More "Mr. August" hype

[bobblehead]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/99801929.html

I just loved the nickname gbpackfan dubbed for Bishop and when I read this article it shocked me. I like some kool aid and all, but in the article Bishop states that he thinks he is one of the best 2 ILB's in the ENTIRE NFL!!!

Thoughts?

[retailguy]

I want some of Bishops kool-aid!

[Tony Oday]

cancer and diva with that attitude...I like the canned answer, " I will just work hard and actually accomplish something when given time in a real game not just at the start of camp."

[rbaloha1]

Excited to see Bishop running with the first team!

[get louder at lambeau]

The guy is fucking delusional.

Maybe he deserves more of a chance, but to blame it on draft status? The guy starting directly behind his position at SS, Bigby, was an undrafted FA who beat out a third round pick. Tramon Williams is another UFA and he's playing over a 2nd rounder. Same with the undrafted guy starting at RDE, Cullen Jenkins. Jolly was a 6th just like him, and he started every game for the last couple years. So was Al Harris. He needs to get over it.

[Lurker64]

On Twitter, Bedard was puffing the possibility of a Chillar-Barnett-Bishop-Matthews linebacking corps, saying that it would be difficult to pass against because of what happened in practice today. He said nothing about how this might be due to how good Chillar is in coverage (he is very good), and claimed that Bishop is an improvement over Hawk in terms of pass defense.

Can someone possibly help me get into Bedard's tiny mind here? Hawk isn't everything we hoped for when we took him at #5, but one thing has actually become is someone who is very reliable and assignment sure in coverage. Since he's faster than Bishop linearly and laterally, and has better recognition skills... don't you think that would, um..., make him better against the pass?

Do you think we can trade him for a 6th round ILB who looks good in the preseason and isn't a malcontent?

[hoosier]

On Twitter, Bedard was puffing the possibility of a Chillar-Barnett-Bishop-Matthews linebacking corps, saying that it would be difficult to pass against because of what happened in practice today. He said nothing about how this might be due to how good Chillar is in coverage (he is very good), and claimed that Bishop is an improvement over Hawk in terms of pass defense.

Can someone possibly help me get into Bedard's tiny mind here? Hawk isn't everything we hoped for when we took him at #5, but one thing has actually become is someone who is very reliable and assignment sure in coverage. Since he's faster than Bishop linearly and laterally, and has better recognition skills... don't you think that would, um..., make him better against the pass?

People who like Bishop have always touted his ability to blow up plays in the backfield, that he is more physical than Hawk and stuff like that. All of that translates into Bishop supposedly being better than Hawk in the base defense against the run--provided that he could ever overcome his tendency to make the costly mistakes that Hawk avoids. So I think Bedard is just confusing how Hawk and Bishop are seen in run defense and pass defense. You can understand how the little details would get blurred after a seven month vacation. :lol:

[SkinBasket]

The problem being that in very limited real world experience (not pre-season), Bishop looked like a fucking retard out there last year.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Just give the guy a fair shot at starting. What has Hawk done that is so great the last two years? Or Barnett for that matter. As for him saying that he is a top two LB in the league, idnk about that. But Finley has that sort of confidence in himself and look how that has turned out for him.

[ThunderDan]

It was nice to read the same article that we have read about Bishop for the last 2 years. The only difference is now he thinks he is one of the top 2 ILBs in the NFL.

[SkinBasket]

Just give the guy a fair shot at starting. What has Hawk done that is so great the last two years? Or Barnett for that matter. As for him saying that he is a top two LB in the league, idnk about that. But Finley has that sort of confidence in himself and look how that has turned out for him.

He had a shot last season. He looked retarded. He couldn't focus. Was all jumpy and running the wrong direction and falling down and shit. That's not how you impress your coaches. I've loved watching him in the preseason and have wanted him to break out, but at this point, the guy is stuck in his own head, and I don't think he's getting out.

[ThunderDan]

Just give the guy a fair shot at starting. What has Hawk done that is so great the last two years? Or Barnett for that matter. As for him saying that he is a top two LB in the league, idnk about that. But Finley has that sort of confidence in himself and look how that has turned out for him.

Hawk has 175 tackles of which 134 are solo tackles (77%), 4 sacks and 2 ints.

[Freak Out]

He needs to play lights out in August AND the regular season for his frustration to end. He doesn't sound like a real team player right now.

Every player looks a little out of place on occasion but he has looked completely lost at the worst possible times.

[red]

Just give the guy a fair shot at starting. What has Hawk done that is so great the last two years? Or Barnett for that matter. As for him saying that he is a top two LB in the league, idnk about that. But Finley has that sort of confidence in himself and look how that has turned out for him.

hawk rarely makes mistakes. he may not make a lot of big plays, but he does his part in preventing a lot against us

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Just give the guy a fair shot at starting. What has Hawk done that is so great the last two years? Or Barnett for that matter. As for him saying that he is a top two LB in the league, idnk about that. But Finley has that sort of confidence in himself and look how that has turned out for him.

Hawk has 175 tackles of which 134 are solo tackles (77%), 4 sacks and 2 ints.

Divided by two and those numbers are very replacable. Chillar would without a doubt get those numbers and maybe Bishop if given the chance who knows.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Just give the guy a fair shot at starting. What has Hawk done that is so great the last two years? Or Barnett for that matter. As for him saying that he is a top two LB in the league, idnk about that. But Finley has that sort of confidence in himself and look how that has turned out for him.

hawk rarely makes mistakes. he may not make a lot of big plays, but he does his part in preventing a lot against us

And having a player who doesn't make many mistakes is good enough for you? I actually like Hawk and I'm not bashing him. But I have been very disappointed in his play after 2007. I was expecting him to be a playmaker and he turned out be on the same level as Barnett (who is another player who is good, but nothing special)

[Fritz]

The problem being that in very limited real world experience (not pre-season), Bishop looked like a fucking retard out there last year.

Skin, both your posts seem to suggest that people who are developmentally disabled are not very good in pass coverage.

I don't know if that's true. However, I do recall seeing a pass play develop last year in a regular season game, and Bishop had coverage responsibilities. I don't remember which game.

But just last week, Tuesday, I think, Bishop recognized that the play was a pass and began to drop into coverage.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Hopefully, Bishop is nearly as good as he thinks he is. Hawk is a two down player, so there's some snaps for Bishop, if Chillar goes outside.

With Jones:

Base: Jones, Barnett, Hawk, Matthews
Nickel: Jones, Barnett, Chillar, Matthews

Without Jones:

Base: Matthews, Barnett, Hawk, Chillar/Poppinga
Nickel: Matthews, Barnett, Biship, Chillar

I think I like this better than Poppinga at LOLB. You could also occasionally sub Chillar in for Jones (even if he's healthy) as a change of pace. It also gives us the flexibility to move Matthews around.

I think people are reading this wrongly. I don't think this means that Bishop will be replacing Hawk in the base defense (which is what Hawk plays in currently)--whether Jones is healthy or not. What this does is put Bishop in on occasions when Poppinga would normally play. I think this says more about Poppinga than Hawk.

[denverYooper]

I think this says more about Poppinga than Hawk.

+1

[SkinBasket]

The problem being that in very limited real world experience (not pre-season), Bishop looked like a fucking retard out there last year.

Skin, both your posts seem to suggest that people who are developmentally disabled are not very good in pass coverage.

I don't know if that's true. However, I do recall seeing a pass play develop last year in a regular season game, and Bishop had coverage responsibilities. I don't remember which game.

But just last week, Tuesday, I think, Bishop recognized that the play was a pass and began to drop into coverage.

I'm recalling a game last year where injuries gave Bishop the chance to play. He was excited, for sure, but looked like a brain dead LT on a coke binge. He was quickly pulled out and didn't come back the rest of the game on defense.

Like I said, the guy can hit, and has demonstrated the ability to play with controlled recklessness, which I like, but only in August, and usually against 2nd or 3rd string opposition. Until the guy plays in the regular season like he has in the preseason, he'll be nothing more than a tease.

[pbmax]

On Twitter, Bedard was puffing the possibility of a Chillar-Barnett-Bishop-Matthews linebacking corps, saying that it would be difficult to pass against because of what happened in practice today. He said nothing about how this might be due to how good Chillar is in coverage (he is very good), and claimed that Bishop is an improvement over Hawk in terms of pass defense.

Can someone possibly help me get into Bedard's tiny mind here? Hawk isn't everything we hoped for when we took him at #5, but one thing has actually become is someone who is very reliable and assignment sure in coverage. Since he's faster than Bishop linearly and laterally, and has better recognition skills... don't you think that would, um..., make him better against the pass?

Do you think we can trade him for a 6th round ILB who looks good in the preseason and isn't a malcontent?
From the descriptions I have read, it doesn't seem that the Bishop/Chillar pairing has anything to do with that being a positive combo versus pass or run.

Chillar was out there as they are short of starting caliber OLBs with Jones hurt. Bishop may have earned time with the ones, but there is no way he is out there to play versus an expected pass. I think Bedard's comment may have applied only the possibility of improving coverage from OLB with Chillar there.

[pbmax]

Just give the guy a fair shot at starting. What has Hawk done that is so great the last two years? Or Barnett for that matter. As for him saying that he is a top two LB in the league, idnk about that. But Finley has that sort of confidence in himself and look how that has turned out for him.

Hawk has 175 tackles of which 134 are solo tackles (77%), 4 sacks and 2 ints.

Divided by two and those numbers are very replacable. Chillar would without a doubt get those numbers and maybe Bishop if given the chance who knows.
No he wouldn't. There is a reason Chillar doesn't play versus the run. He's light and cannot hold a point.

[pbmax]

Hopefully, Bishop is nearly as good as he thinks he is. Hawk is a two down player, so there's some snaps for Bishop, if Chillar goes outside.

With Jones:

Base: Jones, Barnett, Hawk, Matthews
Nickel: Jones, Barnett, Chillar, Matthews

Without Jones:

Base: Matthews, Barnett, Hawk, Chillar/Poppinga
Nickel: Matthews, Barnett, Biship, Chillar

I think I like this better than Poppinga at LOLB. You could also occasionally sub Chillar in for Jones (even if he's healthy) as a change of pace. It also gives us the flexibility to move Matthews around.

I think people are reading this wrongly. I don't think this means that Bishop will be replacing Hawk in the base defense (which is what Hawk plays in currently)--whether Jones is healthy or not. What this does is put Bishop in on occasions when Poppinga would normally play. I think this says more about Poppinga than Hawk.
It would be gutsy to stick Bishop in a nickel package. He would have to stay at home to play the run or rush the passer. Coverage would have to be infrequent. I doubt this happens, unless he can improve in space. Hawk may suffer in comparison to Chillar in coverage, but not to Bishop.

[bobblehead]

Just give the guy a fair shot at starting. What has Hawk done that is so great the last two years? Or Barnett for that matter. As for him saying that he is a top two LB in the league, idnk about that. But Finley has that sort of confidence in himself and look how that has turned out for him.

