Bishop will get his chance when he can prove he can stay on the field without allowing a big play.

---

Just like Chillar, Hawk and Barnett eh...

---

You know, the problem is that we've got 3 pretty decent ILB in front of him in Chillar, Hawk, and Barnett.

I can understand you wanting to split time to keep each fresh, but frankly with greater playing time comes greater production. Hawk, for example, had some of his best games in recent memory while Chillar was injured and he was forced to play in Nickel packages.

Bishop, I could see being useful in short yardage / goal line situations though. Other than that, I don't think he's going to get much playing time if at all.

This might be something to think about: Bishop could be a trade piece to use in this draft. Perhaps him + a pick to move up some spots if a player Ted covets at a position of need (OT, S) is on the board on day 2 or more likely day 3.

Maybe you think of picking up Brandon Spikes - maybe you can get him lower in the draft because of his poor 40 time. But that isn't a guarantee, and if you trade Bishop you end up needing to draft an ILB to secure the position.

My point is, even in trading Bishop you end up possibly doing more harm than good. He's in a tough spot - he obviously has some ability to contribute especially in run D. But he's got some good talent above him that, at this point in time, is more well rounded than he is.

I don't think he'll be seeing a ton of minutes, but I think if he can have a good Training Camp then he'll see his minutes extended. Other than that, he'll stay where he belongs: 4th on the depth chart at ILB.

---

I cant quote the 08 preseason but from what I was told. That he led tackles in both 08 and 09 and also had x amount of ints in 09 (cant look up stats atm) - in preseason (this is where he got playing time). And ya if you remember capers wasnt all conservative like he was in the post season with his blitzing packages ...

ya he is not the end all at the LB position but a damn good one IMO and should be getting playing time in real games.

You have to take his pre-seasons stats with some salt. Frankly, he was playing against lesser competition - 2nd and 3rd string players on depth charts.

Then you add to that the dynamic of Mike McCarthy actually planning for the games whereas other coaches admitted they were not planning fr the Packers extensively.

Sometimes you get caught up in a numbers game. The problem with Bishop is that he has got caught up in that, and on top of that when he has been given limited opportunities he has always ended up giving up big passing plays.

---

how about when he came in and STARTED vs the Texans, led team in tackles, forced an Owen Daniels fumble on the goal line and had a nice TFL.

or

after Barnett tore his knee and Bishop came in, stopped AP on 4th and 1 and forced a fumble, also led in tackles.

he had 1 bad play in both those games, but how often do our current LBs make a good play vs a screwup?

---

those sound like nice plays 🙂 I actually made a thread hmmm either last year or preseason of this year about how I think how much the dudes make is the reason why we dont see certain players on the field ie barnett makes alot more then bishop and grant more then jackson (I made this thread last year but got boo-whooed about it).

Dont really care what but I like my man bishop; Good STer and nice rush ILB.

No he hasn't, I really wish people would stop saying this because when he has been given opportunities he has not given up any more big plays than any other LB on the team. I mean it happens sometimes look at Chillar giving up 2 TDs to a back up TE and QB in the same game, yet people still call him our best coverage LB. How come a bad play or 2 can stick to Bishop but not others?

---

As I said, he has some use in short yardage and run situations.

But the problem is you're merely taking standout plays / stats as your point of reference. By that standard Aaron Rouse could've been an All-Pro - he was clearly not.

You have to look at technique and fundamentals. Bishop, quite frankly, is dreadful in shedding blocks. You give him an open lane to tackle, beautiful things will happen. You get someone blocking him, and he's susceptible to get taken out of the play completely.

Now you may say that is the same with thing that happens with Hawk and Barnett. Yes, but they have shown the ability to shed blocks or drive blockers back and still be involved in the play.

Maybe Bishop has improved, and he hasn't gotten quality snaps to show what he can do. But I still think he is right where he needs to be: behind players that are better overall players than him.

Great depth to have, though.

---

The thing with Chillar is that he has shown capable of defending some of the better TEs and RBs in the passing game. Bishop.... hasn't done that. Even Hawk showed last season that he has some ability to cover TEs. Again, Bishop... to me he hasn't shown one bit of that.

Again, I'm not saying Bishop is a bad LB. But frankly he isn't as complete a LB as the ILBs above him - hence he is where he should be: bottom of the depth chart. You only have so many snaps to give to players.... and Bishop gets the short end of the stick for a reason.

---