So was Daunte Culpepper.
Sorry, video was too gay to show here.
Was Dan Muir not on the field last night? I swear I saw him, and I remember hearing that they brought him in last week. Did I see someone else, because I swear I saw Muir on the back of the jersey... 
I saw Wynn. They both have 4 letters in their last name.
Muir was in for a tryout but that's it, I think.
Muir was in for a tryout but that's it, I think.
Bishop isn't the problem. He's probably their best run defender, and he's a pretty decent blitzer as well.
What I've seen is that since Hawk returns into the lineup either he's not the same guy or he's not healthy. Either way, he's been atrocious and needs to be replaced. He's slow to react to the play, and he just doesn't have the quickness right now (for whatever reason). Teams have picked up on this, and it's not helping this defense. Francois or Smith would be an improvement I think.
To a lesser extent, the same thing has happened to Walden. Maybe he peaked earlier this year, but he's been invisible the last few games. Don't know if Zombo or Jones are the answer either. Long term, an OLB opposite CMIII is a major priority.
What I've seen is that since Hawk returns into the lineup either he's not the same guy or he's not healthy. Either way, he's been atrocious and needs to be replaced. He's slow to react to the play, and he just doesn't have the quickness right now (for whatever reason). Teams have picked up on this, and it's not helping this defense. Francois or Smith would be an improvement I think.
To a lesser extent, the same thing has happened to Walden. Maybe he peaked earlier this year, but he's been invisible the last few games. Don't know if Zombo or Jones are the answer either. Long term, an OLB opposite CMIII is a major priority.
When I saw Willie Davis on the pre-game show I thought the Packers had brought him back. He looked bigger than Raji and I thought they might put Davis at NT and move Raji to DE. Or did someone else already suggest this?
quote:Originally posted by Koopla Krash:
I'll disagree on Bishop sucking last night. He made plays all over the field and while he didn't always get credit for the tackle, he would take out 2 blockers or turn the play to the step-slow Hawk & Peprah so they could get their plodding asses over to make the tackle.
LoL, he was not "making plays all over the field" he played easily his worst game of the year. He took some bad angles, he was too high and let linemen underneath his pads and got blown out more than he ever has. He was was just "off", though he looked better than Hawk.
quote:
Bishop may have been shaking off a little rust last night, but there are many times he is the best player on the field for the Pack. Watch him. He attacks. ...Simply awesome to watch. I firmly believe Bishop can be stacked up against Ray Lewis and Patrick Willis as the best ILB in football.
Again, pure garbage. Get out of 1972. Best player on the field? He's maybe 5th or 6th at his best behind Woodson, Matthews, Raji, Williams and probably Burnett or Shields. Don't fall for the rubegoggles of a couple of big hits, there's a lot more to it than that, things Lewis, Willis, Urlacher, etc. can do like cover and have a lot better range. Bishop's a good short-area player and would be helped a lot if there was another linebacker who could cover but he's still not as good as those others.
You might also ask, Where's Zombo?
Why not try Bishop in Walden's place this week with Smith taking Bishop's place? This game means nothing, and it would at least be an option for other teams to consider. Walden can't make a read to save his life, and his horrible play on runs is forcing CMIII to always try to come across the field to help bail him out on those wide runs. Plus he hasn't gotten a QB pressure in forever. All Walden's poor play does is tire CMIII out and make him less effective since he's either trying to bring pressure by himself or trying to chase a back down from behind.
At this point Walden is a huge liability, and So'oto must be an even bigger one or I can't imagine why he's not in there. Zombo seems to have gone off the grid.
Why not try Bishop in Walden's place this week with Smith taking Bishop's place? This game means nothing, and it would at least be an option for other teams to consider. Walden can't make a read to save his life, and his horrible play on runs is forcing CMIII to always try to come across the field to help bail him out on those wide runs. Plus he hasn't gotten a QB pressure in forever. All Walden's poor play does is tire CMIII out and make him less effective since he's either trying to bring pressure by himself or trying to chase a back down from behind.
At this point Walden is a huge liability, and So'oto must be an even bigger one or I can't imagine why he's not in there. Zombo seems to have gone off the grid.
