Desmond Bishop Spurns Kansas City Chiefs, Opts for Revenge With Vikings

There are 141 comments on the JustBlogBaby story from Jun 24, 2013, titled Desmond Bishop Spurns Kansas City Chiefs, Opts for Revenge With Vikings. In it, JustBlogBaby reports that:

Raiders fans can breathe a little easier as well as being able to poke a little fun at their AFC West rivals as the Kansas City Chiefs will not be landing the services of former Super Bowl champion linebacker Desmond Bishop as the former Packer has decided to join the Minnesota Vikings.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at JustBlogBaby.

“HHhhhoooowwwlll”

Since: Feb 08

Craigville

#81 Jun 30, 2013
GBPfan wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey idiot. Check the SOS for all NFL teams. The bottom teams generally have the hardest schedules. Again, it is because they have to play the teams in their division twice all of whom had better records. The Panthers, Saints and Rams also have tough schedules based upon last season records. I can tutor you if you need the help. Math isn't nearly as difficult as you seem to make it.
I'm not in favor of the current system if the NFL truly wants equipoise. I would still like to see two games against divisional teams, but use the whole NFL for building the rest of the schedule instead of alternating divisions. I’ll send a Viking fan to interpret for you.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#82 Jun 30, 2013
The best part of this years schedule is the Packers third week bye.The Vikings have a fourth but we do allot of rotating players all year.Still gonna be tough for like say the oline cause nobodies gonna rotate for Kalil or Loadholt unless their hurt.The Packers oline will be stressed to the max.13 straight games.
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#83 Jun 30, 2013
40for60 wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the math guru who just got done admonishing Viking fans about our 'soft' schedule last year when the packers had a 'softer' schedule. College degrees aren't free with a fill; hate to break it to you.
Says the moron that already pointed out that the difference between the Packer and Viking schedules lason was that the Vikings played two last place teams, while the Packers played two first place teams. You aren't even smart enough to pay attention to what YOU say!

But you did (I assume accidentally since you don't understand the math) make a good "SOS" argument for the Vikings having the harder schedule. The Vikings had the harder schedule because they had to play the 15-1 Packers twice, while the Packers had a softer schedule because they had to play the 3-13 Vikings twice. When I said the Vikings had a softer schedule I thought perhaps you were (like most Viking fans) delusuionally under the impression the Vikings are on a par with the Packers. If you are admitting that the Packers are a far superior team, then of course the Vikings had the tougher schedule! Isn't math great? I like it! But then again I'm one of those people with schoolin that you hate and envy so much. ROFLMAO
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#84 Jun 30, 2013
40for60 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not in favor of the current system if the NFL truly wants equipoise. I would still like to see two games against divisional teams, but use the whole NFL for building the rest of the schedule instead of alternating divisions. I’ll send a Viking fan to interpret for you.
The NFL's current system does use the rest of the NFL for doing the rest of the schedule! As you said it does it on an alternating division basis. What the heck do you fantasize will happen if the NFL chose to do it with a different method than the alternating division method? The NFL would still match teams within divisions largely against the same opponents in order to make the schedules mostly even.

You apparently believe the system could be improved because you don't fully understand it. The Lions play the same teams as the Packers and Vikings, with the exception that (because of the Lions finishing in last) they get to play two last place teams. The two teams they play NOT in common with the rest of the division is designed to even up the statistical anomoly (necessarily) created by the NFL's calculation of SOS. In fact, the Lions do NOT have the harder schedule.

You are making a big deal out of "SOS" simply because you don't understand how it is calculated or why a team like the Lions has a hard "SOS" schedule. It is the same reason as why the Vikings had a relatively tough "SOS" last season. The bottom team "softens" the schedule for every team in their division from a SOS point of view. Really, if you just don't get it, don't be embarrassed. Do you want to keep making the same mistake over and over again? Oops. You are a Viking fan. I guess the answer to that question goes without saying.

“HHhhhoooowwwlll”

Since: Feb 08

Craigville

#85 Jun 30, 2013
GBPfan wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the moron that already pointed out that the difference between the Packer and Viking schedules lason was that the Vikings played two last place teams
Calling anyone a 'moron' then going on to say lason instead of last season is special. Put your helmet back on lest you hurt yourself again.....
I say the schedules can be more uniform by using all NFL teams for building schedules, not alternating divisions. You don’t agree, who gives a rats assssss. Trying to convince yourself that I don’t understand SOS is akin to pissing into the wind, but par for the packer fan course.
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#86 Jun 30, 2013
Call the NFL and try to explain your idea of a more "uniform" schedule. At a minimum, I will get a laugh and you will learn what it means not to gives a rat's ass.

You should just accept the benefit of getting an easier schedule (except for having to play the Packers) every year when the Vikings finish behind us.
GBPmies

Piikkiö, Finland

#87 Jun 30, 2013
Bleeds Purple wrote:
The best part of this years schedule is the Packers third week bye.The Vikings have a fourth but we do allot of rotating players all year.Still gonna be tough for like say the oline cause nobodies gonna rotate for Kalil or Loadholt unless their hurt.The Packers oline will be stressed to the max.13 straight games.
Were you drunk when you wrote this?

The Packers have a wk 4 bye
vikngs have 5th wk bye
and no team has a wk 3 bye. That would be dumb.

But since the Pack get to start the season against Kaep followed by RG3.... an early bye to catch their breath could be nice.

They do get to play the vikings in GB week 12 so that helps for rest later in the season. That is almost like a bye, well maybe any easy scrimmage.
eric

Monroe, WI

#88 Jun 30, 2013
Off the subject a bit,MLB next year will have teams play their own division not quite as many but play everyone at least once if it goes through which last i heard it will go through or it will go through, so, everyone playing everyone and your division a bit more will be tried ( as 40 lightly suggested) and if MLB and their unions ( strongest in sports) passes it, im sure NFL isnt to far behind ( of course 16 games, so it will have to be adjusted abit but we can see 6 division games and 10 games vs others not just alternate divisions)

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#89 Jun 30, 2013
GBPmies wrote:
<quoted text>
Were you drunk when you wrote this?
The Packers have a wk 4 bye
vikngs have 5th wk bye
and no team has a wk 3 bye. That would be dumb.
But since the Pack get to start the season against Kaep followed by RG3.... an early bye to catch their breath could be nice.
They do get to play the vikings in GB week 12 so that helps for rest later in the season. That is almost like a bye, well maybe any easy scrimmage.
I stand corrected but Im still right about the 13 straight games.
viking nation

Madera, CA

#90 Jun 30, 2013
Whats the reason for the Panthers schedule They are in a division where Falcons are 13-3 but all the others are all under .500 its not the teams in their division thats giving them a harder schedule playing the Falcons twice wasn't the reason however it does help raise it. the other teams they play thoughout the year give them a harder schedule. Five of the other eight teams are winning teams Seahawks , Giants , Vikings , 49ers , Patriots. What GBPfan is saying is true but its not always the case.
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#91 Jul 1, 2013
Congratulations 40. You are as mathematically hamdicapped as EZG. My offer to explain it further stands for you. I have no intention of explaining anything to a valor stealing POS like EZG/Viking Nation. Besides he proved many thousand posts ago that he is "SOS" retarded. I have no intention of getting him started on one of those tangents.
normallylikeyell ow

Altoona, PA

#92 Jul 1, 2013
I blame the schedule on Desmond Bishop. But seriously, WHEN you play certain teams on the schedule and your success has a significant statistical correlation. If you lose week 1, your playoff qualifying chances drop to under 30%. If you drop your first 2 games, it drops to under 13%. GB defied the first stat last year. And in some ways opening against SF is a decent barometer, it does carry that disadvantage. Opening against 3 straight playoff teams is also tough.
eric

