Sign Mike Daniels?

[GreenBaySlacker]

I´m really surprised by that statement. Daniels has been one of the best 3-4 DE in the entire league over the last two seasons, I don´t see any reason why he shouldn´t garner a lot of interest if the Packers allow him to test free agency.



As Carl already pointed out correctly you really have no idea how a 3-4 defense works.

I know how a 3-4 works... seriously guys? you settle and im ridiculed? Get some damn defensive linemen out there that can do both! i want pass rush from the front! 12 sacks in 2 years doesnt impress me. sorry.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

How is this a question for anyone? Daniels will be one of the top names in free agency. He's one of the best pass rushing 3-4 ends in the NFL. You don't think a 4-3 team would project him to be massively productive at DT? He's 26 years old. There are literally no negatives to the guy's play.

 

[adambr2]

I know how a 3-4 works... seriously guys? you settle and im ridiculed? Get some damn defensive linemen out there that can do both! i want pass rush from the front! 12 sacks in 2 years doesnt impress me. sorry.

No one is ridiculing you. We tried to explain that it is a bit ridiculous to expect 6 sacks out of your 3-4 NT and 12 sacks out of your 3-4 DE when there were no 3-4 NT that even did that last year and Watt was the only 3-4 end that did. Yet instead of appreciating the good player we have in Daniels, you continue to stubbornly insist that 12 sacks and 6 sacks is what you want, like we can go pick 3 Hall of Famers off the DL tree.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

i accept that my expectations may be too high. but im all about the D-line. This under acheiving trend the last.... half dozen? years or so, has me disturbed. Raji and Guion could give Daniels the help he needs to be a 10 sack 3-4 do everything DE.

On that note, Guion seemed to be a good example of how a good D-lineman can make a great impact on a D-line starved team. What did we pay for him again? And its a bummer all our potential contributors like Worthy, who I was convinced was going to be good coming out of MichSt. Boyd who hasnt broke out, along with Thornton last year. Injuries a factor.

I get that we have just had bad luck in this department. All this gives Daniels leverage in negotiations. But as far as what i see during games. He is good, but not great. Yet. he has another contract before he developes into the player some think he is already.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Thompson didnt pay Cullen Jenkins 5 mil/year back when he went to philly. I dont think he puts the DE position at a premium. Definately not back then. More so now maybe. But not enough IMO.

 

[Mondio]

you think Guion improves a talent starved line, but think Daniels is just a guy?? Daniels is twice the player of anybody on that line, including Guion.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Daniels was here when our D-line was basicly a non-existant joke. A young up and coming player, but still a part of a group that couldnt do their job as a group... We add Guion (and even subtract Raji) and our whole D-front played decent. I admit some of that had to do with Peppers being behind them last year, and rotation players being healthy. But you cant deny the positive impact Guion seemed to have on the whole line.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

you think Guion improves a talent starved line, but think Daniels is just a guy?? Daniels is twice the player of anybody on that line, including Guion.

Daniels is not just a guy. I called him a "core player". How does that translate to being just a guy? He isnt a star. Thats what i said... People here seem to think he's magically graduated to greatness BECAUSE his contract is up, and we dont have a replacement.

 

[Mondio]

Do you watch the games? He's good, very good. Nobody is saying anything magical at all. he's a guy that should be signed. He's done nothing but work hard and improve every year. He's one of the best at his position in the league. Nothing magical about that, just hard work and a good attitude. he is the only guy on that Dline that I don't think needs an immediate upgrade. Guion, who you think made such an impact is "just a guy". Their level of play is hardly comparable other than they both along the DL

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Daniels was here when our D-line was basicly a non-existant joke. A young up and coming player, but still a part of a group that couldnt do their job as a group... We add Guion (and even subtract Raji) and our whole D-front played decent. I admit some of that had to do with Peppers being behind them last year, and rotation players being healthy. But you cant deny the positive impact Guion seemed to have on the whole line.

Yup, Guion was an improvement over Pickett at NT. That was a positive impact. You're really reaching for arguments against Daniels. Daniels was a rookie in 2012. Are we holding it against him that the dline wasn't great in his rookie season? In 2013, it's somehow Daniels fault that the Packers dline featured two of the worst dline starters in the entire NFL in Raji and Pickett?

Mike Daniels has been the only player making the packers dline even close to competitive. There has not been another above-average player on that dline in the entire time he's played in Green Bay and I don't even think there's been another average player in his time in Green Bay. Guion improved as the season went along but looking at his season overall he went from below-average to average. Maybe Jones and Guion can change that this year, Jones certainly showed flashes last season.

 

[mradtke66]

i accept that my expectations may be too high. but im all about the D-line. This under acheiving trend the last.... half dozen? years or so, has me disturbed. Raji and Guion could give Daniels the help he needs to be a 10 sack 3-4 do everything DE.

See, right there is why we are picking on you. "10 sack, do everything 3-4 end." That's something of an unicorn. You might as well say that you're not satisfied unless our line consists of 2 JJ Watts at left and right end with Wilfork at Nose.

Ignore Watt, he's a super-star-freak. 3-4 ends are more closely related to 3-4 tackles. a 6 sack season from a tackle is an above-average to great season. Having a career of 6 sacks a year is outstanding. Justin Smith, probably the best 3-4 end Pre-Watt has 87 sacks over his 13 year career. An average of 6.6 sacks per year. And he started his career as a 4-3 end. Are you starting to realize how out of whack your expectations are?

He is good, but not great. Yet. he has another contract before he developes into the player some think he is already.

What? This is THE big contract guys get. Number 2 is where the money comes from. There might not be a third. Or if it is, it might be for someone else, shorter term, less money, etc. We lost Jenkins on his 3rd-ish (not sure how we should count his early contracts...) aka, second-big-money contract.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I wouldn't call him "one of the best" 3-4 DEs in the league, but I certainly value his play and would want him re-signed.

I said he will not be a high demand free agent for the same reason he was a 4th. round pick: his short stature (6' even) doesn't fit the vision of a 3-4 DE and his generally small size (300 lbs, give or take, together with his height) does not fit the prototype of a 4-3 tackle. Regardless of his gamer, hard working, chip-on-the-shoulder play, these things weigh in the market.

I would observe his strength is as a 3-tech pass rusher; his run game play at 4/5 tech has been inconsistent.

I don't think his height would be a factor for other teams as he has proved he's capable

Have to disagree with you. I would think Daniels would get plenty of looks if he was allowed to test the market next year. There aren't many top tier 3-4 DEs in the 2016 UFA class.

Muhammad Wilkerson, Fletcher Cox and Casey Hayward will be free agents as well.

I know how a 3-4 works... seriously guys? you settle and im ridiculed? Get some damn defensive linemen out there that can do both! i want pass rush from the front! 12 sacks in 2 years doesnt impress me. sorry.

That ranks within the top 10 at the position over that period.

Thompson didnt pay Cullen Jenkins 5 mil/year back when he went to philly. I dont think he puts the DE position at a premium. Definately not back then. More so now maybe. But not enough IMO.

Jenkins had another good season in 2011 but his play declined after that. The Eagles released him after only two seasons of a five-year deal. In hindsight it was the right move not to offer him that kind of money.

 

[TJV]

I know how a 3-4 works... seriously guys? you settle and im ridiculed? Get some damn defensive linemen out there that can do both! i want pass rush from the front! 12 sacks in 2 years doesnt impress me. sorry.

This is just one of many examples showing he doesn't know how a 3-4 works and his expectations are obviously unrealistic.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

This is just one of many examples showing he doesn't know how a 3-4 works and his expectations are obviously unrealistic.

good greif. I dont know how a 3-4 works because i have very high expectations?
Yes. 2 JJ watts and a Wilfork in his prime. Thats what I want... I know thats not going to happen, but dang it, TRY! JJ Watt gets 20 sacks... All i want is 10!!! lol
Guion, Raji were great addition/keeps. I believe Raji has the potential to be the star I speak of. Guion will play great again too I hope. This, and another year of development for Daniels..... He might change my mind by seasons end. Like Cobb did last year. But now, nobody. Not you all, or anyone short of the Tedmeistero himself, will change my opinion. Against the grain or not.
I always believed the 3-4 hinges on 3 D-linemen doing the job of 4 and forcing 5 or even 6 blockers to slow them down... But that doesnt mean they shouldnt produce like 4-3 D-linemen!?!?! They just have to be better to do it! Thats the point! For a 3-4 to work properly. The foundation of the theory IMO is 3 DOMINANT D-linemen on the field. If you dont have that, the 3-4 is a disadvantage. Again, IMO. I admit a OLB like Peppers doesnt hurt... But my perception of what the building blocks of a 3-4 are, stays true to me.

