The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I've heard people bash Daniels saying he is old (35) or saying his sack numbers are low (2.5 last season). Well, you have to actually watch football to know that sacks don't tell much of the story by themselves. Daniels is a perfect example of an effective DL who doesn't always rack up sack totals.

First, let's discuss why sacks are good. One reason, they end a passing play. Well, what about run plays? You need to end them too don't you? Passing plays only account for about half of the snaps in a game, so are we just going to forget about the other half of the game waiting for a sack? If you got one sack per game you'd finish the season with 16 and probably go to the pro bowl. That's 16 plays out of about 400. Pretty small impact overall.

So, back to Daniels. He had 9 passes defensed last season, 2nd best among all DL's in the NFL. You know what that does? It ends a passing play. That's right, just like a sack. Daniels had more PD's than all of the other Redskin DL's combined. Hell, he had MORE PD'S THAN LARON LANDRY! Pretty useful DL don't ya think?

Now let's not forget his versatility. he routinely moved inside on passing downs so Wilson or Washington could pass rush from the end spot. Think that might have something to do with his sack numbers? He spent many 3rd downs, where you knew it was going to be a pass, rushing from the inside DT spot!

Now effectiveness against the run is harder to judge because sometimes you make the play by plugging a gap or backing the OL into the backfield and stats don't reflect those plays, only tackles are recorded. But watch games and listen to what other players and coaches say and you'll see Daniels is stout against the run.

Lastly, I'll point out his leadership. He is a bona fide locker room leader. he's also known as a leader in the weight room where he is still the strongest player on the team. in fact, this off-season he took two weeks off and then immediately started competing on the power lifting circuit. He recently squatted an amazing 722 lbs! and says he is stronger now than he has ever been and feels quicker off the line as a result. A video of him power lifting is linked below. So for those you doubting Daniels contribution the the Redskins franchise, please consider more than his sack stats before making up your mind.

http://www.powerliftingwatch.com/node/8535

I don't recall anyone bashing Phillip Daniels contributions to the Redskins. The only comments I remember reading are that he would be better inside on a full-time basis so the Redskins could add another bona fide pass rushing end to compliment Andre Carter, and that because Daniels is 35 he won't be around much longer and the Redskins need to be grooming his replacement sooner than later.

GSPODS wrote:I don't recall anyone bashing Phillip Daniels contributions to the Redskins. The only comments I remember reading are that he would be better inside on a full-time basis so the Redskins could add another bona fide pass rushing end to compliment Andre Carter, and that because Daniels is 35 he won't be around much longer and the Redskins need to be grooming his replacement sooner than later.

I recall defending Daniels repeatedly prior to the draft because a number of people, you included, kept insisting that DE was THE #1 priority because of Daniels.

GSPODS wrote:Team Needs:

Pass Rushing Defensive End (Starter)
Phillip Daniels is 35 and well on the downside of his career.

In fact, while searching the pre-draft threads, I ran across this humorous little exchange between you and SkinsFreak:lol:

GSPODS wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:It would be interesting if Sweed, Kelly and Thomas were all available when we pick. You could possibly trade down a few spots, get an extra 2nd rounder and perhaps even more picks, and still get one of those receivers.

No chance of that happening. Buffalo will take one of those three, probably Kelly.

but I digress,

Numerous people look at two things with Daniels, AGE - 35, Sacks - 2.5 and then close the book on him. i contend he is not over the hill, not ineffective and does many things that make him a great player to have play in, play out.

My concern about Daniels is NOT his ability to play. He is still a game changer... when he is healthy.

The concern is about his durability, and the lack of a quality understudy.


BTW... I don't see how you can interpret what GSPODS said in that quote as "bashing". He is simply pointing out reality. Daniels is on the downside of his career. He will not improve, and (in fact) the likelihood is that his skills will diminish at an accelerating rate. That's not bashing. It's just how it is.

I will say, however, that Phillip Daniels is still a top 25% DE, and he's a major reason that it's still so hard to run on the 'Skins.

That could change in an instant, with a torn hammy, a snapped Achilles, or a ruptured disc... all of which increase in risk as the player gets older. Again, just how it is.

Countertrey wrote:My concern about Daniels is NOT his ability to play. He is still a game changer... when he is healthy.

