Packers Mike Daniels: 2012 Player Evaluation and Report Card All Green Bay Packers All the Time

1) Introduction: The selection of Mike Daniels in last year’s draft was a little baffling; where was he exactly supposed to play?  He wasn’t tall enough to play defensive end or outside linebacker, and wasn’t big enough to play nose tackle.  In the end, Daniels became a defensive end with a pass rushing specialty where his quickness and relatively smaller size allowed him to slip through blocks easier.


2) Profile:

Mike Daniels

  • Age: 23
  • Born: 05/05/1989, in Blackwood, NJ
  • Height: 6’0″
  • Weight: 294
  • College: Iowa
  • Rookie Year: 2012
  • NFL Experience: 0 years

Career Stats and more: 


3) Expectations coming into the season: Realistically zero.  It was a pretty big risk to draft a player who didn’t really “look the part” of a 3-4 defensive player.  Obviously he wasn’t going to have much success against the run due to his size, so most bets were that he would bolster the pass rush.

4) Player’s highlights/low-lights: Thrust into a more prominent with the injuries to BJ Raji and CJ Wilson, Daniels played fairly well for a rookie. His best performance was in week 14 against the Detroit Lions where he played just under half of the defensive snaps and recorded a quarterback hurry, a blocked pass, a tackle and one negative offensive play.  His lowlight was week 17 against the Vikings where he only saw 5 snaps but managed to get man handled against the run.

5) Player’s contribution to the overall team success: While minimal, Daniels managed to hold his own when he was the starter in the middle of the season.  While he may never overcome his physical limitations, Daniels does provide good depth and some pass rush in a DL rotation.

6) Player’s contributions in the playoffs: Daniels played sparingly in both playoff games and failed to grade out well in either game. Overall, not great but not terrible for a 4th round rookie.


Season Report Card:

(C) Level of expectations met during the season

(C) Contributions to team’s overall success.

(D) Contributions to team during the playoffs

Overall Grade: C-


Thomas Hobbes is a staff writer for Jersey Al’s


  • Razer

    Too depressed to read any more report cards. You might as well saved a lot of time and said that our D-line sucked.

    If we are playing less talented teams with weak O-lines, this team and its D-line did okay. You only need to look at our Chicago series to see this. Against teams wih decent talent on their O-line, we couldn’t get off the blocks and we couldn’t control the gaps. For a 3-4 defense, this line needs to be better – period!

    • Tarynfor12

      The moment I saw Pickett on the first DL report card get a C+..I knew and said then,everyone else gets a D+ or C- based on the Pickett grade….TADA!!!

  • FourEyesBrewing

    I really don’t understand your grading system. Are you grading them based on how they performed given their expectations? Or are you grading them based on how they did regardless of expectations? In the former case, a C should be “he mostly played as expected.” If, according to you, he was actually able to contribute, then shouldn’t he get a B or an A? What is it you’re trying to show? That our players are getting better/worse or that our players are better/worse compared to the national average? Two very different stories.

    • Stroh

      Join the club! I said similar a couple players ago. Seems as tho he thinks the DL as a whole gets a C, so every player gets no better than a C. Whats the point of individual grades if they are all graded on the same expecations or position performance. Might as well just say the DL gets a C and be done w/ it.

      I still can’t make a determination of his grading scale.

  • Alright so the whole defensive line really blew against bigger physical lines. This is really where I struggle with the whole “In Ted we trust” thing. In 2011 we set a record as a defense that a defense would never want to hold, most yards given up in NFL history. Thompson drafts a guy who is a defensive lineman and makes him a outside linebacker. Drafts Worthy who is best suited for a 4-3 when a perfect 3-4 guy was available in Devon Stills. Then finally drafts Daniels I actually liked but like Thomas pointed out, gets manhandled against bigger physical lines. Maybe these guys will turn out to be decent enough players. Maybe they’ll turn out to be the Packers demise. Half the Packers team has changed since the SB win in 2010, 10 new players added in 2011 and 24 in 2012. That’s 34 new players gone from the SB team of 2010. I guess with that much change we better trust Ted right?

  • Ron LC

    The Dline grades show there is a pressing need to upgrade talent by two positions, at least. Pcikett and Raji are slightly above average and Neal is average with potential. The rest = below average.

    That has to be the case unless they are being coached to not penetrate the opponents Oline. Why would that be the case? Not likely!

    • Stroh

      DL grades show that the person grading isn’t really grading individually, just as a group. Thats the only thing it shows! The grader is more the joke than the DL in my opinion! Draft a run stugging 34 DE in the mid rounds and the DL might easily be a strength not a weakness!

  • Oppy

    Hey, everyone:

    The Packers play 3-4 base d.. The Packers also play every other alignment under the sun since Dom Capers took over in GB.

    In the last 3 years, the Packers have played, with regularity, 1, 2,3, and 4 down linemen in our sub packages.. plus 5-2 if you count goal line.

    If you weren’t sure where Mike Daniels was meant to play, or any other DL acquired who clearly isn’t a 3-4 DE or NT body type, you haven’t been paying attention to Dom’s defense at all.

    Inside pass rusher in sub packages, plain as day. And guess what? This kid is a rabid wolverine. Love, love, love him.