Monroe, WI

#93 Jul 1, 2013
normallylikeyellow wrote:
I blame the schedule on Desmond Bishop. But seriously, WHEN you play certain teams on the schedule and your success has a significant statistical correlation. If you lose week 1, your playoff qualifying chances drop to under 30%. If you drop your first 2 games, it drops to under 13%. GB defied the first stat last year. And in some ways opening against SF is a decent barometer, it does carry that disadvantage. Opening against 3 straight playoff teams is also tough.
Very true..Hopefully, Coach Mc will do something a bit differently,may it be a bit longer practice, or playing the starters a bit longer in camp/preseason games and get them in better shape and we can avoid the annual slow start.I would have liked to have seen a change in the strength and conditioning staff as well..

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#94 Jul 1, 2013
Let the best team win.The Packers do play the Redskins at home whereas the Vikings had to play them on the road last year.When the Packers play the Redskins theyll probably be without RG3or an RG3 whos not completely recovered.Does anybody really consider the Bengals a top team after last year.After the bye the Packers have two home games against the Lions and Cleveland.The toughest game will be week 8 at the Vikings.The Vikings dont exactly have an easy schedule having to play the Lions and Bears away right of the bat.After the bye we have to play at the Giants and at the cowboys and then redskins and by that time RG3 will probably be healthy.If anything the Vikings have it worse but thats alright cause you arent going very far if you cant beat some of these teams.
GBPmies

Finland

#95 Jul 1, 2013
Bleeds Purple wrote:
Let the best team win.The Packers do play the Redskins at home whereas the Vikings had to play them on the road last year.When the Packers play the Redskins theyll probably be without RG3or an RG3 whos not completely recovered.Does anybody really consider the Bengals a top team after last year.After the bye the Packers have two home games against the Lions and Cleveland.The toughest game will be week 8 at the Vikings.The Vikings dont exactly have an easy schedule having to play the Lions and Bears away right of the bat.After the bye we have to play at the Giants and at the cowboys and then redskins and by that time RG3 will probably be healthy.If anything the Vikings have it worse but thats alright cause you arent going very far if you cant beat some of these teams.
Yes Yes, Like I always say may the best team win, and if that doesn’t happen congrats to the vikes, bears, or lions.:)

I think we all have a tougher schedule this year and there may be only 1 team from the North in the playoffs this year... The NFC is pretty tough. I suspect either the Seahawks or the 9ers to take one wild card spot.... leaving the other open to many possibilities.
GBPmies

Finland

#96 Jul 1, 2013
viking nation wrote:
Whats the reason for the Panthers schedule They are in a division where Falcons are 13-3 but all the others are all under .500 its not the teams in their division thats giving them a harder schedule playing the Falcons twice wasn't the reason however it does help raise it. the other teams they play thoughout the year give them a harder schedule. Five of the other eight teams are winning teams Seahawks , Giants , Vikings , 49ers , Patriots. What GBPfan is saying is true but its not always the case.
IF you can’t figure out SOS you are a complete and utter dumb A S S! It is not rocket science, do the math if you want to know why the numbers are what they are.

Here, I gave EZG this link 15 billion times and the dumbsh** could never figure it out. It is a very very simple formula.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Footbal...

EZG then made up his own stupid way of counting SOS. If you are not EZG you could prove it by showing the slightest understanding of SOS. It would go a long way to proving you are not that POS EZG if you can understand the link and how it is presented by the entire world.

This the ONLY correct way of listing SOS
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/7...

