This article on the sportsnet.ca website today reports that the Winnipeg Blue Bombers are considering signing quarterback Michael Bishop.[url=http://www.sportsnet.ca/football/cfl/2009/07/25/bombers_bishop/]http://www.sportsnet.ca/football/cfl/20 ... rs_bishop/[/url]
Bishop would be an improvement over the 3 guys I saw play the Argos. They managed 8 first downs!!
An Argo-Cat fan
If the BB don't want Bish, I will definitely take him back for my Argos, as Joseph again proved yesterday he is not much better than Winnipeg's cast of QB characters.
Well said Argotom, only problem is Argo management/Pinball would never be willing to bring him back. It shows a lack of character on their part, they would consider that to humbling.
TCTD, I like the thread title because “armpunter” may be arcane to some. Yes, that is how low the Bombers have gone. LOL
Oski Wee Wee,
I’m biased and I like him…and RItchie WIlliams though.
The DISRESPECT of Richie Williams continues. For a man who only had Scout Team Reps this season, I thought he did a pretty good job. AT LEAST good enough to get 1st team reps, and a START next week.
I like Ritchie as a QB, he is certainly the best of the bad bunch.
Having said that, Ritchie currently and may be never will/can achieve the status of a permanent starter.
He may very well be a good reliever, for mop up purpose.
They would be crazy not to sign Bishop, he was awesome for TO a few seasons ago until they signed Joseph.
Bombers should sign Bishop and Printers. That would make an interesting tandem.
Bishop has a very strong arm but he has no aim. I feel sooo bad for Richie Williams, I mean that. Why he is not the starter out there is beyond me. He is the best chance Winnipeg has of doing anything big this year. Lefors sucks period. The bombers offence this year is going to be Reid`s rushing until they get Williams in there to start throwing some hurting bombs.
I'm guessing he gets the start next game. He's there best chance of winning, but that's faint praise on
HE HAS NO JUDGEMENT. His lack of accuracy is secondary to his firm belief that he can force the ball through into double coverage or worse time and again. Period. Ask the folks in Taylor Field last November about that sensation in a playoff game.
I understand the gunslinger mentality, I am one of Danny Mac's greatest fans. However, you have to understand that in this league, the rover is free. You must move him around with play design (route depth), use of the run game, and the use of one's eyes. Bish has little clue and I am being generous. Locking in on a receiver and throwing into a deep zone where the rover HAS anticipated the play and has a better shot at the armpunt than the receiver has is stupid, you couple that with his lack of consistent deep ball accuracy and that's why he's where he is at the moment.
Richie Williams may not have Bish's launcher, but he has far more upside if given the chance.
Oski Wee Wee,
Richie's problem is that he can't play in a whole game.
When he was here, whenever he was called upon, the first couple drives he had were good and then it was just grinding the rest of the game.
He is good to be brought in as a spark but I don't see him as a long term solution.
The Bombers shouldn't waste their time on Bishop or Printers. The guy they should trade for is Tafralis. Tafralis has all the skills and a strong arm. But will the Cats part with him?
If Winnipeg signs Bishop they'll get a few decent games out of him, 1 game where he'll just completely light it up with accurate bombs and good decisions, and the rest of the games he'll have 300 yards passing with 4 ints.
You nailed it.
HORSE HOCKEY!!! For some reason the CFL pundits do not like Bishop, people like this last poster swallow it hook, line and sinker. They have demonized Michael Bishop as not being very bright etc, all totally false. He is a very smart QB that has been in every type of offense, from the very basic to the complex run and shoot. Michael really came in to his own during the 2007 season when he won the starting job from Damen Allen. Bish was resposible for all 11 wins that year. He was injured for the remainder of the games. Argos never won a game in 2007 when Bishop was not at QB, when he went in the game every phase of the team improved, from defence to special teams.
When Bish was airlifted in to Sask last year, he started with only 1 and a half days prep, they won the game. Bishop was named offensive player of the week twice with the Riders in 2008.
As for asking the Sask guys........Well some/most of the Sask fans on line gave no credit to Bishop when he won a game, and blamed him totally for every loss.
Here is a link to Michael Bishop's career CFL stats. He has a 51.1% pass completion rate with 51 TDs and 56 interceptions over an eight year career. Unfortunately, his understanding of CFL quarterbacking has never matched his strong passing arm.http://www.cfl.ca/roster/show?id=66
Paulpearson.....Wow.........where to begin..............Bishop didn't win those games in Toronto, they won despite him........it was Stubler's defence that won the games.
Look up his TD to interception ratio (as the preceding poster just did).............the guy can't read defences, has no accuracy, no pocket presence, throws when he shouldn't, and on and on..............you may be in love with him, but really.................Bishop a smart QB?
I was terrified for the Cats when Bishop was at the controls of the blue team offense in 2007. I thought he was ultimately treated poorly by the Toronto organization (Bishop didn't get any help from his receivers in the 2007 East final, but he wasn't blameless himself). I thought the Bishop/Joseph situation was handled badly, and I felt vindication for Bishop when he had success with Saskatchewan fresh off his arrival there last year. But then, just like in Toronto, he eventually started shooting himself in the foot.
Henry Burris was criticized for a long time for choking in big games. That doesn't mean people didn't like him. He finally won the Grey Cup last year, which must have been immensley satisfying after all the crap directed his way over the years. The bad rap on Bishop is I think a little similar to what Burris had to deal with. Part of the difference may be that because Bishop has such a strong arm, some folks want to see him as one-dimensional. Some people want to assume that a man can have either brains or brawn, but not both. Maybe he's been treated differently than Burris because he doesn't have the same million dollar smile and charm that Burris has. I don't think many people are questioning Bishop's dedication or overall intelligence, but the evidence so far is that he has a history of making very costly mistakes in important games. Maybe some people are unfair in their criticism of Bishop, but criticisms of his decision-making are backed by significant evidence.