Hawk has 175 tackles of which 134 are solo tackles (77%), 4 sacks and 2 ints.

Divided by two and those numbers are very replacable. Chillar would without a doubt get those numbers and maybe Bishop if given the chance who knows.
No he wouldn't. There is a reason Chillar doesn't play versus the run. He's light and cannot hold a point.

Chillar is a little bigger than Barnett, and in St. Louis he was considered better against the run than he was against the pass. I'm not saying perception is always reality, and I agree he isn't as stout against the run as I would like, but the number of times I see Hawk get washed to the outside because his assignment is "containing" is sickening.

My perception is that none of the above is as stout as we would like, but Hawk doesn't blow his gap in ways that result in 40 yard runs.

[packerbacker1234]

The problem being that in very limited real world experience (not pre-season), Bishop looked like a fucking retard out there last year.

Skin, both your posts seem to suggest that people who are developmentally disabled are not very good in pass coverage.

I don't know if that's true. However, I do recall seeing a pass play develop last year in a regular season game, and Bishop had coverage responsibilities. I don't remember which game.

But just last week, Tuesday, I think, Bishop recognized that the play was a pass and began to drop into coverage.

I'm recalling a game last year where injuries gave Bishop the chance to play. He was excited, for sure, but looked like a brain dead LT on a coke binge. He was quickly pulled out and didn't come back the rest of the game on defense.

Like I said, the guy can hit, and has demonstrated the ability to play with controlled recklessness, which I like, but only in August, and usually against 2nd or 3rd string opposition. Until the guy plays in the regular season like he has in the preseason, he'll be nothing more than a tease.

Was going to say, I distinctly remember bishop given a shot last year due to injury and he was sucking it up so bad they yanked him. Unlike Brad Jones who came in to replace KAMPMAN and magically didn't suck. He wasn't great, but he held his own, unlike Bishop.

I like Bishop in that he can hit hard, but this conversation with him makes him look likea whiney baby. Why is no one knocking on your door? Your a diva already without anything to back you up, you think "you derserve" to play, and are only not playing due to draft status, and wont admit that possibly you are your own worst enemy.

Draft status? Hello Donald Driver. He was given a shot once, he excelled, and we never looked back (he was a 7th rounder). Not to mentioned all the undrafted free agents we picked up, and all that shit. When you are good, you excel with the opportunity. The few times he had real playing time in a meaningful game, he looked lost. Yeah, he laid out a wr from the cards - we get it it, the guy can hit. But he misses so much that he's a liability out there.

Great in TC, sucks in games. However, if it is true he is sticking with Finely well, I could see against pass heavy teams him getting a tad bit of play time with chillar moving outside for jones in coverage.

At least, I could see them playing with the idea. Moving Chillar outside for passing teams makes sense because he CAN cover, and he can blitz decently. Barnett is pretty good in coverage, and Hawk is just so-so.

[Tony Oday]

Maybe Bishop meant he is the second best SPECIAL TEAMS LB?

[sharpe1027]

My biggest recollection of Bishop was seeing a replay of a huge play the D gave up (I think a screen play) and wondering what the hell was Hawk doing? Then I realized it was Bishop. Thus far, he has proved about as much as Travis Jervey did.

[pbmax]

Just give the guy a fair shot at starting. What has Hawk done that is so great the last two years? Or Barnett for that matter. As for him saying that he is a top two LB in the league, idnk about that. But Finley has that sort of confidence in himself and look how that has turned out for him.

Hawk has 175 tackles of which 134 are solo tackles (77%), 4 sacks and 2 ints.

Divided by two and those numbers are very replacable. Chillar would without a doubt get those numbers and maybe Bishop if given the chance who knows.
No he wouldn't. There is a reason Chillar doesn't play versus the run. He's light and cannot hold a point.

Chillar is a little bigger than Barnett, and in St. Louis he was considered better against the run than he was against the pass. I'm not saying perception is always reality, and I agree he isn't as stout against the run as I would like, but the number of times I see Hawk get washed to the outside because his assignment is "containing" is sickening.

My perception is that none of the above is as stout as we would like, but Hawk doesn't blow his gap in ways that result in 40 yard runs.
Chillar may be comparable to Barnett. But in this D, you cannot have two ILBs that play that way. Someone has to stuff a Guard or FB and not lose the gap. Barnett and Chillar would both run around or get pushed out of the way.

[mngolf19]

The problem being that in very limited real world experience (not pre-season), Bishop looked like a fucking retard out there last year.

Skin, both your posts seem to suggest that people who are developmentally disabled are not very good in pass coverage.

I don't know if that's true. However, I do recall seeing a pass play develop last year in a regular season game, and Bishop had coverage responsibilities. I don't remember which game.

But just last week, Tuesday, I think, Bishop recognized that the play was a pass and began to drop into coverage.


Bobby Boucher was pretty good. And he also kept the waterjugs full. :lol:

[get louder at lambeau]

On Twitter, Bedard was puffing the possibility of a Chillar-Barnett-Bishop-Matthews linebacking corps, saying that it would be difficult to pass against because of what happened in practice today. He said nothing about how this might be due to how good Chillar is in coverage (he is very good), and claimed that Bishop is an improvement over Hawk in terms of pass defense.

Can someone possibly help me get into Bedard's tiny mind here? Hawk isn't everything we hoped for when we took him at #5, but one thing has actually become is someone who is very reliable and assignment sure in coverage. Since he's faster than Bishop linearly and laterally, and has better recognition skills... don't you think that would, um..., make him better against the pass?