The concern is about his durability, and the lack of a quality understudy.

No doubt. I just feel that many fans have written him off. I agree his health is key and a decent backup would be preferable. But I never considered replacing Daniels as a starter more important than improving our WR corps or finding an impact DT next to Grif. I even felt like CB needed improvement because even though we have good depth, neither Rogers or Smoot are bona fide starters at this point and Springs has been injured quite a bit.

fleetus wrote:

Countertrey wrote:My concern about Daniels is NOT his ability to play. He is still a game changer... when he is healthy.

The concern is about his durability, and the lack of a quality understudy.

No doubt. I just feel that many fans have written him off. I agree his health is key and a decent backup would be preferable. But I never considered replacing Daniels as a starter more important than improving our WR corps or finding an impact DT next to Grif. I even felt like CB needed improvement because even though we have good depth, neither Rogers or Smoot are bona fide starters at this point and Springs has been injured quite a bit.

I was actually hoping that we would get a quality DE so that it would become possible to move Daniels inside... which, I believe, would decrease his exposure to injury, and, possibly, lengthen his career.

fleetus wrote:
In fact, while searching the pre-draft threads, I ran across this humorous little exchange between you and SkinsFreak:lol:

GSPODS wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:It would be interesting if Sweed, Kelly and Thomas were all available when we pick. You could possibly trade down a few spots, get an extra 2nd rounder and perhaps even more picks, and still get one of those receivers.

No chance of that happening. Buffalo will take one of those three, probably Kelly.

I missed that one rather badly. But really, who would have guessed that not a single wide receiver would be drafted before selection #34.

On Daniels, I meant what I said. He would be better served as a full time run stuffing / pocket collapsing defensive tackle, and the Redskins would be better served with another pass rushing defensive end opposite Carter.

Countertrey wrote:

fleetus wrote:

Countertrey wrote:My concern about Daniels is NOT his ability to play. He is still a game changer... when he is healthy.

The concern is about his durability, and the lack of a quality understudy.

No doubt. I just feel that many fans have written him off. I agree his health is key and a decent backup would be preferable. But I never considered replacing Daniels as a starter more important than improving our WR corps or finding an impact DT next to Grif. I even felt like CB needed improvement because even though we have good depth, neither Rogers or Smoot are bona fide starters at this point and Springs has been injured quite a bit.

I was actually hoping that we would get a quality DE so that it would become possible to move Griff inside... which, I believe, would decrease his exposure to injury, and, possibly, lengthen his career.

You mean move Daniels inside right? I've thought that might be a good move too. As strong as he is and right now he weighs 308, you have to wonder if he might be more effective at DT. Wouldn't be suprised if he played DT more this year, especially if someone else, Erasmus or Wilson maybe, steps up at DE.

fleetus wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

fleetus wrote:

Countertrey wrote:My concern about Daniels is NOT his ability to play. He is still a game changer... when he is healthy.

The concern is about his durability, and the lack of a quality understudy.

No doubt. I just feel that many fans have written him off. I agree his health is key and a decent backup would be preferable. But I never considered replacing Daniels as a starter more important than improving our WR corps or finding an impact DT next to Grif. I even felt like CB needed improvement because even though we have good depth, neither Rogers or Smoot are bona fide starters at this point and Springs has been injured quite a bit.

I was actually hoping that we would get a quality DE so that it would become possible to move Griff inside... which, I believe, would decrease his exposure to injury, and, possibly, lengthen his career.

You mean move Daniels inside right? I've thought that might be a good move too. As strong as he is and right now he weighs 308, you have to wonder if he might be more effective at DT. Wouldn't be suprised if he played DT more this year, especially if someone else, Erasmus or Wilson maybe, steps up at DE.

Yup... I corrected my reply... I was thinking inside, and, hence, "Griff". Yeah, I do have a feeling that he'll be playing a lot more inside, but someone has to step up... I don't see that being Wilson... too small to hold the corner on runs, and James would have to really bring it on... considering his history of injuries, who knows.

fleetus wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

fleetus wrote:

Countertrey wrote:My concern about Daniels is NOT his ability to play. He is still a game changer... when he is healthy.

The concern is about his durability, and the lack of a quality understudy.

