'11 IL WR DaVaris Daniels (Signed Notre Dame LOI)

[koonja]

Unfortunate for the 2015 ND team. He would have been a big asset, dont get it twisted. Best of luck to him and I hope he has a long career in the NFL.

 

[ThePiombino]

Unfortunate for the 2015 ND team. He would have been a big asset, dont get it twisted. Best of luck to him and I hope he has a long career in the NFL.

I wish the dude nothing but the best, but there is no guarantee that he would have been a net positive to the '15 team. At best, he comes in and has a Fuller-esque year. At worst, he steals reps from younger receivers, becomes a cancer in the locker room, and runs hot/cold on the field as he has the previous years he managed to not get suspended. Since we already have a Fuller on the team, that takes care of the best-case scenario. No point in risking the worst case. Is he a freak athlete? Yes. Does that mean that BOTH parties aren't better off with him declaring early? No.

 

[KPENN]

I wish the dude nothing but the best, but there is no guarantee that he would have been a net positive to the '15 team. At best, he comes in and has a Fuller-esque year. At worst, he steals reps from younger receivers, becomes a cancer in the locker room, and runs hot/cold on the field as he has the previous years he managed to not get suspended. Since we already have a Fuller on the team, that takes care of the best-case scenario. No point in risking the worst case. Is he a freak athlete? Yes. Does that mean that BOTH parties aren't better off with him declaring early? No.

Yep. Also considering the past couple years, can you really rely on him being on the team come September?

 

[dublinirish]

good luck to him but it does seem like DD had that classic Rivals/Scout 247 era college career:
Scratch the surface of one's talent.
Leave a minimal legacy and plenty of what might have been's.
Bolt to the NFL too early.

 

[koonja]

He's the most complete wr on the roster by a mile, and while he had classroom issues, I never heard of him being a locker room cancer. Fuller and golson especially loved him. Nothing is guaranteed, yes, but there's no reason to think he wouldn't have been a baller thus year.

 

[ThePiombino]

Yep. Also considering the past couple years, can you really rely on him being on the team come September?

Exactly. And I forgot to add- if Daniels is back, which recruit or 5th year are we not bringing in/back? There is little doubt in my mind this is what the staff wanted, to just part ways.

 

[KPENN]

He's the most complete wr on the roster by a mile, and while he had classroom issues, I never heard of him being a locker room cancer. Fuller and golson especially loved him. Nothing is guaranteed, yes, but there's no reason to think he wouldn't have been a baller thus year.

Sorry, i'd rather have a 5th year guy back or add another recruit. I just don't want to use a scholarship with the hope he gets his shit together and is with the team in September

 

[ThePiombino]

He's the most complete wr on the roster by a mile, and while he had classroom issues, I never heard of him being a locker room cancer. Fuller and golson especially loved him. Nothing is guaranteed, yes, but there's no reason to think he wouldn't have been a baller thus year.

Assuming he could get reinstated and then stay eligible, which of the 3 remaining recruit openings or 5th years would you trade for him? We're already going to have to turn away 5th years that would have a guaranteed impact if we sign 3 more recruits.

 

[koonja]

Assuming he could get reinstated and then stay eligible, which of the 3 remaining recruit openings or 5th years would you trade for him? We're already going to have to turn away 5th years that would have a guaranteed impact if we sign 3 more recruits.

IDK the list of 5th years on the cusp, but I can say without knowing I'd probbaly take a healthy, reinstated DD over any of them.

Guys a monster, with shit to prove in a contract year.

He was one of about 3 players who looked like they belonged on the field when bama paddled us.

 

[Crazy Balki]

IDK the list of 5th years on the cusp, but I can say without knowing I'd probbaly take a healthy, reinstated DD over any of them.

Guys a monster, with shit to prove in a contract year.

He was one of about 3 players who looked like they belonged on the field when bama paddled us.

There's an issue with that. First off, from a ethical standpoint, it's really f*cked up.

"So, we really appreciate your hard work, determination and commitment to the team, but I'm afraid we aren't granting you a 5th year. Instead we're giving it to the guy who has been suspended twice and has often disappeared in games...You understand right?"

