theJ Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 Sparked by @MrCincinnati's thread, and @TheVillain112 bringing it up again - did the Bengals make the right decision regarding Bullock vs. Elliott? What i posted in the other thread: Quote Well, TBF there, Elliott had no NFL tape at the time. And Bullock was much better in the preseason. He also outplayed him during the regular season. The highlight reel for Elliott looks good, but he missed a bunch of short ones and some XP's. IIRC he cost the Eagles a game because of his misses, and there was some talk about whether he would retained this year. Bullock basically missed two XP's and one FG (another FG blocked). I think they did, but what do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVillain112 Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 The key point I was trying to make in the other post was "potential". Yes, year 1 Bullock looked slightly more consistent but didn't show the deep range that Elliott did. In 5 years, I don't expect Bullock to be on our team, and I do expect Elliott to be one of the better kickers in the NFL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theJ Posted July 27, 2018 Author Share Posted July 27, 2018 1 minute ago, TheVillain112 said: The key point I was trying to make in the other post was "potential". Yes, year 1 Bullock looked slightly more consistent but didn't show the deep range that Elliott did. In 5 years, I don't expect Bullock to be on our team, and I do expect Elliott to be one of the better kickers in the NFL... Yeah i get that. Kind of hard to keep a guy for that long, who the team has to rely on, just based on potential. Especially the kicker. If it's a RB or WR you can bury on the depth chart while they learn, it's one thing. But a kicker is an island and has to perform. For example, if the guy cost the team a few games like Nugent (the year after Nugent was let go), how many guys on the team will buy a "potential" argument? Why shouldn't they have kept the guy who was better for a chance for the other guy to be better 2-3 years down the line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVillain112 Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 37 minutes ago, theJ said: Yeah i get that. Kind of hard to keep a guy for that long, who the team has to rely on, just based on potential. Especially the kicker. If it's a RB or WR you can bury on the depth chart while they learn, it's one thing. But a kicker is an island and has to perform. For example, if the guy cost the team a few games like Nugent (the year after Nugent was let go), how many guys on the team will buy a "potential" argument? Why shouldn't they have kept the guy who was better for a chance for the other guy to be better 2-3 years down the line? First, I will admit it wasn't that bad of a decision either way. That said, potential is potential. The Bengals and Marvin Lewis were kidding themselves if they thought they were winning a SB last year. You don't lose Whit and Zeitler, and think it's not a rebuilding year. Should have let Jake work through his rookie season. If not, why draft a kicker in the first place? Did they really think a rookie kicker wouldn't have struggles early in his career? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theJ Posted July 27, 2018 Author Share Posted July 27, 2018 17 minutes ago, TheVillain112 said: First, I will admit it wasn't that bad of a decision either way. That said, potential is potential. The Bengals and Marvin Lewis were kidding themselves if they thought they were winning a SB last year. You don't lose Whit and Zeitler, and think it's not a rebuilding year. Should have let Jake work through his rookie season. If not, why draft a kicker in the first place? Did they really think a rookie kicker wouldn't have struggles early in his career? Yeah i think they expected it, and were willing to cut Bullock even if he was better. But he wasn't just better, he was significantly better. So they had to make a call. Tough one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Nix Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 2 hours ago, TheVillain112 said: The Bengals and Marvin Lewis were kidding themselves if they thought they were winning a SB last year. You don't lose Whit and Zeitler, and think it's not a rebuilding year. Unfortunately, I think they were delusional enough to think so. Everyone saw the o-line problems coming a mile away, but some people just think problems fix themselves. The Bengals held a head to head competition, which Bullock fairly won. You don't say things are going to be fair and open and then give it to the guy you want anyway. Bullock actually didn't have a bad year, he just isn't anything special and its hard to have confidence in him to make clutch kicks. Elliot missed his fair share of kicks and the only reason people complain about it is because he hit that 60 yarder. Its just like golf, drive for show, putt for dough, and unfortunately Elliot missed too many short ones. I'm sure Elliot will be one of the good ones in the future, but I don't think kickers are THAT hard to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INbengalfan Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 They absolutely should have kept Elliott for the reasons already stated above. The team was not going to be that good, roster was turning over, and although Bullock was better short term, on a site like Football's Future, I think we all take potential in the long term over short term. If Elliott would have lost a game, what would it matter? I said it last year, but I think it bears repeating. It is rather odd that trhe position of KICKER was Marvin decided to draw the line for absolute competiton. Where was this with Livings/Mathis, Hill/Bernard, Mixon and Burkhead, and several other key examples? I've seen plenty of examples of guys outplaying their compettiion and still riding the pine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theJ Posted July 27, 2018 Author Share Posted July 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, INbengalfan said: I said it last year, but I think it bears repeating. It is rather odd that trhe position of KICKER was Marvin decided to draw the line for absolute competiton. Where was this with Livings/Mathis, Hill/Bernard, Mixon and Burkhead, and several other key examples? That's a really good point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVillain112 Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 36 minutes ago, INbengalfan said: I said it last year, but I think it bears repeating. It is rather odd that trhe position of KICKER was Marvin decided to draw the line for absolute competiton. Where was this with Livings/Mathis, Hill/Bernard, Mixon and Burkhead, and several other key examples? Quoted because this is the truth! Could not have said it any better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCincinnati Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 My answer is IDK. Bullock was much better than what I expected he would be since he only missed 2 FG's, but only had 20 attempts since the offense is garbage. Elliott in the same scenario would probably have close to the same, he got more opportunities with the Eagles since they could actually score points. And while he was 26 for 31 during the regular season, he was 7 for 7 in the postseason, which means he had nearly twice as many attempts as Bullock and was still very effective. I can tell you right now the Eagles would not have won the super bowl without Elliott, so that's probably the answer your looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.