Bishop signs with the Vikings

[El Guapo]

Did you steal these words from my brain?

 

[Bagadeez04]

I don't quite understand some of the opinions on the Queens here.
I have to agree with Raptorman on this one: the #1 difference between the Vikes and the Pack is Rodgers, full stop.

I've never been a fan of this logic. If Team "X" didn't have player "Y" they'd be the same as Team "Z". You can cite any team with an elite QB and say if they didn't have that guy they wouldn't be quite so good. That's a weak arguement in my opinion, but I think the example you use suits this little debate well.

The Packers, a playoff caliber team with just a few needs to fix, draft a guy they don't need in the first round and let him sit the bench for a couple years. Not a popular move. He then happens to DEVELOP into possibly the best player in football, and you say, well if the Packers didn't have him they'd be on par with the Vikings? Well the Packers do have him. What if we give AR back to the Packers and take AP away from the Vikings? Then how do the teams stack up? We can do hypotheticals all day, but my point was pretty straightforward.

The Vikings have been scooping up Packer free agents for years now, and while these players have done well, the results for the team/franchise have been the same. Maybe the guy they need to be scooping up is Elliot Wolf, or some other front office guy...so that they can develop this talent more efficiently, on their own terms and have a more youthful, talented roster year after year. If you bring in Jennings and maybe Bishop this year (both players who may be on the downslide in their careers) that necessarily means that a couple young prospects don't make the team and go somewhere else.

 

[Raptorman]

I've never been a fan of this logic. If Team "X" didn't have player "Y" they'd be the same as Team "Z". You can cite any team with an elite QB and say if they didn't have that guy they wouldn't be quite so good. That's a weak arguement in my opinion, but I think the example you use suits this little debate well.

The Packers, a playoff caliber team with just a few needs to fix, draft a guy they don't need in the first round and let him sit the bench for a couple years. Not a popular move. He then happens to DEVELOP into possibly the best player in football, and you say, well if the Packers didn't have him they'd be on par with the Vikings? Well the Packers do have him. What if we give AR back to the Packers and take AP away from the Vikings? Then how do the teams stack up? We can do hypotheticals all day, but my point was pretty straightforward.

The Vikings have been scooping up Packer free agents for years now, and while these players have done well, the results for the team/franchise have been the same. Maybe the guy they need to be scooping up is Elliot Wolf, or some other front office guy...so that they can develop this talent more efficiently, on their own terms and have a more youthful, talented roster year after year. If you bring in Jennings and maybe Bishop this year (both players who may be on the downslide in their careers) that necessarily means that a couple young prospects don't make the team and go somewhere else.

So essentially what you are saying is that the Vikings are not drafting and developing their own players because they happened to sign 3 ex-Packers in the last 8years. Makes perfect sense. Teams evolve. The Vikings are evolving. Since they put one person in charge as the GM they have changed the way they do things. Like I said, it won't happen in a year, maybe not two. But the change is there. After all, how many of the Packers starters have contributed the first year they were drafted? TT did the same thing when he first came on board. Drafted players that he thought he would be good and signed some FA to fill in while they developed. A couple come to mind, Woodson and Pickett. Now that they have drafted people to fill those spots, well, Woodson is gone. Pickett........

Tell you what. What if Rodgers and Peterson are both hurt the first game of the year and are out for the rest of the year. Which team has a better shot at making the playoffs?

 

[TJV]

I don’t like the “what if a certain team didn’t have X player’ discussion either. First I don’t like it because when you change one aspect of history the ripple effect on (at the time) future decisions are unknowable. So you aren’t just changing one event in history: That changed decision changes future decisions and those different decisions change others and on and on and on.

And if you’re changing one historical fact, why stop there? What if Calhoun and Lambeau weren’t so devoted to the franchise? What if the owners of Fairbanks-Morse company were more devoted to their company team than Calhoun/Lambeau – would we be rooting for the Beloit Fairies? Could we? (BTW, the Fairies handed the Packers their only loss of the 1919 season, 6-0 and the Packers only gave up 12 points in 11 games that season. Luckily the Packers dominated the Fairies in 1920, winning 7-0!) What if Packers fans in the early twenties left those passing hats empty? What if, what if, what if? What's the point?

The most important reason I don’t like it is for me reality is interesting – even fascinating – enough. The Packers have Rodgers and the Vikings have AP, why postulate otherwise? (Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it should be outlawed, I just don’t like it.)

So back to reality: I didn’t like Spielman’s promotion to GM any more than I liked the firing of Lovie Smith. I preferred the chaos of the Zygi interfering and no GM. And after an initial unreasonable targeting of the Packers, Lovie really grew on me! When Harlan hired Wolf I was all for it because it changed the MO of the organization. Even though I wasn’t sure Wolf was the right guy for the job, at least Harlan hired one guy to be in charge of all football operations and if Wolf didn’t work out I hoped Harlan would leave that organizational change in place and hire another VP/GM. Of course I have no idea if Speilman is the right guy either; I’m just hoping he’s not. And I'm hoping Wilf gets impatient.

 

[APGu28]

Nope we're just as petty as all the Vikings fans who come in here to talk trash. (Note: This obviously does not include raptorman)

Yeah, I didn't mean anything against most of the people on here. Just the one that I am going back and forth with. He is clueless.

 

[APGu28]

Also said if he didn get the money he wants he'd try to come back to green bay. So no cheap contract for you. All aboard the KC train

But again, you can say the same for many people who were cut. They don't find out that there aren't too many options until they actually go to multiple teams.

 

[APGu28]

When you have so few posts (as you have), any sarcastic or aggressive remark- however slight, is trolling for a response. For an example, see your post #119. That, is trolling.

Suggestion-- Establish yourself clearly as NOT a troll. Then, after a period of building a reasonable reputation, you can engage in more lively debates. There are several Viking fans here that have done just this.

Or, not. I don't really care. Trolls are fun.

I refuse to not be myself. I am a sarcastic person, especially when it comes to people like VolvoD. Most of the people on here some very knowledgeable and I love posting on opponent's boards because it gives me a different perspective. But I am going to be myself.

 

[adambr2]

The Viking have shown they can make it to the playoffs without a good QB. Can the Packers?

And yet the Vikings are still the inferior team.

Yes, I'm sure we could if we had Adrian Peterson. And yes, the Vikings are the inferior team until proven otherwise, have been since 2010.

 

[fanindaup]

Does Wilf still own the Vikings?

 

[Raptorman]

Yes, I'm sure we could if we had Adrian Peterson. And yes, the Vikings are the inferior team until proven otherwise, have been since 2010.

Had MN won both Bears games they would have won the division tied with the Packers at 11-5. Very inferior team.

 

[fanindaup]

This type of argument is pointless. If x happened instead of y, then team z would be better. Let me give you an example of how events can have a ripple effect. Suppose for example, the Packers draft Barry Sanders instead of Tony Mandarich. Sanders was a good enough player to make Wayne Fontes a semi successful coach, and the Lions wallowed in mediocrity for years with guys like Scott Mitchell, Andre Ware and Rodney Peete behind center. If the Packers had been reaching the playoffs with Sanders, would the Packer brass had the incentive to dump Tom Braatz and hire Ron Wolf? Would Favre have stayed on Glanville's bench? Who else besides Wolf recognized his talent? And who besides Holmgren could mold him into the greatest quarterback of the late 90's and early 2000's?

Things happened as they did, the teams are who they are because of what they have done in the past. Vikings (the real ones) used to believe that the tapestry of your fate has already been woven and the best you could hope for was to unravel a thread now and then. Speaking of threads becoming unravelled...

 

[FrankRizzo]

This type of argument is pointless....... Speaking of threads becoming unravelled...

Right.
I clicked in here hoping to read Bishop had signed with an AFC team, or at least reading an update on him.

 

[adambr2]

Had MN won both Bears games they would have won the division tied with the Packers at 11-5. Very inferior team.

Had GB won that last close regular season game of the season against Minnesota they would have finished 12-4 to Minnesota's 9-7. So what? Silly argument.

And I never said "very inferior", I said inferior. We had a better record than you and ended your season. That kind of speaks to you being inferior.

The Vikings are clearly an inferior team to the Packers to most people until they can prove it at least in the division standings or the playoffs. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

 

[Bensalama21]

Bishop is officially a Viking!

 

[ivo610]

This type of argument is pointless. If x happened instead of y, then team z would be better. Let me give you an example of how events can have a ripple effect. Suppose for example, the Packers draft Barry Sanders instead of Tony Mandarich. Sanders was a good enough player to make Wayne Fontes a semi successful coach, and the Lions wallowed in mediocrity for years with guys like Scott Mitchell, Andre Ware and Rodney Peete behind center. If the Packers had been reaching the playoffs with Sanders, would the Packer brass had the incentive to dump Tom Braatz and hire Ron Wolf? Would Favre have stayed on Glanville's bench? Who else besides Wolf recognized his talent? And who besides Holmgren could mold him into the greatest quarterback of the late 90's and early 2000's?

Things happened as they did, the teams are who they are because of what they have done in the past. Vikings (the real ones) used to believe that the tapestry of your fate has already been woven and the best you could hope for was to unravel a thread now and then. Speaking of threads becoming unravelled...

If we drafted Barry we would have been the lions of the 90s.

 

[dansz15]

At this point Minnesota should just call themselves the mini- injured, aging, and overpaid GB Packers.

Not sure why anyone should be surprised by this, but if I was a Minnesota fan at this point I wouldn't be too proud of my team getting all of their players who are usually banged up from one of their top rivals. Maybe it's just me.

 

[VolvoD]

I refuse to not be myself. I am a sarcastic person, especially when it comes to people like VolvoD. Most of the people on here some very knowledgeable and I love posting on opponent's boards because it gives me a different perspective. But I am going to be myself.

no, you are a typical troll. nothing else to see here. but carry on if you want.

 

[Raptorman]

Bishop is officially a Viking!

Well that sucks. Was hoping he went somewhere else.

 

[gbpowner]

Had MN won both Bears games they would have won the division tied with the Packers at 11-5. Very inferior team.

...and by the same math, if the Packers hadn't gotten screwed out of the Seattle game, we would still be one up on the Vikings and division winners!

 

[El Guapo]

This is a good signing for the Vikings. If he plays it fills a gap. If he doesn't play, it likely doesn't cost them much. One could argue that his failure would hurt the team but they are already hurting at this position.

Ironically, my favorite Bishop was the final Packers/Vikings game against Favre when Bishop leveled Brett up the middle.

What's your favorite Bishop moment as a Packer? Let's send him out in style.

 

[Bensalama21]

Well that sucks. Was hoping he went somewhere else.

You and me both, buddy. You and me both.

 

[fanindaup]

If we drafted Barry we would have been the lions of the 90s.

Precisely my point.

 

[Upper Dorsimus]

Hello Packer forum,

IMO, it'll be interesting only if Bishop can actually recover from his injury, otherwise it's much ado. When you consider the severity of the injury and the historic success of a comeback, I think the Pack did the right thing to cut bait, considering they were on the hook for over $3mil.

On the subject of Packer free agents or lack thereof and winning:

Other than being key pieces on the 96 Superbowl team who can guess what these guys also have in common? :

Sean Jones, Santana Dotson, Mike Prior, Don Beebe, Desmond Howard and Reggie White

They were all free agents signed by Wolf in the run up to that 96 Superbowl.
All told, that’s three-quarters of the defensive line, plus a solid special-teamer, a polished veteran receiver and the Super Bowl MVP.

These guys were also part of the same forays into free agency: Mark Clayton , Reggie Cobb, Guy McIntyre and Fred Strickland...but none of them lasted long enough to be part of that 96 championship.

As someone else noted, the 2010 (TT) team had a couple of free agent starters too in Woodson and Pickett, and both also provided veteran leadership, while free agents Adrian Klemm and Marquand Manuel signed in 05' and 06', only lasted a year each. Brandon Chillar was a solid guy too, but he was on IR when they won it all.

Then lats season, Jeff Saturday, who was essentially a stop gap and was on the bench before the season ended.

The list for Mike Sherman's FA signings is less successful....but the point is, everyone uses free agency to one degree or another. To fill holes until you can draft for the position or to add depth and vet leadership where the young guys are learning the ropes. Some teams put a lot of their eggs in the FA basket rather than being patient and letting picks develop in the system. I don't see the Packers or the Vikings doing that currently. I see the rivalry just getting better and better going forward.

2 cents

 

[El Guapo]

Welcome to the forums Dorsimus

You used waaay too much logic and sense in your first post. Hang around for a while and that'll change in time

 

[PFanCan]

This is a good signing for the Vikings. If he plays it fills a gap. If he doesn't play, it likely doesn't cost them much. One could argue that his failure would hurt the team but they are already hurting at this position.

Ironically, my favorite Bishop was the final Packers/Vikings game against Favre when Bishop leveled Brett up the middle.

What's your favorite Bishop moment as a Packer? Let's send him out in style.

Bishop's fumble recovery in the SB.

Or his shoestring tackle in the Philly game on Jackson.