Packers To Part Ways With Bishop?

[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...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?