DoddPower
13 years ago

This is why Mychal Kendricks was so high on my draft list. [grin1]

Good post.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



That guy is fast!! 4.47 forty, 4.19 20-yd shuffle, both top performances among MLB's. He was a nice pick at 46 overall, although he is only 5'11. The Eagles had a nice draft though. They have some serious talent on that team. It will be embarrassing for that coaching staff if they can't put it together on the field.

Zero2Cool
13 years ago

This is why Mychal Kendricks was so high on my draft list. [grin1]

Good post.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



You must have fricking loved Mike Sherman's draft picks. [duh]
UserPostedImage
Dexter_Sinister
13 years ago

Eh, Bishop is more than serviceable in coverage when he doesn't have to cover forever. He's capable of sitting in zones being the underneath guy for a few seconds. But sure, leaving him out to dry with no pass rush is a horrible idea, just like it would be for Hawk, Smith, Manning, or any other LB on our team. We don't have a 'study' MLB that can play really well in space and is fast. Yet another reason why the pass rush is so important to this team. The Packer's MLB's are an obvious weakness but until we upgrade the position, we must hope the pass rush has an indirect positive effect on them (and I think it will). Either way, they're not going to be great in coverage. It's just not Hawk's or Bishop's game.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



Hawk played in the exact same circumstances as Bishop and he was almost twice as effective in pass coverage.

And Hawk was only average.

That gives you some measure of how poor Bishop was in coverage. According to the pass metrics chart posted by Rashaan Salaami

week 13 pass D metrics 

Bishop allowed a 122.4 rating as of week 13. He missed the next 2 weeks with a calf injury and I didn't see an update posted that included the last 2 weeks of the year. But I doubt he improved much.

Hawk only allowed a 85.4 which is very near average.

Don't get me wrong. My only beef with Bishop is that he is too slow to cover a TE. Everything else I really like. His attitude, hard work, hustle, effort, nose for the ball etc. He is a good down hill kind of player.

But our biggest problem was pass coverage and our worst player in pass coverage was Bishop. If you want to fix the D, start with the biggest weakness. Because if I were scheming to beat the Packers, I would line up a TE over Bishop and run him away from help. Kind of like what the Chargers did to him. Pull the corner up in the flat with an out or curl, run a WR at the post and send Bishop's TE out past the flat in the hole.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
DoddPower
13 years ago
I don't think there's much denying our MLB's will get eaten up in man coverage of tight ends, especially the good ones. I simply hope that he's not asked to do that much. The Packer's are mostly a zone team now. As long as Bishop can stay underneath receivers/tight ends in the middle with help over the top, he will be OK. The reason the zones were stretched so far last year is due to the pathetic pass rush. The holes will be a lot tighter when the QB has less time to throw.

With that being said, I don't care if they both are replaced in nickle packages, because neither are good in coverage. I think Bishop was left out to dry too often last year, mostly a result of poor defensive scheme. I remember thinking several times "why in the hell is Bishop left one-on-one with a player he obviously cannot stop??!" It reminded me of Bob Sander's defensive strategy in the 2007 NFL Championship game. GIVE THE MAN SOME HELP!! Caper's has to do a better job of getting players in position to succeed. I understand he was handicapped last season due to lack of pass rush and poor communication, but some of those calls were inexcusable. It seemed that regardless of how many times Bishop was beaten, Caper's continued to allow it to happen. If it's truly that bad and there's NOTHING he could do about it scheme wise (I believe there was more he could have done), than put another guy out there. It's rough to watch a player struggle like that.

I'm obviously high on Manning, especially as an NC State guy. I'm going to continue to hope he develops quickly and can see the field sooner rather than later, at least on passing downs.
Dexter_Sinister
13 years ago

I don't think there's much denying our MLB's will get eaten up in man coverage of tight ends, especially the good ones. I simply hope that he's not asked to do that much. The Packer's are mostly a zone team now. As long as Bishop can stay underneath receivers/tight ends in the middle with help over the top, he will be OK. The reason the zones were stretched so far last year is due to the pathetic pass rush. The holes will be a lot tighter when the QB has less time to throw.

