Bishop exposed for what he is

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.)

Agree?

The Cats make any team or any bum look good.

The Hamilton Tiger-Cats...The cure for what ails you.

When Bishop has to read a good defence, things get really interesting. LMAO

We shall see how he bounces back.

Oski Wee Wee,

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.

An Argo-Cat fan

Wow !no go to guys?

Good on ya Bish,

Now you know what it's like to be a Ti-Cat QB all season long! :cowboy:

I like Bishop ,one dud game way out west happens to most Eastern teams ,maybe the three hour time zone kicks in ,they must feel it.

I know the Als stunk BC place out labour day weekend then bounced back as a real team the next week .

It's ridiculous to write off a qb after one or two bad
outings. Something that's done way too frequently on these boards.

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.

Oski Wee Wee,

Brady played good, he is a smart q.b who sees the field very well. Stats and numbers don't tell the whole story, he had lots of drops and the Edmonton defence had a stellar game.

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.

Wrong.

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.

Quickest refutation ever. LOL :wink:

"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."

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bishop_(football_player]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bi ... all_player[/url])

I'm wet at those numbers. ROTFLMFAO

What did he do in 2006? Short yardage duty mostly, but made two big relief appearances for Allen in the East semi (2 TDs to pull it out) and the East final in defeat to Montreal (2 TDs).

That brings us to this year. Three wins against the defensive genius that is Ed O'Neil and the Calgary blowout.

HE'S WON ONE GAME AS A STARTER THIS YEAR APART FROM DEFEATING THE CATS BECAUSE HE'S BEEN INJURED.

I haven't even discussed his AFL stints, basically making him a part-time QB until last August.

So...where am I wrong?

The TD-INT ratio I bolded is an indicator of where he's been. Not awe-inspiring. As a starter, you can gameplan this guy if you have a clue and he will armpunt abundantly. Straight up.

We'll see for the balance of 2007. He doesn't play us for the rest of the year.

Oski Wee Wee,

M.Bishop was on TSN's Off The Record with M.Lansberg a couple of days ago.

He was asked to describe Casey Printers in one word...ans.-"cocky"....

good answer.

He defended his teams poor performance in BC. -"anybody can have a bad game"

When asked what the Argos record would be if they played Hamilton 18 times

ans.- 18-0...

Now who's cocky.....

Ya ,not that bad an answer,but couldn't he have said 14-4 .

I'm so glad we didn't have to watch the Argos in the pre-season......

Thank you CFL for not scheduling them against us in the pre-season .....every......bleeping year...

:cowboy:

Don't sweat seeing the argos my friend, because by mid season next year, the cat's will be in the playoff hunt and the Argos will be 1-10...

The Ticat arrow...even now is pointing up.....the argos are an aging team.

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.