Packers To Part Ways With Bishop?

[pbmax]

Exactly right. The only way you can arrive at "simultaneous possession" on that play is if you ignore everything leading up to the two players lying on the ground.

Only Driver, Dr. J and a couple of Hall of Fame receivers get to call one hand on the ball possession. :)

[3irty1]

Has anyone noticed Genius' approach is neither consistent nor working as planned, currently? :lol:

Bishop was the best LB on a truly horrible defense and he doesn't have the skills to wash off the impression that he is not a difference maker. He stood out on this defense with his hitting but that is not enough.

I am not sure we have better to replace him yet on 1st and 2nd down, but his new contract puts him in the market of replaceable.

I can't agree with that. Bishops body of work with the Packers was fantastic and the only reason he's still worth the effort to pick up the phone when his agent calls. In a 30 front he had enough speed to make it work and what he brought to the D was well worth his minor limitations in coverage. While there was certain stuff on defense that you just couldn't do with him, he was always good enough in coverage to make the routine plays even if he had to do it dramatically. This new contract is because he is extremely unlikely to ever play football again, and even if he does he's extremely unlikely to be effective or play for very long. The odds are stacked high against him based on history.

[Smidgeon]

Bishop gets $840K (the minimum for a 7th year player) plus incentives that could push him to $1.35M. The conjecture is that other teams were offering even less at simply the vet minimum ($550k).

Doesn't sound like people are all that sold on him. Obviously, MN can cut him without any real salary cap hit, so their risk is limited.

The other teams were offereing the vet minimum of $840k. But due to NFL rules regarding vet minimums, it'd only count against their cap as $550k.

[Upnorth]

Has anyone noticed Genius' approach is neither consistent nor working as planned, currently? :lol:

Bishop was the best LB on a truly horrible defense and he doesn't have the skills to wash off the impression that he is not a difference maker. He stood out on this defense with his hitting but that is not enough.

I am not sure we have better to replace him yet on 1st and 2nd down, but his new contract puts him in the market of replaceable.

When Francois had his one and only good game (one pass block and one int I remember but could be way off) wasn't he coming in to replace an injured Bishop and a lot of people at the time were glad Bishop was out?

Much like PB, or at least my take on what PB is saying, I think Bishop was never special in a group that is far from special.

[3irty1]

When Francois had his one and only good game (one pass block and one int I remember but could be way off) wasn't he coming in to replace an injured Bishop and a lot of people at the time were glad Bishop was out?

Much like PB, or at least my take on what PB is saying, I think Bishop was never special in a group that is far from special.

I think he was replacing Hawk in that game. Not with much certainty though.

[Tony Oday]

I stand by 8-8 for the Vikings. Lost Harvin gained Jennings. AP will NOT have the year he did before. Ponder is terrible. The defense is old up front and has no corners. The only reason they were in it last year was because AP had one of the best years for a running back ever.

[Cheesehead Craig]

It's not like he's going to make them a SB contender. You chicken little's need to have a pop tart and chocolate milk and chill the fuck out.

[Patler]

Bishop gets $840K (the minimum for a 7th year player) plus incentives that could push him to $1.35M. The conjecture is that other teams were offering even less at simply the vet minimum ($550k).

Doesn't sound like people are all that sold on him. Obviously, MN can cut him without any real salary cap hit, so their risk is limited.

If that is the best he could do after visiting several teams, it is clear that no one was very interested in him.

[pbmax]

I can't agree with that. Bishops body of work with the Packers was fantastic and the only reason he's still worth the effort to pick up the phone when his agent calls. In a 30 front he had enough speed to make it work and what he brought to the D was well worth his minor limitations in coverage. While there was certain stuff on defense that you just couldn't do with him, he was always good enough in coverage to make the routine plays even if he had to do it dramatically. This new contract is because he is extremely unlikely to ever play football again, and even if he does he's extremely unlikely to be effective or play for very long. The odds are stacked high against him based on history.

I thought he had three above average skills: recognition (he went forward as we as anyone and was not the worst offender in missteps), hitting, and forcing fumbles/sacks.

But he needed a five or six man blitz to get to the QB (he did not defeat many blockers 1 on 1), his sideline range was limited and his coverage was as poor as Hawk's, contributing to the odd fit inside.

