Bam.

Originally Posted by: gbguy20 

Desmond Bishop - DJ Smith to MLB

Originally Posted by: DanJustDan29 

Yeah, let's take our second best defensive player and put him into an unfamiliar position. [palm]

D.J. Smith is a good player, and I'd like to see him start, but not that way. Cut Hawk and sign/draft an OLB rather than ruin Bishop's level of play, like the Steelers did to Timmons (he was switched to OLB) this season when Harrison was hurt.

Originally Posted by: Packers_Finland 

If Bishop is our second best defensive player, the Packers are in even bigger trouble than people think.

I like Desmond Bishop. I liked Lee Roy Caffey, too. But if Caffey had been the second best player on the Lombardi era Packers.....argh!

The Packers should be aspiring to have Bishop being as good as he is *and* being the third-best linebacker on the team.

I'm not ripping Finland here so much as the general tone here. The notion that the Packers D is going to be where it ought to be (i.e., emulating SF) by shifting current personnel around to new positions (Woodson to safety, Bishop to OLB, Neal to OLB for Pete's sake) is delusional.

Between now and next season, Thompson has to find *at least* two starters not currently on the team. And he has to be looking for at least one of those new starters to be a "dominator."

Lombardi Packers: Davis, Jordan, Nitschke, Robinson, Wood, Adderley. 6 dominators. And the other 5 were Bishop level quality.
Holmgren Packers: White, Jones, Butler, Simmons. With Dotson, Brown, Robinson, Newsome, Evans at least Bisiop-level quality.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

If Bishop is our second best defensive player, the Packers are in even bigger trouble than people think.

I like Desmond Bishop. I liked Lee Roy Caffey, too. But if Caffey had been the second best player on the Lombardi era Packers.....argh!

The Packers should be aspiring to have Bishop being as good as he is *and* being the third-best linebacker on the team.

I'm not ripping Finland here so much as the general tone here. The notion that the Packers D is going to be where it ought to be (i.e., emulating SF) by shifting current personnel around to new positions (Woodson to safety, Bishop to OLB, Neal to OLB for Pete's sake) is delusional.

Between now and next season, Thompson has to find *at least* two starters not currently on the team. And he has to be looking for at least one of those new starters to be a "dominator."

Lombardi Packers: Davis, Jordan, Nitschke, Robinson, Wood, Adderley. 6 dominators. And the other 5 were Bishop level quality.
Holmgren Packers: White, Jones, Butler, Simmons. With Dotson, Brown, Robinson, Newsome, Evans at least Bisiop-level quality.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

I’ve been double–teamed in my life when I played. I never was double-teamed as much as I’ve seen (on Matthews). Offensive coordinators have made a statement: ‘We cannot allow (Matthews) to control the game.’ … So we do need another animal on the other side, no doubt.

Kevin Greene wrote:

I think we're 2 starters away as well. CM3 is elite. Bishop is solid. I think Hawk regressed. Woodson regressed. He did lead the team in INTs, but missed a lot of tackles. Shields regressed. T Williams regressed. Raji regressed. There was pretty much no pressure from up the middle.

Even Holmgren's Packers were better than today's D. White's a Hall of Famer and Butler should be in there. Today, only CM3 is playing at an elite level. Woodson did last year, but this year he didn't.

So by your terms, we got ONE dominator. One is not enough.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer