You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum.
This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.


 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Packers Release Josh Sitton
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 63, 64, 65, 66, 67  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
salmar80


Joined: 17 Mar 2015
Posts: 894
Location: Helsinki, Finland
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AlexGreen#20 wrote:
I understand that the precarious position that McGinn is in, but it would be easier for me to respect his work if he were to say, "Sitton's agent" than "someone loosely affiliated with the team". It's misleading, and also there is no way to hold him accountable for his claims. He can say "An AFC personnel man said ___________________" for every thing he states and it can never be proved he isn't making things up.

Additionally, it would be far easier for me to respect him as a journalist if he didn't exude bitterness with every opinion piece. He's bitter that he doesn't ever get the juicy gossip bits ahead of time, and it's obvious in the way that he writes. He writes almost nothing positive about a great team.

McGinn sure is a surly SOB. I can definitely understand people not liking him for that. Maybe we could do a "get Bob laid" -campaign or something to cheer him up.

He tends to be critical at those times when everyone else is on cloud 9. Does he think all is gloomy in Packerland? Well: http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/mcginn/2016/08/17/mcginn-packers-have-depth-deal/88894110/

---

I know accountability to readers is an issue. In a way, accountability to sources takes care of that: The proof he's not making stuff up is that he's still in the business. Sources are still talking to him, not suing him, shutting him out, or complaining about him on PFT. A reporter's sources are their draft board/playbook - you have to take good care of it and it's secrecy.

It's not as if McGinn is the only journo using anon sources. Most all of them do. Some choose not to write stories requiring them, which you can do on certain kinds of articles (biographies, game reports, etc), but not others (draft previews, scouting reports...). Big scoops on controversial topics usually require you to find named sources.

Seems to me there's a code of conduct among agents: They talk about some things like their clients' PR/discipline issues under their own name, but will go full anonymous when they leak contract details, trade rumors etc. Maybe their/their clients' contracts prevent certain things.

After a UFA gets a big deal, the first news is always "Tre Rich signs for 7 years, 100M!" Oooobviously comes from the agent puffing the initial amount, but it's always "a league source" or such... (and then it's really a 3-year thing with spotty "guarantees") Laughing
_________________
Speculation and hindsight: The top talents of a football fan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 13518
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

By cutting Sitton we picked up 6ish million in cap space next year. We also get the chance to see which of our young lineman are worth keeping around.

By letting Sitton play out the season, we get a year of Sitton and (we probably pick up a 4th/5th round comp pick for the 2018 draft. Trying to find more info on this. His age/accrued seasons brings things into question.) We also are stuck approximating the production for the younger lineman.

+++++++++++

I would've kept him.
_________________
BroncoinGermany wrote:
From the day he was born and subsequently starting to grow into his short neck, round face, scruffy beard and pale face, Bulaga was destined to be a Packers O-Linemen for life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 13518
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

salmar80 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
I understand that the precarious position that McGinn is in, but it would be easier for me to respect his work if he were to say, "Sitton's agent" than "someone loosely affiliated with the team". It's misleading, and also there is no way to hold him accountable for his claims. He can say "An AFC personnel man said ___________________" for every thing he states and it can never be proved he isn't making things up.

Additionally, it would be far easier for me to respect him as a journalist if he didn't exude bitterness with every opinion piece. He's bitter that he doesn't ever get the juicy gossip bits ahead of time, and it's obvious in the way that he writes. He writes almost nothing positive about a great team.

McGinn sure is a surly SOB. I can definitely understand people not liking him for that. Maybe we could do a "get Bob laid" -campaign or something to cheer him up.

He tends to be critical at those times when everyone else is on cloud 9. Does he think all is gloomy in Packerland? Well: http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/mcginn/2016/08/17/mcginn-packers-have-depth-deal/88894110/


Quote:
It’s far better to get a draft choice in return than to lose a capable player on waivers. This will be Thompson’s 12th roster reduction. The fact he has procured just two seventh-round draft choices – from the Jets in 2005 for tackle Steve Morley, from the Jets again in ’11 for guard Caleb Schlauderaff – in his tenure doesn’t reflect an aggressive, active general manager.


From the article.

What kind of bitter curmudgeon thinks like that? Because he hasn't been picking up draft choices for guys we're going to cut, he isn't an aggressive, active, general manager?
_________________
BroncoinGermany wrote:
From the day he was born and subsequently starting to grow into his short neck, round face, scruffy beard and pale face, Bulaga was destined to be a Packers O-Linemen for life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
salmar80


Joined: 17 Mar 2015
Posts: 894
Location: Helsinki, Finland
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AlexGreen#20 wrote:
By cutting Sitton we picked up 6ish million in cap space next year. We also get the chance to see which of our young lineman are worth keeping around.

By letting Sitton play out the season, we get a year of Sitton and (we probably pick up a 4th/5th round comp pick for the 2018 draft. Trying to find more info on this. His age/accrued seasons brings things into question.) We also are stuck approximating the production for the younger lineman.

+++++++++++

I would've kept him.

