I'd trade that for Bishop easily.  I think Bishop is close to 100% and GB dumped him because he wouldn't restructure his current contract after missing the 2012 season. It's a money thing.

There is a large gap in talent between Desmond Bishop and Brad Jones, therefore Bishop's release should raise some red flags.  Bishop's contract was very tolerable so it is very unlikely that Bishop's release was due to money (like Mr. Doggie is suggesting).  No one knows if Bishop is healthy and anyone that says he is close to 100% is just throwing smoke up your butt.  The bottom line is that Bishop is probably closer to 70% healed right now and while he should be ready to start the season, he is a very high injury risk and he may not play with the same speed as he did prior to the injury.  If he gets signed by KC, that would be a very large hit to his potential. 

With that said, I'd still make that trade because Sheard is a LB'er now (not a DE anymore Bucky), doesn't fit Cleveland's scheme well and should be WW material in anything but 16 team leagues.  So essentially the deal is a 3rd rounder for Bishop.  I'd roll the dice on that.

DefiantVitreous said:

There is a large gap in talent between Desmond Bishop and Brad Jones, therefore Bishop's release should raise some red flags.  Bishop's contract was very tolerable so it is very unlikely that Bishop's release was due to money (like Mr. Doggie is suggesting).  No one knows if Bishop is healthy and anyone that says he is close to 100% is just throwing smoke up your butt.  The bottom line is that Bishop is probably closer to 70% healed right now and while he should be ready to start the season, he is a very high injury risk and he may not play with the same speed as he did prior to the injury.  If he gets signed by KC, that would be a very large hit to his potential. 

With that said, I'd still make that trade because Sheard is a LB'er now (not a DE anymore Bucky), doesn't fit Cleveland's scheme well and should be WW material in anything but 16 team leagues.  So essentially the deal is a 3rd rounder for Bishop.  I'd roll the dice on that.

Crap, I completely forgot he was a lb now. Definitely make he move. Even if he still was a DL I would make the move. DL are a dime a dozen.

Whos_Ur_Doggie said:

DefiantVitreous said:

There is a large gap in talent between Desmond Bishop and Brad Jones, therefore Bishop's release should raise some red flags.  Bishop's contract was very tolerable so it is very unlikely that Bishop's release was due to money (like Mr. Doggie is suggesting).  No one knows if Bishop is healthy and anyone that says he is close to 100% is just throwing smoke up your butt.  The bottom line is that Bishop is probably closer to 70% healed right now and while he should be ready to start the season, he is a very high injury risk and he may not play with the same speed as he did prior to the injury.  If he gets signed by KC, that would be a very large hit to his potential. 

With that said, I'd still make that trade because Sheard is a LB'er now (not a DE anymore Bucky), doesn't fit Cleveland's scheme well and should be WW material in anything but 16 team leagues.  So essentially the deal is a 3rd rounder for Bishop.  I'd roll the dice on that.

ESPN Milwaukee reports the Packers will either cut or trade Desmond Bishop if
he doesn't agree to a contract restructure.

Bishop is owed a relatively affordable $3.464 million, so the
Packers are likely asking for a slash close to the NFL minimum. A release is the
most likely outcome. Coming off a ruptured hamstring, Bishop hasn't participated
in any Packers offseason activities and was on the trade block during the draft.
They found no takers. Bishop insists the hamstring is healed. The Packers are
prepared to move forward with Brad Jones and A.J. Hawk at inside linebacker.

The only smoke blowing around here at DC is coming from you. GB was trying to trade Bishop during the draft before he was healthy, so this move comes down to money or a change in direction on defense by GB.  Why would Bishop want to participate in OTA's when GB was trying to trade him or get him to take a pay-cut?  I don't blame Bishop for not wanting to participate or take a pay-cut. Everything I have read states that he is 100% healthy going in to training camp. So, if you have something different to report that has any substance to it, lets see your source.

Doggie, your defensive attitude prevents you from actually reading people's posts and then you go and talk out of both sides of your mouth.  Your first post said that Bishop is "close to 100%" and then you said that "GB was trying to trade Bishop during the draft before he was healthy".  First of all which one is it?  Is he healthy or is he not? 

Secondly, you have zero, let me repeat, ZERO inside info to Bishops health.  All you know is what you read, which we all know when it comes to injuries no one is honest. 

Third, I said that Bishop's salary was reasonable.  Shit, even your article that you copy/pasted from Rotoworld, leads off by saying "Bishop is owed a relatively affordable $3.464 million", with the operative word being "affordable".  Let's talk some logic here.  If Bishop's contract is "affordable" and "reasonable", AND if Bishop is 100% healthy (which you somehow KNOW he is), then why would GB want to let him go?  It isn't a change in scheme.  It isn't because Brad Jones is better, shit SF and Kaepernick ran all over GB with Jones at WILB.  So tell me Mr. Doggie, what is TRULY behind the release of Bishop?  Let me tell you....Bishops' hamstring.  That's right, it isn't a money decision by GB.  They are not confident in his hammy.  It is a health thing.  Now maybe Bishop can play the whole season healthy and not have his hammy issue come up again.  We'll see.  But for you to just willy-nilly say that you "know that Bishop is close to 100% and that it is only a money issue with his release" is not only ignorant, lame and pretentious, but it is downright stupid.  Well done, Mr. Doggie.  Well done.

Hey *Doggie*, I never mentioned you at all.  I was never talking about you.  I was speaking in general terms, but you're such a freaking hothead that you think the world revolves around you.  I like to use logic and not coachspeak, because, you know, the only info coming out about his health is from Bishop and his agent.  If you think for 1 second that the GB Packers, who are vying for a title, would cut a 28 year old, 100% healthy LB'er- who, if healthy, is unquestionably a better player than his backup (who got torched in the NFC Championship game) because of a measley $3.4 million dollars, you're a fool.  You seem to always have to have the last word, so go for it.

DefiantVitreous said - "Bishop's contract was very tolerable so it is very unlikely
that Bishop's release was due to money (like Mr. Doggie is suggesting).  No one knows if Bishop is healthy and anyone that says he is
close to 100% is just throwing smoke up your butt."

DefiantVitreous said - "Doggie, your defensive attitude prevents you from actually reading
people's posts and then you go and talk out of both sides of your mouth.  Your first post said that Bishop is "close
to 100%" and then you said that "GB was trying to trade Bishop during
the draft before he was healthy".  First of all which one is
it?  Is he healthy or is he not?"

DefiantVitreous said - "Secondly, you have zero, let me repeat, ZERO inside info
to Bishops health.  All you know is what you read, which we all know when it comes
to injuries no one is honest."

DefiantVitreous said - "Shit, even your article that you copy/pasted from Rotoworld, leads off by
saying "Bishop is owed a relatively affordable $3.464 million", with
the operative word being "affordable"."

DefiantVitreous said - "If Bishop's contract
is "affordable" and "reasonable", AND if Bishop is 100%
healthy (which you somehow
KNOW he is), then why would GB want to let him go?"

DefiantVitreous said - "So tell me Mr. Doggie, what is TRULY behind the
release of Bishop?  Let me tell you....Bishops' hamstring."

DefiantVitreous said - "But for you to just willy-nilly say that you "know that Bishop is close to 100% and
that it is only a money issue with his release" is not only ignorant, lame
and pretentious, but it is downright stupid.  Well done, Mr. Doggie.  Well done."

My bad Defiant, I guess you were speaking in
general terms and not directing anything at me, lol.  I must have missed
that when I read your posts.  8-}