With that being said, I don't care if they both are replaced in nickle packages, because neither are good in coverage. I think Bishop was left out to dry too often last year, mostly a result of poor defensive scheme. I remember thinking several times "why in the hell is Bishop left one-on-one with a player he obviously cannot stop??!" It reminded me of Bob Sander's defensive strategy in the 2007 NFL Championship game. GIVE THE MAN SOME HELP!! Caper's has to do a better job of getting players in position to succeed. I understand he was handicapped last season due to lack of pass rush and poor communication, but some of those calls were inexcusable. It seemed that regardless of how many times Bishop was beaten, Caper's continued to allow it to happen. If it's truly that bad and there's NOTHING he could do about it scheme wise (I believe there was more he could have done), than put another guy out there. It's rough to watch a player struggle like that.

I'm obviously high on Manning, especially as an NC State guy. I'm going to continue to hope he develops quickly and can see the field sooner rather than later, at least on passing downs.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



First, you should see my post on the much maligned Packer D. I don't agree with most on how bad the Packer's D was. 3 net points average in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarters. Then an average of 8 were given up in the 4th quarters with an average 18 point lead. The worst thing about our D is they played with a huge lead too often. Stops were not as important as burning clock.

Second, Bishop is in there for all the other things he brings. However, I would like to see him not being in coverage.

The whole point of the thread is, would Manning take Hawks place.

Why would they leave Bishop in to screw up our coverage and take Hawk out?

Even if Manning is better than Hawk, you get an even bigger improvement replacing Bishop.




I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
DoddPower
13 years ago

First, you should see my post on the much maligned Packer D. I don't agree with most on how bad the Packer's D was. 3 net points average in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarters. Then an average of 8 were given up in the 4th quarters with an average 18 point lead. The worst thing about our D is they played with a huge lead too often. Stops were not as important as burning clock.

Second, Bishop is in there for all the other things he brings. However, I would like to see him not being in coverage.

The whole point of the thread is, would Manning take Hawks place.

Why would they leave Bishop in to screw up our coverage and take Hawk out?

Even if Manning is better than Hawk, you get an even bigger improvement replacing Bishop.



Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



I understand your perspective but still disagree. This defense was horrible and I don't need to dig into the stats to try to convince myself otherwise. If the defense was not capable of stopping teams just because they had a big lead, then that makes them a bad defense, in my opinion. I can't imagine Caper's or any defensive player thinking "Let's just make them burn the clock" especially considering how often huge plays and quick scores were given up. Also, all of the "risk taking" and gambling for interceptions kind of goes against that argument as well. The defense was desperate for a stop however they could get it. Any intelligent coach should take their chances with Aaron Rodger's on the field to either score more points or burn the clock (or both) rather than hope a bad defense will burn some time (despite repeated failure to do so). I definitely can't buy that argument.

As my post said earlier, I wouldn't mind both of them being replaced. I also described my belief that Caper's left Bishop out to dry with his defensive calls making his stats look even worse. I watched every snap (like most here) and was really confused over some of the defensive calls. I saw Bishop in more one on one match up's, often in man coverage, than Hawk. I think Bishop is better up close to the line of scrimmage and playing small underneath zones in the middle of the field than Hawk. Having one player like that on the field in nickle packages is fine as long as the other players can do their job and cover. That's why I think replacing Hawk could be a better option, although it is splitting hairs. Both are bad, but more scheme adjustments could be made to compensate. I've seen Hawk burned continually over the past several years in coverage which likely makes me minimize the significance of some of the defenders stats last year in what I'm hoping was an anomaly season. I saw more 'hope' and/or potential in Bishop in the 2010 season than Hawk in coverage. So much like the rest of the defense who generally played well prior to last season, I'm willing to give them a chance at redemption. Overall, I'm still rooting for Manning to get on the field no matter who he replaces.

Zero2Cool
13 years ago
I didn't know the top priority of a linebacker was coverage. Packers should dump all their linebackers and put safeties there instead as they can typically cover better than linebackers. šŸ˜‰
UserPostedImage
DoddPower
13 years ago

I didn't know the top priority of a linebacker was coverage. Packers should dump all their linebackers and put safeties there instead as they can typically cover better than linebackers. ;)

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



Well, to be fair, I'm exclusively speaking of sub-packages (nickle, dime, etc.) in my posts in this thread. I actually don't have a big problem even with Hawk in base 3-4 alignments, especially if the defense is getting good defensive line play. I think the thread has generally got off track because I don't think it's premise was specifically discussing coverage skills on the linebackers (but I was). šŸ‡¹šŸ‡¹ + šŸ‡²šŸ‡² =šŸ‡¦šŸ‡·


See, I can do math!
Zero2Cool
13 years ago
I think Bishop is clearly the better inside linebacker on the Packers roster, even if he can't cover Adrian Peterson in the flat. He's a good tackler and brings it. 2010 season, when Nick Barnett went down with an injury and Bishop filled in, the defense just looked 'tougher'. I'll take a guy who is good tackler over someone who is good in coverage. A blend of Brandon Chillar and Desmond Bishop would be neat too.
UserPostedImage
PackerTraxx
13 years ago
We could have had two all pro LBs and they would have consistently gotten beat with the time opposing QBs had to pass. Even the great ones will have trouble covering for 5,6,7 seconds and more. If Manning can beat someone out...great...that means we have improved the position. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Why is Jerry Kramer not in the Hall of Fame?
Fan Shout
dfosterf (3m) : The 40th is Titletown Tech itself. This is a pet project of both Ed Policy and Mark Murphy
Zero2Cool (4m) : New site coming along nicely. The editor is better than what we have here. Oh yeah!
dfosterf (5m) : No profit that I know of. 0 for 40
dfosterf (8m) : The woke reference has to do with the makeup and oftentimes objectives of the companies they invested in
packerfanoutwest (9m) : beer and brats woke? say whom?
beast (14m) : I don't want to get into politics, but how is, beers and brats considered to be "woke"? Food is food...
beast (15m) : That being said, I'm not saying all 100% should be that way, but not surprised if majority are Wisconsin based
beast (16m) : And if everyone has heard of them, then it it probably has less growth potential and less community based
beast (16m) : Well isn't the investing person supposed to invest the money?
dfosterf (49m) : I swear if I were to discover that one of them has invented a virtue signalling transmitter I will not be surprised, lol
dfosterf (53m) : 39 companies so far that I bet no one has ever heard of.
dfosterf (55m) : -Not saying woke, but should- borderline philanthopist venture capital excercise
dfosterf (57m) : Well for one, they are pouring resources into Title Town Tech. Investing beer, brat, hot dog, ticket money into what is pretty much...
beast (7h) : Wow, 95% drop in investment revenue? Would be interesting to hear the details of why...
dfosterf (25-Jul) : It's my one day deal complaint dept. on shareholder meeting day
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Probably a homer access credential intimidation kinda thing
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Meathead "journalists" skip this, concentrating on operational revenue when convenient. They switch when net revenue is more favorable.
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Resulting in an actual drop of net revenue of 12.5%. She is from Minnesota. Just sayin'
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Any plans to hold Maureen Smith (CFO) accountable for a 95% drop in investment revenue?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : In your face, HBO!
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @ByRyanWood Mark Murphy: ā€œA great source of pride of mine is that we were never on Hard Knocks.ā€
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : *years
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @mattschneidman Mark Murphy says he anticipates ā€œmany Packers gamesā€ being played in Germany, Ireland and/or the U.K. over the next 5-10 yea
dfosterf (25-Jul) : *cafeteria* I have hit my head also, so I sympathize
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Possibly hit his head leaning into the glass protecting the food in the cafateria
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Maybe a low flying drone
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Did Savion Williams run into a goalpost or something?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : also, no bueno when a guy starts getting concussions right off the bat in his career
Zero2Cool (25-Jul) : Concussion is worse. Banks probably vet off day via back booboo claim
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @AndyHermanNFL Jordy Nelson out at camp today. No word if he’s in play for one of the two open roster spots ; )
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Is that better or worse than Banks bad back?
Zero2Cool (25-Jul) : Savion concussion ... not good.
packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Aaron Rodgers’s first pass of first team period was picked off
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : tbh I didn't hear of his passing
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Cosby Show. Malcom Jamal Warner I think is real name
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : I was thinking of Ozzy and Hulk
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Who's Theo?
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : How is Theo alliteration?
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Bad week for people whose names are alliterations
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hulk Hogan gone too.
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Oh, it's toe injury
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hope it's not serious. that would stink
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Sounds like an ankle not a knee for Fields
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Ya Flaccp on Browns
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Maybe Tyrod Taylor instead
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : He's on Browns, right?
dfosterf (24-Jul) : They would probably go with Flacco is my guess if Fields out
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Fleece 'em again!
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Malik Willis might be someone Jets come after
packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Packers introduce 1923-inspired classic uniform, leather-look helmet
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
9m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Jul / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

25-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

24-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright Ā© 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.comā„¢. All Rights Reserved.