Packers are releasing Mike Daniels

[Mondio]

All it confirms is Daniels is talking like Daniels. A week ago he was ready to get back to work here and show everyone he's back, now he's there telling everyone he's glad to be there.

 

[Sanguine camper]

If another team had traded for Daniels he would have been due to earn $7.6 million in base salary and another $500K in per game roster bonuses this season.



While the cap situation definitely factored into the decision to release Daniels the Packers wouldn't have cut him if they weren't convinced there's a chance to adequately replace him.



The Packers need young players still on their rookie deals to perform above expectations to content for another Super Bowl. If Gutekunst has been able to add such talent to the roster over the past two drafts the team can extend its championship window. Ideally the GM will be able to provide even more help in the near future.



I vehemently disagree with that take.



It seems you have a hard time understanding that Daniels significantly regressed last season before suffering a season ending injury that might bother him moving forward.

The Packers lost some quality depth on the defensive line but as long as the starters on the front seven stay healthy should be fine.

Even if Daniels regressed, Lowry is the 61 rated d lineman in the league according to pff. A gimpy Daniels is much better than Lowry who is just too slow to start. That's what I'm pointing out. You don"t cut guys when their replacement will be the focus of the other team's game plan. He's a d lineman version of Ladarius Gunter.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Even if Daniels regressed, Lowry is the 61 rated d lineman in the league according to pff. A gimpy Daniels is much better than Lowry who is just too slow to start. That's what I'm pointing out. You don"t cut guys when their replacement will be the focus of the other team's game plan. He's a d lineman version of Ladarius Gunter.

Lowry is definitely a better player than Gunter ever was. I understand that you think he isn't capable of replacing Daniels but the Packers front office and a lot of posters including me don't agree with your take.

 

[Stanger37]

I cannot help but believe that part of this move, whether a small or big part, is a mind game by a dysfunctional divisional opponent, but time will tell.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Mike Daniels was bad against the run last year but was still a very good pass rusher. PFF ranked him as the 9th best interior pass rusher last year. I think the Packers knew he was still very good at rushing the QB but couldn't justify his price as a primarily third-down guy when they could use the savings to lock up Kenny Clark who is going to command a lot of money (if they AREN'T using those savings to sign Clark then this move was just stupid). The move was about saving money to sign other guys while acknowledging that the skills Daniels could still bring were not worth the price the Packers were paying.

 

[gbgary]

Despite what Mike Daniels said...he went to Detroit because they paid him. The Browns probably offered one year 5-6 million, and the Lions offered one year 9.2 million with 7 guaranteed. A gross overpay in my opinion, but that’s what the Lions did for every player they acquired in the offseason.

the lions just did the same thing the Packers just did. they're taking a last shot while their aging qb is still good. if they "overpaid" then the Packers did too. they're in the same boat.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

the lions just did the same thing the Packers just did. they're taking a last shot while their aging qb is still good. if they "overpaid" then the Packers did too. they're in the same boat.

Difference being that the Packers have an aging QB worth taking a shot with...

 

[swhitset]

Difference being that the Packers have an aging QB worth taking a shot with...

While true... it’s certainly not the only difference. For instance the players the Packers have signed recently are not nearing the end of their careers and have not just come off major injuries. Notice they did not resign Wilkerson. Jimmy Graham is the only player I might say is bucking that trend.

 

[Mondio]

I'm not sure who he's comparing GB too in this scenario. They paid Wilkerson half of what Daniels is making on a prove it deal for 1 year. I wasn't a huge fan of the Graham signing, but they at least made an investment. Maybe it was wrong, but they didn't toss a bunch of money at a big man coming off IR for 1 single season. I don't see anyone on this team that fits that bill right now.

 

[PackerDNA]

The guy who posted the news said there were 14 teams interested in Daniels. and that four of them offered more than the Lions.

 

[Do7]

The guy who posted the news said there were 14 teams interested in Daniels. and that four of them offered more than the Lions.

Do you think Daniels joined in order to stick it to The Packers? Who were the 4 by chance?