Secondly, WR is simply not a position of need, whereas guys like Nick Martin, Mathias Farley and Joe Schmidt are much more important at their respective positions.

 

[koonja]

There's an issue with that. First off, from a ethical standpoint, it's really f*cked up.

"So, we really appreciate your hard work, determination and commitment to the team, but I'm afraid we aren't granting you a 5th year. Instead we're giving it to the guy who has been suspended twice and has often disappeared in games...You understand right?"

Secondly, WR is simply not a position of need, whereas guys like Nick Martin, Mathias Farley and Joe Schmidt are much more important at their respective positions.

It has nothing to do with ethics. You get 4 years free tuition to ND, you're guaranteed nothing beyond that. This isn't high school, feelings hurt shouldn't matter. Winning games matters.

Having said that, those 3 guys you mentioned should all be important players for next year, so I wouldn't take DD over anyone besides schmidt, simply because of his injury and the fact that I believe in Morgan and martini.

Im sure those are not the only 3 5th years, and I'd take DD over th e others I'm sure.

How soon we forget, like I said, as a rs freshman he was one of a handful thay belonged against alabama. He's a full grown man physically.

 

[BGIF]

It has nothing to do with ethics. You get 4 years free tuition to ND, you're guaranteed nothing beyond that. This isn't high school, feelings hurt shouldn't matter. Winning games matters.

Having said that, those 3 guys you mentioned should all be important players for next year, so I wouldn't take DD over anyone besides schmidt, simply because of his injury and the fact that I believe in Morgan and martini.

Im sure those are not the only 3 5th years, and I'd take DD over th e others I'm sure.

How soon we forget, like I said, as a rs freshman he was one of a handful thay belonged against alabama. He's a full grown man physically.

It has nothing to do with ethics.

It has everything to do with ethics.

THIS IS NOTRE DAME not Michigan, USC, nor FSU.

The number of fans that know the team but haven't got a clue about the University is boggling.

 

[koonja]

It has everything to do with ethics.

THIS IS NOTRE DAME not Michigan, USC, nor FSU.

The number of fans that know the team but haven't got a clue about the University is boggling.

100% wrong. There's nothing unethical about not granting someone a 5th year.

If it is, Notre Dame unethical because they do it every year and will do it this year.

 

[KPENN]

It has nothing to do with ethics. You get 4 years free tuition to ND, you're guaranteed nothing beyond that. This isn't high school, feelings hurt shouldn't matter. Winning games matters.

Yes it does. How can you go sit in the living room of high school players and preach ethics when you get rid of a 5th year guy in favor of a guy that has been suspended twice. This is the type of stuff that we would kill Michigan, USC, etc for.

How soon we forget, like I said, as a rs freshman he was one of a handful thay belonged against alabama. He's a full grown man physically.

Who cares? That was two years ago and over two and a half years by the time September rolls around. He wouldn't have played football in a year and a half and is such an unknown at this point.

 

[KPENN]

100% wrong. There's nothing unethical about not granting someone a 5th year.

If it is, Notre Dame unethical because they do it every year.

That is not the point.

 

[koonja]

Yes it does. How can you go sit in the living room of high school players and preach ethics when you get rid of a 5th year guy in favor of a guy that has been suspended twice. This is the type of stuff that we would kill Michigan, USC, etc for.



Who cares? That was two years ago and over two and a half years by the time September rolls around. He wouldn't have played football in a year and a half and is such an unknown at this point.

It's not getting rid of a 5th year. It's not like yoi come to ND and are given it day 1 and it's taken away. You're promised 4 years at ND, not 5.

So there's no preaching necessary.

Was it unethical when golson returned after being suspended in lieu of a 5th year that could have instead played this year?

No sense in arguing, DDS going to the league. But ethics has nothing to do with 5th years.

 

[Crazy Balki]

100% wrong. There's nothing unethical about not granting someone a 5th year.

If it is, Notre Dame unethical because they do it every year and will do it this year.

Yes there is. It's not just about denying somebody a 5th year, but denying somebody a 5th year and instead giving it to a guy who have proven twice already that he isn't academically responsible.

Denying somebody a 5th year who deserves happens. They aren't guaranteed that option, and if the numbers don't work, we shouldn't have to make it work. I get that, but this isn't about not having the numbers, it's about giving the spot to somebody who truly hasn't deserved it, at a position that is for all intents and purposes, stacked.

 

[greyhammer90]

100% wrong. There's nothing unethical about not granting someone a 5th year.

If it is, Notre Dame unethical because they do it every year and will do it this year.

+1. Everyone gets a free ride for four years. 5th year determinations should be based on who can help the team. Now a healthy DD might not help the team as much as a hard working 3 star because DD has repeatedly shown that he seems to put himself before the team. That's a valid argument. But acting like we should always give 5th years to the most "hard working" or swellest guy is nonsense. You give the extra year to the one who helps the team.

 

[Irish YJ]

+1. Everyone gets a free ride for four years. 5th year determinations should be based on who can help the team. Now a healthy DD might not help the team as much as a hard working 3 star because DD has repeatedly shown that he seems to put himself before the team. That's a valid argument. But acting like we should always give 5th years to the most "hard working" or swellest guy is nonsense. You give the extra year to the one who helps the team.

+2

 

[koonja]

+1. Everyone gets a free ride for four years. 5th year determinations should be based on who can help the team. Now a healthy DD might not help the team as much as a hard working 3 star because DD has repeatedly shown that he seems to put himself before the team. That's a valid argument. But acting like we should always give 5th years to the most "hard working" or swellest guy is nonsense. You give the extra year to the one who helps the team.

Yes. There's no sense in arguing because we'll never know who would help ND more/less since DD went pro.

I firmly believe he's a #1 WR at the college level and would dominate with Fuller opposite. Fuller might have 50 TDs next year with DD taking away the #1 corner, or vice a versa.

I also believe he'd be more valuable than every 5th year outside of Martin, but that's just my opinion - does not mean it's right. I also believe ND would have taken him in a heartbeat if he wanted to come back and could get admitted, but again, no sense in speculating.

We could argue back and forth all off season but what's done is done. Are you going to invest or not?

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

I think he's making a mistake, but I wish him the best.

 

[Irish#1]

Yes. There's no sense in arguing because we'll never know who would help ND more/less since DD went pro.

I firmly believe he's a #1 WR at the college level and would dominate with Fuller opposite. Fuller might have 50 TDs next year with DD taking away the #1 corner, or vice a versa.

I also believe he'd be more valuable than every 5th year outside of Martin, but that's just my opinion - does not mean it's right. I also believe ND would have taken him in a heartbeat if he wanted to come back and could get admitted, but again, no sense in speculating.

We could argue back and forth all off season but what's done is done. Are you going to invest or not?

Take a deep breath and exhale slowly.

 

[koonja]

Take a deep breath and exhale slowly.

Cool as the other side of the pillow, simply saying there's no reason to argue because we all have our opinions on who's more valuable to the 2015 squad but now we'll never know how it would have played out.

PSU hater - I agree he's making a mistake. If you have a chance to get the ND degree, you take it when you're a 5-7th round guy.

 

[NDinL.A.]

He's the most complete wr on the roster by a mile, and while he had classroom issues, I never heard of him being a locker room cancer. Fuller and golson especially loved him. Nothing is guaranteed, yes, but there's no reason to think he wouldn't have been a baller thus year.

He wasn't a locker room cancer in the sense that he was bitching about playing time or getting in fights with teammates. But he had a huge problem with his work ethic in practice, and his inconsistent play was attributed to his lack of consistent work ethic and his lack of consistent focus. He's the same player that could torch the Alabama secondary and then have 2 catches against the likes of Navy and AF, and absolutely stink up the joint against Rutgers.

If you have a team of players at the WR position that have a good chemistry, have a lot of hard workers, and a lot of returning talent, it is a risk to bring back a kid who never gave you a consistent effort and got kicked out of school twice, no matter how talented he is.

Quick story about Aaron Lynch. He was so lazy in practice, and got away with so much crap that others weren't allowed to do in practice (thank you Mike Elston), that there was about to be a mutiny on the team if things didn't change. Couple days later he transferred out...cancer removed. The team (which at the time I said would desperately need a pass rusher of his skills) never looked back and went to the natty, and was probably the closest group of players most of us have ever seen.

