+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Cincinnati-Bengals-NFL)
+--- Forum: JUNGLE NOISE (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-JUNGLE-NOISE)
+--- Thread: Is there a need to keep Randy Bullock the rest of the year? (/Thread-Is-there-a-need-to-keep-Randy-Bullock-the-rest-of-the-year)
Is there a need to keep Randy Bullock the rest of the year? - ochocincos - 10-25-2020
One thing I didn't realize at the time of the Bengals claiming Austin Seibert was that he still has 3 years left on his contract beyond this year.
He's been a healthy inactive with the Bengals since he joined, yet has been kept on the 53.
The assumption is because they don't want to risk him hitting waivers.
As such, it made me wonder why the Bengals are bothering to hold onto Randy Bullock.
Bullock is in a contract year, and will make $1.875 mill.
The amount he's been paid to date has been his bonuses ($350k) plus six weeks of his base salary ($538k).
In total, that's $888k.
The Bengals are obviously playing Bullock today, so he is going to get another $89,705.
That would put his season earnings at $978k.
Given the cap is expected to go down next year, having another K on the roster already, and the Bengals very likely not making the playoffs unless they can win probably 8-9 of their remaining 10 games, does it make sense to keep Bullock through the rest of the year?
Cutting Bullock after Week 7 would result in a cap savings of $897k. He would have no dead cap hit remaining since he's already been paid his bonuses.
It's not a lot, but every near-million could be valuable to sign the needed FAs, as the Bengals have 26 guys set to hit FA, including a few key guys who will command bigger payouts in WJ3 and Lawson, plus potential need/desire to extend Bates, Hubbard, and/or Phillips.
RE: Is there a need to keep Randy Bullock the rest of the year? - kevin - 10-25-2020
Considering Bullock is putting up some of the best kicking stats in NFL this year, even doing better than Chiefs kicker, YES, there is a reason to keep Bullock. No missed extra points and only 2 missed field goals, he is one of the leaders in kicking in NFL in 2020.
RE: Is there a need to keep Randy Bullock the rest of the year? - Destro - 10-25-2020
Bullock is better, that's why he is here. Cut him, he gets picked up by someone else, we are stuck with Seibert.
RE: Is there a need to keep Randy Bullock the rest of the year? - reuben.ahmed - 10-25-2020
i was thinking based on your username this was a plot to get chad johnson to kick
RE: Is there a need to keep Randy Bullock the rest of the year? - Yojimbo - 10-25-2020
(10-25-2020, 01:15 PM)ochocincos Wrote: One thing I didn't realize at the time of the Bengals claiming Austin Seibert was that he still has 3 years left on his contract beyond this year.
He's been a healthy inactive with the Bengals since he joined, yet has been kept on the 53.
The assumption is because they don't want to risk him hitting waivers.
As such, it made me wonder why the Bengals are bothering to hold onto Randy Bullock.
Bullock is in a contract year, and will make $1.875 mill.
The amount he's been paid to date has been his bonuses ($350k) plus six weeks of his base salary ($538k).
In total, that's $888k.
The Bengals are obviously playing Bullock today, so he is going to get another $89,705.
That would put his season earnings at $978k.
Given the cap is expected to go down next year, having another K on the roster already, and the Bengals very likely not making the playoffs unless they can win probably 8-9 of their remaining 10 games, does it make sense to keep Bullock through the rest of the year?
Cutting Bullock after Week 7 would result in a cap savings of $897k. He would have no dead cap hit remaining since he's already been paid his bonuses.
It's not a lot, but every near-million could be valuable to sign the needed FAs, as the Bengals have 26 guys set to hit FA, including a few key guys who will command bigger payouts in WJ3 and Lawson, plus potential need/desire to extend Bates, Hubbard, and/or Phillips.
I doubt Zac wants to go down to one kicker. He said the reason they are keeping Seibert around is because of the covid testing rules. I don’t really agree with that philosophy, but I would say that about most of what Zac Turner does.
RE: Is there a need to keep Randy Bullock the rest of the year? - JSR18 - 10-25-2020
(10-25-2020, 01:21 PM)kevin Wrote: Considering Bullock is putting up some of the best kicking stats in NFL this year, even doing better than Chiefs kicker, YES, there is a reason to keep Bullock. No missed extra points and only 2 missed field goals, he is one of the leaders in kicking in NFL in 2020.
I can't disagree with the majority of your post, which is maddening.However, I can comment on those 2 missed FG's; very, very costly. Fat Randy is somewhat of choke artist with big kicks...