Me, too.
_________________
Speculation and hindsight: The top talents of a football fan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
th87


Joined: 04 Aug 2008
Posts: 1275
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
th87 wrote:
TransientTexan wrote:
McGinn doesn't really hold any credibility with me. he's shown in the past that he's often not above writing for clicks, which can easily be had by continuing this speculation. and there is definitely a subset of disgruntled/entitled fans that he likes to appeal to. there's zero precedent for this FO to release a player who is still playing well enough to justify his deal, especially when the deal is about to expire. in fact, certain fans are always complaining about them keeping players too long, even when their performance has slipped and their cap number is a bit high. if they really felt they needed $6 mil more space, they cut Peppers before even thinking about cutting/trading Sitton.


I guess he just made it up.


you are so annoying...

Texan has been making some real contributions to this site and every time he posts you pop up and act like a 5 year old. Please stop.

------------------------------

To Texan: I've always found that McGinn is excellent in certain areas (he has some nice connections and his draft coverage is very good) but he also constantly has an axe to grind and his pontificating opinion pieces are juvenile, often baseless, and filled with rhetoric and shallow on facts. This particular article is a perfect example of that. It's all factless colorful language pushing an agenda. It's a hack piece.


Please. The thing that seems to pass as "real contributions" around here are how we can take evidence that suggests mismanagement of the FO and twist it around to deflect from that.

I often give credit where it's due, but you're right that I mainly pop up when I have an opinion contrary to the prevailing one. Otherwise it's pointless for me to come in and say, "Yeah I agree."

And note I've never attacked TransientTexan personally. I have attacked his opinions though. But in attacking said opinions, I've gotten all sorts of personal attacks that no one cares about addressing because he's on your side. And because I'm the one with the contrary opinion, I'm the bad guy. This is why people leave.

Anyway, why is it always McGinn pushing an agenda when he paints the FO in an unflattering light? All the evidence we have so far does suggest something wild and/or stupid went down, and he's giving an opinion while connecting some dots. It's interesting if true.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
th87


Joined: 04 Aug 2008
Posts: 1275
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AlexGreen#20 wrote:
salmar80 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
Donzo wrote:
packfanfb wrote:
I know most on here don't like him (McGinn) because he doesn't always support every decision by Thompson and Co./


OK, that's why most don't like him?

Myself, I thought most didn't like him because of his incompetence and lack of integrity.


For me it's his antiquated view of the game and his refusal to actually cite his sources but incompetence and lack of integrity are also probably adequate reasons.

You do realize there's simply no way to get front office sources to agree on being named, right?

Imagine a Packer scout giving analysis on a player to a reporter for another media outlet under his own name without permission. The next day he'd better come to work with a pillow in his pants, since both the boot and the door would hit him hard on the way out.

Also: As a journo, you only get to breach the trust of a source once - you'll never have another source after that. Keeping trust is considered big part of integrity.

As for this article, it's an opinion piece. McGinn gets to have an opinion, and just like anyone else's, it's based on incomplete information.

Personally, I think he may be right that releasing Sitton/failing a trade is a blunder. But he's off his rocker saying we're flush in cap space. Or that you can make cap predictions or personnel decisions banking on injuries to other key players.


I understand that the precarious position that McGinn is in, but it would be easier for me to respect his work if he were to say, "Sitton's agent" than "someone loosely affiliated with the team". It's misleading, and also there is no way to hold him accountable for his claims. He can say "An AFC personnel man said ___________________" for every thing he states and it can never be proved he isn't making things up.

Additionally, it would be far easier for me to respect him as a journalist if he didn't exude bitterness with every opinion piece. He's bitter that he doesn't ever get the juicy gossip bits ahead of time, and it's obvious in the way that he writes. He writes almost nothing positive about a great team.


I mean, that's the assumption we have to make with all news, isn't it? That they aren't just making things up. I have faith that given his credentials and long tenure, he's not actually just making things up.

Wasn't his infamous "if Rodgers gets injured" piece pretty positive?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skibrett15


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2537
Location: nibelheim
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

McGinn's piece is pretty hacky.

I do think there's still a scenario out there where the Packers FO got themselves into a bad situation with Sitton, then made a bad decision to simply release him.

TT tells wolf to find a trade (at the 11th hour) Wolf says "no problem" and calls a few teams, but teams are so busy making cuts they won't bite on Sitton. They tell him to wait till after the roster cutdowns. So wolf relays this to TT, who just decides to cut him.

To me, that's a bad move by the Packer FO. The packers FO, while very impressive overall, is not immune to mistakes. Every team is going to make bad draft picks, bad extensions, bad trades. Belichick has made some really awful moves in hindsight. It doesn't make either of them bad GMs. But it also doesn't mean they didn't make a bad call in this instance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 13518
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that's Taylor's first allowed pressure. He's been fine so far.
_________________
BroncoinGermany wrote:
From the day he was born and subsequently starting to grow into his short neck, round face, scruffy beard and pale face, Bulaga was destined to be a Packers O-Linemen for life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TransientTexan


Joined: 27 Jul 2014
Posts: 566
Location: Connecticut
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

th87 wrote:
incognito_man wrote:
th87 wrote:
TransientTexan wrote:
McGinn doesn't really hold any credibility with me. he's shown in the past that he's often not above writing for clicks, which can easily be had by continuing this speculation. and there is definitely a subset of disgruntled/entitled fans that he likes to appeal to. there's zero precedent for this FO to release a player who is still playing well enough to justify his deal, especially when the deal is about to expire. in fact, certain fans are always complaining about them keeping players too long, even when their performance has slipped and their cap number is a bit high. if they really felt they needed $6 mil more space, they cut Peppers before even thinking about cutting/trading Sitton.


I guess he just made it up.


you are so annoying...

Texan has been making some real contributions to this site and every time he posts you pop up and act like a 5 year old. Please stop.

------------------------------

To Texan: I've always found that McGinn is excellent in certain areas (he has some nice connections and his draft coverage is very good) but he also constantly has an axe to grind and his pontificating opinion pieces are juvenile, often baseless, and filled with rhetoric and shallow on facts. This particular article is a perfect example of that. It's all factless colorful language pushing an agenda. It's a hack piece.


Please. The thing that seems to pass as "real contributions" around here are how we can take evidence that suggests mismanagement of the FO and twist it around to deflect from that.

I often give credit where it's due, but you're right that I mainly pop up when I have an opinion contrary to the prevailing one. Otherwise it's pointless for me to come in and say, "Yeah I agree."

And note I've never attacked TransientTexan personally. I have attacked his opinions though. But in attacking said opinions, I've gotten all sorts of personal attacks that no one cares about addressing because he's on your side. And because I'm the one with the contrary opinion, I'm the bad guy. This is why people leave.

Anyway, why is it always McGinn pushing an agenda when he paints the FO in an unflattering light? All the evidence we have so far does suggest something wild and/or stupid went down, and he's giving an opinion while connecting some dots. It's interesting if true.


yea, asking ppl not to whine when all the facts aren't out yet is unacceptable behavior.~ what horror... re-calibrating spoiled expectations is also off-limits apparently
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TransientTexan


Joined: 27 Jul 2014
Posts: 566
Location: Connecticut
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

th87 wrote:


I mean, that's the assumption we have to make with all news, isn't it? That they aren't just making things up. I have faith that given his credentials and long tenure, he's not actually just making things up.

Wasn't his infamous "if Rodgers gets injured" piece pretty positive?


having a press badge doesn't mean a reporter knows what he's talking about. it just means he is an average fan with better grammar who is skilled at generating clicks ($$$) for the paper he writes for. the days of objective journalism are long gone. the vast majority of articles these days are subjective pieces. the only new pieces of information in McGinn's article are:

"The Packers mentioned an interest in trading Sitton to at least one team about a week before the last cut."
and
"New Orleans, according to a source, expressed interest. The Saints, cap-strapped because the new deal for Drew Brees had yet to be consummated, decided they couldn’t handle picking up Sitton’s one-year deal at $6.55 million. Plus, they already were without their fifth-round pick next year."

everything else is old info, conjecture by McGinn, plus some vague references to "sources" that have nothing to do with the point he is making. that's especially obvious when he goes out of his way to proclaim what the emotions are in other ppl's heads in the FO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kybard


Joined: 31 Dec 2006
Posts: 220
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anonymous sources aren't a problem in my view; they're a pretty necessary part of getting any kind of inside view into pretty much anything where the entity you're trying to investigate have a vested interest in denying your access. sports not being the most important of those entities, but the same principles apply -- allowing people to be unnamed lets you get information that you couldn't incentivize for those people otherwise

what's bad to me about McGinn's piece is that its first seven grafs don't even obliquely reference sources. if he had a no-contest source to confirm all this stuff, "A source [close to/within] the Packers organization" would have been the first words of the piece.

instead the first such reference is just about the vaguest thing I've ever seen in an article like this that would purport not to be an op-ed ("those with knowledge of the situation")

mcginn has written a lot of articles like this in the past couple of years -- mostly opinion, with peripheral citing of sources on aspects that aren't actually the lede -- and it's a shame because his thoroughly-sourced work remains about the best you can find for Packers reporting
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 40976
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

th87 wrote:
[b] I have faith that given his credentials and long tenure


ah ok, same faith for Ted Thompson given his credentials and tenure too then right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17912
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
th87 wrote:
[b] I have faith that given his credentials and long tenure


ah ok, same faith for Ted Thompson given his credentials and tenure too then right?


Boom.

Everything that guy believes or doesn't believe is based on how it affects Ted Thompson.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Same old Jay


Joined: 02 Jun 2015
Posts: 68
Location: Wisconsin
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cutler sacked 5 times hit 9 can we lock this please Laughing
_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU9Ke3uFP8w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZWrf6kgs7Q
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopackgonerd


Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 1284
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Same old Jay wrote:
Cutler sacked 5 times hit 9 can we lock this please Laughing
I said when we let him to "Have fun protecting Cutler" Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 63, 64, 65, 66, 67  Next
Page 64 of 67

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group