay media tends to be far more protective and tight lipped about any sensitive inter-team issues than the Chicago media.

I guess Sitton's age and potential decline could be considered as a reason since he was in a contract year and would no doubt have been asking for an extension with a raise at a time when the Porker's cap space was minimal and simply releasing him if a trade couldn't be accomplished would help solve that problem.  In that regard they acted little differently than the Bears have with players in their contract years who were not part of the long term plan.  Maybe Sitton was no more than their version of Matt Forte.

Whatever the reason or reasons I believe we came out of it with a player we badly needed to stabilize the OL now while our younger OL develop more experience and recover from injury.  I also believe that to have gone into the season as weak and depleted as the OL had become following the retirement of Ramirez and Childers and the loss of Grause would have been a recipe for a disaster that may also have resulted in losing Cutler for several games or more due to injury and if that happened we'd be looking at our third year in a row of drafting in the top ten.

I found it well thought out and written too.

It's about time they got somebody besides Lester and Sam who can write over there.

[Deleted]

Interesting article. I also wonder if it will now be easier to get to Rogers.