No doubt. I just feel that many fans have written him off. I agree his health is key and a decent backup would be preferable. But I never considered replacing Daniels as a starter more important than improving our WR corps or finding an impact DT next to Grif. I even felt like CB needed improvement because even though we have good depth, neither Rogers or Smoot are bona fide starters at this point and Springs has been injured quite a bit.

I was actually hoping that we would get a quality DE so that it would become possible to move Griff inside... which, I believe, would decrease his exposure to injury, and, possibly, lengthen his career.

You mean move Daniels inside right? I've thought that might be a good move too. As strong as he is and right now he weighs 308, you have to wonder if he might be more effective at DT. Wouldn't be suprised if he played DT more this year, especially if someone else, Erasmus or Wilson maybe, steps up at DE.

I know he competed in the 308# (140kg) class in power lifting, but does anyone know what he weighs now? If it's even close to 308, he will be more effective inside.

Phillip Daniels is entering this season physically stronger than any player we have on the roster, the man squats 600 plus enough said. If I tried to squat that much my spine would shatter into tiny little pieces.

Gibbs4Life wrote:Phillip Daniels is entering this season physically stronger than any player we have on the roster, the man squats 600 plus enough said. If I tried to squat that much my spine would shatter into tiny little pieces.

There is no arguing his strength. It's his durability that is a concern, and is the main reason I am hoping he plays inside.

fleetus wrote:I've heard people bash Daniels saying he is old (35) or saying his sack numbers are low (2.5 last season). Well, you have to actually watch football to know that sacks don't tell much of the story by themselves. Daniels is a perfect example of an effective DL who doesn't always rack up sack totals.

First, let's discuss why sacks are good. One reason, they end a passing play. Well, what about run plays? You need to end them too don't you? Passing plays only account for about half of the snaps in a game, so are we just going to forget about the other half of the game waiting for a sack? If you got one sack per game you'd finish the season with 16 and probably go to the pro bowl. That's 16 plays out of about 400. Pretty small impact overall.

So, back to Daniels. He had 9 passes defensed last season, 2nd best among all DL's in the NFL. You know what that does? It ends a passing play. That's right, just like a sack. Daniels had more PD's than all of the other Redskin DL's combined. Hell, he had MORE PD'S THAN LARON LANDRY! Pretty useful DL don't ya think?

Now let's not forget his versatility. he routinely moved inside on passing downs so Wilson or Washington could pass rush from the end spot. Think that might have something to do with his sack numbers? He spent many 3rd downs, where you knew it was going to be a pass, rushing from the inside DT spot!

Now effectiveness against the run is harder to judge because sometimes you make the play by plugging a gap or backing the OL into the backfield and stats don't reflect those plays, only tackles are recorded. But watch games and listen to what other players and coaches say and you'll see Daniels is stout against the run.

Lastly, I'll point out his leadership. He is a bona fide locker room leader. he's also known as a leader in the weight room where he is still the strongest player on the team. in fact, this off-season he took two weeks off and then immediately started competing on the power lifting circuit. He recently squatted an amazing 722 lbs! and says he is stronger now than he has ever been and feels quicker off the line as a result. A video of him power lifting is linked below. So for those you doubting Daniels contribution the the Redskins franchise, please consider more than his sack stats before making up your mind.

http://www.powerliftingwatch.com/node/8535

Not to argue about Daniels, but a sack doesn't just end a passing play, it also causes a yardage loss which frequently ends a possession, results in a groggy quarterback, demoralizes the offense and pumps up the defense.

Daniels is very good against the run, but he is below average at rushing the quarterback. The fact is that our pass rush last season was awful and a good amount of that blame falls on Daniels. With interior linemen that are unable to collapse the pocket, his inability to get to the qb is even more pronounced. Obviously sacks aren't the only thing that matters, as a consistent rush is more important, but there were 60 defensive ends with more sacks than Daniels last season. No matter how you look at it that just isn't very good.

You mentioned batted passes, but that isn't even close to a sack or a hurry. Pressuring the qb makes him uncomfortable in the pocket and leads to mistakes/turnovers.

CanesSkins26 wrote:Daniels is very good against the run, but he is below average at rushing the quarterback. The fact is that our pass rush last season was awful and a good amount of that blame falls on Daniels. With interior linemen that are unable to collapse the pocket, his inability to get to the qb is even more pronounced. Obviously sacks aren't the only thing that matters, as a consistent rush is more important, but there were 60 defensive ends with more sacks than Daniels last season. No matter how you look at it that just isn't very good.

