Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Packers to part ways with LB Desmond Bishop
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
The LBC


Global Moderator
Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 24480
Location: Where We Can't Have Nice Things
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MNPackfan32 wrote:
The LBC wrote:
In the 7 games Scott Wells did play for the Rams last season he was more than solid - and there's no way in hell you're going to make a quality argument that Jeff Saturday was a better performer at center last season than Wells would have been in that position for the Pack's OL. Cullen Jenkins notched 5.5 sacks, 24 hurries, and 7 TFL's in what was effectively rotational duty in Philadelphia... Mike Neal and Jerel Worthy haven't even combined for that in the 2 seasons since Jenkins' departure.
So last year Neal himself had 4.5 sacks, Worthy had 2.5 and Jenkins had 4. Worthy is already better vs the run than Cullen was in his time in Green Bay. Then you figure in that Neal and Worthy are probably cheaper than Jenkins was, and Jenkins has left to join another team at the tail end of his career while we have stockpiled talent at RDE with Neal, Worthy and Jones.

The Jeff Saturday signing was a failure, IMO but according to you and everybody else it should be a great signing because we made the playoffs and we didn't have to rush EDS into the starting line up. To me it was a failure because he didn't help us get to the ultimate goal and he probably just slowed the learning curve of EDS.

While from a fan's perspective football may be that black and white from the perspective of a front office personnel member or coach it's not. This is the reason for the impasse you seem to be having with seeing eye to eye with several other posters.

I do wonder, also, if you would be so vehemently subscribing to this "it's a failure (signing) if the team doesn't win the Super Bowl that year" philosophy if your team hadn't won a Super Bowl relatively recently. By that argument Drew Brees was a failure of a signing for 3 years in New Orleans until 2009 when they won the Super Bowl... when the franchise hadn't had a QB worth writing home about since what... Archie Manning, prior?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CallMeBarrett


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 756
Location: Gainesville, Florida
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The LBC wrote:
MNPackfan32 wrote:
The LBC wrote:
In the 7 games Scott Wells did play for the Rams last season he was more than solid - and there's no way in hell you're going to make a quality argument that Jeff Saturday was a better performer at center last season than Wells would have been in that position for the Pack's OL. Cullen Jenkins notched 5.5 sacks, 24 hurries, and 7 TFL's in what was effectively rotational duty in Philadelphia... Mike Neal and Jerel Worthy haven't even combined for that in the 2 seasons since Jenkins' departure.
So last year Neal himself had 4.5 sacks, Worthy had 2.5 and Jenkins had 4. Worthy is already better vs the run than Cullen was in his time in Green Bay. Then you figure in that Neal and Worthy are probably cheaper than Jenkins was, and Jenkins has left to join another team at the tail end of his career while we have stockpiled talent at RDE with Neal, Worthy and Jones.

The Jeff Saturday signing was a failure, IMO but according to you and everybody else it should be a great signing because we made the playoffs and we didn't have to rush EDS into the starting line up. To me it was a failure because he didn't help us get to the ultimate goal and he probably just slowed the learning curve of EDS.

While from a fan's perspective football may be that black and white from the perspective of a front office personnel member or coach it's not. This is the reason for the impasse you seem to be having with seeing eye to eye with several other posters.

I do wonder, also, if you would be so vehemently subscribing to this "it's a failure (signing) if the team doesn't win the Super Bowl that year" philosophy if your team hadn't won a Super Bowl relatively recently. By that argument Drew Brees was a failure of a signing for 3 years in New Orleans until 2009 when they won the Super Bowl... when the franchise hadn't had a QB worth writing home about since what... Archie Manning, prior?



Saturday had too many of those "if it were a snake, it would have bit ya" moments, and he got bit a lot. Let's just leave it at that and get back on topic. Laughing
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SteelKing728


Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 14584
Location: Gibsonia, Pennsylvania
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ugLymayNe wrote:
SteelKing728 wrote:
ugLymayNe wrote:
SteelKing728 wrote:
By no means will Bishop push us over the top, but he would be a nice stopgap player who be another piece to the puzzle for us



This is where I'm confused. What do you think you'll actually get out of a LB that can't play sideline to sideline or can be trusted in coverage vs TEs/athletic RBs?


My point is: If he isn't good enough to start at ILB for the Packers, he is a below average player considering we are VERY average at that position(very average putting it nicely).


Is that it? He's just not "good enough" for you guys?

I feel its more than one reason that the Packers let Bishop go. Maybe they didn't trust he could stay healthy, maybe they saw an early decline in him, or it could have been a money issue. Perhaps all three.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that he's done, or won't be effective. Bishop likely won't be as fast as he was when he was 21 years old entering the league, but I still believe he'd make out to be a fine player for any team that would give him a chance.