Smith should be busy replacing one of the ILB. His name rhymes with bawk.
quote:Originally posted by Herschel:quote:Originally posted by Koopla Krash:
I'll disagree on Bishop sucking last night. He made plays all over the field and while he didn't always get credit for the tackle, he would take out 2 blockers or turn the play to the step-slow Hawk & Peprah so they could get their plodding asses over to make the tackle.
LoL, he was not "making plays all over the field" he played easily his worst game of the year. He took some bad angles, he was too high and let linemen underneath his pads and got blown out more than he ever has. He was was just "off", though he looked better than Hawk.quote:
Bishop may have been shaking off a little rust last night, but there are many times he is the best player on the field for the Pack. Watch him. He attacks. ...Simply awesome to watch. I firmly believe Bishop can be stacked up against Ray Lewis and Patrick Willis as the best ILB in football.
Again, pure garbage. Get out of 1972. Best player on the field? He's maybe 5th or 6th at his best behind Woodson, Matthews, Raji, Williams and probably Burnett or Shields. Don't fall for the rubegoggles of a couple of big hits, there's a lot more to it than that, things Lewis, Willis, Urlacher, etc. can do like cover and have a lot better range. Bishop's a good short-area player and would be helped a lot if there was another linebacker who could cover but he's still not as good as those others.
Have you ever played LB? I have and understand how easy it can be to get caught up in the mess of the OL/DL. Nick Barnett runs backward to avoid the scrum. Hawk constantly gets caught in it because he thinks too much. Bishop rarely gets caught up in the garbage. Even when he can't get the tackle (which he is the clear leader on the team), he often occupies multiple blockers or funnels the ball carrier back to his defensive teammates.
It sure seems to me that you are the one hung up on big hits. Bishop the 5th or 6th best player on defense??? You clearly are not rational on this. All I ask is you focus #55 vs. the Lions (assuming he plays his normal amount of PT). If you are honest with yourself with what you see, you will be impressed.
quote:Originally posted by RatPack:
Smith should be busy replacing one of the ILB. His name rhymes with bawk.
Bishawp?
Bishop = Not a freaking OLB. They are not interchangeable positions no matter how much the armchair quarterbacks want to believe it. Besides, even if it were possible, don't you think MM, Compers and the fellas would have thought about making the switch "just to see?" I liked what I saw out of Smith at MLB too but you don't see him lining up at OLB either do you? I'm pretty sure there's a reason for that.
Maybe they can move Dan Muir out there instead?
Maybe they can move Dan Muir out there instead?
Originally posted by Koopla Krash:
Have you ever played LB? I have and understand how easy it can be to get caught up in the mess of the OL/DL. Nick Barnett runs backward to avoid the scrum. Hawk constantly gets caught in it because he thinks too much. Bishop rarely gets caught up in the garbage. Even when he can't get the tackle (which he is the clear leader on the team), he often occupies multiple blockers or funnels the ball carrier back to his defensive teammates.
So how does #54 or #55 for Chicago avoid scrums and beat the hell out of us? Do they just not think? Are they more physical? Are they more tallanted? Are they interested in moving to Green Bay?
Have you ever played LB? I have and understand how easy it can be to get caught up in the mess of the OL/DL. Nick Barnett runs backward to avoid the scrum. Hawk constantly gets caught in it because he thinks too much. Bishop rarely gets caught up in the garbage. Even when he can't get the tackle (which he is the clear leader on the team), he often occupies multiple blockers or funnels the ball carrier back to his defensive teammates.
So how does #54 or #55 for Chicago avoid scrums and beat the hell out of us? Do they just not think? Are they more physical? Are they more tallanted? Are they interested in moving to Green Bay?
OLB's in the 3-4 are more like DE's from a 4-3, typically between 250 and 260 lbs. Bishop is under 240 lbs. As good as Bishop is, he's not big or strong enough to hold the edge against a 300+ lb OT. Wishful thinking, but the Packers are stuck with who they have at OLB: Walden, Zombo, Jones, So'oto and Lattimore. All we can do is hope that one of the, gets hot in the playoffs.
Didn't francois play some OLB last year? I seem to remember him playing outside in the playoffs last year. Not sure how effective he was but I think he'd be much better in pass coverage.
Yes, and past jr. high and high school.quote:Originally posted by Koopla Krash:
Have you ever played LB? I have and understand how easy it can be to get caught up in the mess of the OL/DL.
quote:
It sure seems to me that you are the one hung up on big hits. Bishop the 5th or 6th best player on defense??? You clearly are not rational on this. All I ask is you focus #55 vs. the Lions (assuming he plays his normal amount of PT). If you are honest with yourself with what you see, you will be impressed.
Yes, Bishop is the fifth or sixth best player at best. Matthews, Raji, Woodson and Williams are simply better players. With Collins, that's six, and it can be argued Shields, Burnett and Pickett. That would leave the linebackers in the last three spots (sans Peprah for Collins, of course). Bishop's a short-area player, and he's pretty good at that but he's limited overall and Christmas Night he was off.
He even admitted it.
quote:Originally posted by CUPackFan:
OLB's in the 3-4 are more like DE's from a 4-3, typically between 250 and 260 lbs. Bishop is under 240 lbs. As good as Bishop is, he's not big or strong enough to hold the edge against a 300+ lb OT. Wishful thinking, but the Packers are stuck with who they have at OLB: Walden, Zombo, Jones, So'oto and Lattimore. All we can do is hope that one of the, gets hot in the playoffs.
You're generally correct, although Lattimore is 230 lbs. Then again, you don't see much of him on the field at OLB either.
The guy I want to see get hot is So'oto. I think he has the skill set to get it done and comes in at 6'3", 263 lbs. He's just a pup though and played DE in college. I'd love to see him line up at OLB against the Lions for 4 quarters.
From what I have been reading the Packers are not to happy with any of their 4-3 LB except Mathews. That is why they are giving So'oto a chance.
On the bright side good 3-4 LB are generally available late in the first round.
I suspect if the Packers win another Super bowl this year they will just have to out score everyone.
On the bright side good 3-4 LB are generally available late in the first round.
I suspect if the Packers win another Super bowl this year they will just have to out score everyone.
Walden seems to have regressed since his arrest. You can't help but wonder if it's related somehow.
GBPG and JSO both reporting a mid-Febuary trial date, 11 days after the Super Bowl.
GBPG and JSO both reporting a mid-Febuary trial date, 11 days after the Super Bowl.
quote:I suspect if the Packers win another Super bowl this year they will just have to out score everyone.
Pretty sure that's how you generally win football games.
quote:Originally posted by Pistol GB:
Walden seems to have regressed since his arrest. You can't help but wonder if it's related somehow.
GBPG and JSO both reporting a mid-Febuary trial date, 11 days after the Super Bowl.
Here is the case listed on CCAP. DC's are a dime a dozen and I guess I'm a bit surprised this thing isn't plead down to a county ordinance violation with a small fine. Unless of course Walden isn't interested in any sort of plea agreement, which is quite possible.
quote:Originally posted by Pakrz:quote:I suspect if the Packers win another Super bowl this year they will just have to out score everyone.
Pretty sure that's how you generally win football games.
No, I remember the Packers winning when the Vikings out scored them a couple of weeks ago. No wait that was something a Queen fans said.
Ok I am wrong.
Just busting your chops a bit... I get what you're saying.quote:Originally posted by Herschel:
It sure seems to me that you are the one hung up on big hits. Bishop the 5th or 6th best player on defense??? You clearly are not rational on this. All I ask is you focus #55 vs. the Lions (assuming he plays his normal amount of PT). If you are honest with yourself with what you see, you will be impressed.
Yes, Bishop is the fifth or sixth best player at best. Matthews, Raji, Woodson and Williams are simply better players. With Collins, that's six, and it can be argued Shields, Burnett and Pickett. That would leave the linebackers in the last three spots (sans Peprah for Collins, of course). Bishop's a short-area player, and he's pretty good at that but he's limited overall and Christmas Night he was off.
He even admitted it.[/QUOTE]
Well, if you are still on the premise that you somehow think Bishop is in the bottom half of the defensive players then we cannot have a serious conversation. There is no way Shields, Burnett, and Pickett are better. I don't think Williams or Collins are better either. Raji makes so few meaningful plays that he certainly isn't better either - look at his stats - less than 1 unassisted tackle/game and 3 sacks YTD. I realize there is a lot more to a DL than stats, but c'mon there is no way he's consistently better than Bishop.