You mentioned batted passes, but that isn't even close to a sack or a hurry. Pressuring the qb makes him uncomfortable in the pocket and leads to mistakes/turnovers.

Daniels deficiency as a DE pertains to his lack of speed more than anything else. This is much less an issue on the interior, where his strength comes more into play, as well as the fact that he would also draw attention from Griff. This would likely have the effect of making both more potent in terms of both collapsing the pocket and protecting the linebackers behind them.

I do recall some writing off Daniels, but moreso (like myself) was Daniels durability that CT stated earlier. I still believe that he won't stay healthy starting a full season and being an every down lineman. We saw how serious is can be to have starters counted on and not be able to stay healthy a full season.

VetSkinsFan wrote:I do recall some writing off Daniels, but moreso (like myself) was Daniels durability that CT stated earlier. I still believe that he won't stay healthy starting a full season and being an every down lineman. We saw how serious is can be to have starters counted on and not be able to stay healthy a full season.

He's missed one game in three seasons. How many DE's around the league can say the same thing? at age 35?

Look, I agree a sack is more beneficial than a pass defensed. But I'll take a PD over a Hurry every time. One ends the play, the other only urges the Qb to throw the ball earlier, sometimes resulting in positive offensive yards. Then when you consider Daniels played inside in many pass-rushing situations, his sack numbers are not as relevant. Whatever, opinions are always different. Me, I'll take a Daniels on my team over about 70% of the D-lineman out there. Furthermore, I think he's a more effective player than your average 260 lbs "pass rusher" on 80% of the plays in an NFL game.

CanesSkins26 wrote:Daniels is very good against the run, but he is below average at rushing the quarterback. The fact is that our pass rush last season was awful and a good amount of that blame falls on Daniels. With interior linemen that are unable to collapse the pocket, his inability to get to the qb is even more pronounced. Obviously sacks aren't the only thing that matters, as a consistent rush is more important, but there were 60 defensive ends with more sacks than Daniels last season. No matter how you look at it that just isn't very good.

You mentioned batted passes, but that isn't even close to a sack or a hurry. Pressuring the qb makes him uncomfortable in the pocket and leads to mistakes/turnovers.

Did you read the post?


You are doing exactly what he is talking about.

"Daniels had 2.5 sacks last year. He sucks."

Ok, question for you. You are saying there is 60 DE's with more sacks than him. How many of thoses DEs were in the DT position on passing plays like Daniels?

Ok, question for you. You are saying there is 60 DE's with more sacks than him. How many of thoses DEs were in the DT position on passing plays like Daniels?

For starters, Daniels only lined up at DT occasionally. Having him play more on the inside is something that the team wants to happen more, but we have zero depth at defensive end so it's hard for them to do it.

Secondly, there guys on that list that played in fewer games than Daniels so I'm not buying you're argument that he didn't line up enough at DE to get more than 2.5 sacks. Even Ronaldo Wynn managed more sacks than Daniels last season.

Thirdly, I don't think that anyone here will argue that as a unit our defensive line had lots of problems generating a consistent pass rush last season. Most would agree that Carter did his part. If Daniels is doing such a great job and is better than 70% of the other defensive ends out there, how come geriatric qb's like Kurt Warner have all day to stand in the pocket against us?

Danies is a solid player even at his age.

I remember a few plays last year where he ran runners down and totally destroyed them. On one of those plays his arm ended up underneath his body but he still got up to play, he's very tough.

His conditioning is so good he could play a few more years as a backup player.

Countertrey wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:Daniels is very good against the run, but he is below average at rushing the quarterback. The fact is that our pass rush last season was awful and a good amount of that blame falls on Daniels. With interior linemen that are unable to collapse the pocket, his inability to get to the qb is even more pronounced. Obviously sacks aren't the only thing that matters, as a consistent rush is more important, but there were 60 defensive ends with more sacks than Daniels last season. No matter how you look at it that just isn't very good.

You mentioned batted passes, but that isn't even close to a sack or a hurry. Pressuring the qb makes him uncomfortable in the pocket and leads to mistakes/turnovers.

