Packers shopping bishop?

[red]

so, we play a 3-4 requiring 2 ILB

if we trade bishop, we'll have 1 ILB on the roster. with the draft over

yup, thats just great

so much for getting tougher

[red]

has this been proven to be BS yet

i still can't fathom why we would want to get rid of him

[rbaloha1]

has this been proven to be BS yet

i still can't fathom why we would want to get rid of him

maybe they tried to quietly shop but got nowhere.

maybe lattimore and manning are stepping up.

[gbgary]

has this been proven to be BS yet

i still can't fathom why we would want to get rid of him

tt didn't deny it...said lots of things got talked about.

[Guiness]

tt didn't deny it...said lots of things got talked about.

lol @ getting TT to deny (or confirm) anything, including that the sun will set tonight.

No, the Pack will handle this like the Mathews and Rodgers contracts, not like the Revis trade. If it happens, it will be discussed then.

[pbmax]

Could easily had been part of a discussion about moving in the draft that simply never happened. Although during the draft pick for player trades are pretty rare.

Would be interested in what they could have been trying to do.

[rbaloha1]

Manning and Barrington could be future Bishop type players.

Moving Bishop allows more reps for these guys plus the removal of a potential distraction if Bishop is not the starter.

[Gunakor]

Manning and Barrington could be future Bishop type players.

Moving Bishop allows more reps for these guys plus the removal of a potential distraction if Bishop is not the starter.

Our roster isn't flush with starting caliber ILB's. If Bishop is healthy I think his starting job is pretty safe.

[woodbuck27]

has this been proven to be BS yet

i still can't fathom why we would want to get rid of him

I'm focusing this post right here:

This rumor is just that>>>rumor.

Not worth anything in terms of concern or news. It's clear BS.

Ignore such things.

Listen to TT (** See below):

He's asked about Desmond Bishop and a possible trade.

Ted Thompson clearly says: (and I paraphrase)

That he wouldn't comment on that and that alot of these things that come up usually mean in reality 'little to nothing ... that they never go anywhere'.

I believe it's this:

Put any idea of a Desmond Bishop trade to bed. We needed him yesterday.

Real news makes 'REAL NOISE'.

He's a valuable need for the toughness and morale of the Packers. He adds the 'spit, fire, piss and vinegar' the defense needs. He's not easy to replace...as long as he can play. There's the rub that the Packers first need to determine. If he's not 100% no team will touch him.

If he is 100% then why?, would TT deal him when we need his development... now?

TT drafts after round 3-4 for depth and to improve things like team speed. He can't realistically imagine that late round picks (Rd. 4-7) will be impact players this season. We all certainly realize that.

If Desmond Bishop is coming back to full health? TT wouldn't deal his impending solid contribution. Many analysts look right to Desmond Bishop as 'just' one reason; why the Packers are falling off against power teams like San Fran, the New York Giants and the Seattle Seahawks.

Here's Ted Thompson on alot of things... ie the Draft results and Desmond Bishop:

http://www.packers.com/media-center/videos/Ted-Thompson-2013-Draft-increases-competition/0da085ab-d3b9-4592-bc87-15ceb830ae5c

GO PACK GO !

[rbaloha1]

Our roster isn't flush with starting caliber ILB's. If Bishop is healthy I think his starting job is pretty safe.

Read -- future. Did Bishop start in his rookie or second year? Recall DB was a sixth round pick with a bad 40 time. Still pissed off about the draft and not starting earlier in his career.

[run pMc]

Shopping Bishop would be dumb unless he's not coming back 100%, they think they have someone better at ILB, or are looking for cap relief. If you ignore the injury, he's the best ILB they have. Bishop is a guy that -- IF healthy -- you want on your roster. What would he get in trade?

[Guiness]

Shopping Bishop would be dumb unless he's not coming back 100%, they think they have someone better at ILB, or are looking for cap relief. If you ignore the injury, he's the best ILB they have. Bishop is a guy that -- IF healthy -- you want on your roster. What would he get in trade?

IF there's truth to this, you have to think it's the first reason, he's not coming back from the injury, and won't. They have no one proven better at ILB, and have plenty of cap room (reported $13.2M under) even after signing Rodgers and Mathews.

Even trading because of the injury doesn't make sense though. the Packers aren't known for passing off damaged goods to other teams, and if it was just a matter of time I think they'd wait for him. They've given unproven rookies time to heal, I'm sure they would give time to a proven starter.

This was reported in several places, but it's always the same source being credited, Daniel Jeremiah from nfl.com. Seems like a dead duck.

[woodbuck27]

IF there's truth to this, you have to think it's the first reason, he's not coming back from the injury, and won't. They have no one proven better at ILB, and have plenty of cap room (reported $13.2M under) even after signing Rodgers and Mathews.

Even trading because of the injury doesn't make sense though. the Packers aren't known for passing off damaged goods to other teams, and if it was just a matter of time I think they'd wait for him. They've given unproven rookies time to heal, I'm sure they would give time to a proven starter.

This was reported in several places, but it's always the same source being credited, Daniel Jeremiah from nfl.com. Seems like a dead duck.

Yes.

[pbmax]

I don't think you can shop Bishop unless he is healthy. Who would trade picks for an injured ILB?