Its my failing but I cannot remember a single forced fumble of his, perhaps because you remember the recovery more from TV and forget fumbles the other team gets back.

If he gets back to healthy and gets another three year deal, this might look bad depending on his replacement. But at $1.5 mil for one year, it looks like this assessment is common. He is not special.

[pbmax]

I think he was replacing Hawk in that game. Not with much certainty though.

It was the game they both ended up on the sidelines. Not sure if injury was same game, but Francois was 2nd backup to be starting out there after Smith.

[hoosier]

I can't agree with that. Bishops body of work with the Packers was fantastic and the only reason he's still worth the effort to pick up the phone when his agent calls. In a 30 front he had enough speed to make it work and what he brought to the D was well worth his minor limitations in coverage. While there was certain stuff on defense that you just couldn't do with him, he was always good enough in coverage to make the routine plays even if he had to do it dramatically. This new contract is because he is extremely unlikely to ever play football again, and even if he does he's extremely unlikely to be effective or play for very long. The odds are stacked high against him based on history.

If it were just history saying that Bishop is unlikely to play or play at close to his former level (and I will accept, for the sake of the argument, that history does say that), and if Bishop really had been as fantastic as you say, then I am not sure what the Packers would have to lose in holding onto him into training camp to see what he's got. Someone at JSO suggested they might be cutting him preemptively to avoid getting stuck with his contract if he reinjures himself, but the same history that says return to playing form = highly unlikely also says that reinjuring the hamstring is also uncommon. Assuming the Packers are working with clear reasoning, there has to be more to it than the odds being against him.

[woodbuck27]

If it were just history saying that Bishop is unlikely to play or play at close to his former level (and I will accept, for the sake of the argument, that history does say that), and if Bishop really had been as fantastic as you say, then I am not sure what the Packers would have to lose in holding onto him into training camp to see what he's got. Someone at JSO suggested they might be cutting him preemptively to avoid getting stuck with his contract if he reinjures himself, but the same history that says return to playing form = highly unlikely also says that reinjuring the hamstring is also uncommon. Assuming the Packers are working with clear reasoning, there has to be more to it than the odds being against him.

Desmond Bishop was just interviewed on the phone on NFL Access and he was very calm. He said that he feels that he's 100% ready to go. He said that he felt that the decision that the Packers made to let him go was in his best impression one strictly about numbers and a pure business decision.

He said that the reason he chose the Minnesota Vikings over the Chiefs and Giants was that he wanted to compete against the best and QB Aaron Rodgers. That playing against Aaron Rodgers was a primary motivation for signing in Minnesota. He also said that he felt that he would transition well from the 3-4 to the 4-3 'D'; as he came from a 4-3 'D' in College. He felt that his athleticism would allow him to play on the outside at 'Mike' in the Minny 'D'.

Generally the analysts on NFL Access are taking the position that the Minnesota Vikings have improved with the addition of both Greg Jennings and now LB Desmond Bishop. That they upgraded at WR and now at the LB position after acquiring Desmond Bishop.

[woodbuck27]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000214491/article/desmond-bishop-facing-rodgers-perk-of-joining-vikes

Desmond Bishop: Facing Rodgers perk of joining Vikes

By: Marc Sessler ... Around the League Writer

Published: June 25, 2013 at 09:13 a.m. ... Updated: June 25, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.

" Desmond Bishop's decision to sign with the Vikings does more than add firepower to Minnesota's increasingly stout linebacking unit. The move also allows the former Green Bay Packer to face his old quarterback twice a year.

"It was part of the reason," Bishop told NFL Network's "NFL AM" on Tuesday. "And if I can get a chance to play against Aaron Rodgers, I think that right there, in itself, is a motivation. You know, you want to play against the best. ... When I was playing for Green Bay, the games I cherished ... most was playing against the Vikings because I had a chance to play against (running back) Adrian Peterson. ... That's my mindset. I want to play against the best." ..." Fr. LINK above

Please click on LINK for the rest of this story.

[Teamcheez1]

Jennings and Bishop will have a lot to reminisce about as they sit on the sidelines nursing injuries during the Packers games.

[Bossman641]

I thought he had three above average skills: recognition (he went forward as we as anyone and was not the worst offender in missteps), hitting, and forcing fumbles/sacks.