Do you think we can trade him for a 6th round ILB who looks good in the preseason and isn't a malcontent?
From the descriptions I have read, it doesn't seem that the Bishop/Chillar pairing has anything to do with that being a positive combo versus pass or run.

Chillar was out there as they are short of starting caliber OLBs with Jones hurt. Bishop may have earned time with the ones, but there is no way he is out there to play versus an expected pass. I think Bedard's comment may have applied only the possibility of improving coverage from OLB with Chillar there.


Greg_A_Bedard - Only way Matthew-Barnett-Bishop-Chillar stick IMO is if Packers think they're OK vs run but really want to improve LB zone pass coverage.

PackersPlanet - @Greg_A_Bedard whaaaa? Can you imagine that. So you think Bishop is that much better than Hawk vs the pass?

Greg_A_Bedard - Um, yup RT @PackersPlanet: So you think Bishop is that much better than Hawk vs the pass?

http://www.packersplanet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7807

[Fritz]

I want what Greg Betard is smoking.

[vince]

Bedard tweetedt yesterday taht he thinks Barnett lacks fluidity in his hips. This got to Barnett and he made a mockery of him. He also suggested that Matthews is below average in coverage. Now this.

Bedard simply doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to linebacking play apparently.

[retailguy]

Bedard tweetedt yesterday taht he thinks Barnett lacks fluidity in his hips. This got to Barnett and he made a mockery of him. He also suggested that Matthews is below average in coverage. Now this.

Bedard simply doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to linebacking play apparently.

Nothing that a season of "Dancing with the Stars" wouldn't fix! Let's sign Bishop up. Maybe he could take Bedard with him?

[Tony Oday]

My biggest recollection of Bishop was seeing a replay of a huge play the D gave up (I think a screen play) and wondering what the hell was Hawk doing? Then I realized it was Bishop. Thus far, he has proved about as much as Travis Jervey did.

2008 in the Dome AP made Bishop look like a moron.

[gbgary]

I want some of Bishops kool-aid!

it must have some of jolly's codeine in it. i'd avoid it at all costs.

[mission]

this whole "hawk is so much quicker laterally" and all that nonsense is based on some combine numbers a handful of years ago.

he's MUCH stiffer now...

im not saying that bishop is the second coming of ray lewis or anything but to act like bedard is out of his mind (or high off his gord) is pretty far out considering he's at least been at camp and most of us haven't.

heard bishop stuck with finley a couple times and blanketed him. the same guy who's supposedly a safety and lb's nightmare. bishop wants it, he plays with fire and i gotta think enough big plays can make up for the couple times he ends up looking dumb (while coming in cold off the bench mind you).

i dont like his tone with the media (suck it up) but we all know he'd have way more of a chance if we wouldn't have spent a #5 pick on Hawk. letting bishop play that spot essentially says hawk is a bust and greatly diminishes his offseason value if we were to go that route.

as they say: it's strictly business, strictly business.

[Brandon494]

Honestly I'd rather us play Bishop and see what he can do. I think we have already seen the best of what Hawk has to offer (what a waste of a top 5 pick). Bishop might not be as fundamentally sound as Hawk but I guarntee he would make more meaningful plays on defense. We struggled at times at getting pressure on the QB last season, I think Bishop would be an improve over Hawk in that department.

[Brandon494]

On Twitter, Bedard was puffing the possibility of a Chillar-Barnett-Bishop-Matthews linebacking corps

YES YES YES!!!! It wont happen but those four guys are our 4 most talented LBs.

[pack4to84]

I was at practice today and I noticed that Hawk didn't get many plays. They used 52-55-56-54 on many of there sets. Nickel package was
---90---77---
52-55-56-54
38-21-42-36-24
or
--90---77--
52-55-56-54
38-21-42-36-22

[Tony Oday]

Honestly I'd rather us play Bishop and see what he can do. I think we have already seen the best of what Hawk has to offer (what a waste of a top 5 pick). Bishop might not be as fundamentally sound as Hawk but I guarntee he would make more meaningful plays on defense. We struggled at times at getting pressure on the QB last season, I think Bishop would be an improve over Hawk in that department.

Bishop will be in a shit load of highlight films....for the other teams.

[Tony Oday]

Hawk did have 2 INTs last year, second on the team in tackles, second on the team in solo tackles. What does the guy have to do? If he played OLB and added 5 sacks would that be worth it? I am all about getting rid of mediocre players but I see Hawk as a SOLID pro that plays great on down one and two. I think he needs to keep making steps and play with a little more abandon but not at the risk of giving up the big play.

[pbmax]

heard bishop stuck with finley a couple times and blanketed him. the same guy who's supposedly a safety and lb's nightmare. bishop wants it, he plays with fire and i gotta think enough big plays can make up for the couple times he ends up looking dumb (while coming in cold off the bench mind you).
A good point. But we do have some game tape of Bishop blowing coverage, so its not like we are Kipering this.

If your note about Bishop in coverage on Finley is true, then that could change things entirely. However, if he really blanketed Finley, I would expect bells to be ringing everywhere and video.

If he was simply getting better, that would be welcome news for the unit. And I still am not sure Chillar is linked to this move. I am very suspicious about him setting the edge in the run game. Especially since in nickel he has been exposed not covering the backside.

Mission, do you have a link to the Bishop pass coverage coverage?

