I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I am looking for a distinction. Because here is the thing, bishops and priests are of course shepherds, and Christ was a shepherd to his people and etc. But what I am trying to advocate is an ECCLESIOLOGICAL principle that Christ was a bishop, in the sense of how a bishop operates, lives, directs, etc.
To say that he was a shepherd is not a strong enough correlation in terms of what Christ did or what bishops do. Yes, the imagery is there, yes it is good for our understanding of what is the major action of bishops, but not in terms of ecclesiology. Ecclesiologically we say that that we need the ministry of the one that unites the many. That one is the bishop. The many are the people. So, in accordance with this principle, it would not make as much sense to say that the one is the "shepherd" because the shepherd could be a number of people, and does not necessarily designate the office of bishop.
Maybe I am convoluting it too much. I don't think that the terms are diametrically opposed, but neither is "shepherd" really what i'm looking for. But you know....now that I think about it more...maybe calling Christ the "shepherd" instead of bishop is really what i'm looking for...
At the same time, by him being the shepherd that would make all of us sheep, and therefore powerless in a sense. So perhaps the concept of "bishop" is better, as the one that unites the many, and etc.