So that leaves CM3 and Woodson. CM3 is a beast and there is really nothing I can say negative about his play other than sometimes with those zone blitzes he drops into coverage and is a non-factor. Woody is a HOF player but there are many times during the game where he has no impact - primarily on running plays; plus there are times he simply gets beat in coverage. For my money, if CM3 & Woody are not making the play on defense, I'm going with Bishop (and I'll be right more often than any of the other players you believe are better). If Bishop is such a "short-range" player, why does he play the entire game? Wouldn't he be coming out of the game in obvious passing downs?
One last time - I'm happy Bishop isn't happy with how he played on Sunday. He will play better as he works back into game shape after missing nearly a month of live action...which is a very good thing for the Pack.
quote:Originally posted by RatPack:
Originally posted by Koopla Krash:
Have you ever played LB? I have and understand how easy it can be to get caught up in the mess of the OL/DL. Nick Barnett runs backward to avoid the scrum. Hawk constantly gets caught in it because he thinks too much. Bishop rarely gets caught up in the garbage. Even when he can't get the tackle (which he is the clear leader on the team), he often occupies multiple blockers or funnels the ball carrier back to his defensive teammates.
So how does #54 or #55 for Chicago avoid scrums and beat the hell out of us? Do they just not think? Are they more physical? Are they more tallanted? Are they interested in moving to Green Bay?
Playing LB is a lot like playing RB. You have to anticipate where the lane is attempting to be and you see this by how the OL is coming out to block you (of course a RB knows where the ball is supposed to be run). However, a LB needs to have the vision to see where the actual lane is opening up. I know - lots to process in the matter of 1-2 seconds, but the this is also where instincts kick in. Some players have it and others don't. Urlacher and Briggs are phenominal, but they have consistently had a pretty good DL in front of them to keep the Pack OL from getting to them and allowing them clean sight to the play in front of them.
quote:
The guy I want to see get hot is So'oto. I think he has the skill set to get it done and comes in at 6'3", 263 lbs. He's just a pup though and played DE in college. I'd love to see him line up at OLB against the Lions for 4 quarters.
Many fans are clamoring for linebacker Vic So'oto to get more playing time, especially because the defense did not have a sack Sunday. But Capers said the rookie is not ready to play an extensive amount of snaps.
So'oto replaced starter Erik Walden for a big chunk of the game at right outside linebacker and got a number of opportunities to rush the passer. Capers said he wanted to get a look at So'oto and fellow rookie Jamari Lattimore just to see where they were at.
"Vic's a young guy," Capers said. "Anytime we have a chance to give him an opportunity, we'd like to give him an opportunity. With these young guys, what I always tell them is you have to make the most of your opportunities and make it hard for us not to get you on the field.
"He did a couple good things. He's still very raw in some areas."
Linky
quote:Originally posted by Koopla Krash:
Well, if you are still on the premise that you somehow think Bishop is in the bottom half of the defensive players then we cannot have a serious conversation. There is no way Shields, Burnett, and Pickett are better. I don't think Williams or Collins are better either. Raji makes so few meaningful plays that he certainly isn't better either - look at his stats - less than 1 unassisted tackle/game and 3 sacks YTD.
...If Bishop is such a "short-range" player, why does he play the entire game? Wouldn't he be coming out of the game in obvious passing downs?
Stats don't tell much of anything accross positions. NTs generally don't get stats. Even good ones clog and make it possible for the linebackers to get their stats while only occasionally getting a sack or tackles themselves. They also collapse the pocket making it hard for the QB to step up and leaving them exposed to edge rushers. They do this while facing double- and triple-teams consistently.
Collins and Williams are versatile playmakers who are all-pro/pro bowl players. They not only get turnovers but have to make plays one-on-one and in space as well as coming up. That you think Bishop is better than they are shows you really miss the point.
As far as coming out, the Green Bay defensive alignment is generally a nickle package where there's only two down linemen in part because of Woodson's versatility, the amount of passing in the league and personel. In that alignment, both inside linebackers and both linemen need to be stout enough to take on centers/guards/tackles and play the possible run. It's also because they don't have a good, versatile cover linebacker and Bishop's at least a decent blitzer (which Hawk is not).