RE: Is there a need to keep Randy Bullock the rest of the year? - ochocincos - 10-25-2020
(10-25-2020, 01:21 PM)Destro Wrote: Bullock is better, that's why he is here. Cut him, he gets picked up by someone else, we are stuck with Seibert.
And? The team has 1 win. Bullock is a FA after this year. Bullock ain't the missing piece to turn this team into a contender.
RE: Is there a need to keep Randy Bullock the rest of the year? - ochocincos - 10-25-2020
(10-25-2020, 01:21 PM)kevin Wrote: Considering Bullock is putting up some of the best kicking stats in NFL this year, even doing better than Chiefs kicker, YES, there is a reason to keep Bullock. No missed extra points and only 2 missed field goals, he is one of the leaders in kicking in NFL in 2020.
But this team is not competing for playoffs this year.
Unless the team plans to re-sign Bullock in the offseason, may as well get some cap space back to roll over to next year.
RE: Is there a need to keep Randy Bullock the rest of the year? - ochocincos - 10-25-2020
(10-25-2020, 01:21 PM)kevin Wrote: Considering Bullock is putting up some of the best kicking stats in NFL this year, even doing better than Chiefs kicker, YES, there is a reason to keep Bullock. No missed extra points and only 2 missed field goals, he is one of the leaders in kicking in NFL in 2020.
You are talking about Harrison Butker, who has a higher FG percentage than Bullock.
Butker has only missed one FG whereas Bullock as missed two.
Bullock hasn't missed a XP though, whereas Butker has missed 4.
RE: Is there a need to keep Randy Bullock the rest of the year? - Destro - 10-25-2020
(10-25-2020, 01:30 PM)ochocincos Wrote: And? The team has 1 win. Bullock is a FA after this year. Bullock ain't the missing piece to turn this team into a contender.
So? Get worse for no reason. Why downgrade a position. People can argue about the contracts and worth of certain players, but just getting rid of a player just because is stupid. Not going to happen. Shedding a kicker isn't a positive for this team.
RE: Is there a need to keep Randy Bullock the rest of the year? - SunsetBengal - 10-25-2020
Randy Bullock, he's easy money, until it really counts..
RE: Is there a need to keep Randy Bullock the rest of the year? - motoarch - 10-25-2020
This is a stupid thread.
RE: Is there a need to keep Randy Bullock the rest of the year? - fredtoast - 10-25-2020
(10-25-2020, 01:29 PM)JSR18 Wrote: Fat Randy is somewhat of choke artist with big kicks...
(10-25-2020, 01:45 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Randy Bullock, he's easy money, until it really counts..
As a Bengal Bullock is 5-7 on FGs in the final 2 minutes of the fourth quarter and one of the two misses was due to a cramp. Overall he is 29-34 in the 4th quarter.
He is 15-16 in the final 2 minutes of the first half with his only miss from 53 yards.
He has hit multiple clutch kicks in the 4th quarter including
-Game winning 44 yd FG against Tampa Bay in 2018 with no time left on the clock.
-2018 he tied the game against the Steelers with a FG with 6 minutes left in the 4th quarter.
-2018 he hit a go ahead FG against the Dolphins with 3 minutes left.
-51 yd FG to give us a 2 point lead over the Lions in 2017 with less than 5 minutes left in the game.
-2019 43 yard FG with less than five minutes left to give us the lead against the Bills.
Is there a need to keep Randy Bullock the rest of the year? - JSR18 - 10-25-2020
I know I flip-flop on Fat Randy. I just can't get warm fuzzy comfortable feeling when he's out there. Even though I prob should...
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
RE: Is there a need to keep Randy Bullock the rest of the year? - JSR18 - 10-25-2020
(10-25-2020, 01:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: As a Bengal Bullock is 5-7 on FGs in the final 2 minutes of the fourth quarter and one of the two misses was due to a cramp. Overall he is 29-34 in the 4th quarter.My point was the 2 FGs THIS year. Not 2018/19. What has happend in the past is in the past.
He is 15-16 in the final 2 minutes of the first half with his only miss from 53 yards.
He has hit multiple clutch kicks in the 4th quarter including
-Game winning 44 yd2 FG against Tampa Bay in 2018 with no time left on the clock.
-2018 he tied the game against the Steelers with a FG with 6 minutes left in the 4th quarter.
-2018 he hit a go ahead FG against the Dolphins with 3 minutes left.
-51 yd FG to give us a 2 point lead over the Lions in 2017 with less than 5 minutes left in the game.
-2019 43 yard FG with less than five minutes left to give us the lead against the Bills.
I'm not buying that cramp either. He may win an Oscar for that...
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk