Desmond Bishop Extended!

[VermontPackFan]

I wonder what kind of "promises" were made to Bishop, if any. He has complained in the past about lack of playing time, lack of opportunities even. He knows Chiller, Barnett and Hawk are all under contract for next year, so the Packers could have all of them back by doing nothing other than meeting the contract obligations.

I had expected Bishop to wait and see what happened with Hawk's bonus before re-signing with GB. Chiller seems locked into the specialty role; leaving Hawk, Barnett and Bishop for the two starting spots. Will Bishop be satisfied in a reserve role if they are all back?

Then again, with the CBA up in the air, Bishop may have seen this as opportunity to get a signing bonus in hand before a possible lockout at the start of the next league year.

I would be suprised if he was promised anything, possibly an open competition for a starting position in training camp? The way he has played since Barnett went down, I dont see him playing a reserve role next year. I wonder if Barnett (or Hawk) would be satisfied in a reserve role?

[RashanGary]

My impression before this year was that Bishop was our toughest inside LB and tied with Chillar as our best blitzer. I wondered why he wasn't on the field.

I thought Chillar was our best coverage linebacker and tied with Bishop as our best blitzer.


When it comes to athletes making plays, it seemed to me Chillar and Bishop were are best LB's. I had a guy at work mock the hell out of me for saying I liked the way Bishop played over Barnett.



After seeing the way Hawk played this year though, I like him better than Barnett and better in base than Chillar. In base, I'd go Hawk/Bishop because both play the run well and both can cover well enough. In nickle I'd go with Bishop and Chillar because they're our two best blitzers, Bishop can cover well enough and Chillar is excellent at it.

At the end of the day I think Hawk's days are numbered. You can't pay a part time player more than you do Bishop, the full time player.

[Patler]

I would be suprised if he was promised anything, possibly an open competition for a starting position in training camp? The way he has played since Barnett went down, I dont see him playing a reserve role next year. I wonder if Barnett (or Hawk) would be satisfied in a reserve role?

Individually, I would still rate him 3rd best of the three. The interesting question is, what combination is best?

[Smidgeon]

I think the play of Hawk and Barnett did that. I'm not sure Barnett was considered better than Matthews, but I get your point. I always felt like Hawk and Barnett were pretty close. Barnett more of a playmaker and solid, but took some bad angles. Hawk steady and solid, but had coverage liabilities. I thought Barnett was pretty similar, but not as consistent as Hawk. I'd say they are pretty close, but Barnett is getting olded and injury prone.

Whoops. Forgot about Matthews. I was mostly thinking about ILBs...

[ND72]

Goodbye Hawk.

Why does everyone say goodbye hawk? I don't see that at all. Hawk and bishop play so much better together. I read other places say hawk is gone cause of the $10mil price tag....like players have never renegotiated their contracts or something. Barnett likely gone, but who knows.

[Joemailman]

I also think there's a good chance that Bishop, Hawk, and Chillar stay with Barnett going. However, it depends on what Hawk and his agent think he's worth. They hold the cards. If they are looking at a reasonable number, I think the Pack gets rid of Barnett. If they demand too much, I think they let Hawk go and keep Barnett. Kind of the same with Cullen Jenkins. It all depends on what the are asking for.

I hope they find a way to keep Hawk. I think he's steadier than Barnett, and the defense has played better since he became the defensive signal caller.

This would get a five clap post if I knew how to use the emoticons....or if they work......I'm not sure

Stellar points

The site only allows 4 images per post.

[RashanGary]

Put me down for liking Bishop and Chillar as our two best ILB's.

[Lurker64]

Put me down for liking Bishop and Chillar as our two best ILB's.

The problem with that pairing is that neither of those guys has demonstrated their ability to be the defensive signal caller, so it would be dangerous to just go with a Bishop/Chillar base. Hawk and Barnett have shown that they can call the signals for Dom's defense, so you pretty much have to keep one of them on the field until somebody else shows you they can do it.

[vince]

Chillar has had a couple great blitzes, but for a coverage specialist, he seems to make too many mistakes and get beat regularly. Without looking at any stats, he seems to get beat more than Hawk, who's actually been very good in coverage this year. I'll take all four, but if forced to take two, it's Bishop and Hawk.

I think Hawk'll renegotiate and be back. He doesn't want to go anywhere. For the sake of continuity, it's time for Thompson to draft a new guy inside. I'm with those who think Barnett should be moved if Ted hits on a winner inside and is able to renegotiate Hawk's deal.

[Bossman641]

I'm pretty sure Hawk dropped weight this year and has been faster and better in coverage than the last couple years.

Hawk has definitely dropped some weight, and to me it looks like it was in the upper body. He will never be confused for being fluid but he looks much better this year while last year he looked like a miniature defensive lineman running around out there.

[Bretsky]

I'm pretty sure Hawk dropped weight this year and has been faster and better in coverage than the last couple years.

Interesting you'd say that. Bill Michaels from Packer Radio had a theory on Hawk early last year that he was pretty effective as a rookie, but then the Packers coaches stressed that he needed to get stronger stronger stronger....he put on a bit of weight....and lost his speed identity of the player he is.

[imscott72]

The Packers got a great deal here with this extension. I wonder if this means Hawk/Barnett are on their way out.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I love Hawk and Bishop in the middle. Trade Barnett......

[vince]

Interesting you'd say that. Bill Michaels from Packer Radio had a theory on Hawk early last year that he was pretty effective as a rookie, but then the Packers coaches stressed that he needed to get stronger stronger stronger....he put on a bit of weight....and lost his speed identity of the player he is.

Yeah that makes sense to me too. I don't know if the coaches pushed for it or what, but Hawk definitely slowed down since his rookie year. He's still not the most agile ILB in the league, but he's quicker this year and is a good complement to Bishop.

I think/hope Hawk and TT can agree on a restructure. All in all, I'd prefer Hawk over Bishop, as Bishop still has his limitations in space. The Bishop deal strengthens the Packers position with Hawk though, so they aren't desperate by any means, but I think they'll give him a fair deal in line with what Barnett's making ($6 mil/yr) and hopefully he'll agree.

[rbaloha1]

Nice signing. DB backed up word with play. Agree with assessment Hawk's improved play is partly attributable to Bishop's play. Raji also helped as well imo.

Hawk is also resigned at a reasonable price.