Bishop being the 5th to 6th best defensive player is laughable at best. He's been the Packers second best pass rusher behind Matthews with his 5 sacks even missing almost 2 games. When Bishop hits RB's he usually puts them down. Barnett couldn't tackle an old woman to the turf.
The only football you played in jr high and high school was Nintendo Techmo Bowl. I'm sure you'll come back with some form of mental insults that you stole from one of the other residents at the trailer park.
The only football you played in jr high and high school was Nintendo Techmo Bowl. I'm sure you'll come back with some form of mental insults that you stole from one of the other residents at the trailer park.
You're saying Bishop is a better player than at least two of Nick Collins (when healthy), Tramon Williams, BJ Raji, Charles Woodson and Clay Matthews?
Nick Barnett has nothing to do with it but since you bring it up:
Barnett: 119 Tackles, 3 sacks, 5 Passes Defensed, 2 INT, 1 Forced Fumble and a TD.
Bishop: 109 Tackles, 5 sacks, 0 Passes Defensed, 0 INT, 1 Forced Fumble, 0 TDs
How is Bishop "so much better"? Pretty similar numbers in the box and Barnett's also made the sheet in the passing game. I'd like to have seen Bishop and Barnett play together actually as they'd likely complement each other well with Barnett in space and Bishop playing thumper.
Nick Barnett has nothing to do with it but since you bring it up:
Barnett: 119 Tackles, 3 sacks, 5 Passes Defensed, 2 INT, 1 Forced Fumble and a TD.
Bishop: 109 Tackles, 5 sacks, 0 Passes Defensed, 0 INT, 1 Forced Fumble, 0 TDs
How is Bishop "so much better"? Pretty similar numbers in the box and Barnett's also made the sheet in the passing game. I'd like to have seen Bishop and Barnett play together actually as they'd likely complement each other well with Barnett in space and Bishop playing thumper.
no shame in being the 5th best defender on this defense. the list of people in front of him is pretty outstanding.
But if your trying to discredit Bishop then you're wrong. Those stats are a little skewed because Bishop missed a few weeks and Barnett played the whole season. And the reason his pass defense stats are better is because his defensive schemes allow him to be in position to make those plays. Although I will admit, Bishop's pass coverage is sub par. Despite missing a few games, Bishop is 8th in the league with 87 solo tackles, and 5 sacks for an inside linebacker is quite substantial. The guy is a beast.
But if your trying to discredit Bishop then you're wrong. Those stats are a little skewed because Bishop missed a few weeks and Barnett played the whole season. And the reason his pass defense stats are better is because his defensive schemes allow him to be in position to make those plays. Although I will admit, Bishop's pass coverage is sub par. Despite missing a few games, Bishop is 8th in the league with 87 solo tackles, and 5 sacks for an inside linebacker is quite substantial. The guy is a beast.
Bishop is a damn good player, and this Barnett **** is getting as old as Barnett is. He was a good player, but not a fit for this defense that needs two big guys in the middle. It's not an accident that the defense improved substantially and instantly when Bishop got onto the field last year.
quote:So how does #54 or #55 for Chicago avoid scrums and beat the hell out of us? Do they just not think? Are they more physical? Are they more tallanted? Are they interested in moving to Green Bay?
Chicago's #55 is one of the best linebackers I have ever seen---their #54 is very good in pass defense and is effective playing deep where he can run sideline to sideline--but in the box with run plays between the tackles--he is average to below average. He constantly gets walled off or gives ground to a single blocker. Desmond Bishop is far superior against the run. Obviously it is a different scheme with different players...and Urlacher covers a lot of ground...but I'll gladly take Bishop--he is a bright spot in a poor run defense.
Word is they appear to be giving Brad Jones a shot. I thought he played pretty well on Sunday and at this point it's worth a try.
Yeah, Walden had that completely stupid penalty after So'oto got the sack...
SOMEONE needs to step up.
SOMEONE needs to step up.
I think Brad Jones' tackle of the fan that ran onto the Lambeu field turf got his juices flowing and got him into the game.
quote:Originally posted by TD:
I'm sure you'll come back with some form of mental insults that you stole from one of the other residents at the trailer park.
Folks, THIS is the definition of irony.
