The return of Michael Bishop?

A possible temporary replacement for Drew Tate according to Al Cameron of the Calgary Herald:

There are certain provisions to keep in mind while speculating about the man the Stamps will unveil on Monday as a temporary replacement for No. 2 quarterback Drew Tate. He will have to have experience in the league; the Stamps simply can’t take the chance of dressing two unproven quarterbacks behind Henry Burris. He will have to arrive with the understanding that his employment will be of the temporary variety; it is Tate’s job once he gets healthy, and Brad Sinopoli is here to develop. And he will have to come at a fairly cheap price; the Stamps have plenty of cash tied up in Burris and Tate, and the spreadsheet doesn’t have a lot of money lying around to pay a replacement quarterback. It’s one of the reasons John Hufnagel said during the off-season that he won’t carry a fourth quarterback on the practice roster. Keep all these factors in mind (and understand that Cody Pickett turned down an offer because he’s got a baby at home in Boise, along with a growing insurance business) when speculating on candidates. Steve Gachette was cut to keep Sinopoli. End of discussion. Daryll Clark was cut to bring Gachette to camp. Enough said. The likes of Chris Leak and Zac Champion would almost surely cost too much. Taking all of that into account, you can bet the Stamps will undoubtedly have an interest in Michael Bishop, and I have a good feeling he’ll be the man taking snaps with Burris and Sinopoli at Monday morning’s practice. He hasn’t played a CFL down since 2009, but was known to be interested in returning to the league. He’ll know his role. He’s got the experience. Heck, he’s even got a tie to the Stamps’ organization: he was on the team’s neg list coming out of Kansas State before his rights were traded to Toronto prior to the 2002 season in return for long-snapper Michel Dupuis.
[url]http://communities.canada.com/calgaryherald/blogs/stampsinsider/archive/2011/06/25/qb-candidates-bishop-should-be-in-the-mix.aspx[/url]

lol... thats all I have to say

+1 :lol:

[url=http://www.sportsnet.ca/football/cfl/2011/06/26/bishop_stampeders/]http://www.sportsnet.ca/football/cfl/20 ... tampeders/[/url]

Mike Bishop heading to Calgary.

Nothing like having a QB that will overthrow your WR's by 30 yards.Best of luck completing a pass there buddy boy :lol:

What makes you think he'll actually play? Burris would have to be hurt before that would happen. Until Tate's back if there is any garbage time, Sinopoli will get the reps, not Bishop.

Besides, can you think of any other QB who would be willing to come in under the circumstances Cameron laid out?

The only really, really negative thing about Bishop signing with the Stamps is it may bring that %(#&%(*#$ Bishop fan back under some screen name that hasn't been banned yet (please, mods, please say his IP address was banned - I know you know who I'm talking about).

argotom or argoT is the bishop fan. he's still here.

That is not the one to whom she refers . . .

guess Rickie Foggie was unavailable.
I have nothing against the guy personally, he seems pretty cool. However, he has had his chance, he wasn't good enough. No shame in that but after a while ya just gotta give it up.

…Michael definitely has a cannon for an arm…unfortunately the rest of his game misfires…He’s good for a couple of quarters then it’s time to give him the hook…Good luck stamps but if Burris ain’t behind centre you better pray that Sinopoli finds his game fast… :lol: …

Though he is just as bad with his Bishop love. :lol:

No, not even in the same league. . .

As a stamps fan, I'm not excited about mb being on the roster. I would have prefered printers if anyone. I have written about that in the stamps forum before. I hoped this would be the year with no KJ or bishop. Even zabransky woulda been better then bishop. Usually I trust the huff... Not so sure on this one

I'm assuming you're talking "synapses"

Good comment Blue Blood

Calgary has a pretty good QB lineup... Burris is a proven starter, Tate is a serviceable backup with potential to be a starter and Sinopoli is a long term project. IMO that's exactly what you're looking for in your 1-2-3 QB's.

So what does a GM do if the #1 or #2 go down? It seems like there is usually 3 teams with good QB's, 3 teams with serviceable QB's and a couple of teams with big question marks at QB. So there just aren't any good QB's available in the league... sure there are some backups with potential but none of those backups are available.

So you have to pick up a QB who isn't in the league... which by definition means that QB has some pretty significant flaws. But hopefully you'll get a QB who has started more than a handful of games, has won some of those games and who has some tools to work with.

That's Michael Bishop... a one time starter, he's won some games, has some flaws in his game and he's available. If he didn't have those flaws in his game, he'd still be in the league.

I'm not a Michael Bishop fan, all of the starters in the league (except maybe Cleo Lemon) are better than him and most of the backups in the league (except maybe Kerry Joseph) have more potential upside. But of the available pool of "talent" Huff had to chose from, Michael Bishop isn't much better or much worse than the alternatives.

What about Chris Leak? Surely he would have more upside than Michael Bishop. Not that I'm complaining - I would much prefer Calgary with MB as a backup to Henry.

surprising no one converted Bish to R.B. (just let him throw a flea flicker now and then)

Bishop is there because he is a temporary fill-in (hopefully) while real # 2 QB heals his shoulder.

Leak, or anyone else in his situation, is looking for an opportunity for the future, not a temporary gig. Bishop was desperate enough to take this job with the slim hope that another "opportunity" will arise to resurrect his football career.