August 20, 2019, 01:42:13 PM

Author Topic: Daniels getting released.  (Read 1383 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Karma: +60/-17
Re: Daniels getting released.
« Reply #30 on: July 26, 2019, 02:46:55 PM »

Adam Schefter

Verified account
 
@AdamSchefter
Follow
Follow @AdamSchefter
 
More
Former Packers’ Pro Bowl Mike Daniels officially signed a one-year, $9.1 million deal that includes $7.8 million fully guaranteed with the Detroit Lions, per source.

Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Karma: +22/-4
Re: Daniels getting released.
« Reply #31 on: July 26, 2019, 03:02:21 PM »
Thanks.  $9.1, that's actually a little bit more than what the Packers would have needed to pay him.  (Was it $8.3?)  So doesn't support the notion that the Packer money would have been an obvious or grossly-above-market overpay or anything. 

Interesting that he went for a 1-year deal.  Best of luck to him, when he's not playing the Packers!

Online ricky

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5999
  • Karma: +45/-20
Re: Daniels getting released.
« Reply #32 on: July 26, 2019, 04:06:01 PM »
Thanks.  $9.1, that's actually a little bit more than what the Packers would have needed to pay him.  (Was it $8.3?)  So doesn't support the notion that the Packer money would have been an obvious or grossly-above-market overpay or anything. 

Interesting that he went for a 1-year deal.  Best of luck to him, when he's not playing the Packers!

Why did the Packers cut Daniels? According to this article, they needed the cap space to be able to sign extensions for some younger players.

https://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/the-packers-needed-daniels-cap-savings-523

Actually the guaranteed money is less than the Packers would have paid him. The rest is incentives and performance based bonuses.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/07/26/mike-daniels-gets-7-8-million-guaranteed-from-lions/
« Last Edit: July 26, 2019, 04:13:46 PM by ricky »
"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." Ovid

Offline Gregg

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2634
  • Karma: +19/-6
Re: Daniels getting released.
« Reply #33 on: July 26, 2019, 04:07:30 PM »
Wow, this is pretty bad.

Not only did we lose him, now we have to play him twice.

Detroit has a really loaded DL now.  They have about seven players they can rotate..  Plus they play a 4-3, right.?

I thought that Daniels was a natural flex/ three tackle. Putting him next to Harrison is a formidable duo.

Online ricky

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5999
  • Karma: +45/-20
Re: Daniels getting released.
« Reply #34 on: July 26, 2019, 04:16:49 PM »
Wow, this is pretty bad.

Not only did we lose him, now we have to play him twice.

Detroit has a really loaded DL now.  They have about seven players they can rotate..  Plus they play a 4-3, right.?

I thought that Daniels was a natural flex/ three tackle. Putting him next to Harrison is a formidable duo.

The Packers will play against Daniels twice only if he's healthy. Having seven players to rotate is nice- as long as they're effective defenders. If they're JAG's, it keeps fresh legs out there. Also, they'll have to overcome what seems to be a very good OL. We'll see how this plays out on the field.
"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." Ovid

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Karma: +60/-17
Re: Daniels getting released.
« Reply #35 on: July 26, 2019, 07:09:00 PM »

Ian Rapoport

Verified account
 
@RapSheet
Follow
Follow @RapSheet
 
More
The #Lions gave DL Mike Daniels a 1-year deal worth $9.1M with $7.8M guaranteed... and of the 13 teams who called, four other teams were willing to do that deal or better. But the former #Packers star wanted to play for coach Matt Patricia... and stay in the division.

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Karma: +60/-17
Re: Daniels getting released.
« Reply #36 on: July 26, 2019, 07:10:00 PM »

Tom Oates

Verified account
 
@TomOatesWSJ
Follow
Follow @TomOatesWSJ
 
More
Replying to @RapSheet
So 13 teams were interested in Mike Daniels? And the #Packers couldn’t get something for him in a trade?

