Packers are releasing Mike Daniels

  • Thread starter Deleted member 6794
  • Start date

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,969
Reaction score
1,244
lol...true but they're taking their last shot too. realistically...both team's windows are shut now. in both cases the QB's cap hits have nailed it shut...especially rodgers and him turning 36 in dec. it's about getting a wild card game now for these teams.

I guess the Eagles, Steelers, Falcons and Seahawks have no window either.
 

gbgary

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
3,420
Reaction score
185
Location
up the road from jerrahworld
I guess the Eagles, Steelers, Falcons and Seahawks have no window either.
not really...except wentz for a couple of years. anyone with a qb eating up that much cap space percentage is spitting in the wind. no one's won a SB with a QB cap % over 13 since the first year of the cap...in 1994.
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
How is it different? Didn't the Packers part ways with Favre as well? The Packers cut Daniels and he is pissed so he wants to go to a divisional rival to stick it to them. The Packers traded Favre and he was pissed so he wanted to go to a divisional rival to stick it to them. It just took him an extra year to do it. I don't see much difference unless you are going to argue that Favre parted ways first by announcing his retirement but but even that IMO is not a significant difference as he eventually came back and the Packers eventually parted ways with him.

While the Packers were the one to be part ways in the end Favre's antics were the reason for it. In addition he retired again after the 2008 season to force his way on the Vikings because otherwise the Jets would have never traded him to Minnesota.

With Daniels the team didn't deem him to be worth the cap hit and released him because of it. Huge difference in my opinion.

lol...true but they're taking their last shot too. realistically...both team's windows are shut now. in both cases the QB's cap hits have nailed it shut...especially rodgers and him turning 36 in dec. it's about getting a wild card game now for these teams.

Geez, you're truly being a Negative Nancy. The Packers are definitely not the favorite to win the Super Bowl entering this season but their championship window isn't shut by any means.

not really...except wentz for a couple of years. anyone with a qb eating up that much cap space percentage is spitting in the wind. no one's won a SB with a QB cap % over 13 since the first year of the cap...in 1994.

2019 marks only the second season with Rodgers being the starter that he will count more than 13% towards the team's cap. Unfortunately that didn't result in them winning another Super Bowl aside of an uncapped year in 2010 either.

In addition Rodgers counting $2 million less towards the cap (that would bring his cap hit under 13%) wouldn't make a huge difference for the Packers chances this season.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
not really...except wentz for a couple of years. anyone with a qb eating up that much cap space percentage is spitting in the wind. no one's won a SB with a QB cap % over 13 since the first year of the cap...in 1994.

This is basically the definition of data mining.
 

gbgary

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
3,420
Reaction score
185
Location
up the road from jerrahworld
This is basically the definition of data mining.
i didn't mine it. just quoting it. it's a fact though. think about it. in all those years teams that dedicate too much to the qb don't win the SB. they can't afford to build a team to do it.

The record for the highest cap hit percentage remains Steve Young’s 13.1% in that first season, when teams were still getting used to building rosters under a budget. Only four quarterbacks have ever won a Super Bowl while accounting for at least 11% of their team’s cap room: Young, Peyton Manning (twice), Tom Brady and Eli Manning.

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/02/nfl-quarterback-salaries-salary-cap-kirk-cousins-free-agency
 
Last edited:

gbgary

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
3,420
Reaction score
185
Location
up the road from jerrahworld
Geez, you're truly being a Negative Nancy. The Packers are definitely not the favorite to win the Super Bowl entering this season but their championship window isn't shut by any means.

for a super bowl, yes. for improvement, no. winning a SB is the goal though. i'm just being realistic. the rodgers window has been a topic for years. i just think it's closed now. he's old and getting older, taking too much of the cap, and there's just too many better teams above us.

2019 marks only the second season with Rodgers being the starter that he will count more than 13% towards the team's cap. Unfortunately that didn't result in them winning another Super Bowl aside of an uncapped year in 2010 either.

In addition Rodgers counting $2 million less towards the cap (that would bring his cap hit under 13%) wouldn't make a huge difference for the Packers chances this season.
11% is a tough benchmark too and he's been over that...a lot.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
for a super bowl, yes. for improvement, no. winning a SB is the goal though. i'm just being realistic. the rodgers window has been a topic for years. i just think it's closed now. he's old and getting older, taking too much of the cap, and there's just too many better teams above us.

The Packers are not the favorite to win the Super Bowl this season but if Rodgers performs up to potential they will definitely be a contender. You're way too negative in my opinion.

11% is a tough benchmark too and he's been over that...a lot.

I don't consider Rodgers' cap hit being $5.8 million over accounting for 11% of the Packers cap as a deal breaker for them winning the Super Bowl.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
i didn't mine it. just quoting it. it's a fact though. think about it. in all those years teams that dedicate too much to the qb don't win the SB. they can't afford to build a team to do it.



https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/02/nfl-quarterback-salaries-salary-cap-kirk-cousins-free-agency

Just because you didn't personally datamine that stat doesn't mean the data isn't just someone pulling out a stat with no causality or actual relevance. I'm sorry, I don't believe 13% is some magic number that means a team can't win; it's VERY possible to build a championship team with an expensive QB.

See, the issue with ONLY looking at Superbowl winners is that only ONE team wins each year. Drew Brees accounted for 13.5% of the Saints' cap last year and they were one blown call from being in the Super Bowl, a Super Bowl they very well could have won. Would we have moved the percent of cap figure to 13.6% if the Saints had managed to win that Super Bowl?
 

LambeauLombardi

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 15, 2017
Messages
774
Reaction score
91
As a Hawk fan I'm still saddened by this, but I'll trust the team if they think age and injuries are catching up to him. Hoping Montravius can take a big step forward this year. He'll definitely get enough PT to do so, or at least an opportunity to grab this job by the horns.
 

gbgary

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
3,420
Reaction score
185
Location
up the road from jerrahworld
Just because you didn't personally datamine that stat doesn't mean the data isn't just someone pulling out a stat with no causality or actual relevance. I'm sorry, I don't believe 13% is some magic number that means a team can't win; it's VERY possible to build a championship team with an expensive QB.

See, the issue with ONLY looking at Superbowl winners is that only ONE team wins each year. Drew Brees accounted for 13.5% of the Saints' cap last year and they were one blown call from being in the Super Bowl, a Super Bowl they very well could have won. Would we have moved the percent of cap figure to 13.6% if the Saints had managed to win that Super Bowl?
money left to build a team after the qb is paid is relevant. the fact that only 4 qb's have won a SB with a hit of 11%, and none above 13% since 1995, is pretty damning as the last 24 years have shown. qb's have to be more self aware (if winning is a consideration) in their negotiations and teams have to be smarter.
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
money left to build a team after the qb is paid is relevant. the fact that only 4 qb's have won a SB with a hit of 11%, and none above 13% since 1995, is pretty damning as the last 24 years have shown. qb's have to be more self aware (if winning is a consideration) in their negotiations and teams have to be smarter.

Once again, Rodgers' cap hit being $2 million over the 13% mark this season won't be the deciding factor if the Packers end up not winning the Super Bowl.
 

gbgary

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
3,420
Reaction score
185
Location
up the road from jerrahworld
Once again, Rodgers' cap hit being $2 million over the 13% mark this season won't be the deciding factor if the Packers end up not winning the Super Bowl.
deciding factor? the Packers have other things to deal with but cap is at the top of the list. cap space is the number one problem all teams have to deal with...with injuries being a close second. then there's depth...which is heavily affected by cap. everything comes back to cap space. participation in free agency, signing that last piece to complete the puzzle.
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
deciding factor? the Packers have other things to deal with but cap is at the top of the list. cap space is the number one problem all teams have to deal with...with injuries being a close second. then there's depth...which is heavily affected by cap. everything comes back to cap space. participation in free agency, signing that last piece to complete the puzzle.

Of course managing the cap is an important factor but as I have mentioned repeatedly Rodgers cap hit being $2 million above that "magical" 13% mark won't prevent the Packers of contending for the Super Bowl this season.
 

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
3,152
Reaction score
575
Did they think Mike Daniels was hurt or what they seen during the off season came to the conclusion he isnt what he once was and decided to release him at the star of TC to see if he can join another team.

They decided that the gap between montravious Adams and Daniels was not large enough to justify the big cap hit that keeping Daniels on the roster would entail. By all accounts it sounds like they think Adams is too good to keep out of the starting lineup. Also zadarius Smith was brought in to rush the passer from the same 3 tech spot as Daniels on obvious passing downs.

The only thing I don't get is why not work a trade for him. I do understand his large cap hit would have made the return a lot lower than his talent would suggest but with almost half the league interested in his services I'm sure they could of held out for something, somewhere between a 4th and 6th rounder
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,279
Reaction score
2,395
Location
PENDING
The only thing I don't get is why not work a trade for him. I do understand his large cap hit would have made the return a lot lower than his talent would suggest but with almost half the league interested in his services I'm sure they could of held out for something, somewhere between a 4th and 6th rounder
By all accounts they did try to trade him. Gute said they had at least one lined up, but it fell through. They could have waited for some team to develop a need, but maybe the Pack cut him now so he could have an entire camp with his new team.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
money left to build a team after the qb is paid is relevant. the fact that only 4 qb's have won a SB with a hit of 11%, and none above 13% since 1995, is pretty damning as the last 24 years have shown. qb's have to be more self aware (if winning is a consideration) in their negotiations and teams have to be smarter.

A sample size of 24, with differing cap rules and free agency rules over those 24 samples, does not make for anything close to an actually relevant sample. Especially when the best coach/GM in NFL history has been running the NFL for most of that time.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,262
Reaction score
5,661
The only thing I don't get is why not work a trade for him. I do understand his large cap hit would have made the return a lot lower than his talent would suggest but with almost half the league interested in his services I'm sure they could of held out for something, somewhere between a 4th and 6th rounder
I thought the same thing. I would’ve felt much better about losing him for even a late draft pick. But I agree with getting these young guys like Montravius involved more. We have a contingency of players who can fill his role at an adequate level in a worst case scenario. 8M is a lot of dough for a player who is likely going to be shown the door at seasons end.

We have to remember this is roster building with a brick by brick philosophy and a future outlook, mixing demolition while building up from a foundation is a slippery slope, but if it has to be done? The sooner the better. These franchises are under time constraints and have to make tough decisions at a moments notice.
 
Last edited:
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
By all accounts they did try to trade him. Gute said they had at least one lined up, but it fell through. They could have waited for some team to develop a need, but maybe the Pack cut him now so he could have an entire camp with his new team.
I highly doubt the Packers were so magnanimous. What happens if you shop a guy, his agent finds out (which he would), the player finds out, the handwriting is on the wall, and then his first team camp reps are going to other guys because he's going to be gone one way or the other? It's just not a good situation for the team. Releasing Daniels at that point in time may have been best for him, but that is not the reason behind it.

I suppose Gutekunst could have sat on it and waited for a team with a need to approach him, but then you still have the problem of the camp reps signaling intent anyway.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,969
Reaction score
1,244
By all accounts they did try to trade him. Gute said they had at least one lined up, but it fell through. They could have waited for some team to develop a need, but maybe the Pack cut him now so he could have an entire camp with his new team.

Or they cut him now as to not waste their time with him in camp.

Which is what HRE said that I didn't realize because I posted before I read all the replies. I will learn someday...maybe.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top