Daniels deficiency as a DE pertains to his lack of speed more than anything else. This is much less an issue on the interior, where his strength comes more into play, as well as the fact that he would also draw attention from Griff. This would likely have the effect of making both more potent in terms of both collapsing the pocket and protecting the linebackers behind them.

Shifting Daniels to the inside makes great sense, even if not as an everydown player (due to age). Settling for Daniels at DE weakens us at two position.

fleetus wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I do recall some writing off Daniels, but moreso (like myself) was Daniels durability that CT stated earlier. I still believe that he won't stay healthy starting a full season and being an every down lineman. We saw how serious is can be to have starters counted on and not be able to stay healthy a full season.

He's missed one game in three seasons. How many DE's around the league can say the same thing? at age 35?

Look, I agree a sack is more beneficial than a pass defensed. But I'll take a PD over a Hurry every time. One ends the play, the other only urges the Qb to throw the ball earlier, sometimes resulting in positive offensive yards. Then when you consider Daniels played inside in many pass-rushing situations, his sack numbers are not as relevant. Whatever, opinions are always different. Me, I'll take a Daniels on my team over about 70% of the D-lineman out there. Furthermore, I think he's a more effective player than your average 260 lbs "pass rusher" on 80% of the plays in an NFL game.

Daniels was nursing a sore back all last year. He was not an every down lineman at least partially due to this. At his age, durability IS a concern, and to completely dismiss that is naive at best. As I said, he's not written off, but 35 is placed securely on the downside of the NFL career.

Daniels??? Why are we talking about the one of the worst players we have on the team. Daniels hasn’t been productive in the past three years. He should be a backup at best. The only reason why he is still a Redskin is because we fell to address the need early in the draft or free agency in the last few years. I guarantee this is his last year as a starter, he might not start the whole year if James or Wilson have anything to do with it. Daniels is a below average DE, I truly believe that Evans can give us the same production as Daniels. You can coach a player to play the run better along with strength training (Carter), rushing the pass takes skill and athleticism which Daniels doesn’t have, especially at 35. You guys are talking about how great he is against the run, run defense isn’t the problem, getting to the QB is.

DaRealistJoka wrote:Daniels??? Why are we talking about the one of the worst players we have on the team. Daniels hasn’t been productive in the past three years. He should be a backup at best. The only reason why he is still a Redskin is because we fell to address the need early in the draft or free agency in the last few years. I guarantee this is his last year as a starter, he might not start the whole year if James or Wilson have anything to do with it. Daniels is a below average DE, I truly believe that Evans can give us the same production as Daniels. You can coach a player to play the run better along with strength training (Carter), rushing the pass takes skill and athleticism which Daniels doesn’t have, especially at 35. You guys are talking about how great he is against the run, run defense isn’t the problem, getting to the QB is.

Evans has never been more than an OK backup. Unless Wilson gains at least 20#, he's not an every down LDE. James has been injured the last 2 yrs. Daniels may be the strongest he has ever been in his life.

yupchagee wrote:

DaRealistJoka wrote:Daniels??? Why are we talking about the one of the worst players we have on the team. Daniels hasn’t been productive in the past three years. He should be a backup at best. The only reason why he is still a Redskin is because we fell to address the need early in the draft or free agency in the last few years. I guarantee this is his last year as a starter, he might not start the whole year if James or Wilson have anything to do with it. Daniels is a below average DE, I truly believe that Evans can give us the same production as Daniels. You can coach a player to play the run better along with strength training (Carter), rushing the pass takes skill and athleticism which Daniels doesn’t have, especially at 35. You guys are talking about how great he is against the run, run defense isn’t the problem, getting to the QB is.

Evans has never been more than an OK backup. Unless Wilson gains at least 20#, he's not an every down LDE. James has been injured the last 2 yrs. Daniels may be the strongest he has ever been in his life.

I never said that Evans was the solution; I said I believe he would give us the same production as Daniels. Daniels should be a BACKUP; he is no-longer starter material. Why do people keep saying how strong he is that is not going to help him become a better pass rusher, that is not going to help him turn the corner, he has been one of the strongest players on the team for some years now, lifing all those weights dont necessarily transfer on to the field. Also, James and Wilson might not be the solution I never said they was but I believe if James get healthy and comes on he might unseat him late into the season. Daniels is done he should only be a backup.