What I was saying was if he isn't good enough to start on a Packers defense(which is clear because they straight up cut him), which Viking fans bash regularly, then you can't really turn around and say he would be a good addition just because it is your team involved. A month ago I was seeing Viking fans saying "The Packer's defense isn't going to improve, Bishop coming back doesn't matter blah blah blah".............now you see them calling him a fine player. Typical FF can't make up their mind. I think signing Bishop would be more like signing Robert Ferguson rather than Darren Sharper for the Vikings.


Anyways, I think the Packers cutting him has to do with his already glaring weakness of not being able to play sideline to sideline/track plays down from behind and the injury concern. They say he is 100% but what is 100% after that injury? Instead of running with 4.8 speed he might be at 5 or 5.1 now, get what I'm saying?


Thats understandable. I get ya.

and yes, being "100%" can be very hard to determine, because no is sure if thats pre injury 100% or post injury.

Bishop was a good player on a rather overall pretty average, but oppurtunistic Packers defense. If he can regain his previous speed (which wasn't great by any stretch), then I think he would make to be a fine addition for either the Vikings or Cheifs.
_________________

down but not out. I still believe!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 48050
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With how minimal of a contract that Bishop is going to receive, with likely very little guaranteed, what is the risk in giving Bishop a shot? I just dont see any downside in this move, and if his health proves him to be ineffective, he is released with all of the other camp bodies. If Bishop regains 2010 form, MN or KC will at least have a solid MLB for a year and can re-evaluate the position in the 2014 draft. If Bishop struggles, he is likely to be released or replaced by Erin Henderson at MLB, with Hodges taking over at WLB.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vikefan79


Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 29761
Location: Atlanta
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ugLymayNe wrote:


What I was saying was if he isn't good enough to start on a Packers defense(which is clear because they straight up cut him), which Viking fans bash regularly, then you can't really turn around and say he would be a good addition just because it is your team involved. A month ago I was seeing Viking fans saying "The Packer's defense isn't going to improve, Bishop coming back doesn't matter blah blah blah".............now you see them calling him a fine player. Typical FF can't make up their mind. I think signing Bishop would be more like signing Robert Ferguson rather than Darren Sharper for the Vikings.





Where did you read this?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CriminalMind


Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 4987
Location: Toronto, CA
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ugLymayNe wrote:


What I was saying was if he isn't good enough to start on a Packers defense(which is clear because they straight up cut him), which Viking fans bash regularly, then you can't really turn around and say he would be a good addition just because it is your team involved. A month ago I was seeing Viking fans saying "The Packer's defense isn't going to improve, Bishop coming back doesn't matter blah blah blah".............now you see them calling him a fine player. Typical FF can't make up their mind. I think signing Bishop would be more like signing Robert Ferguson rather than Darren Sharper for the Vikings.




FYI

Vikings forum had a voting for best 53 for NFCN utilizing all the available players

LBs (given any defensive scheme)

1- OLB1 Clay Matthews (GB)
2- OLB2 Lance Briggs (CHI)
3- ILB1 AJ Hawk (GB)
4- ILB2 Desmond Bishop (GB) *
5- LB Chad Greenway (MIN)

Voting finished for Bishop just before this "leak about Bishop being cut"
Bishop & Greenway had a tight voting competition for the 4th spot, but Bishop got slightly higher votes. Greenway took 5th spot with ease.
He was always highly rated, at least in our forum.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SwiftTexan


Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Posts: 3877
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sounds like Bishop is deciding between the Vikes, Chiefs and Giants right now. He could start for all three.
_________________
The Ultimate Fantasy Football Challenge
FootballsFuture Fantasy Scrubs League
Discussion Thread Link
http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=550031
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 48050
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CriminalMind wrote:
ugLymayNe wrote:


What I was saying was if he isn't good enough to start on a Packers defense(which is clear because they straight up cut him), which Viking fans bash regularly, then you can't really turn around and say he would be a good addition just because it is your team involved. A month ago I was seeing Viking fans saying "The Packer's defense isn't going to improve, Bishop coming back doesn't matter blah blah blah".............now you see them calling him a fine player. Typical FF can't make up their mind. I think signing Bishop would be more like signing Robert Ferguson rather than Darren Sharper for the Vikings.




FYI

Vikings forum had a voting for best 53 for NFCN utilizing all the available players

LBs (given any defensive scheme)

1- OLB1 Clay Matthews (GB)
2- OLB2 Lance Briggs (CHI)
3- ILB1 AJ Hawk (GB)
4- ILB2 Desmond Bishop (GB) *
5- LB Chad Greenway (MIN)

Voting finished for Bishop just before this "leak about Bishop being cut"
Bishop & Greenway had a tight voting competition for the 4th spot, but Bishop got slightly higher votes. Greenway took 5th spot with ease.
He was always highly rated, at least in our forum.