Not saying that DD is another Lynch, but team chemistry is something that must be considered.

FWIW...I think he is a stud and I was torn on wanting him back or not. Like I said with ND missing Lynch badly on 3rd and 8 (I stand by that, but I was wrong bc removing the cancer helped the team much more), we might miss DD the most on 3rd and 8 when we need a big body to go up the middle with no fear. Hopefully someone else steps up (the talent is there). And I have no problem with the ethics of it...but if DD didn't get invited back, he has no one to blame but himself.

 

[Classic Irish]

He wasn't a locker room cancer in the sense that he was bitching about playing time or getting in fights with teammates. But he had a huge problem with his work ethic in practice, and his inconsistent play was attributed to his lack of consistent work ethic and his lack of consistent focus. He's the same player that could torch the Alabama secondary and then have 2 catches against the likes of Navy and AF, and absolutely stink up the joint against Rutgers.

If you have a team of players at the WR position that have a good chemistry, have a lot of hard workers, and a lot of returning talent, it is a risk to bring back a kid who never gave you a consistent effort and got kicked out of school twice, no matter how talented he is.

Quick story about Aaron Lynch. He was so lazy in practice, and got away with so much crap that others weren't allowed to do in practice (thank you Mike Elston), that there was about to be a mutiny on the team if things didn't change. Couple days later he transferred out...cancer removed. The team (which at the time I said would desperately need a pass rusher of his skills) never looked back and went to the natty, and was probably the closest group of players most of us have ever seen.

Not saying that DD is another Lynch, but team chemistry is something that must be considered.

FWIW...I think he is a stud and I was torn on wanting him back or not. Like I said with ND missing Lynch badly on 3rd and 8 (I stand by that, but I was wrong bc removing the cancer helped the team much more), we might miss DD the most on 3rd and 8 when we need a big body to go up the middle with no fear. Hopefully someone else steps up (the talent is there). And I have no problem with the ethics of it...but if DD didn't get invited back, he has no one to blame but himself.

Good points all around. Reps.

 

[kmoose]

But acting like we should always give 5th years to the most "hard working" or swellest guy is nonsense. You give the extra year to the one who helps the team.

I don't think that was the point. I think the point was that you reward the guy who honored his end of the bargain when he came to ND. The guy who actually put in the work to stay eligible, and worked hard to make a difference on the field. If you have to choose between 2 of that type of individual for just one slot, then there is nothing bad about not giving the one guy his 5th year. But it's bad karma to deny that guy, while rewarding a guy who hasn't lived up to his side of the deal.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I'm pretty sure that the "ethics" in this situation can only be answered by inside people who really lived their ways through this saga {Daniels, the coaching staff, teammates} probably none of whom post on IE. So, in my opinion, all we have to talk about is "do we need Davaris on the 2015 team?"

Everyone is welcome to their opinion on that, but to my eye, our wide receivers were VERY good last year, Corey Robinson will likely not have broken hands by next year, Justin Brent will likely be a stud, and superWill and CBreezy will be even better. This receiving corps is outstanding and Coach has enough trouble getting them snaps as it is... AND it's odd that so many on IE think that we should SUPPRESS the passing game more so that we can muscle up and run it.

Nothing that I'm seeing or hearing indicates to me that next year's team needs DD, whether we can count on good behavior out of him or not. AND therefore if I can get a player either to return or commit at a position of need, then that's the roster management I'd prefer. I'd almost kill for a safety who actually knew the game instinctively for instance.

That said, DD you have been part of Notre Dame, and even if your heart was occasionally not sufficiently into it, I hope that you knock them dead in the pros and become rich and famous.

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Yap Yap Yap. At least ND will have someone draft worthy this year.

 

[Irish YJ]

will trust the coaches should this be a decision they need to make.

 

[BGIF]

100% wrong. There's nothing unethical about not granting someone a 5th year.

If it is, Notre Dame unethical because they do it every year and will do it this year.

Not wrong at all.

The ND head coach knows which athletes he wants back for another year. BUT the head coach at ND doesn't decide which student athletes get admitted for another year, a Faculty Committee does. THIS IS NOTRE DAME.

If your academic record isn't up to standards, you get to go somewhere else.