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Karma: +60/-17
Re: Daniels getting released.
« Reply #37 on: July 26, 2019, 07:10:51 PM »

Zach Kruse

Verified account
 
@zachkruse2
Follow
Follow @zachkruse2
 
More
Sure looks like the Packers botched the Mike Daniels exit.

Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Karma: +22/-4
Re: Daniels getting released.
« Reply #38 on: July 26, 2019, 09:39:26 PM »
I'm not sure I see that conclusion, RT. 

$7.8 guaranteed on the free market; versus trading a draft-pick to pay $8.3 guaranteed plus the pick? 

I don't find that evident that teams wanted to pay a pick to pay about as much or perhaps a little more. 

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Karma: +60/-17
Re: Daniels getting released.
« Reply #39 on: July 27, 2019, 07:29:19 AM »
Why now, if the Packers are going to get nothing for him, why not wait and use him as insurance against injury. If the Packers lose a DL or two in training camp they are going to wishing they had a player of Daniels quality available to them for the season. They pay 4 marginal players like Pro Bowlers in free agency and than cut a real Pro Bowler to save 8.3M on the cap. The Packers have been a little bit of a clown show since Murphy and Gutes have taken the reins. 

Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Karma: +22/-4
Re: Daniels getting released.
« Reply #40 on: July 27, 2019, 11:29:10 AM »
Your assessment may be spot-on, RT, and the decisions may have been terrible, clownish. 

But I don't think it's hard to understand the logic involved.  All personnel decisions really come down to talent evaluation; and to future performance projection (which may differ from past performance).  It's often said that best predictor of future is the past, so certainly past performance informs future projection.  But it's about projection for the future. 

You are characterizing Daniels as really good ("pro-bowler"), and the four FA's as not very good ("marginal").  You're a smart guy.  It's pretty evident that projecting forward, Gute is projecting the Smiths and Amos as very good, considerably better than "marginal"; and is apparently projecting each of those three guys as being more valuable long-term than Daniels.  It comes down to the evaluation and projection; if Gute's evaluation and projection are good, then the moves were logical.  If Gute's evaluation stinks, and the guys are marginal, and Daniels plays at pro-bowl level for several more years, then it's not going to be good. 

But I think evaluation/projection is somewhat different than logic.  The evaluation/projection is the premise from which decisions need to be logically made.  A conclusion based on a faulty premise is not illogical; it just had a faulty evaluation premise. 

I'm being apologist here for Gute, of course.  I'm not saying any of his moves are correct or have good evaluation; just being apologist for the logic involved given the premises.  So don't take this as confidence or know-it-all that Smiths, Amos, Turner, or Gary will be good; or that Daniels will be not super great.  I don't know any of that stuff, I'm just trying to put myself in Gute's position and trying to rationalize the choices that he made. 

Why release now?  I assume the primary reason is injury-avoidance.  *IF* he gets hurt, then you're contract obligated, yet?  I assume that's really the only real reason.  But I can imagine three others:  Just clearing the decks so that the other guys get camp opportunity and lots of reps with the 1's, etc..  2nd, Daniels has been a great player and effort guy for the Packers; *if* you know you're going to release him, I think it's respectful to give him a full camp with his next team.  (That latter is just me thinking.  I'm not sure any NFL GM can take employee-respect factors into consideration....)  But yeah, it seems like it could be awkward. 

Two other apologist notes:
1.  Availability has been an issue for Daniels for the last couple of years.  That must have factored into the projection.  It may not be coincidence that Daniels, Perry, and Matthews, three availability-challenged defensive keystones over recent years, are all gone? 
2.  VORP must be a consideration for all moves?  Again, this may be terrible evaluation by Gute.  But if he believes in Lowry, Adams, Lancaster, Gary, and the Smiths, he may not have evaluated Daniels's VORP as being super high?  Whereas given the situation at safety and guard (pre-draft), Amos and Turner might be viewed as having larger VORP?  Perhaps the same with the Smiths, once a decision had been made that Perry + Matthews' availability wasn't consistent enough to bring them back?  Gute says he likes every room; but it might be true that he likes the younger linemen a lot, perhaps more than he should?   

