Darkane, I think you're referring to the use of the N-word?

I agree there are even times that the N-word does hurt people and it does not always require the utterer to be jettisoned.

I can imagine one says the N-word thinking he's bonding with his Black teammates and someone gets offended; heck it might have even been said by a Black guy. People understand the motivation for saying something is important.

And I think there are times that a person w/o a bigoted bone in his body can shout out or call someone a name when they're mad and that just happens to be the n-word. Heartfelt apologies can be made and healing can occur.

But, even if the person is not a bigot and says for example: "Hey Lang, I can't believe they gave that N-word Taylor a contract extension and you and me dont get one." That person has to go; because there is no apologizing for that. And he has to go even if Taylor didn't hear it and it hurt no one. Because its wrong and anyone who would say that, will cause a problem one day.

Or if someone is heard saying the N-word on multiple occasions; and no one is particularly hurt buy them; I think that grounds to jettison a player on a football team.

Im certain if Sitton used the N-word and lost his job; it was used in a totally unacceptable way.

Am I? I didn't hear of this theory until now. From where did it originate?

---

I will be honest... TJ handled the news a hell of a lot better than I did.

Most of the time, I can understand (may not like, but understand) a decision. But this one, with a final year on his deal, why the hell make this move now. If the "rumor" is true of the "reason".... well then it better have been pretty cut and dry.

Guess we shall see... but color me one that is truly tired of cloak and dagger routine of the front office.

We keep the reasons quiet to damper drama... but then fill the room with it by being coy. If a player is being a racial asshat or bleeding some other phobia, then call his ass out as you boot him out the door. Not addressing it in a case like that isn't a solution, it is part of the problem. But again.. that is speculation on a thing rumor in regards to Sitton.

My confidence in Ted Thompson took a hit with this one... at least at the moment. Opposite of logical, at least on the surface with limited data.

Somehow though, this might be on Mike and his growing fragile ego if he can't handle someone being critical of his play calling. But even then, Ted's job is to put together the best 53 while keeping an eye on the bottom line and the future. Not much adds up in terms of the right thing for the Packers at the moment nor future...

Anyway, to circle back to the topic (my first comment on this damn thing), I applaud TJ for having the stones to speak his "reserved" mind on the topic and the next job at hand, trying to move forward as a team.

---

[Face Palm] really?

Reporter's question: "What kind of message is sent when a move like that is made?"

Lang: "Nobody's safe...everybody'd like to know...I don't think we're ever going to get an explanation...I could sit here and speculate for hours...The fact is, I don't know the reasons behind it, and I don't think we probably ever will [he repeated this]...I think that makes it a little tougher to move on, but you've just got to find a way.”

"A move"? Not a decisions to move on, but "a move" Like: I'm gonna put "a move" on that chick; Capone made "a move" on Bugs Moran's territory on St. Valentines Day.

Send a message? Ted did not send 37 messages cutting down from 90 to 53? This is a hack reporter with no journalistic integrity asking loaded questions.

So Lang answered as follows: [the "message sent" by 1265 by this "move" is that] "Nobody's safe" and "everybody'd like to know [why Sitton was cut]."

NOBODY? It is outrageous that Lang is saying a player with no injury or history of injury, playing well above his contract, who's a good teammate, good lockerroom guy, leader and behaving like a little angel is not safe.

"Everybody'd like to know [As if we dont know the reason]." Everybody? not just Lang, but everybody. Sounds like something said right before the crew of the Bounty mutinied. Who has ever said something like this. If one knows an explanation is not required, it's not mentioned, but he mentions this 5 to 6 times. If someone says 5 or 6 times, boss, nobody's safe, you dont have to give me a reason for the size of my Christmas bonus; he is actually saying, I effing deserved a larger bonus the amount you gave me is irrational, so explain yourself. Lang's obsessive comments on reasons and explanations for Sitton's cut is Lang communicating that the reason was irrational.

The second most team-destructive thing after players using ignorant racial slurs to describe one another is airing dirty laundry to the press. In this case Lang is not only airing dirty laundry; but he's spreading FALSE information to the press. This is outrageous.

