The topic of the week, which happens be literally the only topic of the week, is the decision of linebacker Desmond Bishop to choose the Vikings over multiple other offers.  Details of his deal have been revealed and it appears Rick Spielman signed a high-upside player to a very low-risk one year contract.  Bishop’s deal is reportedly worth up to $1.35 million, with playing time incentives built in, which is a bargain by just about anyone’s standards.  Even Erin Henderson, who Bishop is expected to force back to the weak side position, will make more money this season than Bishop.

So, despite the lack of experience in a 4-3 defense and his recent injury woes, I can’t see why anyone would have any issue with this signing.  Some might be expecting far too much from our new linebacker, but I just fail to see the downside.

Now is your chance to voice your opinion, however, so use the poll below and the comments section to let us know what you are thinking.


  1. The signing of Bishop is great for the Vikings. Linebacker was the one position of need that analysts thought Minnesota should have dealt with earlier in the draft and now they have filled that hole with Bishop. Plus Bishop will be flying around the field with extra motivation when the Packers play the Vikes!

  2. I would be surprised if he winds up being the answer at MLB. But you never know….I hope so. I gave it a B, it does seem low risk.

  3. Bishop will never be mistaken for Jeff Meta Universal Hunk of Man Meat Dugan.

    ……. and thank goodness for that

    If Adam ever gets his okole in gear and sets up a VT FFL, I’m calling dibs on Dugan and Fred Evans.

  4. This is a win-win signing.. We had a little bit cap room, he was a cheap signing.. worse case scenario is training camp competetion got a lot better.

  5. I do not know how the Vikes can lose with this signing. As far as his lack of playing in a 4-3, well that is not true according to him. He has played in a 4-3 all his career except for the last 1 to 2 years when the Puckers switched to a 3-4. They had a good interview with him on PFT the other day and he talked about that. Greg Jennings he said also played a role with his signing with the Vikes.

  6. Low risk – high reward. I like it.
    Is Bishop an upgrade? Yes
    Do I think he is the long term answer? Probably Not.
    Will he make it through all 16 games healthy? Probably Not.
    I like the signing, but I can only give it a “B”.
    A ruptured hamstring tendon is a serious injury.

  7. I gave it an A. Looks like a no brainer to me. If my memory serves me correctly he had some good games against the Vikes?

  8. I don’t see how you don’t give this move an A. Worst case scenario the guy gets injured and is a non-factor eating up a minimum deal. That’s a small price to pay for the ceiling of him being an enforcer in the run game and a step up from what we dealt with last year in pass coverage. The reward certainly out-weighs the risk for me. They needed an above average veteran presence to round out this group. I also think that when it comes down to the final roster cuts he will probably end up taking the place of a guy like Mitchell or McKenize instead of one of the younger guys such as Cole or Mauti. It’s likely just a veteran upgrade for this coming season but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he ends up being a key piece of our defense this season.


Leave a Reply