Packers To Part Ways With Bishop?

[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.