But he needed a five or six man blitz to get to the QB (he did not defeat many blockers 1 on 1), his sideline range was limited and his coverage was as poor as Hawk's, contributing to the odd fit inside.

Its my failing but I cannot remember a single forced fumble of his, perhaps because you remember the recovery more from TV and forget fumbles the other team gets back.

If he gets back to healthy and gets another three year deal, this might look bad depending on his replacement. But at $1.5 mil for one year, it looks like this assessment is common. He is not special.

I remember him punching one out, from behind, around the goal line that I believe was recovered in the end zone. I can't remember who it was against though.

[3irty1]

If it were just history saying that Bishop is unlikely to play or play at close to his former level (and I will accept, for the sake of the argument, that history does say that), and if Bishop really had been as fantastic as you say, then I am not sure what the Packers would have to lose in holding onto him into training camp to see what he's got. Someone at JSO suggested they might be cutting him preemptively to avoid getting stuck with his contract if he reinjures himself, but the same history that says return to playing form = highly unlikely also says that reinjuring the hamstring is also uncommon. Assuming the Packers are working with clear reasoning, there has to be more to it than the odds being against him.

Its pure medical risk is my point. Of course the Packers wouldn't pay 4.25M per year for a guy that probably has a 10 or 15% chance of returning to action. The Vikings have a much more palatable deal for 840k because they didn't have to cut him or restructure with him.

[hoosier]

Its pure medical risk is my point. Of course the Packers wouldn't pay 4.25M per year for a guy that probably has a 10 or 15% chance of returning to action. The Vikings have a much more palatable deal for 840k because they didn't have to cut him or restructure with him.

I'm not sure where you are getting your estimates from, but the small sample identified in the Ortho pdf you linked yesterday suggests the return to playing form after hamstring tendon rupture is a lot higher than 10-15% in the NFL. Those are dismal odds, whereas the Ortho study looked at 10 players trying to come back from Bishop's injury and found that 5 of them came back to play more than one game. At what effectiveness nobody can know. But if Bishop had been a difference maker when healthy, and if his chances of reclaiming his starter's position were at least 50%, the medical risk factor wouldn't be big. It would be if there were a 50% chance of him reinjuring himself during camp, but most of the guys in the study who didn't come back didn't reinjure, they just got cut. And if Bishop gets cut in camp then the Packers don't owe him anything.

[Pugger]

If that is the best he could do after visiting several teams, it is clear that no one was very interested in him.

Evidently MN was pretty desperate for LBs and that is probably why they took a flier on him. It speaks volumes to me that KC - who also need LBs - didn't offer him more than the vet minimum.

[3irty1]

I'm not sure where you are getting your estimates from, but the small sample identified in the Ortho pdf you linked yesterday suggests the return to playing form after hamstring tendon rupture is a lot higher than 10-15% in the NFL. Those are dismal odds, whereas the Ortho study looked at 10 players trying to come back from Bishop's injury and found that 5 of them came back to play more than one game. At what effectiveness nobody can know. But if Bishop had been a difference maker when healthy, and if his chances of reclaiming his starter's position were at least 50%, the medical risk factor wouldn't be big. It would be if there were a 50% chance of him reinjuring himself during camp, but most of the guys in the study who didn't come back didn't reinjure, they just got cut. And if Bishop gets cut in camp then the Packers don't owe him anything.

Well given its a small sample size but a pretty good indicator in my opinion was the average draft position of these guys. For a guy like Bishop who was a borderline 2-down linebacker to begin with in a 30 front, this injury could take away the step his game absolutely could not afford to lose, especially if he's supposed to now play Mike in a 4-3 scheme like the Vikings. Despite his claims that he's 100% or 110% or whatever, ALL the signs are pointing to this injury being a likely showstopper.

[packer4life]

If only we had known the injury was a showstopper last year. That would have successfully quelled my hopes at a monster return in 2013. Sad face.

[MJZiggy]

Perhaps you've already blacked it out of your memory...but Hakeeem Nicks may ring a bell w/o the replacement refs
Boo! I was doing just fine in my denial, thank you!

[hoosier]

Well given its a small sample size but a pretty good indicator in my opinion was the average draft position of these guys. For a guy like Bishop who was a borderline 2-down linebacker to begin with in a 30 front, this injury could take away the step his game absolutely could not afford to lose, especially if he's supposed to now play Mike in a 4-3 scheme like the Vikings. Despite his claims that he's 100% or 110% or whatever, ALL the signs are pointing to this injury being a likely showstopper.