This is great, clearly a majority of Vikings fans don't have a bias for bishop. Rather respect for him as the second best MLB in the division. Him being a packer at the time of this poll makes perceived biases irrelevant. I actually voted bishop over hawk if healthy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MNPackfan32


Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 8078
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
CriminalMind wrote:
ugLymayNe wrote:


What I was saying was if he isn't good enough to start on a Packers defense(which is clear because they straight up cut him), which Viking fans bash regularly, then you can't really turn around and say he would be a good addition just because it is your team involved. A month ago I was seeing Viking fans saying "The Packer's defense isn't going to improve, Bishop coming back doesn't matter blah blah blah".............now you see them calling him a fine player. Typical FF can't make up their mind. I think signing Bishop would be more like signing Robert Ferguson rather than Darren Sharper for the Vikings.




FYI

Vikings forum had a voting for best 53 for NFCN utilizing all the available players

LBs (given any defensive scheme)

1- OLB1 Clay Matthews (GB)
2- OLB2 Lance Briggs (CHI)
3- ILB1 AJ Hawk (GB)
4- ILB2 Desmond Bishop (GB) *
5- LB Chad Greenway (MIN)

Voting finished for Bishop just before this "leak about Bishop being cut"
Bishop & Greenway had a tight voting competition for the 4th spot, but Bishop got slightly higher votes. Greenway took 5th spot with ease.
He was always highly rated, at least in our forum.


This is great, clearly a majority of Vikings fans don't have a bias for bishop. Rather respect for him as the second best MLB in the division. Him being a packer at the time of this poll makes perceived biases irrelevant. I actually voted bishop over hawk if healthy.
Shocked When did Stephen Tulloch get shipped out of the division?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SteelKing728


Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 14584
Location: Gibsonia, Pennsylvania
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MNPackfan32 wrote:
vikingsrule wrote:
CriminalMind wrote:
ugLymayNe wrote:


What I was saying was if he isn't good enough to start on a Packers defense(which is clear because they straight up cut him), which Viking fans bash regularly, then you can't really turn around and say he would be a good addition just because it is your team involved. A month ago I was seeing Viking fans saying "The Packer's defense isn't going to improve, Bishop coming back doesn't matter blah blah blah".............now you see them calling him a fine player. Typical FF can't make up their mind. I think signing Bishop would be more like signing Robert Ferguson rather than Darren Sharper for the Vikings.




FYI

Vikings forum had a voting for best 53 for NFCN utilizing all the available players

LBs (given any defensive scheme)

1- OLB1 Clay Matthews (GB)
2- OLB2 Lance Briggs (CHI)
3- ILB1 AJ Hawk (GB)
4- ILB2 Desmond Bishop (GB) *
5- LB Chad Greenway (MIN)

Voting finished for Bishop just before this "leak about Bishop being cut"
Bishop & Greenway had a tight voting competition for the 4th spot, but Bishop got slightly higher votes. Greenway took 5th spot with ease.
He was always highly rated, at least in our forum.


This is great, clearly a majority of Vikings fans don't have a bias for bishop. Rather respect for him as the second best MLB in the division. Him being a packer at the time of this poll makes perceived biases irrelevant. I actually voted bishop over hawk if healthy.
Shocked When did Stephen Tulloch get shipped out of the division?


Well I was going to vote Bishop and then Tulloch.

I don't Hawk is really any good.
_________________

down but not out. I still believe!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
MNPackfan32


Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 8078
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SteelKing728 wrote:
MNPackfan32 wrote:
vikingsrule wrote:
CriminalMind wrote:
ugLymayNe wrote:


What I was saying was if he isn't good enough to start on a Packers defense(which is clear because they straight up cut him), which Viking fans bash regularly, then you can't really turn around and say he would be a good addition just because it is your team involved. A month ago I was seeing Viking fans saying "The Packer's defense isn't going to improve, Bishop coming back doesn't matter blah blah blah".............now you see them calling him a fine player. Typical FF can't make up their mind. I think signing Bishop would be more like signing Robert Ferguson rather than Darren Sharper for the Vikings.




FYI

Vikings forum had a voting for best 53 for NFCN utilizing all the available players

LBs (given any defensive scheme)

1- OLB1 Clay Matthews (GB)
2- OLB2 Lance Briggs (CHI)
3- ILB1 AJ Hawk (GB)
4- ILB2 Desmond Bishop (GB) *
5- LB Chad Greenway (MIN)

Voting finished for Bishop just before this "leak about Bishop being cut"
Bishop & Greenway had a tight voting competition for the 4th spot, but Bishop got slightly higher votes. Greenway took 5th spot with ease.
He was always highly rated, at least in our forum.


This is great, clearly a majority of Vikings fans don't have a bias for bishop. Rather respect for him as the second best MLB in the division. Him being a packer at the time of this poll makes perceived biases irrelevant. I actually voted bishop over hawk if healthy.
Shocked When did Stephen Tulloch get shipped out of the division?


Well I was going to vote Bishop and then Tulloch.

I don't Hawk is really any good.
Hawk was much better last year, but Tulloch is still the best ILB/MLB in the NFC North IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Page 8 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group