[Brandon494]

Hawk did have 2 INTs last year, second on the team in tackles, second on the team in solo tackles. What does the guy have to do? If he played OLB and added 5 sacks would that be worth it? I am all about getting rid of mediocre players but I see Hawk as a SOLID pro that plays great on down one and two. I think he needs to keep making steps and play with a little more abandon but not at the risk of giving up the big play.

Slow and steady doesn't cut it for a top 5 pick. Hes a overpaid 2 down LB at best. I don't understand how this guy gets a pass for whatever reason.

[sharpe1027]

Hawk did have 2 INTs last year, second on the team in tackles, second on the team in solo tackles. What does the guy have to do? If he played OLB and added 5 sacks would that be worth it? I am all about getting rid of mediocre players but I see Hawk as a SOLID pro that plays great on down one and two. I think he needs to keep making steps and play with a little more abandon but not at the risk of giving up the big play.

Slow and steady doesn't cut it for a top 5 pick. Hes a overpaid 2 down LB at best. I don't understand how this guy gets a pass for whatever reason.

Why should Bishop be given a pass because he wasn't a top 5 pick? Either he is better or he is not.

[Tony Oday]

Hawk did have 2 INTs last year, second on the team in tackles, second on the team in solo tackles. What does the guy have to do? If he played OLB and added 5 sacks would that be worth it? I am all about getting rid of mediocre players but I see Hawk as a SOLID pro that plays great on down one and two. I think he needs to keep making steps and play with a little more abandon but not at the risk of giving up the big play.

Slow and steady doesn't cut it for a top 5 pick. Hes a overpaid 2 down LB at best. I don't understand how this guy gets a pass for whatever reason.

He gets a pass IMO for the following:

1. assignment true
2. our defense is predicated on stopping the run..he does that
3. He is Packer People
4. he is a team defender

[Lurker64]

heard bishop stuck with finley a couple times and blanketed him. the same guy who's supposedly a safety and lb's nightmare. bishop wants it, he plays with fire and i gotta think enough big plays can make up for the couple.

Well, I head that he blanketed Finley too, but I also heard that he did it by just hanging on to Finley's jersey.

[Tony Oday]

heard bishop stuck with finley a couple times and blanketed him. the same guy who's supposedly a safety and lb's nightmare. bishop wants it, he plays with fire and i gotta think enough big plays can make up for the couple.

Well, I head that he blanketed Finley too, but I also heard that he did it by just hanging on to Finley's jersey.

Ahmad Carroll played many years like that ;)

[pbmax]

Hawk did have 2 INTs last year, second on the team in tackles, second on the team in solo tackles. What does the guy have to do? If he played OLB and added 5 sacks would that be worth it? I am all about getting rid of mediocre players but I see Hawk as a SOLID pro that plays great on down one and two. I think he needs to keep making steps and play with a little more abandon but not at the risk of giving up the big play.

Slow and steady doesn't cut it for a top 5 pick. Hes a overpaid 2 down LB at best. I don't understand how this guy gets a pass for whatever reason.
If you want to hold his feet (or Ted's) to the fire, then your criticism makes sense. But if a #5 pick is productive, 2 downs or 3, is there really room for complaint when half the first rounds busts out?

Now if he was a second year player, I can see arguing you made a mistake and should trade him while the value is high. But if he is truly a mixed bag, you will never get value for him in picks. I find it hard to complain about a solid starter at #5. Should have been better, but could have been a whole lot worse.

[Tony Oday]

And really that year I would only have selected Haloti Ngata over Hawk based on our team. Cromartie would be a luxury but would he be happy being a nickle back for the last 2 1/2 years?

[falco]

I doubt Hawk is getting playing time due to his draft status. TT has shown no predisposition to higher draft picks, even cutting Brohm loose well before he had a chance to blossom.

I'm confused by Bishop. The guy has looked awesome in the preseason.

[Brandon494]

Hawk did have 2 INTs last year, second on the team in tackles, second on the team in solo tackles. What does the guy have to do? If he played OLB and added 5 sacks would that be worth it? I am all about getting rid of mediocre players but I see Hawk as a SOLID pro that plays great on down one and two. I think he needs to keep making steps and play with a little more abandon but not at the risk of giving up the big play.

Slow and steady doesn't cut it for a top 5 pick. Hes a overpaid 2 down LB at best. I don't understand how this guy gets a pass for whatever reason.

Why should Bishop be given a pass because he wasn't a top 5 pick? Either he is better or he is not.

I didn't say Bishop should get a pass because he wasnt a top pick. I think he should start over Hawk because he is a better blitz and we struggled at times at pressuring the QB. Listen Hawk is aight but I just want to see Bishop out there. I trust the coachs will make the right move, even if we don't start Bishop I just want to see him get more playing time.

[ThunderDan]

Hawk did have 2 INTs last year, second on the team in tackles, second on the team in solo tackles. What does the guy have to do? If he played OLB and added 5 sacks would that be worth it? I am all about getting rid of mediocre players but I see Hawk as a SOLID pro that plays great on down one and two. I think he needs to keep making steps and play with a little more abandon but not at the risk of giving up the big play.

Slow and steady doesn't cut it for a top 5 pick. Hes a overpaid 2 down LB at best. I don't understand how this guy gets a pass for whatever reason.

Why should Bishop be given a pass because he wasn't a top 5 pick? Either he is better or he is not.

I didn't say Bishop should get a pass because he wasnt a top pick. I think he should start over Hawk because he is a better blitz and we struggled at times at pressuring the QB. Listen Hawk is aight but I just want to see Bishop out there. I trust the coachs will make the right move, even if we don't start Bishop I just want to see him get more playing time.

