Chillar out indefinitely

[packers11]

https://www.rotoworld.com

Packers ILB Brandon Chillar broke his hand in Sunday's loss to Minnesota.
Chillar is an integral part of Green Bay's nickel package. He looks to be out indefinitely. His loss would impact the Packers' coverage of tight ends.

Source: Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

[rbaloha1]

Bishop played well and shall prove capable.

[Partial]

BG Bishop is gonna get some time. This will be a good experiment for Packer fans as we know what we have in Chillar, a solid backer.

[Brandon494]

Might be the break Bishop needs to prove if he is a impact player or just antoher Abdul Hodge.

[pbmax]

Was Bishop in for Chillar on passing downs? And was he in coverage?

[Partial]

Was Bishop in for Chillar on passing downs? And was he in coverage?

Yes, and he broke up the key 3rd down in the early 4th to get the Vikes to punt. We then went down and missed the FG I believe.

[Sparkey]

Was Bishop in for Chillar on passing downs? And was he in coverage?

Yes, and he broke up the key 3rd down in the early 4th to get the Vikes to punt. We then went down and missed the FG I believe.

Unfortunately, that big run in the 4th qrtr to the left by Peterson was because Bishop was unable to disengage the lineman that got into him. All in all though, he seemed to play decent.

[Partial]

Was Bishop in for Chillar on passing downs? And was he in coverage?

Yes, and he broke up the key 3rd down in the early 4th to get the Vikes to punt. We then went down and missed the FG I believe.

Unfortunately, that big run in the 4th qrtr to the left by Peterson was because Bishop was unable to disengage the lineman that got into him. All in all though, he seemed to play decent.

Hardly anyone can disengage from Hutch. And wasn't that Barnett?

[Brohm]

I think we'll be seeing more of Hawk in the nickel with Bishop in the "Big Okie"/super sub.

[Partial]

I think we'll be seeing more of Hawk in the nickel with Bishop in the "Big Okie"/super sub.

I think big okie is probably done, and they'll play Hawk in the nickel. I think Bishop will be the sub whenever one of the middle guys needs a breather.

[sharpe1027]

Unfortunately, that big run in the 4th qrtr to the left by Peterson was because Bishop was unable to disengage the lineman that got into him. All in all though, he seemed to play decent.

Quoted for truth. IMO, Bishop was not impressive.

[sharpe1027]

Hardly anyone can disengage from Hutch. And wasn't that Barnett?

It was not about disengaging, it was about getting caught out of position. He allowed Hutchinson and AP to get outside of him even though it looked like it was his job to contain. Funny how I don't remember them giving up that kind of play all year until then. I have a feeling the Vikings saw Bishop was out of position on earlier plays and took advantage of it.

Hopefully he learns.

[Partial]

Hardly anyone can disengage from Hutch. And wasn't that Barnett?

It was not about disengaging, it was about getting caught out of position. He allowed Hutchinson and AP to get outside of him even though it looked like it was his job to contain. Funny how I don't remember them giving up that kind of play all year until then. I have a feeling the Vikings saw Bishop was out of position on earlier plays and took advantage of it.

Hopefully he learns.

It was Bishop, I've verified this. Not good from my guy BG Bishop

[CaliforniaCheez]

For a lot of talent at LB it sure doesn't get utilized very well.

The defensive play calling could be improved.