(11-04-2017, 05:23 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: He is at 84% fgs on the year. Compared to randys 80. 

It was a bad move cutting him

What are their XP percentages?

God, not the Elliott/Fat Randy debate yet again. Thirty years from now this will still be a topic on this board, along with how our GM, Mike Brown's head in a jar, is incompetent, and Marvin is too old to see or hear.

Yeah the debate is pointless. Whatever Elliott does from the point we cut him on doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that they had a competition...and had it been even close they would have kept Elliott because he was a draft pick. But, instead he was terrible.

End of story.

It isn't like Elliott looked awesome and they kept Bullock.

(11-04-2017, 05:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Elliott has missed 2 XPs so far this year as well as 3 FGS. Not sure that equals great things

Shhhh no bro. He made that one 61 even though missed one earlier in the game. He's the best EVER. 

(11-04-2017, 02:32 PM)pally Wrote: I tend to believe that this move will be reversed next week when Bullock is healthy again

My take is this guy must have made more successful kicks than the other tryout kickers. Bet he didn't make them all though.

The $1.50 comment was funny and likely true.

I guess they figured Smith would not get swept up by another team like Elliot did and they will resign him in two weeks.

(11-04-2017, 05:30 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: What are their XP percentages?

Bullock is a career 81% fg kicker has proven to not be clutch has 5 career 50+ yard fgs and is fat and now hurt.

Elliot is young with a booming leg and already has 5 50+ yard fgs and proven to be clutch.

But i know. Practice and stuff.

Some of yall are starting to sound like the marvin way. No matter how talented a young guy is. You go with the trusty vet.

Im over it. Ill move on. Just icing on top of my pissed off cake we now have a 2nd kicker on the roster who was not the guy we drafted in the 5th round who has the nfl record longest fg by a rookie in history

(11-04-2017, 02:32 PM)pally Wrote: I tend to believe that this move will be reversed next week when Bullock is healthy again

If he clears waivers he will be back when Bullock is better (or IRed, whichever comes first).  If he has PS eligibility, he might end up there in the short term.

(11-04-2017, 06:15 PM)Sweetness Wrote: Shhhh no bro. He made that one 61 even though missed one earlier in the game. He's the best EVER. 

Apparently he has already set the Eagles franchise single season record for field goal conversions of 50+yards.  Wasn't this one of the things that people wanted improved?  I recall it being a big deal last season when the Ravens' Tucker crushed three 50+ FGs against us in one half.

(11-04-2017, 07:22 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Bullock is a career 81% fg kicker has proven to not be clutch has 5 career 50+ yard fgs and is fat and now hurt.

Elliot is young with a booming leg and already has 5 50+ yard fgs and proven to be clutch.

But i know. Practice and stuff.

Some of yall are starting to sound like the marvin way. No matter how talented a young guy is. You go with the trusty vet.

Im over it. Ill move on. Just icing on top of my pissed off cake we now have a 2nd kicker on the roster who was not the guy we drafted in the 5th round who has the nfl record longest fg by a rookie in history

You didn't answer the question. 

This is one of those instances where percentages fail compared to tape. Elliot has straight up missed 3 FGs but has more attempts. Bullock has missed 2 but 1 was a blocked FG and has less attempts....Bullock has been the better kicker so far in 2017 and it's not even a close race.

(11-04-2017, 08:44 PM)Synric Wrote: This is one of those instances where percentages fail compared to tape. Elliot has straight up missed 3 FGs but has more attempts. Bullock has missed 2 but 1 was a blocked FG and has less attempts....Bullock has been the better kicker so far in 2017 and it's not even a close race.

PK "A" has missed 5 total kicks.

PK "B" has missed 2 (1 blocked).

I struggle to understand how kicker A is better. 

"Not even close"? C'mon now. Tape? They're kickers, syrinc. They kick ball, it go through posts.

(11-04-2017, 10:24 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: PK "A" has missed 5 total kicks.

PK "B" has missed 2 (1 blocked).

I struggle to understand how kicker A is better. 

"Not even close"? C'mon now. Tape? They're kickers, syrinc. They kick ball, it go through posts.

Lol tapes important shows the blocked field goal and I also said Bullock has been the better kicker in 2017. 

(11-04-2017, 04:07 PM)jowczarski Wrote: Bullock’s back: I don’t know his history, but the back popped up on Monday, which led to this scenario.