Before commenting read the entire conversation. The SELECTIVELY redacted statements quoted above only demonstrate Lang's consciousness of guilt concerning his passive aggressive attack on 1265's rationale for cutting Sitton. Lang knows the pure and utter wrongness of his actions.

People often spew venom in a short statement and then spend the rest of the paragraph cloaking and wrapping their venom in more acceptable fluff to make the venom more suitable.

Let's use simile:

Trump says, I want my followers to assassinate crooked Hillary. And by assassinate I mean eliminate her from being part of the government. I dont mean go out and shoot her in the head or if you see her unguarded car parked somewhere to slide under it and cut the break line. I mean go to the polls and vote for me!

One should not SELECTIVELY say, Trump said "go to the polls and vote for me;" what is your problem Barfarn?

What if the reporter asked Lang, "what kind of message was being sent by Ted when he cut Marquis Williams? " Lang would probably furl his brow, shake his head and roll his eyes and say, "Message?, there's no message, it's football, there's 90 guys and only 53 spots, they dont consult me about those decisions, Im focused on getting ready for Jax."

And about cutting Hawk, Lang would probably say, "Message?, there's no message, there's a business side to this I dont like. AJ was a good friend, a good player and teammate. I'll miss him and wish him well, he'll get a job somewhere."

When one looks at the disparity in the relative answer to the questions of the cutting of Sitton, Marquis Williams and Hawk, it is clear, Lang is sending a passive aggressive message back to 1265 and to the public. He is saying Sitton's cut was irrational and an explanation should be provided and because 1265's decisions are not rational NOBODY'S safe. When has a player ever commented that for us to move on we need to know why he was cut. This is outrageous!

Here's another problem. Lang is a big fat liar, he knows EXACTLY the reason Sitton was canned! He knows it was not about Sitton's play relative to the size of the contract [like when Bears Cut Peppers to save $38M over 2 years]. He knows Sitton was canned for shooting off his Florida Kracker mouth and/or being a divisive prick in the lockerroom. This is Lang's passive aggressive way of telling the world that the cut was not justified. Langy boy is getting a talkin' to today; if he open his yap again and this is about the N-word, he'll be gone.

FACT. Ted could have easily traded Sitton two days after cut downs. There was no particular reason to cut him like that. Trading deadline is in mid Oct, iirc.

Unless it was punitive.

---

FACT. your statement is not fact.

Being cut was better for Sitton than a trade.

Ted was sure being mean to him.

---

Ted is a tightwad. He lives and breathes based on the concept of "value." He's not letting anyone go if he can get something for them. Unless there's another reason.

Like I said, Ted could easily have waited a few days, THEN traded him. He could have gotten SOMETHING. This was a statement.

---

If Ted could have gotten something for him he would have. Even if it was just a 7th round pick in 2020.

---

All he'd have had to do is not cut him. Teams knew he was gonna be cut, so he would be available. To me, it looks punitive. Ted had to make a point.

---

I think this is true as well. Ted was determined that Sitton wasn't making the 53 and when his agent found out a trade was sought the Agent leaked it to ESPN that Sitton would be cut, sabotaging the odds of a trade. Ted decided it wasn't worth the7th or 6th round pick to keep Sitton on the 53 and we know how Ted values those picks. To keep Sitton allTted had to do is IR Dorleant, the ONLY downside to IRing him before putting him on 53 was that Dorleant would not have been eligible to return. The odds tha he'd be the one guy to return is small. That was easily worth a late pick to Ted. But Ted wanted Sitton GONE!

Also, if the plan was that Sitton might be on the way out or that his back might be an issue; then Taylor would have gotten at least a few 1st team reps at LG.

The cut was punitive. Either something really bad happened just before his release or there was a plethora of things that occurred over time and the camel's back breaking straw landed just before cut.

You want to hear a pro handle the situation then listen to Bulaga speak on losing Sitton .

And listen to Taylor , who had several opportunities to talk about how Lang and Sitton helped him prepare and he didn't.