AlexGreen#20 Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 5 hours ago, squire12 said: Not sure if being better today vs yesterday is more important than being better during the later part of the season vs yesterday. Does anybody want to make that argument? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Does anybody want to make that argument? don't wanna leave ya hanging, maybe this will suffice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Does anybody want to make that argument? There's no argument that we got better by removing Daniels from the team. However, if we can get the same base production from Lancaster and Adams and better interior pass rush from Z and Gary all while saving 8m dollars, than we're the same team + 8 million dollars. Really if you were paying Daniels to play base defense and be depth in the interior sub package, that's a waste of 8m. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boratt Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Does anybody want to make that argument? NFL GMs have to think about the whole picture, the whole team, each contract affecting the others. If Daniels is down and done, then using the 8M somewhere else increases our chances of a Super Bowl victory vs wasting it. Thats especially true if Lancaster, Lowry and Adams play better than Daniels this year and we spend the money on something better. Dont know if losing any player makes you better if you don’t consider what you’re gaining. So try to think it all of the way through instead of isolating the negative aspect while ignoring what is gained (money to use elsewhere) Edited July 25, 2019 by boratt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 11 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Does anybody want to make that argument? On paper, GB is not a better team. We as fans do not know how the GB staff view the other DL players outside of Daniels. They may see a group of players (Lowry, Adams, Kingsley, Lancaster, Gary, Z Smith, P Smith) as being able to replace the snaps that Daniels could have provided. The $8M savings for a net neutral in player production/performance means the GB Packers may be better off with that $8M to be available for extensions or FA additions in 2020. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 15 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: There's no argument that we got better by removing Daniels from the team. However, if we can get the same base production from Lancaster and Adams and better interior pass rush from Z and Gary all while saving 8m dollars, than we're the same team + 8 million dollars. Really if you were paying Daniels to play base defense and be depth in the interior sub package, that's a waste of 8m. What about the nickel? Who is playing next to Clark? in the 2-4 and 3-3? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boratt Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 Brian Gutekunst is going to be held responsible for the team he assembles. We don’t have to be know it alls right now. But Gute needs to be good at knowing most of it or he’ll be fired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boratt Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 Just now, AlexGreen#20 said: What about the nickel? Who is playing next to Clark? in the 2-4 and 3-3? Why don’t we see how Daniels plays and how the Packers play and how the money is used and then say whether we’re better or not. Why try to guess so soon with so little information? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 10 minutes ago, boratt said: NFL GMs have to think about the whole picture, the whole team, each contract affecting the others. If Daniels is down and done, then using the 8M somewhere else increases our chances of a Super Bowl victory vs wasting it. Thats especially true if Lancaster, Lowry and Adams play better than Daniels this year and we spend the money on something better. Dont know if losing any player makes you better if you don’t consider what you’re gaining. So try to think it all of the way through instead of isolating the negative aspect while ignoring what is gained (money to use elsewhere) Do you honestly think that Lancaster, Lowry, and Adams are going to play better than Daniels? Do we know if we're actually going to spend the money this year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 Just now, boratt said: Why don’t we see how Daniels plays and how the Packers play and how the money is used and then say whether we’re better or not. Why try to guess so soon with so little information? Because in forums, you talk about the team, including the moves the team makes. You don't throw your hands up and say, "Well the Packers made the move, so it must have been great." Are the Packers writing you a check to cheerleader this forum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boratt Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 One very possible scenario is Daniels lost strength after the foot. He’s aging. He never plays really well again. Lancaster improved his foot quickness and agility and has a better year than Daniels the money is used somewhere better. That would make us better, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 12 minutes ago, squire12 said: On paper, GB is not a better team. We as fans do not know how the GB staff view the other DL players outside of Daniels. They may see a group of players (Lowry, Adams, Kingsley, Lancaster, Gary, Z Smith, P Smith) as being able to replace the snaps that Daniels could have provided. The $8M savings for a net neutral in player production/performance means the GB Packers may be better off with that $8M to be available for extensions or FA additions in 2020. Do you see a group of players as being able to replace those snaps? Is Clark/Lowry equivalent to Clark/Daniels? Is Lowry/Clark/Adams equivalent to Daniels/Clark/Lowry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boratt Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Do you honestly think that Lancaster, Lowry, and Adams are going to play better than Daniels? Do we know if we're actually going to spend the money this year? We have to let it play out. Nobody would have thought Lane Taylor would play so well for so little while Sitton missed games and was out of the league in two years. I’ll tell you what I think in 7 or 8 months about Gutes decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boratt Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 Just now, AlexGreen#20 said: Do you see a group of players as being able to replace those snaps? Is Clark/Lowry equivalent to Clark/Daniels? Is Lowry/Clark/Adams equivalent to Daniels/Clark/Lowry? Maybe. Let’s see how Daniels plays and those guys. They might be better now, after the injury and age to Daniels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 1 minute ago, boratt said: One very possible scenario is Daniels lost strength after the foot. He’s aging. He never plays really well again. Lancaster improved his foot quickness and agility and has a better year than Daniels the money is used somewhere better. That would make us better, no? It was one year. Even if you think he's going to have a medical issue in the future, there was one year left on his deal. Let him try it out in camp. What is there to lose? What I'm trying to figure out is what are the camp implications for the timing of this move? +++ Why did this move need to be made today? It sounds like this move was just done because this is the first day we could cut him because he needed to pass his physical. If we made this move just because we wanted to give him a chance to catch on with another team and have a full camp, I'm going to be pissed. If Lowry tears his ACL tomorrow, we're going to be in a significantly worse position for making this move, just so we can be nice to a player who's going to be pissed at us for cutting him anyway. Stupid. Unless there was cap implications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.