(10-02-2017, 01:14 PM)Go Cards Wrote: Could have used that draft pick for a needed OL or something is the sad part.

Total Bengals move.

But it is water under the bridge now.

Every draft pick ever made could have been used on another position.

Kicker was a need, nobody was sold on Bullock after the texans miss.

(10-13-2017, 04:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt. The "he's the best kicking talent in the history of football" folks have kinda faded. Although I think I see one or two that used to be on his bandwagon and hating the Elliott draft now on the Elliott bandwagon.

Bullock has done a fine job for us and won the job fair and square in PS; although we gave Elliott every chance to take it. Anybody that says we should not have kept Bullock should never complain about lack of competition in PS again.

Will Elliott be the next Tucker? Who knows. But no one can be blamed for keeping Bullock over him. We even put him on our practice squad when no one else claimed him

Agree 100%. What's the point of a competition if were not going to follow through with it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

(10-14-2017, 08:20 PM)MasonDT70 Wrote: Agree 100%. What's the point of a competition if were not going to follow through with it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

You could argue that the scales should be tilted to the draft pick that has (possibly) better potential over the guy who has a pretty substantial track record of when he's good and when he's not. 

(10-14-2017, 10:28 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: You could argue that the scales should be tilted to the draft pick that has (possibly) better potential over the guy who has a pretty substantial track record of when he's good and when he's not. 

So you're OK with a weighted competition?

(10-14-2017, 10:28 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: You could argue that the scales should be tilted to the draft pick that has (possibly) better potential over the guy who has a pretty substantial track record of when he's good and when he's not. 

Elite leg strength should probably weigh in too

Bullock is doing a fine job for the Bengals. Elliott is doing a fine job for the Eagles. Not sure I see a problem here.

(10-14-2017, 10:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you're OK with a weighted competition?

It's pretty much fluid. Depends on the situation. 

In this case, everyone pretty much knows what Bullock is. Personally, i think he tends to fail more when the pressure is greater. Elliott, i don't know. No one does, yet. He could be worse than Bullock in the long run. I'd just rather go with the one you don't know, when it comes to these two. 

(10-14-2017, 10:32 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Elite leg strength should probably weigh in too

Yep. That should be a big part of it.

(10-14-2017, 10:28 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: You could argue that the scales should be tilted to the draft pick that has (possibly) better potential over the guy who has a pretty substantial track record of when he's good and when he's not. 

If the competition was close, but it wasn't.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

(10-14-2017, 10:36 PM)snowy Wrote: Bullock is doing a fine job for the Bengals. Elliott is doing a fine job for the Eagles. Not sure I see a problem here.

The problem won't rear it's head until (if) Bullock misses key kick(s) and Elliott turns into the next Justin Tucker. 

Then it's just another case of the Bengals making the wrong decision. 

(10-14-2017, 10:40 PM)MasonDT70 Wrote: If the competition was close, but it wasn't.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Correct. In a relatively small sample size, in camp and the preseason. We're not talking about just any run-of-the-mill kicker. 

Elliott had some pretty noticeable leg talent in college. 

(10-14-2017, 10:28 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: You could argue that the scales should be tilted to the draft pick that has (possibly) better potential over the guy who has a pretty substantial track record of when he's good and when he's not. 

It was weighted in Elliott's direction. Marvin suggested as much. I'm paraphrasing, but he said something along the lines of "if it was anything close, obviously we would've went with Elliott". 

It wasn't close.

(10-14-2017, 10:42 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Correct. In a relatively small sample size, in camp and the preseason. We're not talking about just any run-of-the-mill kicker. 

Elliott had some pretty noticeable leg talent in college. 

Well that's all you can really go off of. College performance isn't indicative of how they'll perform in the NFL. Aguayo was supposed to be great. It's not like you're going to alternate kickers during the regular season for further evaluation.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

(10-14-2017, 11:11 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: It was weighted in Elliott's direction. Marvin suggested as much. I'm paraphrasing, but he said something along the lines of "if it was anything close, obviously we would've went with Elliott". 

It wasn't close.

Sorry, but i just can't trust Marv's decision process. I'm on board with "anything close" in general, but, it's like he's forgetting what Elliott did in college and workouts. 

DISCLAIMER: Workouts should be taken with a grain of salt, since they're usually under perfect conditions with little to no pressure.

DISCLAIMER II: At the end of fake game #4, i was on board with keeping Bullock based on what the two did in camp after pushing for Elliott up till then, so this is all full-on hindsight. Take my opinion with a grain of salt. 

(10-14-2017, 11:14 PM)MasonDT70 Wrote: Well that's all you can really go off of. College performance isn't indicative of how they'll perform in the NFL. Aguayo was supposed to be great. It's not like you're going to alternate kickers during the regular season for further evaluation.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Or go off the reason you drafted him in the 5th round and made him the first kicker selected.

We have had someone in camp every "competing" Marv always went with the vet. Graham til it was too late nuge til it was too late. Big difference here is we actually blew a decent draft pick. Same result. Marv goes with his trusty vet.

(10-14-2017, 11:14 PM)MasonDT70 Wrote: Well that's all you can really go off of. College performance isn't indicative of how they'll perform in the NFL. Aguayo was supposed to be great. It's not like you're going to alternate kickers during the regular season for further evaluation.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

True. My point of this whole exercise is that it seems--for the most part--the Bengals routinely (with very few exceptions) make the wrong decision on players/coaches. Their track record is bad bad bad. 

Slightly OT, but relative to my point; the Lawson pick looks to be a gem. It would be nice to see a few more of those over a decade and a half...let alone the last 50 years. 

(10-15-2017, 12:14 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Or go off the reason you drafted him in the 5th round and made him the first kicker selected.

We have had someone in camp every "competing" Marv always went with the vet. Graham til it was too late nuge til it was too late. Big difference here is we actually blew a decent draft pick. Same result. Marv goes with his trusty vet.

While that may be true, I don't recall nuge, or Graham kicking around 60% in preseason. I think that's what hurt Elliot here. If he would've been high 70s low 80 I believe we keep him.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

(10-15-2017, 12:11 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: DISCLAIMER II: At the end of fake game #4, i was on board with keeping Bullock based on what the two did in camp after pushing for Elliott up till then, so this is all full-on hindsight. Take my opinion with a grain of salt. 

It would probably be more accurate to say that i agreed that Bullock won the competition and was deserving, based on that, to be the guy. But i wouldn't have argued with keeping Elliott instead. 

I can't shake the feeling that this is much ado about nothing. Elliott isn't likely to remain 100% on XPs and he's surely going to miss a few more FGs eventually. Same can be said for Bullock. People bring up range like Elliott is Justin Tucker or something. He's not. And Bullock has a better leg than Nuge. It's closer than folks let on, and how often have we had to give up a FG opportunity because Bullock didn't have the leg?

The answer is probably never (yet) and even if Elliott has 5-6 yards more range, that's something that would only be beneficial maybe once or twice a year. Think logically about it. In the end, you either have a good kicker or you don't. There's very little difference between the good ones...unless you have Tucker, and even then it's not a huge difference.

We gave up a 5th round pick to ensure we had a good competition. We did. If you're upset about losing that 5th rounder, go ahead and rattle off to me the list of 5th rounders under Marvin and ask yourself if you're truly that upset we lost out on a player of that caliber.

Im still waiting for that clutch game winner from Bullock before I admit being wrong.