Just out of curiosity! How do you list the CORRECT way of showing SOS, like ESPN above and all the other sites, or do you have some other way? I asked before but didn’t get a response.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#97 Jul 1, 2013
GBPmies wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Yes, Like I always say may the best team win, and if that doesn’t happen congrats to the vikes, bears, or lions.:)
I think we all have a tougher schedule this year and there may be only 1 team from the North in the playoffs this year... The NFC is pretty tough. I suspect either the Seahawks or the 9ers to take one wild card spot.... leaving the other open to many possibilities.
HA HA HA,Well see what happens on the field.How come you rate the Seahawks so high when their basically play the same as the Vikings minus Adrian Peterson.The only place they may be better is the secondary and thats yet to be seen.Is it because you just go with what the analysts say.Russell Wilson gets more credit than he deserves.Hes worse than Ponder except he runs more.Plus I heard Sidney Rice might be on his way out in Seattle because hes being paid about twice as much as hes worth.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#98 Jul 1, 2013
GBPmies

Finland

#99 Jul 1, 2013
Bleeds Purple wrote:
<quoted text>HA HA HA,Well see what happens on the field.How come you rate the Seahawks so high when their basically play the same as the Vikings minus Adrian Peterson.The only place they may be better is the secondary and thats yet to be seen.Is it because you just go with what the analysts say.Russell Wilson gets more credit than he deserves.Hes worse than Ponder except he runs more.Plus I heard Sidney Rice might be on his way out in Seattle because hes being paid about twice as much as hes worth.
I only go with what the pundits say really. LOL

Or I base my opinions on the games I have watched, which is very many since I live in Finland with not much else to do in the winter (very dark outside all the time) and I have NFL Game Pass and Game rewind. My job is actually very easy too so I have plenty of time to watch many games and condensed games. I don’t see a whole lot of weaknesses in the Seahawks and I think Wilson looked pretty damn good last year. Sure he can run but he is also very poised and can make most throws (even throws that go past 20 yrds… cough cough ponder sucks) They also have a balanced offense and a much better defence and way better secondary. I would think Harvin is an upgrade over Rice, whom IMO is overrated except that 1 yr with Favre as his QB. Weird how Rice and Harvin are both with Seattle (for now). For that salary I would cut Rice but with Harvin's injuries maybe they need him.

Just so you know I hate the seahawks, not because of the fail mary, because they are a bunch of loud mouth dbags who act like they are the champs, but aren’t. I like the vikings more than the seahawks, at least they don’t talk so much crap… they used too but lately they have been pretty cool… maybe it is all the Packer domination or influence and leadership helping them out.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#100 Jul 1, 2013
GBPmies wrote:
<quoted text>
I only go with what the pundits say really. LOL
Or I base my opinions on the games I have watched, which is very many since I live in Finland with not much else to do in the winter (very dark outside all the time) and I have NFL Game Pass and Game rewind. My job is actually very easy too so I have plenty of time to watch many games and condensed games. I don’t see a whole lot of weaknesses in the Seahawks and I think Wilson looked pretty damn good last year. Sure he can run but he is also very poised and can make most throws (even throws that go past 20 yrds… cough cough ponder sucks) They also have a balanced offense and a much better defence and way better secondary. I would think Harvin is an upgrade over Rice, whom IMO is overrated except that 1 yr with Favre as his QB. Weird how Rice and Harvin are both with Seattle (for now). For that salary I would cut Rice but with Harvin's injuries maybe they need him.
Just so you know I hate the seahawks, not because of the fail mary, because they are a bunch of loud mouth dbags who act like they are the champs, but aren’t. I like the vikings more than the seahawks, at least they don’t talk so much crap… they used too but lately they have been pretty cool… maybe it is all the Packer domination or influence and leadership helping them out.
So youre really giving Wilson credit for running the ball much like Kaepernick because Wilson was 25th in pass attempts.Its the read options that makes all these quarterbacks look better.Ill have to see this year before I believe it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Green Bay Packers Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Wisconsin man thought he was going to die on Mo... May 16 tom wingo 8
Congats!!!! May 12 goatit 8
News A Brett is back in Green Bay: Packers nab UCLA'... May 5 Laughing Bear Fan 1
News New pub coming to Lambeau Field May 4 tom wingo 11
GB pick is May 2 eric 14
NFL draft May 1 eric 21
News Favre's No. 4 to be retired Thanksgiving night Apr 25 david 13
More from around the web