Create Account

Or log in with Facebook


Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Report: Packers Expected to Release Desmond Bishop Monday

By Category

Report: Packers Expected to Release Desmond Bishop Monday

The Green Bay Packers will officially release inside linebacker Desmond Bishop on Monday, according to Ty Dunne of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 

Dunne's report comes on the heels of last week's discovery that the Packers would part ways with Bishop if a trade or contract restructure couldn't be had. It appears the Packers found no success on either front.

Bishop, who turns 29 in July, is coming off a ruptured hamstring that cost him the entire 2012 season. Lacking medical clearance, Bishop hasn't participated in any of the Packers offseason workouts, including mandatory minicamps.

When healthy, Bishop was the Packers starting inside linebacker from 2009-2011. However, his injury opened the door for Brad Jones, who moved inside and secured a three-year, $11.75 million deal this offseason. He'll now be expected to start alongside A.J. Hawk in the Packers base defense.

General manager Ted Thompson has now discarded both Bishop and D.J. Smith, who each suffered a season-ending injury last season.

Behind Jones and Hawk will now be veteran Robert Francois, 2012 fifth-round pick Terrell Manning, Jamari Lattimore and 2013 seventh-rounder Sam Barrington.

Zach Kruse is a 24-year-old sports writer who contributes to Cheesehead TV, Bleacher Report and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. He also covers prep sports for the Dunn Co. News. You can reach him on Twitter @zachkruse2 or by email at [email protected].

  • Like Like
  • -1 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (70) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

jmac3444's picture

dang it. Hope Terrell Manning is ready to go

steven's picture

Well there goes the thumper. Guess his injury was worse then we thought. Wish him the best

Tony's picture

A thumper can't thump if he can't run... Too bad, because I loved watching him the last couple years. The team must know what it is we do not!

Stroh's picture

We know what it is... Its likely a career ending injury. Now or a few months if he keeps playing it will rupture again. Matter of when more than if.

mark's picture

Dr. Stroh, without intimate knowledge of Desmond's hamstring, the type of tear, and the recovery since, how would you or "we" know what it is? I suppose we can make blind assumptions based on his release (after all that's why the internet was created), but to truly know? To know it will rupture again? How do you know this?

Stroh's picture

He tore thr muscle from the bone. There's no way to duplicate the organic connection of tendon to bone. Its severely compromised. If he continues to play its more a matter of when not if. This is an injury that invariably ends careers. Hence the reason they're releasing him.

Stroh's picture

I'm a former Strength and Conditioning Coach. Hope that clears things up for you!

Chad Toporski's picture

It's also the most plausible reason in conjunction with his salary.

California Cheesehead's picture

Here's your sign, Mark. Thank you, Stroh, for clearing it up. I love the way people react to things instead of just asking, don't you?

al's picture


trvs's picture

Cow42 called it...

Wes Hodkiewicz [email protected] 4m
If Bishop clears waivers, the fifth-year linebacker's first visit is expected to be with the #Vikings, according to sources

WTF? I suppose they have a need and knack for taking in used Green n Gold players. I would probably be more upset if Bishop became successful in MN then Flemmings

Tarynfor12's picture

Yes,I'm sure the crystal ball of Cow42 was alone in predicting what is/has been the 'Mantra' of the Vikings.

Expecting anything less from a player released by the Packers would be...criminal!

FITZCORE 1252'S EVO's picture

Ah, err, I've never heard of this "Cow" you speak of, but I've heard that thrown out all over the place.

The queens need a MLB.

The queens like washed up Packers.

Bishop is an ex Packer who's best days are likely behind him... He also happens to be an ilb.

A simple case of 'connect the dots'.

Stroh's picture

Don't like to fo it. But if Bishop goes to Min I hope he tears it for good and hss retire. Serve him and vikes right!

Lars's picture

Serves HIM right? What's wrong with you? He was waived. The Packers don't want him and he'd have to clear waivers to even get to Minnesota. Whatever happens I certainly don't wish injury on Bishop. Very classy farewell.

Besides aren't you an AJ Hawk guy, you know, that barely serviceable ILB who TT keeps on the team because he's a sure HOF'er?

Evan's picture

No waivers. He's a FA immediately. Visiting the Vikes tomorrow.

Stroh's picture

I'm no Hawk guy. Feel bsd it happened to Bishop. No prob if he goes anywher but division if he goes toMinn I want it to hurt them. Your making things up.