Yes, the one sign we've seen (tweaking the hamstring and sitting out the recent OTA) is not too encouraging. And you may be right that, even when he feels "110%" and his injured leg tests at same strength as healthy leg, he still loses a step in his speed or loses some explosiveness. The Ortho study looked at the rehab from a leg strength perspective but didn't talk about other factors like flexibility, acceleration and speed. The big question for your hypothesis is: for players whose hamstring tendon rehab goes well, is there a medical consensus that they typically still lose something in the areas of speed and acceleration? If not, then I think cutting Bishop = sign that the Packers think he is replaceable because of who he is, not because of what he has probably become.

[swede]

The big question for your hypothesis is: for players whose hamstring tendon rehab goes well, is there a medical consensus that they typically still lose something in the areas of speed and acceleration? If not, then I think cutting Bishop = sign that the Packers think he is replaceable because of who he is, not because of what he has probably become.

Repped for hammering home the rhetorical flourish. It's freaking raining fine distinctions.

And, to a point, I agree. Something made them let him go now rather than let him take camp reps from other players.

[Rastak]

Well given its a small sample size but a pretty good indicator in my opinion was the average draft position of these guys. For a guy like Bishop who was a borderline 2-down linebacker to begin with in a 30 front, this injury could take away the step his game absolutely could not afford to lose, especially if he's supposed to now play Mike in a 4-3 scheme like the Vikings. Despite his claims that he's 100% or 110% or whatever, ALL the signs are pointing to this injury being a likely showstopper.

Absolutely a possibility. We'll see how it works out.

[bobblehead]

Yes, the one sign we've seen (tweaking the hamstring and sitting out the recent OTA) is not too encouraging. And you may be right that, even when he feels "110%" and his injured leg tests at same strength as healthy leg, he still loses a step in his speed or loses some explosiveness. The Ortho study looked at the rehab from a leg strength perspective but didn't talk about other factors like flexibility, acceleration and speed. The big question for your hypothesis is: for players whose hamstring tendon rehab goes well, is there a medical consensus that they typically still lose something in the areas of speed and acceleration? If not, then I think cutting Bishop = sign that the Packers think he is replaceable because of who he is, not because of what he has probably become.

The big thing I have seen with this exact injury...and this is by no means scientific...is that guys tend to hurt the other leg because they are compensating without even realizing it. I can think of 2 guys this happened to, plus Robert Brooks who hurt a knee, then had a hammy issue from compensating if I recall.

[Rastak]

If it were just history saying that Bishop is unlikely to play or play at close to his former level (and I will accept, for the sake of the argument, that history does say that), and if Bishop really had been as fantastic as you say, then I am not sure what the Packers would have to lose in holding onto him into training camp to see what he's got. Someone at JSO suggested they might be cutting him preemptively to avoid getting stuck with his contract if he reinjures himself, but the same history that says return to playing form = highly unlikely also says that reinjuring the hamstring is also uncommon. Assuming the Packers are working with clear reasoning, there has to be more to it than the odds being against him.


Vikings have some history with the injury. Kyle Rudolph came back just fine from that injury. Bishop himself indicated his sole driving force was to come back 110%. I thought I heard that Winston Moss was quoted as saying he was a demon in his rehab. That having been said, I wonder about players pride getting in the way with taking a cut and resigning. Packer fan at work indicated they (packers) broached the subject of a restructure and he wasn't interested....could be bullshit. Ex Viking Winfield was asked if he thought about resigning with the Vikings and he said when he got called into the GMs office that ship sailed. Urlacher retired rather than take a Bears offer that was better than he likely would have got anywhere else. These guys get their dander up and don't make good financial decisions. It would have made sense for both Bishop and TT to have him sign a vet minimum deal there but pride rules.

[Patler]

...
I wonder about players pride getting in the way with taking a cut and resigning. Packer fan at work indicated they (packers) broached the subject of a restructure and he wasn't interested....could be bullshit. Ex Viking Winfield was asked if he thought about resigning with the Vikings and he said when he got called into the GMs office that ship sailed. Urlacher retired rather than take a Bears offer that was better than he likely would have got anywhere else. These guys get their dander up and don't make good financial decisions. It would have made sense for both Bishop and TT to have him sign a vet minimum deal there but pride rules.

