Jon Brown

[CJD]

(08-21-2018, 12:02 AM)Essex Johnson Wrote: What stats show it? The last time I looked you get 3 pts for a field goal and no points for a miss. Also I like how you passed over the dreadful practice and preseason Elliot had, the Bengals gave him every opportunity to win the job, last year there was pressure on both kickers neither were perfect but Bullock outperformed him and then clearly was more accurate last year. To be honest not sure why elliot matters this year, Bullock took the job performed above avg. And has the job now. You are being critical of Bullock, he made his only chance over 50, so be critical of organization for not allowing him more chances.

The stats of him going 17-19 from beyond 40 yards (20-22 including the post season) or a 91% clip. Randy Bullock's career numbers in 40+ is just under 70% (though he was 5-6 this season, so 83%). The stats of him breaking the rookie record for distance. The stats that have him making the same number of 50+ yard field goals (6) in his rookie year as Bullock has made in his entire career, at a significantly better percentage (86% for Elliot, 50% for Bullock). 

If you count his post season, he went 7-7 on their way to the super bowl, his percentage increases to 87%.

Looking at percentage of kicks made with a sample size as small as 20 kicks (which is what Bullock had) means that just 1 of those kicks not going through drops his percentage to 85%, so it's hard to ignore every other measurement of success and lean entirely on FG% as your gold standard for a kicker, especially when the two kickers are close in percentage over the course of the games that counted.

Calling Elliot's pre-season dreadful is a bit of an exaggeration. He missed 3 of his field goals, but 1 was a last second 60 yard FG that no one expected him to make (and he very nearly made). So, really, he went 4 for 6.

But drafting a guy, giving him 7 total kicks and then kicking him off the team (which is what you're doing by putting a cannon-legged kicker on your practice squad) because a journeyman kicker made more kicks in that 4 game stretch is just not a good decision.

Also, I'm explicitly not being critical of Bullock. I'm being critical of the organization. Hence the "they made a mistake not keeping Elliot."

That wasn't Bullock's decision. That was the Bengals' decision. Which is why I'm criticizing them. Choosing Bullock over Elliot was the conservative choice. It was the safe choice. But I don't think it was the right choice. And every single stat other that the single total FG% number (which isn't even that strong of a difference anyway, at only 3% greater for Bullock) seems to back that idea up.

Relying on Journeymen to completely change after 5 seasons of mediocre to terrible play is just not a good way to build your team. They had the foresight to draft a superior talent, but then threw him away for no real reason. All I'm saying is I hope they go with the talent this time around.