Bishop had every opportunity in the world to play in 2008 when Barnett went out but he was so bad they moved Hawk inside and played Chiller and Popp on the outside.

Bishop had opportunities in 2009 and he couldn't crack the line up. You can't afford a player on D who will cost your team 10 points a game because he is assignment unsure.

If Bishop can stop the mental mistakes he has a great chance at pushing Hawk and talking playing time. If he can't he will be a special teamer for his Packer career and move on after this year.

The thing that makes me realize he probably hasn't improved his mental game is his quote that he thinks he is one of the top 2 ILB in the NFL. Only a selfabsorbed loser says something like that when he doesn't even have a start in an NFL game on his resume.

[HarveyWallbangers]

He also sounds like a bit of an a-hole. It doesn't take a scout to know that Chillar is indeed faster than Bishop. I don't know what tape he is watching.


It really won't work, however, if the Packers find themselves giving up too much in coverage with Bishop in Chillar's old nickel role.

Some will remember Bishop being embarrassed in coverage by Houston in December 2008. Bishop ran 40 yards in 4.8 seconds weighing 239, also his current weight, at the combine in 2007. Chillar's 40 clocking at 253 pounds coming out of UCLA in 2004 was 4.75.

“One, the 40 is not really about how fast you are,” Bishop said. “It’s a lot about technique. Two, I wouldn’t say Chillar is faster than me. The times I did get in (last season), check the film how I covered. I can cover.”

[Freak Out]

It's simple......show the coaches what you can do and you'll make the field. There is no conspiracy to keep the guy off the field because of someones else's draft status.

[packers11]

http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100803/PKR01/100803164

August 3rd - 2010


Thumbs Down

Those convinced Desmond Bishop should be an every-down player should have seen Tuesday night’s practice.

Given the opportunity to play with the starters for the entire practice in base and nickel for the first time this summer, Bishop did what he often does in his few real game opportunities.

That is, he gave up too many plays.

A day after he was thrown into a new-look nickel package, he also got the base reps because Nick Barnett was resting his surgical repaired knee.

Bishop might be a powerful hitter and a decent rusher, but he once again struggled in coverage. He gave up a long catch to tight end Jermichael Finley on a seam route for a 21-yard gain in the 7-on-7 two-minute drill. In the same drill, he gave up the winning touchdown to Donald Lee on first-and-goal from the 6-yard line with 16 seconds left. He also was in coverage on Nelson’s deep seam route.

Sure, Bishop made some noise, like when he knocked off Finley’s helmet after the tight end made a short catch in the flat but for every big play he makes, he seems to give up one, too.

Maybe that’s why in his first three seasons, he never received any consistent playing time.

Same story... Different year... Bishop lives in lala land if he thinks hes one of the top 2 inside lb's in the NFL

[sharpe1027]

Slow and steady doesn't cut it for a top 5 pick. Hes a overpaid 2 down LB at best. I don't understand how this guy gets a pass for whatever reason.

Why should Bishop be given a pass because he wasn't a top 5 pick? Either he is better or he is not.

I didn't say Bishop should get a pass because he wasnt a top pick. I think he should start over Hawk because he is a better blitz and we struggled at times at pressuring the QB. Listen Hawk is aight but I just want to see Bishop out there. I trust the coachs will make the right move, even if we don't start Bishop I just want to see him get more playing time.

True, but nobody said Hawk should get a pass either. I can see your point, but Bishop got a shot and blew it last year (IMO). There's plenty of players that ooh and ahh in practice or preseason every year. I doubt he's getting the shaft because of draft pick positions from several years ago.

[rbaloha1]

With Chillar outside in nickel, the logical player to fill his nickel spot inside alongside Nick Barnett would have been A.J. Hawk. McCarthy had employed Hawk in that role from 2006 until early '09.

This time, McCarthy and Capers inserted Desmond Bishop, a little-used star of past Augusts, and not Hawk.


If Bishop performs its time to trade Hawk. Hopefully the Packers learned from Kampman.

Mr. August now must transform to Mr. Regular Season. Go Bishop!

[rbaloha1]

Thumbs down

Those convinced Desmond Bishop should be an every-down player should have seen Tuesday night’s practice.

Given the opportunity to play with the starters for the entire practice in base and nickel for the first time this summer, Bishop did what he often does in his few real game opportunities.

That is, he gave up too many plays.

A day after he was thrown into a new-look nickel package, he also got the base reps because Nick Barnett was resting his surgical repaired knee.

Bishop might be a powerful hitter and a decent rusher, but he once again struggled in coverage. He gave up a long catch to tight end Jermichael Finley on a seam route for a 21-yard gain in the 7-on-7 two-minute drill. In the same drill, he gave up the winning touchdown to Donald Lee on first-and-goal from the 6-yard line with 16 seconds left. He also was in coverage on Nelson’s deep seam route.

Sure, Bishop made some noise, like when he knocked off Finley’s helmet after the tight end made a short catch in the flat but for every big play he makes, he seems to give up one, too.

Maybe that’s why in his first three seasons, he never received any consistent playing time.

[pbmax]

http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100803/PKR01/100803164

August 3rd - 2010


Thumbs Down

Those convinced Desmond Bishop should be an every-down player should have seen Tuesday night’s practice.

Given the opportunity to play with the starters for the entire practice in base and nickel for the first time this summer, Bishop did what he often does in his few real game opportunities.

That is, he gave up too many plays.

A day after he was thrown into a new-look nickel package, he also got the base reps because Nick Barnett was resting his surgical repaired knee.