Pride, or agents who convince them there is a better deal out there for them when there isn't. The story last spring was that the Packers offered a deal to Jennings a year ago that was as good as or better than what he signed for, too. Sometimes I think the agents just don't want to set a precedent of their clients being too agreeable.

Pride? Agent? Probably a combination of both.

[cheesner]

Pride, or agents who convince them there is a better deal out there for them when there isn't. The story last spring was that the Packers offered a deal to Jennings a year ago that was as good as or better than what he signed for, too. Sometimes I think the agents just don't want to set a precedent of their clients being too agreeable.

Pride? Agent? Probably a combination of both.

He believes he is DMVP bound this coming season. At what point do we start dropping the word pride and using delusional?

[3irty1]

If Bishop can indeed recover then I don't see any reason why he wouldn't be his normal splashy-play makin' self. He'd almost have to be because Desmond Bishop at even 90% speed might not even be a rosterable player. I guess that pretty much summarizes why I'd wager his pay cut is indicative of long odds rather than decreased ability.

If he can come back he's got a puncher's chance at DPOY. He'll get the stats, the difficult piece will be being the best player on one of the best defenses which is largely out of his control.

[mraynrand]

I think it would be awesome if Bishop started at OLB for the Vikings. That's a guy you can exploit all day long. MM must be licking his chops and hoping the Viking LB corps is so terrible that Bishop starts outside. Bishop wants to face Rodgers? LOL. Be careful what you wish for....

[pbmax]

The big thing I have seen with this exact injury...and this is by no means scientific...is that guys tend to hurt the other leg because they are compensating without even realizing it. I can think of 2 guys this happened to, plus Robert Brooks who hurt a knee, then had a hammy issue from compensating if I recall.

I think this is what happened to Bishop that kept him out of OTAs. I believe I read a reference to hi talking about this exactly issue. Hamstring strain to the other leg.

[Patler]

Bishop had been saying for weeks before OTAs that he was 100%, but now said this:


What held the linebacker out of organized team activities and minicamp, he said, was not the tendon tear itself. Rather, a muscle strain on the inside of Bishop's hamstring was the problem. Bishop admits he probably tried to run and cut too quickly, saying, “that wasn’t the smartest thing to do.” That tweak, “a couple-week injury,” is what Bishop said held him back this past month.

One of Hawk, Bishop and Jones had to go. There are too many contracts to be signed for the Packers to waste millions on a nonstarter or guy on IR, if they can help it. Bishop had the biggest question mark physically, so he was the odd man out.

If Bishop had really been 100% for OTAs, they might have delayed the decision. Since he wasn't, their decision probably was not a difficult one, especially if OTAs gave them any amount of increased confidence in Manning.

[run pMc]

I posted this on the http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?25591-Sam-Barrington thread for use in comparing his measurables to other GB LB's, but thought it was worth posting here since I think it's relevant:

Desmond Bishop
http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings...007&genpos=ILB
Combine
Height: 6017 Weight: 239
40 Yrd Dash: 20 Yrd Dash: 2.75 10 Yrd Dash: 1.59
225 Lb. Bench Reps: 33
Vertical Jump: Broad Jump:
20 Yrd Shuttle: 3-Cone Drill:
No agility drills, pulled muscle

Pro Day 03/06/07
Height: 6017 Weight: 239
40 Yrd Dash: 4.81 20 Yrd Dash: 2.78 10 Yrd Dash: 1.60
225 Lb. Bench Reps:
Vertical Jump: 32 1/2 Broad Jump: 9'4"
20 Yrd Shuttle: 4.65 3-Cone Drill: 7.14


AJ Hawk
http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings...006&genpos=olb
Combine
Height: 6010 Weight: 248
40 Yrd Dash: 4.59 20 Yrd Dash: 2.72 10 Yrd Dash: 1.56
225 Lb. Bench Reps: 24
Vertical Jump: 40 Broad Jump: 09'07"
20 Yrd Shuttle: 3.96 3-Cone Drill: 6.82

Pro Day 03/09/06
Height: 6010 Weight: 248
40 Yrd Dash: 4.47


Brad Jones
http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings...009&genpos=OLB

Pro Day 03/09/09
Height: 6027 Weight: 232
40 Yrd Dash: 4.54 20 Yrd Dash: 2.56 10 Yrd Dash: 1.59
225 Lb. Bench Reps: 19
Vertical Jump: 33 Broad Jump: 09'11"
20 Yrd Shuttle: 4.21 3-Cone Drill: 6.75


These numbers tell me that Bishop has less agility and more strength -- the hamstring injury will only hurt his agility, speed, and acceleration. IMO putting him at OLB will expose him, and even at MLB he likely will struggle. Unless he overcomes the odds, it's hard to see him playing on passing downs.