JakeK's picture

"if Bishop goes to Min I hope he tears it for good and hss retire. Serve him and vikes right!"

Your wish of injury for Bishop seems pretty clear. Wishing injury on any player is classless.

Strength & Conditioning Coach ?? Sure ... just like all of us are ex-NFL players. Get real.

mark's picture

Worth pointing out: If Bishop doesn't tackle DeSean Jackson with 1:45 to go in the 4th, there's no Super Bowl XLV for the Packers.

FITZCORE 1252'S EVO's picture

You don't know that.

mark's picture

Ok, there's "probably" no Super Bowl for the Packers.

FITZCORE 1252'S EVO's picture

Lol, agreed.

cow42's picture

I sorta like the idea of seeing Bishop trying to stay with Finley... or getting matched up in the slot across from Cobb.

Idiot Fan's picture

Funny, I thought the exact same thing when I first heard this.

BradHTX's picture

Cow, when you are on, you are ON! Nice one, sir.

Stroh's picture

Bishop wouldn't get matched up in the slot vs Cobb. In Minn D, the MikeLB does have to run into the deep middle third of the zone, so trying to keep w/ Finley down the middle is something he would have to do tho.

Lucky953's picture

And the Vikings have won how many Titles?

Mojo's picture

I wonder if the Packers would have ever given him medical clearance. Maybe the injury is much worse than we thought. And if the Packer doctors were right in holding him back, then I wonder who else would have interest. It would have to be for no guarantees and a very low salary. I'm guessing Bishop wasn't willing to restructure such a deal with GB.

Evan's picture

I did read somewhere today that he wouldn't be opposed to coming back to the Pack if the money isn't there for him elsewhere.

Lucky953's picture

No doubt in my mind the injury is the main issue. And the Vikings have won how many titles? Who will have more tackles this season? Brad Jones or Desmond Bishop?

PadLevel's picture

So let me get this straight - They are willing to see if Derek Sherrod, who even before breaking both his tibia and fibula was an average tackle at best, can come back and produce but cannot wait for Desmond Bishop? How can they be so sure about Bishop's injury without letting him practice? I wonder if this decision would have been any different if Bishop had been selected in the 2nd round or higher.

Evan's picture

It's fair question about the timing of releasing Bishop, but the Sherrod analogy doesn't work.

PadLevel's picture

Care to explain why the analogy doesn't work?

Evan's picture


1. Money. Sherrod is making less than $1 mil this season. Bishop was set to make $3.5 mil.

2. Depth. There is a ton of ILB depth. The same is not true of OT, specifically LT (and you say he was "average at best" as if he had legitimate playing time to show his true ability).

3. Injury type. Broken bones (even as devestating as Sherrod's injury was) and a ruptured hamstring aren't in the same league of injuries.

4. Age. Bishop is about to turn 29. Sherrod is still only 24.

Again, I also don't understand why they couldn't have taken Bishop to camp and seen how he looked, but Derek Sherrod is apples and oranges.

PadLevel's picture

1. Money - So $2.5MM can make that much of a difference?

2. ILB depth - What depth are we talking about? We may have depth in terms of bodies, but not in terms of quality starters. I have little faith that Terrell Manning, Robert Francois, Lattimore, not to mention our All-pro AJ Hawk and secret superstar Brad Jones can magically solidify the interior of our defense. Our situation is dire at ILB/MLB

3. Sherrod had a legitimate opportunity to start at the LT position in 2011, but it was Newhouse who got the start over him. You could blame that on the lock-out shortened offseason, but Packers gave him every opportunity to show his talent. That said, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he can return healthy and earn a roster spot, so be it.

4. The gruesome injury that Sherrod suffered in 2011 has not fully healed yet (after close to 2 years) and this is not as serious as a torn hamstring?

Stroh's picture

Sherrod never had a chance to start! He had absolutely no off season, an abbrevieate Pre-season and didn't get a playbook till that pre-season started. You apparently didn't realize the lockout and injury has prevented him being able to get an offseason of work.

The injuries are completely different animals, one is highly unlikely to ever happen again once fully healed, the other is HIGHLY Likely to happen again sooner than later!

The fact your arguing is just senseless. Nothing about the situation is remotely similar.

Sorry it happened to Bishop, but he had to be released! Thomspson has been very consistent in his M.O. With bad injuries he releases the players, not only w/ the Packers best interests, but always w/ the players as well.

Evan's picture

What Stroh said basically. I'll also add that with the laundry list of key players who need to be resigned in the very near future, yea, $2.5 million is a big deal.

As for Sherrod's opportunity to start, the Packers also wasted a great deal of the already abbreviated off-season playing him at Guard. He was never given a legitimate opportunity.

Chad Toporski's picture

"How can they be so sure about Bishop’s injury without letting him practice?"

It's actually in Appendix K of the new CBA (I checked), but the criteria are the same.

Evan's picture

I don't think passing a physical is the issue. All I've read say the hamstring is 100% (he sat of OTAs with a different, unrelated injury). The issue, as I understand it, is the belief his play will be diminished coupled with a high risk of re-injury.

FITZCORE 1252'S EVO's picture

It's the Hammy, no matter how Bish spins it, still the hammy

" What held the linebacker out of organized team activities and minicamp, he said, was not the tendon tear itself. Rather, a muscle strain on the inside of Bishop's hamstring was the problem. Bishop admits he probably tried to run and cut too quickly, saying, “that wasn’t the smartest thing to do.” That tweak, “a couple-week injury,” is what Bishop said held him back this past month."

Evan's picture

That's fair. "Different but probably related injury" is better.

Stroh's picture

Any muscle pull in the lower half is going to be related to his previous Hamstring strain, Even if its on the opposite leg. Trying to too much too soon, even if its minor is going to go back to the hammy and the training status and reinjury. The fact he already had a set back, is a sign of more trouble.

Glad the Packers released him, the hammy will never be able to handle playing football again IMO. Feel sorry for Bishop, but its life in the NFL. Time to move on w/o Bishop.

JJB's picture

AP will run wild on this def again this year.

zeke's picture

AP will likely run wild over every defense this year. And they'll still lose.

Johnny's picture

Uh, so this quote terrified the living sh*t out of me.

"Asked whether the Packers asked him to take a pay cut to stay, Bishop replied, “No, they didn’t. It was more of, they were going to release me if they couldn’t trade me. And if there was nothing else out there for me, then we could talk (about coming back).”

Why would they consider bringing him back if releasing him was about his injury?

JakeK's picture

Good point. If he hooks on with the Vikes, doubt we'll ever know the truth.

2013 is looking more & more like a rebuilding year. Who rebuilds after going 11-5? Only in TTland.

Stroh's picture

They aren't bringing him back. Not even w/ a pay cut it would seem. If he goes unsigned and is willing to sign a contract that states he gets no pay if re-injured he might return, but even then I doubt the Packers would sign him. Just too risky!

Nononsense's picture

I'll accept what Stroh is saying about Bishops Hamstring tear and move on now.

Sucks to lose a player of his caliber but if he isn't 100% or never will be than I can understand the move.

Only hope now is that any one of the ILBs not named AJ Hawk is starting next to Jones when the season starts and I do mean any of them.

Fi crane's picture

This is a sad story, Bishop was so ready to be a dominate ilb last year. Such is life.

cow42's picture

hard to replace...

Bulaga (seeing as his position move has created an opening)

can the following players rise up and take their place?


in reality, probably the only chances for upgrades are Jones>Jenkins and Cobb>Jennings... the rest look like they're going to be drop-offs.

VApackerfan's picture

Yeah, b/c Hayward showed no promise last year as a rookie...roll eyes

cow42's picture

as good as hayward might become - he will never be as good as woodson.

so that would be a drop off.

zeke's picture

Woodson in his prime? Maybe, but not the Woodson of last year or even the year before. And if you're going to include players who haven't been on the roster for the past three years, why stop there? There's likely to be a significant drop off from Ahman Green to whomever starts at RB this year. And sorry TJ Lang, but you're no Gale Gillingham :(

This is fun.

FITZCORE 1252'S EVO's picture


cow42's picture

i was referring to the Super Bowl team.

Woodson was pretty good that season.

i understand that players are going to leave... it's the NFL.

all i'm saying is that it's important to continue bringing in quality players to take the place of the players who depart.

i selected some difference making players from the Super Bowl team and compared them to the players who are currently their replacements. after making that comparison, i surmised that the only probable upgrades are Jones and Cobb.

just my opinion.

sorry if i offended you.

zeke's picture

If the point of your post was that "these eight players are better than those eight players", then yes, I missed it. My assumption was that the broader point was that the replacements for those eight players aren't as good, therefore the 2013 team isn't as good/won't be as successful as the 2010 team. My opinion is that one doesn't necessarily follow the other, but if the only point is to pick eight roster spots and compare then it doesn't matter.

BradHTX's picture

It's absurd to say Hayward will never be as good as Woodson -- you don't know that. Granted, Woodson is a probable HoFer, so those are big shoes to fill, but based on an exceptional rookie season, Hayward could be special.

Now, let's look at some other facts you conveniently forgot to include...

Shields: Has taken a major step forward since 2010, upgrade. Granted, Williams has regressed, but he might improve again this season.

Collins is hard to replace, but year 4 was his big leap forward, and that's Burnett's year this season. Furthermore, I like McMillian in year 2 better than Burnett in his rookie year (2010). So if there's a step back from Collins to Burnett, there is a step forward from Burnett to McMillian. Oh, and dare I mention... Charlie Peprah?

Bulaga played well at RT his rookie season, but his potential successors are all more experienced. Possibly not that much of a drop-off, if any. And a more-experienced Bulaga I think is likely as good as Clifton on his last legs in 2010.

I think you have to consider that going from James Starks and Brandon Jackson to Eddie Lacy and Johnathan Franklin is at least an upgrade. Potentially a huge one. Hell, I'd say even DuJuan Harris is significantly better.

And for the win: Nick Perry, Erik #^%*{€ing Walden. Thank you and good night.

zeke's picture

"It’s absurd to say..."
You could add plenty more than the comment about Hayward to that list, including how it is that Datone Jones (who has yet to put on pads in anger) has more potential to be a "difference maker" than someone like Hayward, who actually has something on tape.

cow42's picture

i'm not denying that possible upgrades have occurred at various other spots on the roster.

i simply listed a number of playmaking contributors from the SB team and compared them to the players who will most likely be taking their spot.

Do you really think that Datko/Bakhtiari/Newhouse/Barclay will be better than the Bulaga of that season? Do you really think that Hayward will end up being better than Charles F'n Woodson? As for your "safety dance"... Burnett hardly played that year so to involve him in this conversation is pointless. But if you want to say that Burnett is actually Collins' replacement, fine... still a drop - off. And it's by no means a slam dunk that McMillian will be better than Peprah was that year.

Are the Packers better at OLB? Probably.
Are they better at RB? Probably.

But you're completely missing the point of my original post...

-The guys I listed are gone.
-Most of the guys who are replacing the guys that I listed are not as good.

That's it.

BradHTX's picture

I actually do think it's possible that Casey Hayward MIGHT be the second coming of Charles Woodson, yes. Woodson was a special player, but I think it is possible Hayward might be too. Their games are very similar, they both seem to have an almost supernatural nose for the ball, and their rookie stats are remarkably similar...

Woodson: 62 tackles, 20 passes defensed, 5 INT, 1 TD, 2 forced fumbles

Hayward: 53 tackles, 21 passes defensed, 6 INT, 1 forced fumble

Do we know Hayward will or won't be as good as Woodson? Of course not, I don't have a crystal ball, and neither do you. But we can read the tea leaves, or in this case the stats, which are pretty remarkable.

The big picture point is that all teams have to deal with roster turnover. Good players get old and retire or are released, they get injured, and on good teams with good drafters and good money managers, they get replaced when they get more expensive to keep than the management feels they are worth in comparison to the younger, cheaper players behind them. Are those players always a 1:1 replacement? No, often not right away. Sometimes they never are, and sometimes they wind up being better. Sometimes they player waiting in the wings doesn't pan out like planned -- for example, a random gruesome injury setting Sherrod back by several seasons. And it's not necessarily fair to compare an experienced player who is departing to his replacement who hasn't yet played.

All teams have players who are only average, or even liabilities, on their rosters. The best teams feature 2-3 superstar game-changers, about a dozen good play-makers, and the rest are just guys who are unspectacular but competent and don't screw things up. That was the 2010 team. Right now I think the 2013 Packers are just about there; Rodgers is the same, Matthews is better than he was in 2010, and if Hayward continues to develop, he could be a small step down from what Woodson was then. The O-line is potentially a grade lower, but the OLBs are better, the running game looks improved, and the D-line should be as good or could be improved if Jones turns out to be a beast.

Jake's picture

The thing is, it's not just about replacing talent. It's about playing together well as a team. The Super Bowl team lost games that year to teams with less talent, but got it together and played great at the end of the season. In 2011 when our defense completely disappeared, the offense stepped up and we won 15 games. The point is, other players on the team are expected to step up. Maybe we don't have a great replacement for Bishop, but maybe the return of Perry helps to solidify the LB core. Maybe we don't have a replacement for Woodson, but the depth of young cornerbacks all contribute and them, along with our safeties get better with more experience.

Every team is strong in some areas and week in others. It's about playing together well as a team once the playoffs come.

cow42's picture

2010 vs 2013

qb - push
ol - 2010
rb - 2013
wr - 2010
te - 2013

dl - 2010
ilb - 2010
olb - 2013
cb - 2010
'10 Woodson>Hayward
'10 Williams>'13 Williams or House
S - 2010

too many position groups have regressed... ol, wr, dl, ilb, cb, s

PackersRS's picture

Someone doesn't remember Bush, Colledge and Peprah playing in 2010.

Also, nobody has played a down in 2013.

packeraaron's picture

The '10 position groups you are referencing ended up at a certain level. They didn't start there for the most part.

What matters is how players develop both over the course of the offseason and during the year.

Jake's picture

This. This is what our Super Bowl winning coach and management preach every day. Building, growing, and improving from within.

cow42's picture

except with this year's schedule, they better be ready to go right outa' the shoot.

go down 0-3 and the season's over.

Jake's picture

My point is the team and it's players are expected to improve since last season.

zeke's picture

And I'd take the 2013 version of Rodgers over the 2010 version. Some players actually do improve with experience.

BradHTX's picture

Interesting exercise.

I question why you feel the WRs in 2010 were better than now. Jennings/Nelson/Jones/Driver vs Cobb/Nelson/Jones/Boykin is at worst a push to me, considering Cobb is only entering his third season when most WRs really "get it," Nelson is more experienced, Jones has gotten over his dropsies, and Driver even in 2010 was already slowing down.

I do find it interesting you say the TEs are better now than in 2010. High hopes for Mulligan?

DL in 2010 was Raji/Pickett/Jenkins/Wilson/Wynn and Howard Freakin' Green, if I recall. Do you really consider that line better than the potential of Raji/Pickett/Jones/Neal and Daniels and maybe still Wilson? Granted, Pickett is older now, but a healthy Neal has proven himself effective and Jones may be a real beast. No downs have been played yet, but on paper I think this DL is stronger. I think you're giving the memory of Cullen Jenkins too much credit.

CB starters in 2010 were Woodson/Williams/Shields/Bush. Woodson may have been better in 2010 than Hayward is now, as you say, and Williams was better then than the last two years. But Shields is better now than he was in 2010, Williams might finally be over that shoulder that was hampering him, and House vs Bush? Please. This is at worst a push, and if Williams is back to form and Hayward makes a second-year jump, this is a stronger unit on the whole now than in 2010, even if Woodson was better then than any of them are now.

And now the position that started the whole discussion: ILB. I don't recall who the backup ILBs were in 2010. But I will say this: if the coaches are as high on Manning as they seem to be, even if he's a step down from Bishop, the discovery of Jones' coverage skills makes a rotation of Manning/Jones more consistent on the whole than Bishop was by himself. I think Hawk/Manning/Jones might be a push with Hawk/Bishop by mid-season. But I'm going to give you 2010 on this one.

At safety, if Burnett makes the same fourth year jump Collins did (admittedly a big "if") and McMillian makes a significant second year improvement, then this group is a push considering we were starting Charlie Peprah in 2010.

As I see it, at worst:

QB: push (with additional experience factor, maybe 2013)
OL: 2010
RB: 2013
WR: push (maybe 2013)
TE: push

DL: 2013
OLB: 2013
ILB: 2010 (maybe push)
CB: push (maybe 2013)
S: 2010 (maybe push)

The only position group I see as definitely better in 2010 is OL. But hey, I'm a glass-half-full kinda guy. And, it's June, when we're supposed be full of optimism -- I know, Cow, not in your job description. *smile* I do always find your analysis thought-provoking...

Tarynfor12's picture

If players of today or tommorow cannot play to the level or surpass the players of do we have HOF inductions each year.
Naturally we don't induct everyone but the over-all talent of the game has increased,so it needs to be accepted that, except for the high exception(QB position),most players today do indeed out achieve the majority of ther predecessors.

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.

Or log in with Facebook



"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."
"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"The Bears still suck!"