In the current NFL, covering the pass is critical. Teams with linebackers that can't cover will get killed.

Teams threw on the Packers more than they ran almost 2 to 1. That pass/run ratio was even higher than the Packers.

Any pass defender that can't cover will be a liability to the Packers 62.5% of the time. Regardless of how far down the field it is.

You could also try to say the 3 times a game a LB has to make a tackle in the running game is completely unimportant. But I would laugh just as hard as saying that it doesn't matter if they can't stop the pass 5 times a game.

When they obviously had more trouble stopping the pass.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 

Or they get tired of Bishop giving up nearly 80% completions and put in someone who can cover on passing downs.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 

If they were tired of Bishop on passing downs they would have stopped using him to cover the slot when ever they didn't have enough DBs on the field.

Originally Posted by: stevetarded 

What else is he supposed to do on passing downs? What about when they are not obvious passing downs?

Who is he supposed to cover, Sprols? Forte? TEs are usually slower than RBs. Bishop would look even worse covering ANYBODY ELSE on the field beside a TE.

He is either going to have to blitz 40 times a game or come off the field to keep him out of coverage.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 

If he maxes out his potential, talent and skill set, he’s as good as any linebacker in the league. He can cover, he can blitz and he can stuff the run.

Wintson Moss wrote: