I don't think Bishop is bad. I keep saying that I think he is great. I just think he sucks in coverage. I want him in the game because he brings a lot of aggressive, down hill, attacking attitude. I just don't want him covering.

Williams played with a badly separated shoulder. Even now he isn't 100%. I would be surprised if he didn't have his worst year last year. If he is healthy for the season, which is likely, he will be back to 2010 form.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 

I don't know anyone who wants their linebackers covering, lol. If they could cover, they'd probably be Safeties.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

11 receptions doesn't sound like much because it isn't much. That's less than 1 more reception per game. There is a difference between giving up 77% of 30 passes and giving up 77% of 200 passes. That's why I want to see raw numbers more than averages and ratings because as linebackers they aren't in significant coverage enough to have a large sample size. I don't care that he gave up "twice as much" if that means 11 more. I would care about twice as much if that meant say 30 or 40 more.

As far as the cross dog blitz thing unless you know how many times they used it and how many of those led to Bishop's pressures you are resorting to using the eye test which you despise so much.

Ok, so how many plays did he cover Sproles and Forte and do you know that Bishop never covered those two? That's my point we don't know which players they were covering or how long or how many times they had to cover them.

Originally Posted by: Stevetarded 

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 

or they are smart and understand a linebacker is not meant to cover and they should have their cornerbacks and safeties handle those responsibilities ... :)

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

but the 4 or 5 times a game that a LB is covering anything more than 5 yards passed the line of scrimmage is the most important part of their job.

Originally Posted by: Stevetarded 

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 

"So I think you see defenses transitioning from being those run-stopping defenses where you put eight guys in the box to spreading things out, matchups, doubling more receivers, and then those linebackers have to be able to cover. Because if they can't cover, they're going to get isolated."

Therein lies another problem. How many NFL linebackers can be counted on to cover receivers or even the newest generation of tight ends? There aren't enough to go around, that's for sure.

"ESPN Article  wrote: