Should we pick up Desmond Bishop?

[beanfigger]

It doesn't increase our odds any.  It just adds another body that may or may not be healthy.  I also disagree with the lottery ticket analogy.  We're in a tight cap situation.  If all of our injured players come back healthy, then it's just wasted money that could have been saved or better used at another position that lacks depth.

 

I wouldn't have a problem at all if we did pursue Bishop, but I just disagree with your reasoning as to why.

Of course it increases our odds of having more healthy players.  If you have more players at a certain position, then you have a much better chance of having more healthy players at that position.  That cannot be debated.  I also don't think it's wasted money to have a bunch of quality players.  It's a long season.  How many injuries did we have to deal with last season?  How many players in our ILB group has proven to be great ILBs at the NFL level?  I'm not trying to doubt who we have.  I want and believe they can all be solid and healthy, but how can adding a quality player be a waste of money or hurt our odds that one will be great?  We already had Suggs and Upshaw, so was signing Dumervil a waste of money?  I'm not comparing Bishop to Dumervil in terms of talent.  However, Dumervil is to Suggs as Bishop is to Smith or McClain, so the move is comparable.

 

It seems we feel the same way about our potential interest/pursuit of Bishop, but I'm not seeing your logic when you say it doesn't increase our odds or could potentially be a waste of money.

[beanfigger]

While it may not change the overall # of bodies, we aren't in a position at ilb where we can afford an injury or something to miss as we have a very limited # of bodies. Bringing in Bishop and cutting McClain still leaves us very vulnerable at the position to an injury or something like that. So id rather have him as an extra body rather than a replacement body. 

 

I agree with this.  If we pick up Bishop, about which I don't have any strong feelings either way, then we should not cut an ILB to make room.  We have other positions with more expendable depth.

[gabefergy]

While it may not change the overall # of bodies, we aren't in a position at ilb where we can afford an injury or something to miss as we have a very limited # of bodies. Bringing in Bishop and cutting McClain still leaves us very vulnerable at the position to an injury or something like that. So id rather have him as an extra body rather than a replacement body. 

Doesnt make sense but whatever.

[rmw10]

Of course it increases our odds of having more healthy players.  If you have more players at a certain position, then you have a much better chance of having more healthy players at that position.  That cannot be debated.  I also don't think it's wasted money to have a bunch of quality players.  It's a long season.  How many injuries did we have to deal with last season?  How many players in our ILB group has proven to be great ILBs at the NFL level?  I'm not trying to doubt who we have.  I want and believe they can all be solid and healthy, but how can adding a quality player be a waste of money or hurt our odds that one will be great?  We already had Suggs and Upshaw, so was signing Dumervil a waste of money?  I'm not comparing Bishop to Dumervil in terms of talent.  However, Dumervil is to Suggs as Bishop is to Smith or McClain, so the move is comparable.

 

It seems we feel the same way about our potential interest/pursuit of Bishop, but I'm not seeing your logic when you say it doesn't increase our odds or could potentially be a waste of money.

 

Alright here's why I disagree with your assessment in a made up situation:

 

Let's just say we sign Bishop tomorrow.  He won't come cheap (that's why he's getting cut). Let's say it's a $2-3M cap hit, which depletes what we have left of our cap.  So we have Bishop, Smith, McClain, Brown, McClellan, and Bynes at ILB, in addition to the young guys in Copeland, Carr, and Hall.  Let's say that all of those injured guys come back healthy.  That would leave us with 6 starter quality guys all vying for 2 spots at ILB.  I don't view Bishop as much of an upgrade to any of the other guys we already have, by the way.  Meanwhile, we get to training camp, and our receivers aren't performing as well as we'd hoped.  There are a few guys on the market that we'd like, but because we signed Bishop, we no longer have that excess cap to afford this player.  We wasted money on a position that already has plenty of quality players.

 

Now, if Bishop (or another ILB for that matter) represented a true upgrade over what we have already, then absolutely, I make that move.  But that's not the case here.  Bishop is marginally better than a few of the guys that we already have.  It doesn't make sense to sign another guy in a tight cap situation that would just fall in line with what we already have, while some other positions may need a player or two.

 

If for some reason we do sign Bishop, I think it would be because the FO views him as being better than anyone we already have, which I personally don't think is the case.  They wouldn't sign him just to get another body in there.

 

 

 

And lastly, the whole odds thing is mathematical, which I won't get into since that's not the main point I'm trying to make.

[Sami84]

I honestly dont get the bishop hype. Daryl smith is a better player and arthur brown could become a pro bowl calibre player. Hes better then Mclain but thats about it.

[Sizzlebshu]

Doesnt make sense but whatever.

How doesn't it make sense? The overall # of bodies doesnt change, but we are still technically losing a body at a position we are very thin at when we don't have to. We really only have 3 viable ilb and two of them are already injured (McClain and Brown). 

[Dudeman]

Alright here's why I disagree with your assessment in a made up situation:

 

Let's just say we sign Bishop tomorrow.  He won't come cheap (that's why he's getting cut). Let's say it's a $2-3M cap hit, which depletes what we have left of our cap.  So we have Bishop, Smith, McClain, Brown, McClellan, and Bynes at ILB, in addition to the young guys in Copeland, Carr, and Hall.  Let's say that all of those injured guys come back healthy.  That would leave us with 6 starter quality guys all vying for 2 spots at ILB.  I don't view Bishop as much of an upgrade to any of the other guys we already have, by the way.  Meanwhile, we get to training camp, and our receivers aren't performing as well as we'd hoped.  There are a few guys on the market that we'd like, but because we signed Bishop, we no longer have that excess cap to afford this player.  We wasted money on a position that already has plenty of quality players.

 

Now, if Bishop (or another ILB for that matter) represented a true upgrade over what we have already, then absolutely, I make that move.  But that's not the case here.  Bishop is marginally better than a few of the guys that we already have.  It doesn't make sense to sign another guy in a tight cap situation that would just fall in line with what we already have, while some other positions may need a player or two.

 

If for some reason we do sign Bishop, I think it would be because the FO views him as being better than anyone we already have, which I personally don't think is the case.  They wouldn't sign him just to get another body in there.

 

 

 

And lastly, the whole odds thing is mathematical, which I won't get into since that's not the main point I'm trying to make.

I agree to an extent but there are more than 2 ILB spots.  Obviously the 2 are starters, but then you need back-ups and usually the back-ups play special teams as well.  Carrying 4-6 ILb's isn't crazy talk and furthermore competition usually makes us better.  We've lost Lewis, Ellerbe, and Ayanbadejo who all could play ILB and we picked up 2 guys to replace three so it stands to reason that we could use another. 

 

Bottom line is I am ok with whatever the FO wants to do.  Bishop is on the right side of 30, and the price isn't too prohibitive so we'll see what happens.

[rmw10]

I agree to an extent but there are more than 2 ILB spots.  Obviously the 2 are starters, but then you need back-ups and usually the back-ups play special teams as well.  Carrying 4-6 ILb's isn't crazy talk and furthermore competition usually makes us better.  We've lost Lewis, Ellerbe, and Ayanbadejo who all could play ILB and we picked up 2 guys to replace three so it stands to reason that we could use another. 

 

Bottom line is I am ok with whatever the FO wants to do.  Bishop is on the right side of 30, and the price isn't too prohibitive so we'll see what happens.

 

Yeah I mean you definitely need more than 2, but if we signed Bishop, we'd have 6 that could conceivably start.  There's no way you can get that many guys on the field.  It would be much more beneficial to fill in a backup role with someone much cheaper.

 

I'm okay with them signing Bishop as well, because I feel like that means the the FO views him as a clear upgrade to what we already have.  I just don't see that as the case, though.

[Brandon22]

we need to try to get him because he could have some traits ozzie is looking for in rebuilding this team

[SecretAgentMan]

we need to try to get him because he could have some traits ozzie is looking for in rebuilding this team

We're reloading, not rebuilding thank you

[gabefergy]

How doesn't it make sense? The overall # of bodies doesnt change, but we are still technically losing a body at a position we are very thin at when we don't have to. We really only have 3 viable ilb and two of them are already injured (McClain and Brown).

How are we losing a body? Two players play the same position. One leaves, one comes in. There is no loss, only an upgrade. I don't think we are thin at ILB at all. We have 4-5 guys that have started and a promising rookie. Jameel is the biggest question mark and the biggest contract. Bishop is a clear upgrade talent-wise and he would potentially be replacing a player whose future is in doubt.

[beanfigger]

Alright here's why I disagree with your assessment in a made up situation:

 

Let's just say we sign Bishop tomorrow.  He won't come cheap (that's why he's getting cut). Let's say it's a $2-3M cap hit, which depletes what we have left of our cap.  So we have Bishop, Smith, McClain, Brown, McClellan, and Bynes at ILB, in addition to the young guys in Copeland, Carr, and Hall.  Let's say that all of those injured guys come back healthy.  That would leave us with 6 starter quality guys all vying for 2 spots at ILB.  I don't view Bishop as much of an upgrade to any of the other guys we already have, by the way.  Meanwhile, we get to training camp, and our receivers aren't performing as well as we'd hoped.  There are a few guys on the market that we'd like, but because we signed Bishop, we no longer have that excess cap to afford this player.  We wasted money on a position that already has plenty of quality players.

 

Now, if Bishop (or another ILB for that matter) represented a true upgrade over what we have already, then absolutely, I make that move.  But that's not the case here.  Bishop is marginally better than a few of the guys that we already have.  It doesn't make sense to sign another guy in a tight cap situation that would just fall in line with what we already have, while some other positions may need a player or two.

 

If for some reason we do sign Bishop, I think it would be because the FO views him as being better than anyone we already have, which I personally don't think is the case.  They wouldn't sign him just to get another body in there.

 

 

 

And lastly, the whole odds thing is mathematical, which I won't get into since that's not the main point I'm trying to make.

 

I agree they probably wouldn't sign him unless they thought he was an upgrade, even though Ozzie never shies away from stockpiling talent at any one position just because it is already stacked (which our ILB position certainly is not).  I am with you in that I am not necessarily pushing for us to go after him.  I think he is an upgrade for us, but not by much.  Your hypothetical situation describes a scenario in which signing him would hurt us.  There are just as likely, if not more likely, scenarios in which it would help us.  I don't think it's more likely that all of our linebackers remain healthy all season than for some injuries to occur.  As of now, I'm hearing positive things about our receivers, while most of our starter-quality ILBs are not healthy, so I think a scenario in which we need more help at ILB is more likely at the moment than at WR.  Also, just because a player gets cut by a team because he wouldn't restructure certainly doesn't always mean they will demand a huge payday from another team.

 

As for the odds, I'll do a little math for you.  If X<Y, and it takes X-Y weeks to recover from an injury, and you have Z amount of injured players, your odds of having more players recovering in X weeks and before Y weeks increases the higher the value of Z.  There is no math argument you can make against that.

 

P.S.  Just to reiterate again, I'm not pushing for us to pursue and sign Bishop, but I do think it makes sense, and I am confident that it is much more likely a move like that would help us than hurt us.

[Sizzlebshu]

How are we losing a body? Two players play the same position. One leaves, one comes in. There is no loss, only an upgrade. I don't think we are thin at ILB at all. We have 4-5 guys that have started and a promising rookie. Jameel is the biggest question mark and the biggest contract. Bishop is a clear upgrade talent-wise and he would potentially be replacing a player whose future is in doubt.

Theres no reason to cut McClain before preseason thought because if one of those guys goes down we get thin. You see 4-5  guys, where I see three being viable starters. Ozzie probably doesnt see enough in the other two you're mentioning to consider them viable hence drafting Brown and signing Smith. If, in whatever order, Brown + McClain + Smith are our top 3 ilbs theres no reason to replace McClain with Bishop rather than bring him as an addition as one injury would basically leave us woefully thin. We could always cut McClain later after the season starts or during preseason should we get through the offseason injury free. Cutting him now and replacing him with Bishop leaves us especially vulnerable to injury. All cutting McClain does is rob us of an extra body without any practical reason. 

[rmw10]

I agree they probably wouldn't sign him unless they thought he was an upgrade, even though Ozzie never shies away from stockpiling talent at any one position just because it is already stacked (which our ILB position certainly is not).  I am with you in that I am not necessarily pushing for us to go after him.  I think he is an upgrade for us, but not by much.  Your hypothetical situation describes a scenario in which signing him would hurt us.  There are just as likely, if not more likely, scenarios in which it would help us.  I don't think it's more likely that all of our linebackers remain healthy all season than for some injuries to occur.  As of now, I'm hearing positive things about our receivers, while most of our starter-quality ILBs are not healthy, so I think a scenario in which we need more help at ILB is more likely at the moment than at WR.  Also, just because a player gets cut by a team because he wouldn't restructure certainly doesn't always mean they will demand a huge payday from another team.

 

As for the odds, I'll do a little math for you.  If X<Y, and it takes X-Y weeks to recover from an injury, and you have Z amount of injured players, your odds of having more players recovering in X weeks and before Y weeks increases the higher the value of Z.  There is no math argument you can make against that.

 

P.S.  Just to reiterate again, I'm not pushing for us to pursue and sign Bishop, but I do think it makes sense, and I am confident that it is much more likely a move like that would help us than hurt us.

 

I agree for the most part.  It's basically a big "what if" situation.  It seems that I'm looking at the "what if" on the negative side.  Just for me personally, I'd much rather be prepared on the negative side.

[gabefergy]

Theres no reason to cut McClain before preseason thought because if one of those guys goes down we get thin. You see 4-5 guys, where I see three being viable starters. Ozzie probably doesnt see enough in the other two you're mentioning to consider them viable hence drafting Brown and signing Smith. If, in whatever order, Brown + McClain + Smith are our top 3 ilbs theres no reason to replace McClain with Bishop rather than bring him as an addition as one injury would basically leave us woefully thin. We could always cut McClain later after the season starts or during preseason should we get through the offseason injury free. Cutting him now and replacing him with Bishop leaves us especially vulnerable to injury. All cutting McClain does is rob us of an extra body without any practical reason.

You are seemingly forgetting the obvious reason. Bishop is a much better player. You apparently rather have Jameel for some reason. That doesn't make sense to me.

[Gordo52]

we need to try to get him because he could have some traits ozzie is looking for in rebuilding this team

Oh, Brandon.

[Gordo52]

I thought I heard somewhere that we couldn't cut Jameel? Something about maybe reaching an injury settlement, I don't know. I think I heard it on The Fan.

I like Bishop but his injury history definitely is concerning. I would prefer him over Jameel though. Not saying I don't like McClain, I have a feeling he has a good year.

[Sizzlebshu]

You are seemingly forgetting the obvious reason. Bishop is a much better player. You apparently rather have Jameel for some reason. That doesn't make sense to me.

I never said Id rather have Jameel. I said that I dont want to cut Jameel in signing Bishop. 

 

Cutting Jameel nets us a cap gain that is less than the amount of space we already have. I factored the Elam signing into this. So theres no reason financially to cut McClain in order to sign Bishop unless Bishop asks for an amount of money that likely no one on the market will pay especially us. 

 

By cutting Jameel we go into camp with 3 bodies instead of a possible 4 and a little extra cap space. The problem with this is that we could have went into the offseason with 4 bodies instead of 3 and opened up that cap space either when necessary or after the offseason assuming all of our guys make it through healthy. All cutting Jameel now does is compound the problem an injury to ilb would cause. 

 

It has nothing to do with having one player over another. It has absolutely everything to do with keeping bodies on the roster at a position we are fairly thin at to guard against injury. 

[gabefergy]

I never said Id rather have Jameel. I said that I dont want to cut Jameel in signing Bishop. 

 

Cutting Jameel nets us a cap gain that is less than the amount of space we already have. I factored the Elam signing into this. So theres no reason financially to cut McClain in order to sign Bishop unless Bishop asks for an amount of money that likely no one on the market will pay especially us. 

 

By cutting Jameel we go into camp with 3 bodies instead of a possible 4 and a little extra cap space. The problem with this is that we could have went into the offseason with 4 bodies instead of 3 and opened up that cap space either when necessary or after the offseason assuming all of our guys make it through healthy. All cutting Jameel now does is compound the problem an injury to ilb would cause. 

 

It has nothing to do with having one player over another. It has absolutely everything to do with keeping bodies on the roster at a position we are fairly thin at to guard against injury. 

You dont get it...so I will stop trying to make you understand.

[beanfigger]

I agree for the most part.  It's basically a big "what if" situation.  It seems that I'm looking at the "what if" on the negative side.  Just for me personally, I'd much rather be prepared on the negative side.

 

I can understand that.  It seems we both feel the same way about the potential move.  I'll let the guys who get big bucks to make those decisions make those decisions, and I trust that the guys who make those decisions for our team will make good decisions.

[rafahash]

I don't think Bishop is much of an improvement on the guys we already have. I wouldn't mind him in Baltimore, but I think this money would be better spent elsewhere.

[Rav'n Maniac]

If we have the money available...bring him in if it would help us to be better. It's a long way to the end of TC and the final 53. At this point it costs us very little.

[ravensdan]

Bishop is much better than anyone we have at ilb currently if he is fully healthy which is a big question mark. I wouldn't think the packers will release him if he is fully recovered. This is the determining factor imo.

[GrimCoconut]

I'd welcome Bishop here just as I would welcome Santonio Holmes ore another good WR who could (unlikely with Holmes but this is more to make a point) be cut. I'm not for trading for most players because most players who would be traded have big cap hits or the cap hits are bigger than we can handle without restructures.

There's no harm in bringing Bishop here if he's recovered and we can get him at a reasonable cost. I'm not in favor of immediately cutting Jameel for him because we lost some familiarity by cutting Jameel.

I'd bring him here on a small deal if we can get him for that.

[Gordo52]

Officially released.

Shall they pounce?

[Gordo52]

Officially released.

Shall they pounce?

[rmw10]

Officially released.

Shall they pounce?

 

He's visiting Minnesota already.  I'm doubting he leaves there without a contract.  They need LB help.

[ravensdan]

His medical status will be interesting.

[Gordo52]

He's visiting Minnesota already. I'm doubting he leaves there without a contract. They need LB help.

Damn, if I was a packers fan I would really hate the Vikings. Not just rivals but they always take former packers

[rmw10]

Damn, if I was a packers fan I would really hate the Vikings. Not just rivals but they always take former packers

 

Brett Favre, Darren Sharper, Greg Jennings.

 

It feels like us and the Browns.  Without looking it up since I don't care that much lol, I feel like the Browns get a lot of our former players.