Visit NFL from the sidelines on the new Observer-Reporter site: http://www.observer-reporter.com/section/BLOGS08

Monday, June 17, 2013

Steelers should consider Bishop

Usually when players are cut loose by their team, I get a number of questions, mostly centering on whether or not the Steelers should considering signing that player.

In most cases, the player is either washed up, too expensive or doesn't fit the Steelers' scheme.

But Monday, the Green Bay Packers released linebacker Desmond Bishop rather than pay him $3.4 million in 2013.

Bishop missed the 2012 season with a hamstring injury and is still slowed by the issue after having surgery to repair the hamstring. But Bishop is supposed to be ready to play again by the time training camp rolls around.

In this case, Bishop, the Packers' leading tackler in 2011, would absolutely help the Steelers.

Bishop, 28, had a combined 218 tackles and eight sacks in 28 games in 2010 and '11, playing in Green Bay's 3-4 defense. And Green Bay's defense, which is coached by Dom Capers, is similar to Pittsburgh's.

Bishop is already visiting with the Minnesota Vikings and the Steelers certainly wouldn't get into a bidding war for his services, but if he can be had, even on a one-year deal, he could certainly help Pittsburgh, which is still lacking for depth at the linebacker position despite taking Jarvis Jones and Vince Williams in the draft.


12 comments:

Steve-O said...

It's Pittsburgh, you can never have too many linebackers!

TarheelFlyer said...

The need for his signing here, other than the money needed for it, comes down to 5 things IMO.

Jones
McFadden/Sylvester
Robinson
Carter
Williams

If the FO likes that group and its potential, I doubt they even look at it, but if they have reservations, it wouldn't surprise me if they took a look.

marc said...

the more the better, bring him in if they can afford him.

TarheelFlyer said...

Marc,

This philosophy sounds great, the more the better, but the reality is, you need balance across the team. If we are comfortable with the players who we have at LB, we need to make sure we are comfortable with what we have the other places in our lineup. For instance, are we set for depth on our Oline? The money may be better spent there.

Anonymous said...

Is he an OLB or an ILB?

datruth4life said...

Dale, I was thinking the same thing you were until I read where he still has yet to practice after having the hamstring surgically repaired last year.

Bishop is definitely a baller at ILB. He's a 3-down LB and a great special teams player to boot. My hesitation is: 1) his health & 2) would the team be better served by using its available salary cap room on a vet OT? I think the Vikings will make this discussion moot. They need a starter at ILB and have played against the Packers and Bishop twice a year since he's been in the league. They are very familiar with how good a player he is. A healthy Bishop is a more impactful player than Larry Foote.

Anonymous said...

They'll never play him over Foote.

marc said...

tarheel,
i don't disagree with you on that. the question would end up being is there a better option at OL for depth versus getting bishop. i would defer to colbert/tomlin to make that decision and be perfectly happy with whichever it would end up being.

Dale Lolley said...

You're just not likely to see anyone of note cut free as an offensive lineman. You're basically looking at bringing in a Jonathan Scott-type.

bruinmann77 said...

Iwould think If the steelers can get Bishop they should at least see him gor a visit. The OT especially backup lt is scary

Joe Jones said...

Surgically repaired hamstring?

wtf

no way.

Anonymous said...

wholesale mlb jerseys, cheap nhl jerseys ,wholesale nhl jerseys, basketball jerseys cheap, nba jerseys for sale. college ncaa jerseys
http://www.mlbcheapnfljerseys.com/ Australia basketball jerseys sale. Australia soccer jerseys cheap. Nike nfl jerseys cheap,
http://www.mlbcheapnfljerseys.com/NCAA-Jerseys-c114/