Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 501922">Decisions are often made for multiple reasons, and you touched on some of the ones associated with releasing Bishop: cost vs. benefit, injury status/future injury risk, $'s over-allocated to the position, and perhaps some thoughts on the potential of the bench players. Evidently, the Packers offered Bishop a reduced contract. So, injury status/ future risk is not the issue in isolation. It's the risk measured against the cost and measured against the available alternatives. As you noted with Harrell, he got a lot of guaranteed money up front, so keeping him around to see if he could become anything did not entail much cost. Bishop, on the other hand, is due some meaningful pay come week 1. With Bishop, we have 3 guys who appear to be making more than the league median average for the position, ILB being the lowest paid position after fullback. So why Bishop and not Hawk? Because Hawk is durable while being a known commodity. Some might argue Hawk has remained relatively injury-free because he doesn't hit people very hard very often in a business-decision kind of way. But that has to be balanced against the risk that Bishop pulls up lame again. This is an unfortunate situation. We missed his physical presence in the middle of the field last season, and I believe his absence will be felt going forward.</blockquote>

Total: 454 (members: 3, guests: 451)