 

[sschind]

The guy who posted the news said there were 14 teams interested in Daniels. and that four of them offered more than the Lions.

If we assume that is true we may be able to conclude a couple of things. It wasn't all about the money which is refreshing to see. There may be a ring of truth to his Matt Patricia comment. There may have been a desire to stick it to the Packers. If this is the case wouldn't he fall under the same scrutiny as Brett Favre who went to a divisional rival to stick it to the Packers. Somehow I doubt he will face the same level of scorn. Of course he probably has the good sense not to actually say it although the crack about being glad he was cut doesn't say much to dissuade this line of thought.

It doesn't surprise me that so many teams were interested. I still think he has plenty to offer in the right situation. I'm sure that had he not been scheduled to count 7.some million against the cap the Packers would have probably retained him (closer to 5 million maybe) That 4 offered more than the Lions does surprise me a bit.

 

[PackerDNA]

Do you think Daniels joined in order to stick it to The Packers? Who were the 4 by chance?

From his comments that sounds like at least part of it. Schefter didn't mention who the four were.

 

[Sanguine camper]

I'm fine cutting Daniels as long as there's a coherent back up plan. I just don't see one other than wishful thinking that players who have shown very little will somehow make big jumps. The situation is analogous to cutting Bulaga and going with Spriggs. Bulaga is over 30, has missed more games from injury than Daniels and above average when healthy. He commands similar money and cutting him would've had similar cap implications. I would take the same view of giving Spriggs an unearned job as I am of giving Adams or Lowry an unearned starting job. In the past giving players an unearned starting job didn't work out too well. We all saw how that worked out with Brad Jones.

 

[Mondio]

I think we were in much better position to mitigate the loss of Daniels, even assuming he comes back at 100%, than being able to move on from Bulaga with what we have at RT

 

[gonzozab]

If

https://www.thescore.com/nfl/news/1...d-i-got-cut-by-packers-joined-genius-patricia

If by genius he means getting torched for 41 points in the Super Bowl to a backup quarterback and finishing with a last place 6-10 record as a head coach then yes, Patricia is a genius.

 

[OldSchool101]

DLs (as designated on the roster sheet) totaled 2303 snaps last season on 1064 team defensive snaps.

That means the Packers used 2.16 DLs per play on average. This is reflective of how infrequently the 3-man base line is used.

DL snap counts will probably go down from there with more usage of OLBs at 3-tech. The Packers might lose a little something in base run D if Daniels were healthy, which is an "if", but I don't think it will be much with Adams, for example. Maybe not at all. Certainly not $7 mil worth.

This makes a lot of sense to me. If our DC knows that our average DL % is likely to drop (or even remain neutral) he’s probably not as concerned after adding Keke and La’Darius as potential guys who can play upfront and our returning veterans Clark, Lowry, Lancaster, Fadol Brown..then last years PS Looney, Eric Cotton and Deion Simon.

This becomes a strategic financial move in order to mitigate our future cap costs. Especially considering Mike was likely gone and not going to be part of future plans.

 

[gbgary]

Do you think Daniels joined in order to stick it to The Packers? Who were the 4 by chance?

maybe. there's the genius patricia (lol) and the money was good...but i'd guess it's because it's close to home (green bay). they have roots there.

 

[OldSchool101]

Even if Daniels regressed, Lowry is the 61 rated d lineman in the league according to pff. A gimpy Daniels is much better than Lowry who is just too slow to start. That's what I'm pointing out. You don"t cut guys when their replacement will be the focus of the other team's game plan. He's a d lineman version of Ladarius Gunter.

I see your logic and in a 1 year tunnel that makes perfect sense. However we’re team building here and I’ve heard several GMs from around the league in interviews say that they realistically consider a 3 year outlook. They didn’t say so but they absolutely put more emphasis on year 1, then next year, then year 3 etc.. but year 2-3 absolutely, positively have some weight and correct me, but I didn’t see Mike Daniels here in 2020. If you think about it, as a GM you don’t want to narrow yourself to just this year, you also have to plan for the future couple of years (or you become like Chicago)
You have to consider monetary costs and then cross that with the next 3 years of expected production. Something I just thought about but rings true is the # of 3 year veteran contracts we hand out, I don’t think that’s coincidence.

So what I’m trying to say is it’s not that they didn’t want to keep Daniels or that he’s not worth $8M, its more that he’s a 1 year plan to them and his value after that probably drops significantly due to a Cap vs age/injury prognosis curve. These other guys are improving and they’re dirt cheap in comparison, plus they easily have a 3 year composite value.

We’re not even touching on schematic value yet. Obviously certain players fit together like puzzle pieces, they may see another player who possess the ability to mirror Daniels productivity (which we have to admit has been in decline recently) because they fit the process that Pettine is employing a little better. You certainly want the proper mix. I’ve noticed, One ingredient our current staff seems to value heavily is QB pressures and multi position ability, not necessarily just raw sack #’s.

We’ve got to trust our coaching staff a little more. I know we all think we’re semi experts but let’s face it you and me put together would not have 10% of the experience it takes. Nothing personal.

I believe Mike Pettine has what it takes, given the resources and some latitude with involvement on personnel changes I believe he’s a top 10 area DC. I don’t think for one second Pettine was not party to these changes. Until proven otherwise we have to trust in the process.

 

[Dblbogey]

I'm fine cutting Daniels as long as there's a coherent back up plan. I just don't see one other than wishful thinking that players who have shown very little will somehow make big jumps. The situation is analogous to cutting Bulaga and going with Spriggs. Bulaga is over 30, has missed more games from injury than Daniels and above average when healthy. He commands similar money and cutting him would've had similar cap implications. I would take the same view of giving Spriggs an unearned job as I am of giving Adams or Lowry an unearned starting job. In the past giving players an unearned starting job didn't work out too well. We all saw how that worked out with Brad Jones.

My argument would be that Spriggs has always sucked, and likely will continue to suck. Lowry has proven to be capable and they are raving in camp about Adams. There appears to be no capable backup for Bulaga, who is still well above average. I like the cutting Daniels move, would have hated to see Bulaga released.

 

[Dantés]

My argument would be that Spriggs has always sucked, and likely will continue to suck. Lowry has proven to be capable and they are raving in camp about Adams. There appears to be no capable backup for Bulaga, who is still well above average. I like the cutting Daniels move, would have hated to see Bulaga released.

Presumably, Billy Turner is now the backup at right tackle.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

the lions just did the same thing the Packers just did. they're taking a last shot while their aging qb is still good. if they "overpaid" then the Packers did too. they're in the same boat.

The Lions never had a championship window to begin with.

There may have been a desire to stick it to the Packers. If this is the case wouldn't he fall under the same scrutiny as Brett Favre who went to a divisional rival to stick it to the Packers. Somehow I doubt he will face the same level of scorn. Of course he probably has the good sense not to actually say it although the crack about being glad he was cut doesn't say much to dissuade this line of thought.

Daniels situation is way different as the Packers were the one to part ways with him though.

I'm fine cutting Daniels as long as there's a coherent back up plan. I just don't see one other than wishful thinking that players who have shown very little will somehow make big jumps. The situation is analogous to cutting Bulaga and going with Spriggs. Bulaga is over 30, has missed more games from injury than Daniels and above average when healthy. He commands similar money and cutting him would've had similar cap implications. I would take the same view of giving Spriggs an unearned job as I am of giving Adams or Lowry an unearned starting job. In the past giving players an unearned starting job didn't work out too well. We all saw how that worked out with Brad Jones.

Lowry has performed at a significantly better level than you give him credit for. In addition it seems Adams has been convincing in practice so far.

 

[sschind]

Daniels situation is way different as the Packers were the one to part ways with him though.

.

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.

Please note I am not claiming any of the stick it to them talk is true in Daniels case. I'm just addressing the point that was brought up.

 

[gbgary]

The Lions never had a championship window to begin with.

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.

 

[Do7]

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.

Dude stop. As long as Rodgers is under center our championship window is never fully closed. We're always in the hunt.