Online ricky

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5999
  • Karma: +45/-20
Re: Daniels getting released.
« Reply #41 on: July 27, 2019, 12:23:22 PM »
Why now, if the Packers are going to get nothing for him, why not wait and use him as insurance against injury. If the Packers lose a DL or two in training camp they are going to wishing they had a player of Daniels quality available to them for the season.

So far, couldn't agree more. Apparently, they thought cap space was more valuable than Daniels. As noted, we'll see.

 They pay 4 marginal players like Pro Bowlers in free agency and than cut a real Pro Bowler to save 8.3M on the cap. The Packers have been a little bit of a clown show since Murphy and Gutes have taken the reins.

Daniels made one Pro Bowl. Big deal. Many, many players pass up the "honor" to get some rest and skip a meaningless game. If he'd been named All Pro once or more, that would be something to crow about. So, the Smiths, Amos and Turner are "marginal players"? Seriously? These additions are seen as the Packers making a big splash in FA to fill some areas of need with younger, rising players. They dumped some underperforming players and went with youth, health and proven ability that should improve with time. Rodgers is particularly happy with Turner, naming him several times in interviews, unprompted. The team couldn't get a draft pick for Daniels? This happens a lot, when other teams know you're going to cut a guy- as craig pointed out, why pay the larger salary and a pick to get a guy you could get for just the salary? As craig also said, you're a smart guy. But this post reads like someone who is frustrated and angry. Calling the Packers a "little bit of a clown show" since Gutes took over (Murphy has been around for years, and deserves a lot of blame for keeping TT around well past his expiration date). This is a team that is being renewed, given an injection of talent through FA (what a novel idea!) and the draft. Seriously, you're a lot better than this.

Just saw this. You may disagree, but this is a pattern- get rid of older players who have peaked; reward/accumulate younger players with more upside.

https://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/mike-daniels-release-shows-the-nfl-is-a-results-business-650

« Last Edit: July 27, 2019, 12:35:22 PM by ricky »
"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." Ovid

Offline Gregg

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2634
  • Karma: +19/-6
Re: Daniels getting released.
« Reply #42 on: July 27, 2019, 01:50:48 PM »
The question is: Had he peaked?

Or was it just a bothersome injury?

If the former, then fine.  If the latter, then Detroit is going to be sitting pretty.

The last thing you want to do is make a rival stronger.  Man, this is a tough division already.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2019, 02:00:44 PM by Gregg »

Online ricky

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5999
  • Karma: +45/-20
B,
« Reply #43 on: July 27, 2019, 06:01:28 PM »
The question is: Had he peaked?

Or was it just a bothersome injury?

If the former, then fine.  If the latter, then Detroit is going to be sitting pretty.

The last thing you want to do is make a rival stronger.  Man, this is a tough division already.

Football, except for QB, is a young man's game. If a player lasts until they are in their mid-30's, still playing at a high level, that is the exception, not the rule. The average NFL player has a "career" of just over three years. The Packers are taking the position that it's better to move on from a player a year too early, rather than a year too late. It's a tough business, but these guys find out the reality of the situation fairly early. That is why I seldom fault a guy for demanding more. Why not? The team has zero loyalty to the players. Here is an excerpt from an article on the average length of service for a player:

According to the NFL Players Association the average career length is about 3.3 years. The NFL claims that the average career is about 6 years (for players who make a club's opening day roster in their rookie season). Players with at least one Pro Bowl appearance usually have the longest career of all NFL players.
"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." Ovid

Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Karma: +22/-4
Re: Daniels getting released.
« Reply #44 on: July 27, 2019, 10:30:38 PM »
That 3.3 average, of course, includes all of the short-term guys.  Guys who come off PS for the last two weeks of a season.  Guys on the 63-man roster who replace injuries, but never become intended 53-man guys.  UDFA's and late-rounders signed with D+D hopes, but they don't develop enough and the redshirt is over before year 4.  There are a lot of back-of-roster guys, GM's are constantly churning through the back-of-the-roster in hopes of finding some winners.  But they really pad the numbers and kind of skew the average.