Then there was an awful lot of sour tastes in your mouth last season.. the man up coverage every stinking play by the backers was a recipe for getting played like a drum.. and that drum beat often against Poppinga, Barnett, Hawk.. Chillar was the only one somewhat equipped to play that coverage...
"pack93z" wrote:
I too like Bishops nastiness - but besides that he doesn't have much else going for him.
Yes Zone should help him with some of his (lack of) speed, but the point of zone is to drop into the passing lanes to disrupt the QB. That means Bishop will have to read and react based on what the receiver in his area is doing. If Bishop's any good at being able to analyze and use his instincts, he'll have the ability to not just get into passing lanes but jump routes - namely the underneath stuff that should occur frequently if our rushes get home. God help us if the pressure doesn't get home because then Bishop will be a huge liability. I just question if Bishop has the instincts and smarts to be able to do some of the things that are the benefit of zone coverage - anticipating (and even jumping) routes.
Also, if there are concerns about Nick Barnett's ability to play in this defense as a result of his inability to shed blockers, then the same should apply to Bishop. Yes Bishop has the body to play the position, but my goodness he's almost as bad as Abdul Hodge was at shedding blockers.
What Bishop does have going for him though is great instincts that allow him to find gaps in the trenches and go through them to make plays on the ball. He's a hell of a hitter too, which is great. But his overall game needs a lot of work.
I'm much more excited about Chillar. The dude can ball; I think he should be considered ahead of Bishop because of what he brings: ability to cover TEs AND the ability to bring the pressure home. Chillar is an underrated player all around - I would not be surprised if he ends up seeing the bulk of the snaps at one of the ILB positions week 1.
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.