Proven options available: Not really. Litany of kicker ineffectiveness and injury around the league. The team tried out two other guys with this kid during the week, Andrew Frank and Jason Myers The Bengals felt this kid was better.

Smith/OL: Heh. No, they’re not cutting the starting center. Fair question though re: say, Westerman – who has never been active in his career – vs. Smith. Marvin will have to explain it to us when we get a chance to ask him. Best I’ve been able to gather at this juncture is the team has nine healthy defensive backs.

As for Smith – he might get claimed.

Isn't Jason Myers kicking for Jacksonville this weekend against the Bengals ?

(11-04-2017, 08:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You didn't answer the question. 

Bullock hasnt made a 50 yard fg since 2014. 

He also has a kick off out of bounds this year.

I would gladly live with some rookie growing pains and be able to hit some long fgs than know we have a kicker with zero clutchness.

Keep telling yourself having the fat hurt kicker with the worse fg % is better than the one who is healthy drilling bombs. Because the xps and training camp...

Ill keep realizing this is another shit marvin decision.

I'll hold the Bengals accountable for their decisions when warranted...but come on people.

If you hold a tryout for something and 1 player does much better than the other...you have to give it to the guy who performs. Keeping a guy that looked bad just because he was a draft pick pretty much destroys the spirit of competition. You just can't do it.

There was no indication from camp that Elliott would be able to make FG's once the season started.

(11-04-2017, 10:51 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Bullock hasnt made a 50 yard fg since 2014. 

He also has a kick off out of bounds this year.

I would gladly live with some rookie growing pains and be able to hit some long fgs than know we have a kicker with zero clutchness.

Keep telling yourself having the fat hurt kicker with the worse fg % is better than the one who is healthy drilling bombs. Because the xps and training camp...

Ill keep realizing this is another shit marvin decision.

You didn't answer the question. 

i'm practicing my kicks in the front yard. i put the football on the corner of my lawn, and try to kick the ball in between the basketball post and back of the backboard. that amounts to roughly an 8 yard kick. if I can put this on video tape, I can also show I am slightly thinner than bullock.

I mean, I do think there are 2 sides to the coin. Elliott is playing for possibly the best team in football, and he gets plenty more chances than Bullock does. So, if he was on the Bengals, his stats might not look nearly as good.

But I still think Elliott was a good kicker, and the Eagles saw the opportunity and snagged it. So, my thoughts were more long term than anything else.

(11-05-2017, 10:40 AM)thillan Wrote: I mean, I do think there are 2 sides to the coin. Elliott is playing for possibly the best team in football, and he gets plenty more chances than Bullock does. So, if he was on the Bengals, his stats might not look nearly as good.

But I still think Elliott was a good kicker, and the Eagles saw the opportunity and snagged it. So, my thoughts were more long term than anything else.

No, they didn't see an opportunity.  They lost their kicker to injury and the option was snag a rookie PS kicker or go through tryouts with the unemployed ones.  The guy being given a PS opportunity is the prudent decision, as it shows that there are coaches who feel he can improve and is worth development.

(11-04-2017, 11:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You didn't answer the question. 

Your right i would rather have the fat hurt kicker who cant hit 50 yarders and kicks off out of bounds. Im glad we cut a safety we have been grooming for three years to back up the career 81% fg kicker who we kept over the rookie setting records who will actually be able to play. 

Its like in basketball. I guess you say give me the guy who can make free throws over the guy who drains 3 pointers and makes clutch shots. Or baseball take the guy who who hits singles and chokes with runners in scoring position over the guy that hits home runs. Or golf. The guy who hits the 3 ft putt over the guy who hits holes in one. 

Nugent has broke your pov

It wouldnt chap my ass so bad if it wasnt a 5th round pick. 9 times out of 10 a veteran kicker going through his 4th or 5th training camp is going to be more comfortable than a rookie in a new city getting his first taste of the nfl.

(11-05-2017, 11:09 AM)jfkbengals Wrote: No, they didn't see an opportunity.  They lost their kicker to injury and the option was snag a rookie PS kicker or go through tryouts with the unemployed ones.  The guy being given a PS opportunity is the prudent decision, as it shows that there are coaches who feel he can improve and is worth development.

... So yes, they did see an opportunity. They picked up a rookie kicker that they believed in. That's called "seeing an opportunity."