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.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 

[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.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 

I generally like your posts, but I could not possibly disagree more with what you've been writing here. You're extrapolating a lot from very little.

Where is it documented that Sitton was dropping the N-word and/or that was the reason for him being cut? All I've seen is vague twitter speculation.

To my knowledge, the only facts are 1) Sitton was cut. 2) McCarthy said there were many layers to Sitton being let go. 3) Back in December Mike didn't want Sitton talking about play calling. That's it. Anything beyond that is speculation. What interview are you watching where the players say Sitton was a "divisive prick" in the locker room? Mike's frustration with Sitton's comments were from 9 months ago. He said Lacy was fat 7 months ago yet Lacy is on the team. Thus to assume the play calling comments contributed to this is guessing AT BEST for us as fans.

Lang said he was stunned. Spofford did too, in fact, find someone for me who hasn't been stunned by this. To blame Lang for "not owning up" or whatever else you've been saying is conjecture. You're connecting dots that we don't even know are from the same book.

Originally Posted by: musccy 

I generally like your posts, but I could not possibly disagree more with what you've been writing here. You're extrapolating a lot from very little.

Where is it documented that Sitton was dropping the N-word and/or that was the reason for him being cut? All I've seen is vague twitter speculation.

To my knowledge, the only facts are 1) Sitton was cut. 2) McCarthy said there were many layers to Sitton being let go. 3) Back in December Mike didn't want Sitton talking about play calling. That's it. Anything beyond that is speculation. What interview are you watching where the players say Sitton was a "divisive prick" in the locker room? Mike's frustration with Sitton's comments were from 9 months ago. He said Lacy was fat 7 months ago yet Lacy is on the team. Thus to assume the play calling comments contributed to this is guessing AT BEST for us as fans.

Lang said he was stunned. Spofford did too, in fact, find someone for me who hasn't been stunned by this. To blame Lang for "not owning up" or whatever else you've been saying is conjecture. You're connecting dots that we don't even know are from the same book.

Originally Posted by: musccy 

Too long to read and more than likely nothing worth while anyway. Oops maybe I am being sarcastic. THAT BAD. ME SORRY.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

But also every little piece of info we reveal fits the bigot premise, including Chmura's comments and nothing contradicts it. Churma's comments cements the issue in my mind. This is what is called a circumstantial case. Somebody bring a fact that deflates the bigot theory and I'll abandon it or at least be less certain.

But on Lang; he's a liar and his pants are on fire. If Chmura knows what happened, Lang knew well before Chmura found out. Lang is like Chmura, he just thinks Ted is being too sensitive and Sitton should not have been cut; but he's afraid to come out and say it like a man.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 

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.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

If people think this was just a knee jerk reaction, I don't think they are thinking it through. The Packers don't make a move like this for no reason. SOMETHING happened that set this bomb off.
And I doubt that any of us will ever know the true reasons.
Sometimes athletes get too full of themselves, and end up hurting themselves in the end.
Although the boatload of money "Da Bares" will be paying him will make him feel that if he DID do something to deserve getting cut, it worked out just fine for him.
(And I DID say "if", not that I know if he did)

Originally Posted by: Cheesey