The question comes from this tweet. What do you think?

---

SMH... this is a excellent football player, you don't trade players of his caliber.

The minute you start trading players because they don't fit your scheme is the moment you start to fail as a football coach. Period.

That said, this is a reporter writing a story with what he sees in front of him.. I think if anything, the salary cap next season may make it difficult to keep everyone and they are trying to give themselves options moving forward.

But I will say it again... Daniels plays with leverage, care less about his length if he consistently beats the guy across from him. Trading him based on a measurable is foolish.

---

Doesn't have it anymore, situational pass rusher.

What could we get? Slot WR?

---

If you let your good players go, what will you have left?
If he supposedly doesn’t fit, then you MAKE him fit. You don’t get rid of him. Use his talents , make ways for him to flourish.

---

I can’t see the tweet or article. But I 100% disagree with trading or letting Mike Daniels go. He’s a great DLineman and I love his leadership & energy.

---

Another STUPID article .

Lets see, The Packers just went all in on defense in FA and in the draft.

So lets weaken the front seven by trading away the biggest piece of the puzzle.

You almost have to be blind not to see what The Packers are trying to put together.

They don't want their big guys up front playing 70-80 snaps a game.

They want ENOUGH DEPTH TO ROTATE THESE GUYS IN AND OUT SHOWING A PLETHURA OF LOOKS TO CONFUSE THE OFFENSE!
They want their big guys up front to be able to play 50 or less snaps a game!

Gonna be a long summer.

I have a headache.

---

OK, on its surface it may not seem like a great idea.

But....what if:
[list]

You felt Wilkerson was healthy and signed him to another “prove it” deal[*]You could trade Daniels for a strong proven offensive guard or tackle.[*]And let’s assume this player had a little bit time on his contract, and that his contract was more team friendly.[/list]

You then free up salary-cap space to fill another hole or two..,,Just saying...In the world of hypotheticals anything is plausible.

---

What I would WANT for Mike and what another team is willing to GIVE for him won't be the same so there is no reason to take less for him just because.

If he was a locker room cancer or if you felt he was under-performing you may take less but that is not the case here.

---

Depending on how we are in FA next year we may get a pretty decent comp pick for him.

With our injury history I am not high on trading guys who have been great performers. No doubt he will be motivated to perform to get one more big contract.

Obviously it would depend on who you could get for him but a trade is not out of the question. At this point I wouldn't want to trade him for a draft pick next year because you would need to fill his roster spot and it might not be as easy to get someone of equal value. If they could trade him for equal value or a situation like you said then you might pull the trigger but you have to know you just weakened your defense by trading away a key piece. Daniels may have lost something but he is still an very good player and an important piece on the defense. Maybe they could get a starting ILB for him? Just speculating but to just out and out say trade him because he doesn't fit isn't looking at the big picture.

Just because one player doesn't fit the model of the other players doesn't mean he still can't fit in the defense. I'm less concerned with how his traits stack up against the other than with how he fits in the defense. That's like saying if you had a 5-11 all pro WR and all your other WRs were 6-3 you should get rid of shorty because he doesn't fit the model of the rest of your WRs.