I've been saying from the beginning that Michael Bishop is not a great quarterback. Last night, finally playing a legitimate team (albeit one missing key players) the result was 40-7. Bishop hasn't played a lot this year and nearly all of his games have been against the Ticats, a team even Rocky Butler can dominate.
(And last Friday reminded me more of the Marcus Brady I know.)
bishop is overrated, the toronto media tried to hype him as the best thing since sliced bread, since he could torch the ticats’ high school coached defense. Put Bishop against a legit 4-3 defense with adequate blitzing and coverage packages and he gets the deer in the headlights look.
It's too soon to tell if he's the real deal or not. I agree that his 4-1 record is misleading since most of it has come against the Cats. However, he was without his 2 go-to guys Arland Bruce and Tony Miles in the BC game. His true colors will become more obvious over the next 4-5 games.
Bishop is in year six of his career with Toronto. His record as a starter in those years has been terrible. If you take the vanilla sieve Cat defences he's faced from his record, it is pure horror-show.
I am not counting the relief stints that I can count on one hand where he's been lights out.
Give Bishop an assignment against a top-flight defensive coordinator in this league other than Stubler (Ritchie in particular) and he struggles. He may have the biggest arm in Canada, but he can't read a well-disguised combo zone if his life depended on it. Straight up.
Bishop will prove you wrong, he is not the same q.b he was when he first came into the league. No q.b can do anything if all his receivers are blanketed and he has no time, that has nothing to do with reading a defence. From what I saw from watching him live is that if a guy is open the ball is there.
Bishop IS the same QB he was and has been since leaving K-State. He lasers in on primary receivers, doesn't go through reads and tries to force the ball where it can't go...and it wouldn't change even if he had his two best receivers...
Nice to see we aren't the ONLY team making mistakes with personnel decisions...and this is a BIG one for TO
Never like Bishop. Sure he's got that cannon for an arm and he can run, but he doesn't do a great job of reading defences. Even when he was destroying the Ti-Cats his completion percentage was floating around 50%. That's not good. So he can throw long bombs over our secondary's head all day, that doesn't make a good QB. But the Argos are better with him under centre, so I doubt very much they'll make a switch.
Numbers are for losers, I'd rather have a q.b who doesn't care about numbers and would rather launch the ball deep 20 times a game to put the fear into the d.b's. Just look at Dunigan and Danny, they weren't stat guys but i'd take them over just about any q.b any day.
"Bishop had some brief stints as a starting quarterback with the Argonauts, but was predominantly a backup. Between 2002-2005, he completed 206-of-446 passes for 3,192 yards, 17 touchdowns and 32 interceptions for a quarterback rating of 53.2. He also rushed for 768 yards and 7 touchdowns."
Just because the guy has a big arm doesn't make him a good QB. Bishop is 4-1 as a starter this year. He killed Hamilton 3 times. So against every team that's not 1-10 he's 1-1 and his most recent game he lost 40-7. I don't think the BC db's were overwhelmed by his play. Michael Bishop's claim to fame is a couple of times he's gotten hot and won a couple of games. Then he gets hurt. And then everyone reminds us of all this physical talent he has, blah blah blah. He's 31 and he finally won the starting QB job. If he's so great why couldn't he knock off the weak armed Damon Allen sooner?
Also, why would you bring up Danny Mac and Matt Dunigan who have great numbers up the wazzoo! Most notably, they have Grey Cup wins. Danny's got 3 rings and Dunigan has 2. Bishop? 0.