04-28-2018, 01:31 PM
(04-28-2018, 01:00 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: may have happened which would have been a great outcome for Randy and a great outcome for us to as we would still have the better kicker long term and cheaper too.
But does Randy kick 60 yard field goals to win games for the Eagles helping them win games and win division? I say no way.
"Better kicker long term" is debatable and still to be determined. You could make an argument for either one right now, based on results. Bullock is only 28 years old and could easily kick for 8 more years or so, so I don't see a big difference in longevity. Bullock is only 300k more expensive right now, and I don't see Bullock making more than a couple million per on his next deal (average vet kicker money).
I just don't see much difference between the two. If Elliott didn't have the issue with missing chip shots - and Bullock was actually missing FG's - I'd understand the grief. But Elliott does have that deficiency and Bullock is hitting FG's at a great rate.
As for the Eagles, they routinely blew teams out last year. The only game that Elliott "won" for them was vs the Giants, when Elliott hit the 61 yarder. I assume this is what you're referring to. But the Eagles wouldn't have needed the heroics if Elliott hadn't missed the 52 yarder in the 3rd quarter.
Elliott missed 8 kicks in 15 games last year, but none of it mattered. The Eagles would've taken almost any kicker on that ride.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