Side note Im sure all of you will disagree with. Because its not the standard 3-4..... Guion should start over Datone Jones. Jones can play the change up, coming off the bench fresh. He would be more effective doing this IMO.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Yes. 2 JJ watts and a Wilfork in his prime. Thats what I want.

You can't have them...no matter how hard you stomp your feet.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Right now I would settle for two 1/2's of JJ watt, and an old beat up Wilfork. But i will learn to live with it.

 

[Carl]

good greif. I dont know how a 3-4 works because i have very high expectations?
Yes. 2 JJ watts and a Wilfork in his prime. Thats what I want... I know thats not going to happen, but dang it, TRY! JJ Watt gets 20 sacks... All i want is 10!!! lol
Guion, Raji were great addition/keeps. I believe Raji has the potential to be the star I speak of. Guion will play great again too I hope. This, and another year of development for Daniels..... He might change my mind by seasons end. Like Cobb did last year. But now, nobody. Not you all, or anyone short of the Tedmeistero himself, will change my opinion. Against the grain or not.
I always believed the 3-4 hinges on 3 D-linemen doing the job of 4 and forcing 5 or even 6 blockers to slow them down... But that doesnt mean they shouldnt produce like 4-3 D-linemen!?!?! They just have to be better to do it! Thats the point! For a 3-4 to work properly. The foundation of the theory IMO is 3 DOMINANT D-linemen on the field. If you dont have that, the 3-4 is a disadvantage. Again, IMO. I admit a OLB like Peppers doesnt hurt... But my perception of what the building blocks of a 3-4 are, stays true to me.

Side note Im sure all of you will disagree with. Because its not the standard 3-4..... Guion should start over Datone Jones. Jones can play the change up, coming off the bench fresh. He would be more effective doing this IMO.

If a 3-4 has three dominate lineman, great, but it's not needed.

A 3- 4 worked for the Packers in 2010 without 3 dominate guys. Worked for the Steelers for years. Worked last year for the Kansas City, Baltimore, New England, and Houston (all top 10 in points given up last season, none of which had 3 dominate lineman).

The Packers tried a 4-3 sometimes last season early and it was awful. Clearly, a 3-4 was not to their disadvantage.

Nobody is going to disagree because "it's not a standard 3-4" but because your opinion is simply incorrect and not how a 3-4 works.

 

[TJV]

Ask for an example of him not understanding the 3-4 and it is given:

I always believed the 3-4 hinges on 3 D-linemen doing the job of 4 and forcing 5 or even 6 blockers to slow them down...

He’s “always believed” something that’s not true – a requirement that all 3 DL or at the very least 2 of the 3 DL constantly require double teams. And:

But now, nobody. Not you all, or anyone short of the Tedmeistero himself, will change my opinion.

Ignorance is one thing, stubborn ignorance is another.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Right now I would settle for two 1/2's of JJ watt, and an old beat up Wilfork. But i will learn to live with it.

You're getting the hang of it. If we got Watt's pass rush productivity out of our collection of 3 tech/5 tech guys and Raji played like that "old beat up" Wilfork, it would be a stunning success.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

If a 3-4 has three dominate lineman, great, but it's not needed.

A 3- 4 worked for the Packers in 2010 without 3 dominate guys. Worked for the Steelers for years. Worked last year for the Kansas City, Baltimore, New England, and Houston (all top 10 in points given up last season, none of which had 3 dominate lineman).

The Packers tried a 4-3 sometimes last season early and it was awful. Clearly, a 3-4 was not to their disadvantage.

Nobody is going to disagree because "it's not a standard 3-4" but because your opinion is simply incorrect and not how a 3-4 works.

disagree completely. Poe carried them, and has Houston and his 22 sacks picking up slack. They fell short. Houston has Watt, who single handedly carried them all. Baltimore, Ngata, Pats Wilfork sprinting to the finish line, as if that Matters. Pats would be the Texans without Brady... These super dominant guys are the proto-types. any assemblance of likeness is accepted. And maybe if they had more than one great D-lineman of the 3, they wouldnt be top 10 in points allowed.

 

[mradtke66]

I always believed the 3-4 hinges on 3 D-linemen doing the job of 4 and forcing 5 or even 6 blockers to slow them down... But that doesnt mean they shouldnt produce like 4-3 D-linemen!?!?!

No. 1000 times no. You keep repeating you understand how the 3-4 works and then you say things like this which proves you do not.

The 3-4 linemen are supposed to do more heavy lifting--IN. THE. RUN. GAME. That's the idea. Clog up lanes, let the linebackers run free to make the play. Big, huge guys. The premise here is you are willing to give up pass rush skills in exchange for more stout run defense. But even then, modern, 2-gap systems are rare. Much more likely for there to be some kind of hybrid. Maybe the NT 2-gaps but both ends single gap. Or the strong-side end and NT two gaps.

NEXT: Stop confusing our "ends" with 4-3 "ends." We don't have "ends." We have guys who line up in a three point stance. They are more likely "tackles" who just slid over a couple feet. Compare our "ends" to "tackles" in a 4-3.

NEXT: We do sort of have "true ends." They just happened to be in a 2 point stance most of the time. Lots of people call them "outside linebackers," because they drop into coverage sometimes.

FINALLY: Stop thinking of needing "3 linemen to do the job of 4." Again, this demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scheme. The front 5 of both schemes (3 linemen + 2 OLBs vs. 4 linemen + strong OLB) is roughly the same size. The 3-4 just takes some of the size off of the weak defensive end. This turns the strong side end into a tackle and the weak end into an OLB.

Stated another way: we don't play a base 3-4, we play a base 5-2. Our ends just happen to be standing up.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Ask for an example of him not understanding the 3-4 and it is given: He’s “always believed” something that’s not true – a requirement that all 3 DL or at the very least 2 of the 3 DL constantly require double teams. And: Ignorance is one thing, stubborn ignorance is another.

did you read your definition of a 3-4 in the average mans guide to be average and not have any opinion that would ever make you otherwise? because you are putting me to sleep. 3 guys that all need to be double teamed is it. Whats your version? Raji is labeled as a turd doing exactly what you are wanting. Daniels is a must keep, when NOBODY outside Wisconsin even knows who he is!!! Give him your stripes if you want, but he hasnt earned anything in the NFL but a starting job. And he should be happy to keep that! D-linemen are not wasted positions in the 3-4. Not there to eat up blocks. They are suposed to eat up blocks BECAUSE they are kicking rear. Daniels is on his way. He isnt there yet.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

You're getting the hang of it. If we got Watt's pass rush productivity out of our collection of 3 tech/5 tech guys and Raji played like that "old beat up" Wilfork, it would be a stunning success.

1/2 of JJ watt is the 10 sacks on each end I asked for in the first place.

 

[Carl]

good greif. I dont know how a 3-4 works because i have very high expectations?
Yes. 2 JJ watts and a Wilfork in his prime. Thats what I want... I know thats not going to happen, but dang it, TRY! JJ Watt gets 20 sacks... All i want is 10!!! lol
Guion, Raji were great addition/keeps. I believe Raji has the potential to be the star I speak of. Guion will play great again too I hope. This, and another year of development for Daniels..... He might change my mind by seasons end. Like Cobb did last year. But now, nobody. Not you all, or anyone short of the Tedmeistero himself, will change my opinion. Against the grain or not.
I always believed the 3-4 hinges on 3 D-linemen doing the job of 4 and forcing 5 or even 6 blockers to slow them down... But that doesnt mean they shouldnt produce like 4-3 D-linemen!?!?! They just have to be better to do it! Thats the point! For a 3-4 to work properly. The foundation of the theory IMO is 3 DOMINANT D-linemen on the field. If you dont have that, the 3-4 is a disadvantage. Again, IMO. I admit a OLB like Peppers doesnt hurt... But my perception of what the building blocks of a 3-4 are, stays true to me.

Side note Im sure all of you will disagree with. Because its not the standard 3-4..... Guion should start over Datone Jones. Jones can play the change up, coming off the bench fresh. He would be more effective doing this IMO.

Also, how could a line realistically take up 6 blockers with 3 guys while still getting the pass rush of 4-3 lines?

disagree completely. Poe carried them, and has Houston and his 22 sacks picking up slack. They fell short. Houston has Watt, who single handedly carried them all. Baltimore, Ngata, Pats Wilfork sprinting to the finish line, as if that Matters. Pats would be the Texans without Brady... These super dominant guys are the proto-types. any assemblance of likeness is accepted. And maybe if they had more than one great D-lineman of the 3, they wouldnt be top 10 in points allowed.

Exactly. They had good, functioning 3-4s without 3 dominate lineman.

Unless you're now changing your opinion to there has to be three for the defense to be dominant.

 

[TJV]

Don't you just love it when someone who obviously doesn't know what he's talking about digs in his heels?

3 guys that all need to be double teamed is it. Whats your version?

What's my version? Reality. Not a naive fan's fantasy of pro bowlers lining up at every position.