Mike Daniels released

[incognito_man]

20 minutes ago, squire12 said:

Interesting tweet in light of the D Randall voicing some frustration with the coaching during his time in GB and the veteran players council having an issue with it.  

I guess 1 was in season and the other is after being but it does seem a bit ....ironic I guess would be a fair word

Pettine never coached Randall though either.

[squire12]

7 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Pettine never coached Randall though either.

The concept of being disgruntled with a coaching staff.   Capers was once held in very high regard on this very forum by some noteworthy posters.

[incognito_man]

57 minutes ago, squire12 said:

The concept of being disgruntled with a coaching staff.   Capers was once held in very high regard on this very forum by some noteworthy posters.

I guess I don't see what's ironic about a player being traded under a completely different coaching staff than the one that just cut Daniels?

[Green19]

13 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I must be in a different world than everybody else if the consensus is that outside of Clark, this DL group is much better than trash.

But it’s not just Lowery, Adams etc. they do this move with the idea that Z. Smith and Gary get Daniel’s reps, in pass rushing situations.

Thats a top 15 prospect and a high price free agent. The first one to take Daniel’s spot on pass rushing in training camp is Gary. So I’m sure they not only did this move to gain cap space but reps for better pieces to get on the field.

 

[Leader]

3 hours ago, squire12 said:

Interesting tweet in light of the D Randall voicing some frustration with the coaching during his time in GB and the veteran players council having an issue with it.  I guess 1 was in season and the other is after being but it does seem a bit ....ironic I guess would be a fair word

I dont think it anything more than word choice (on Daniels part) and your interpretative spin (above).

It could easily be nothing more than Daniels speaking positively about being coached by Patricia: "I thank God that I got cut and I have an opportunity to play for a genius."

Unless he comes out with future negative comments towards the GBPs or any of the coaching staff - it could just be Daniels expressing eagerness to play under Patricia and nothing more.

 

 

[MrBobGray]

15 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I must be in a different world than everybody else if the consensus is that outside of Clark, this DL group is much better than trash.

I understand your point and think it's fair to question this decision from the perspective of whether we'll get nearly the value out of the ~$9 million that we would have gotten from Daniels.  For what it's worth, I think the team got worse and probably to an extent that he should have been kept.  But I don't think I can agree that this group is trash.  I think you'll probably get very good starters snaps in the run game out of Lowry, Adams and Lancaster, and that's worth noting.  The question of whether anyone in that group can at least offer a push in the pass game is a fair one, but I think it's premature to write them off yet.  Adams still has the talent to be a plus rusher, and it's not like Lowry/Clark wouldn't generate at least some interior pressure.  I think cutting Daniels was a mistake unless there's a clear plan for that money immediately to make something else happen, but I don't see a doomsday scenario here.

Edited July 29, 2019 by MrBobGray

[skibrett15]

21 hours ago, spilltray said:

Lowry is a solid starter who would be a valuable part of the DL on most teams in the league and is young and healthy.

Daniels is an aging vet coming off significant injury, who looked to have regressed last year to the point he is best used situationally and you can bet on it going downhill from here.

 

Just a straight comparison of the two as of 2019

Lowry happens to start in a season where 2 guys ahead of him get injured.  I don't think he will or would be part of any starting DL except as the worst member of a decent to bad line.  He is young and healthy.

I don't think Daniels regressed.  He did get hurt.  I expect him to be an impact player when he's on the field.  If he's hurt, he's hurt, but 4+ other teams were very comfortable with the medical.

[spilltray]

Daniels was playing bad before he was injured.

[Donzo]

On 7/28/2019 at 11:28 AM, AlexGreen#20 said:

I must be in a different world than everybody else if the consensus is that outside of Clark, this DL group is much better than trash.

Dude, that is some weak sauce... Awful.

Ya know, that nonsense would be OK for a couple dudes and their Aunts sitting at the Bar in the Stein in Marinette, who read the Marinette Eagle Star for their Packer information. But, for someone that spends as much time studying the Packers as you do, it's unimaginable that would be your take.

Now, when someone says something this silly, I don't do an info dump to explain why it's so silly. Why should I do work when no work was done making the silly statement. What I'll do is bullet point it for ya, so you can figure it out.

• In 2018, Daniels played in the first ten games. How good was Daniels his last nine games (weeks 2 - 10)? Hint- so-so.
• In 2018, how good were Lowry, Adams and Lancaster the last six games after Daniels was shutdown? Hint- better than so-so.
• In 2019, between Daniels, Lowry, Adams and Lancaster, which one is on the down side of his career and expesive, and which three are on the upswing and cheap?
•  In 20018, Clark essentially missed the last four games (he played a few snaps in week 13 against the Falcons, but was a non factor). So, what is the DL projection for adding a healthy Clark to  to the versions of Lowry, Adams and Lancaster from the last six games of 2018? Hint- it's pretty cool.

 

So, what is trash?

But, hey, the next time you and your Aunt are at the Stein, tell them Donzo said hi!

 

[AlexGreen#20]

13 hours ago, Donzo said:

Dude, that is some weak sauce... Awful.