As others have mentioned the Vikings are taking a flyer on him; if he pans out they get a good bargain, if not they can cut him. Their LB corps is less impressive than GB's, although I like the Gerald Hodges pick and Chad Greenway is good in their scheme. Erin Henderson is ok -- you'll always be trying to find someone better. They won't use him as much of a blitzer; they have other guys (Everson Griffen, Jared Allen, K.Williams, Sharrif Floyd) to rush the passer.

With the injury and salary numbers, letting him go was the 'safe' move. It just feels unnecessary because GB is under the cap and TT doesn't talk to the media.

[Fritz]

Bishop had been saying for weeks before OTAs that he was 100%, but now said this:



One of Hawk, Bishop and Jones had to go. There are too many contracts to be signed for the Packers to waste millions on a nonstarter or guy on IR, if they can help it. Bishop had the biggest question mark physically, so he was the odd man out.

If Bishop had really been 100% for OTAs, they might have delayed the decision. Since he wasn't, their decision probably was not a difficult one, especially if OTAs gave them any amount of increased confidence in Manning.

I was going to call you out for hyperbole, but such is the game today that you are correct.

[Zool]

Desmond Bishop
http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings...007&genpos=ILB
Combine
40 Yrd Dash: 20 Yrd Dash: 2.75 10 Yrd Dash: 1.59


Was his 40 so slow they forgot to mark the time?

[George Cumby]

Was his 40 so slow they forgot to mark the time?

He's so slow he hasn't finished it yet.

[Guiness]

Was his 40 so slow they forgot to mark the time?

Combine time was 4.78 - same as Manti!
On the slightly high end of average for an ILB, I think.

[Pugger]

Was his 40 so slow they forgot to mark the time?

They were using a sun dial. :lol:

Good lord, his time on his pro day was pretty slow. Both Hawk and B. Jones were faster back then and I have to believe Bish's injury has slowed him even more.

[3irty1]

Hawk has never played like that workout though. Going by those numbers he should be one of the most explosive and agile LB in the NFL. He moves ok for his size and strength but he's very stiff.

[ThunderDan]

I wonder why he was stiff?

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=AJ+HAwks+wife&sa=X&hl=en&qscrl=1&rlz=1T4ADFA_enUS432US516&biw=1920&bih=877&tbm=isch&tbnid=5f7Ez44bVkb4bM:&imgrefurl=http://www.playerwives.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/aj-hawks-wife-laura-hawkbrady-quinns-sister-laura-hawk/&docid=7t81zDFoE3j4AM&imgurl=http://www.playerwives.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/sportsbastards.jpg&w=289&h=425&ei=rkHLUf-eCo2eqQG-3ICgBg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:0,s:0,i:89&iact=rc&page=1&tbnh=178&tbnw=125&start=0&ndsp=28&tx=91&ty=122

That didn't work quite right. Just google AJ Hawks wife.

[woodbuck27]

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/attachments/talk-sports/127085d1215007228-ugliest-man-sports-nomination-thread-24332-aj_hawk_click-clack.jpg

AJ HAWK

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR8Bp1eMpjzCVqsmErG4aOB95o5i-tWZRmqoJGEqlYbZeGKP93ZXA

AJ HAWK's wife

http://cdn-static.zdnet.com/i/story/61/03/000863/brain-drain2.jpg

Your brain

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTBtxXk6klrKSzrOB3f_l801E1nmEWdp cf-a9uQdXN0L-QlnkYozw

Tree's are concerned ... far less 'maturity' challenged.

[Iron Mike]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/8574_410665935716360_938029789_n.jpg

[Freak Out]

Is Bishop hurt yet?

[Joemailman]

If Bishop and Jennings collide in practice, and both get hurt, should I smile? Or laugh?