This is me eating crow.

[Shake n Blake]

(01-12-2018, 10:49 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Im not sold on Bullock. He wasnt challenged this year.

He was 4-5 from 40-49 range and split the uprights on his only 50+ yarder...which looked like it would've been good from 60.

I think he answered questions on his leg, if people want to hear it.

(01-12-2018, 12:25 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I only somewhat agree with all of these.

Bullock - Yes, he was very solid. He made 90% of his FGs, which was better than Elliott's 83.9% in Philly. However, Elliott hit five 50+ yard FGs out of six with a long of 61 whereas Bullock made his only 50+ yarder that was attempted and it was a 51 yarder. I still think Elliott would have been better from a points contribution standpoint because the Bengals probably would have been able to attempt more 50+ yarders and therefore put up more points overall. But Bullock was solid nonetheless. I would have still kept Elliott though.

Ross - IMO no reason to think he still won't be a weapon as soon as he hits the field. Problem is he didn't really get much of a chance to hit the field at all.

Peko - I still don't disagree with moving on from Peko. Sure, he would have been solid against the run but still a liability when it comes to pass rush. He only had one sack with Denver who has arguably better pass rushers than the Bengals. I think the issue more was that we expected Billings to be better than he was given he had a full year to recover from his 2016 preseason injury. And we thought Sims would have also been serviceable too at least in the run game, which he was not.

I think the only thing I might eat crow on is the criticism I had on Dalton after the first 2-3 games. But with the switch to Lazor he at least stopped turning over the ball by a lot. Dalton still wasn't spectacular from an overall production standpoint though. He still might be in the 11-15 range again if the OL can be improved to the point he trusts his blocking again.

I didn't think Vigil, Rey, and Minter would have been as bad as they were either, but I never claimed they'd be great so I don't consider that as a "need to eat crow".

I disagree. Marv has never been the type to go for FG's often from 50+. He'd rather play for field position than a risky FG. I believe Bullock has a great leg, and he showed it off on the 51 yarder that was perfectly down the middle with room to spare. And lets be honest, with the way the offense played this year, Elliott wouldn't have kicked 6 FG's from 50+ even if Marvin was feeling ballsy.