Ya know, that nonsense would be OK for a couple dudes and their Aunts sitting at the Bar in the Stein in Marinette, who read the Marinette Eagle Star for their Packer information. But, for someone that spends as much time studying the Packers as you do, it's unimaginable that would be your take.

Now, when someone says something this silly, I don't do an info dump to explain why it's so silly. Why should I do work when no work was done making the silly statement. What I'll do is bullet point it for ya, so you can figure it out.

• In 2018, Daniels played in the first ten games. How good was Daniels his last nine games (weeks 2 - 10)? Hint- so-so.
• In 2018, how good were Lowry, Adams and Lancaster the last six games after Daniels was shutdown? Hint- better than so-so.
• In 2019, between Daniels, Lowry, Adams and Lancaster, which one is on the down side of his career and expesive, and which three are on the upswing and cheap?
•  In 20018, Clark essentially missed the last four games (he played a few snaps in week 13 against the Falcons, but was a non factor). So, what is the DL projection for adding a healthy Clark to  to the versions of Lowry, Adams and Lancaster from the last six games of 2018? Hint- it's pretty cool.

 

So, what is trash?

But, hey, the next time you and your Aunt are at the Stein, tell them Donzo said hi!

 

Adams (1.5), Lowry (3), and Lancaster (0) played 1181 snaps of defense last year and managed 4.5 sacks. Good for a sack every 262.4 snaps. 

Mike Daniels in his worst year of his career played 419 snaps and managed 2 sacks, good for a sack every 209.5 snaps. Again, the worst year of his career versus the best year of everybody else's career and he's still beating his supposed replacements by 25%. 

+++

Mike Daniels had 5 QB hits in 419 snaps (83.8 snaps).

Dean Lowry managed 5 QB hits in 698 snaps (139.6 snaps). Tyler Lancaster had 1 QB hit in 271 snaps (271). Montravius Adams had 2 QB hits in 212 snaps (106). Combining for a QB hit every 147.6 snaps.

+++

If the plan is to replace the worst year of Mike Daniels career with production from Lowry (who we know is merely serviceable look at those numbers, thank god we wrote that fat check!), Lancaster (A pure NT only type who has shown nothing in physical skillset or on field production to think he might at any point be pass rush capable) and Montravius Adams,  then damn we all better get on one knee and pray that Adams starts figuring this thing out. 

+++

Mike Daniels in 2017 played 630 snaps. And I get that it's in a different defense, and we're time removed, but hear me out here. He had a sack (5) every 130 snaps, and a QB hit (14) every 45 snaps. Two years ago Mike Daniels had a higher sack/snap rate than Dean Lowry had a QB hit/snap rate last year. 

And I get that a certain amount of pressure is going to come from the pressure package where we're going to get some production out of Gary and Z. Smith, but man alive, where is the pressure coming from on 1st and 10, 2nd and 5, 3rd and 3? Mike Pettine isn't Dom Capers. he doesn't run that much pressure package. We're not going to see the pressure package on 2nd and 6 with this dude. 

And we're really thinking this isn't going to be a loss?

[coachbuns]

All is in the rear view mirror.  Past performance is not indicative of future gain.  It's all good fodder for what may be but until the season actually starts, the results of this decision is unknown at best.  There must have been some sort of sign/signal this coaching staff  noted already that Daniel's future isn't what his past has been.  

[OneTwoSixFive]

24 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

And we're really thinking this (loss of Daniels) isn't going to be a loss?

The Packers may well miss Daniels, though they WILL like the extra money his exit releases.  One thing to be wary of when you look at past performance is that there is no guarantee that will transfer to 2019 performance, especially once you have hit 30. I don't have anything to say about fit (which some have said is not good between Daniels and the how Packers coaches want to run things), but the Packers give few third contracts out, and Daniels dip in performance, plus age, plus projected cap cost, make him expendable.

The Packers additions this year made his exit even more likely. I can't say I like his exit, but I am all too aware that the NFL is an unforgiving business (see Jordy Nelson's exit, or T.J.Lang). Bottom line is the Packers were not happy with his projected performance in this system and maybe his future health, relative to the future cap cost.

PS coachbuns posted while I was writing this, and also made the point about past vs future performance.

Edited July 30, 2019 by OneTwoSixFive

[AlexGreen#20]

14 minutes ago, coachbuns said:

All is in the rear view mirror.  Past performance is not indicative of future gain.  It's all good fodder for what may be but until the season actually starts, the results of this decision is unknown at best.  There must have been some sort of sign/signal this coaching staff  noted already that Daniel's future isn't what his past has been.  

This is so stupid.

Past performance is not a PERFECT indicator of future gain. It is the best indicator that we have. 

I could predict Rodgers will throw 25 picks next year and justify it with "pAst pErFoRmaNcE"

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

This is so stupid.

Past performance is not a PERFECT indicator of future gain. It is the best indicator that we have. 

I could predict Rodgers will throw 25 picks next year and justify it with "pAst pErFoRmaNcE"

First off, your last sentence makes no sense, even though you're trying for sarcasm. Dude threw 2 picks last year. If anything knock his TD %, YPA or completion % to prove your point.

Second our DL group I look at about equal to our WR group. Could totally be trash or it could be set for awhile, we'll wait and see.

[Norm]

How most of this forum reads this thread