Bishop might be a powerful hitter and a decent rusher, but he once again struggled in coverage. He gave up a long catch to tight end Jermichael Finley on a seam route for a 21-yard gain in the 7-on-7 two-minute drill. In the same drill, he gave up the winning touchdown to Donald Lee on first-and-goal from the 6-yard line with 16 seconds left. He also was in coverage on Nelson’s deep seam route.

Sure, Bishop made some noise, like when he knocked off Finley’s helmet after the tight end made a short catch in the flat but for every big play he makes, he seems to give up one, too.

Maybe that’s why in his first three seasons, he never received any consistent playing time.

Same story... Different year... Bishop lives in lala land if he thinks hes one of the top 2 inside lb's in the NFL
This begs the question, why is Bishop in a nickel package? Is this just training? Will he simply be part of the rush/contain/run assignment and not have coverage responsibilities? Or are they simply looking to see if they can live with him there?

I still think this has more to do with depth at OLB than Bishops snaps at ILB. If Chillar backs up OLB Jones because they decide Popp, Obiozor or Zongo cannot be trusted, then Bishop will be on the field earlier as an ILB.

But if he is part of a new nickel package, he has to play in the box. Leaving the other LBs to mix coverage and blitzing.

[Pugger]

Hawk did have 2 INTs last year, second on the team in tackles, second on the team in solo tackles. What does the guy have to do? If he played OLB and added 5 sacks would that be worth it? I am all about getting rid of mediocre players but I see Hawk as a SOLID pro that plays great on down one and two. I think he needs to keep making steps and play with a little more abandon but not at the risk of giving up the big play.

The reason why folks don't care for Hawk is his draft status. Had he been taken later in the first round or the second nobody would be grumbling about him. However, because he was the 5th player taken in that draft and he isn't the second coming of LT he gets blasted by fans.

[RashanGary]

We'll see how it pans out. He has a chance.

[Brandon494]

Thumbs down

Those convinced Desmond Bishop should be an every-down player should have seen Tuesday night’s practice.

Given the opportunity to play with the starters for the entire practice in base and nickel for the first time this summer, Bishop did what he often does in his few real game opportunities.

That is, he gave up too many plays.

A day after he was thrown into a new-look nickel package, he also got the base reps because Nick Barnett was resting his surgical repaired knee.

Bishop might be a powerful hitter and a decent rusher, but he once again struggled in coverage. He gave up a long catch to tight end Jermichael Finley on a seam route for a 21-yard gain in the 7-on-7 two-minute drill. In the same drill, he gave up the winning touchdown to Donald Lee on first-and-goal from the 6-yard line with 16 seconds left. He also was in coverage on Nelson’s deep seam route.

Sure, Bishop made some noise, like when he knocked off Finley’s helmet after the tight end made a short catch in the flat but for every big play he makes, he seems to give up one, too.

Maybe that’s why in his first three seasons, he never received any consistent playing time.

You have to take in to account that this 7-on-7 drill there was no pass rush. You give Aaron Rodgers all day to throw the ball he'll beat the best LBs in coverage.

[ThunderDan]

Thumbs down

Those convinced Desmond Bishop should be an every-down player should have seen Tuesday night’s practice.

Given the opportunity to play with the starters for the entire practice in base and nickel for the first time this summer, Bishop did what he often does in his few real game opportunities.

That is, he gave up too many plays.

A day after he was thrown into a new-look nickel package, he also got the base reps because Nick Barnett was resting his surgical repaired knee.

Bishop might be a powerful hitter and a decent rusher, but he once again struggled in coverage. He gave up a long catch to tight end Jermichael Finley on a seam route for a 21-yard gain in the 7-on-7 two-minute drill. In the same drill, he gave up the winning touchdown to Donald Lee on first-and-goal from the 6-yard line with 16 seconds left. He also was in coverage on Nelson’s deep seam route.

Sure, Bishop made some noise, like when he knocked off Finley’s helmet after the tight end made a short catch in the flat but for every big play he makes, he seems to give up one, too.

Maybe that’s why in his first three seasons, he never received any consistent playing time.

You have to take in to account that this 7-on-7 drill there was no pass rush. You give Aaron Rodgers all day to throw the ball he'll beat the best LBs in coverage.

I am sure that is taken into account. Just like when Bishop had great coverage on Finley earlier in the week, if we have no context who knows/cares. Was it red zone on the 2 yard line or a 20 yard seem pass? The discription of great coverage in those situations is completely different.

[gabe]

Just reverse their roles, if Hawk was drafted where Bishop was, and Bishop was drafted where Hawk was who do you think would be starting?

I personally think that A.j. would be considered one of the gems of the draft, but also think bishop would be entrenched as the back up inside linebacker.

Also if Bishop started from day one and Hawk hadn't been starting (assuming he was drafted in Bishops spot) then Bishop would have more exp. and possibly be better?

To many variables for me, I'm happy with the way things are. If its not broke why fix it?

[mission]

pb - i was going to look that link up for you but then i see the next day he struggles...

i think gbpackfan mentioned it and whatever day that was, either JSO or GBPG had it in their live practice feed (or practice round up).

[HarveyWallbangers]

I am sure that is taken into account. Just like when Bishop had great coverage on Finley earlier in the week, if we have no context who knows/cares. Was it red zone on the 2 yard line or a 20 yard seem pass? The discription of great coverage in those situations is completely different.

Where's the link to Bishop having great coverage on Finley? I'm just wondering if it was for a play or two, or he just owned him the entire practice. Honestly, I don't much believe it. I doubt Bishop has the athleticism to hang with Finley play after play. If it was for a play or two but he screws up other plans, big deal. That goes back to the lack of consistency Bishop has.

I also thought I read somebody post that Bishop had great coverage because he mostly held Finley.

[Joemailman]

I am sure that is taken into account. Just like when Bishop had great coverage on Finley earlier in the week, if we have no context who knows/cares. Was it red zone on the 2 yard line or a 20 yard seem pass? The discription of great coverage in those situations is completely different.

Where's the link to Bishop having great coverage on Finley? I'm just wondering if it was for a play or two, or he just owned him the entire practice. Honestly, I don't much believe it. I doubt Bishop has the athleticism to hang with Finley play after play. If it was for a play or two but he screws up other plans, big deal. That goes back to the lack of consistency Bishop has.

I also thought I read somebody post that Bishop had great coverage because he mostly held Finley.

This was from practice 4, I believe.

PackersLive: Rodgers and Finley have a miscommunication to end their set of downs. But very good coverage by Bishop on two plays vs Finley [via Twitter]

[RashanGary]

Bishop is a tough dude. We haven't seen much of him. Just for curiosity sake, I'd like to see him play a few games. If the coaches thinks he earned it, great. If not, I trust Capers to make the right call here. I'm not a huge Hawk fan, but I don't know enough to make the call here.

[Fritz]

Can he put on thirty or forty pounds and play defensive end?

[Cheesehead Craig]

Let's remember this about our defense in practice:

They are going against one of the best offenses in the league. There's going to be times when they look foolish.

[woodbuck27]

I vote for confidence every time over I'll just try my best.

[Brandon494]

Let's remember this about our defense in practice:

They are going against one of the best offenses in the league. There's going to be times when they look foolish.

Especially when Aaron isn't even getting rushed.

[ThunderDan]

Let's remember this about our defense in practice:

They are going against one of the best offenses in the league. There's going to be times when they look foolish.

Especially when Aaron isn't even getting rushed.

Of course when AR can't hand the ball off it sure helps the D.

[Brandon494]

bump

[Deputy Nutz]

WHY?

[Brandon494]

Because Im bored and this NFL offseason sucks.

[bobblehead]

Greg_A_Bedard - Only way Matthew-Barnett-Bishop-Chillar stick IMO is if Packers think they're OK vs run but really want to improve LB zone pass coverage.

PackersPlanet - @Greg_A_Bedard whaaaa? Can you imagine that. So you think Bishop is that much better than Hawk vs the pass?

Greg_A_Bedard - Um, yup RT @PackersPlanet: So you think Bishop is that much better than Hawk vs the pass?



It does seem mr. bedard knew what he was talking about.

[HarveyWallbangers]

And why do we think Bishop is so much better than Hawk in coverage now? To me, they are virtually the same player. Both have similar strengths and weaknesses. Good football intelligence, good tackling, assignment sure, durable, okay in coverage. Bishop got the chance and proved solid. Hawk has been a leader by example, but had to become a more vocal leader this year. His teammates rewarded him by naming him one of the captains.

[pbmax]

On Twitter, Bedard was puffing the possibility of a Chillar-Barnett-Bishop-Matthews linebacking corps, saying that it would be difficult to pass against because of what happened in practice today. He said nothing about how this might be due to how good Chillar is in coverage (he is very good), and claimed that Bishop is an improvement over Hawk in terms of pass defense.

Can someone possibly help me get into Bedard's tiny mind here? Hawk isn't everything we hoped for when we took him at #5, but one thing has actually become is someone who is very reliable and assignment sure in coverage. Since he's faster than Bishop linearly and laterally, and has better recognition skills... don't you think that would, um..., make him better against the pass?

This.

[gbgary]

bump

i agree!

[ThunderDan]

Bishop had every opportunity in the world to play in 2008 when Barnett went out but he was so bad they moved Hawk inside and played Chiller and Popp on the outside.

Bishop had opportunities in 2009 and he couldn't crack the line up. You can't afford a player on D who will cost your team 10 points a game because he is assignment unsure.

If Bishop can stop the mental mistakes he has a great chance at pushing Hawk and talking playing time. If he can't he will be a special teamer for his Packer career and move on after this year.

The thing that makes me realize he probably hasn't improved his mental game is his quote that he thinks he is one of the top 2 ILB in the NFL. Only a selfabsorbed loser says something like that when he doesn't even have a start in an NFL game on his resume.

I stand by this post today.

Bishop cleaned up his mental mistakes and was able to fill BARNETT's (not Hawk's) spot in the line up extremely well.

[pbmax]

I stand by this post today.

Bishop cleaned up his mental mistakes and was able to fill BARNETT's (not Hawk's) spot in the line up extremely well.

I stand with Dan, like co-captains of the Titanic.

This a good reminder that no matter how much I think I know about the Packers and wish they would make certain decisions, I don't know diddly poo.

[MJZiggy]

I stand with Dan, like co-captains of the Titanic.

This a good reminder that no matter how much I think I know about the Packers and wish they would make certain decisions, I don't know diddly poo.
You know poo, you just don't know what the Packers are going to do with the poo or when the unexpected turns your poo into the runs...

[ThunderDan]

I stand with Dan, like co-captains of the Titanic.

This a good reminder that no matter how much I think I know about the Packers and wish they would make certain decisions, I don't know diddly poo.

You can be Giligan, I get to be the Skipper!

[ThunderDan]

You know poo, you just don't know what the Packers are going to do with the poo or when the unexpected turns your poo into the runs...

I was think more on the line of ..... when poo turns to fertilizer.