(08-18-2017, 08:15 AM)BonnieBengal Wrote: What makes you think Elliott is a shitty kicker?  One bad practice?   And why don't you think Simmons knows more about our kicking needs than you do? He drafted Elliott for a reason.

(08-18-2017, 08:13 AM)BonnieBengal Wrote: What we're getting with Bullock is an average kicker who hasn't played a full season since 2014. Looks at his stats.  They aren't great.    I would rather go with the talented rookie.  If we cut a potential star and he is picked up by someone else, it will be a huge mistake.

(08-18-2017, 09:42 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Man...we should have drafted Gonzalez. The OCD had to be a huge factor for the Bengals not taking him.

That's a tough call where obviously hindsight is 20/20.

(08-18-2017, 10:29 AM)ochocincos Wrote: How has Gonzalez been doing at Browns camp? Has he had any misses?

Regardless, I care much more about Elliott's misses in a game vs practice. Maybe he's trying to tweak his mechanics in practice and therefore causing some more frequent misses. He'll get enough opportunities over the remaining three preseason games to give us a good idea of his performance.

(08-18-2017, 08:15 AM)BonnieBengal Wrote: What makes you think Elliott is a shitty kicker?  One bad practice?   And why don't you think Simmons knows more about our kicking needs than you do? He drafted Elliott for a reason.

(08-18-2017, 09:54 AM)Pat5775 Wrote: What "talented rookie/potential star", where? I don't see it at all. We already made a huge mistake by taking Elliott over Gonzalez. I figured you of all people would be beyond pissed about that, you were pushing for Gonzalez on draft day more than anyone else here. 

And trust me, I'm not saying Bullock is a hall of famer or anything. In fact, I'm not incredibly happy he's an option either. But if you been paying attention to the reports coming out of camp, you'll see that Bullock has consistently been the better kicker. Elliott has been consistently inconsistent. Yes, Bullock has been average over the past several years. But if he's outperforming Elliott, what does that tell you? Kicker struggles absolutely killed this team last year, I'd rather not go down that road again. Unfortunately, since we have little choice I'd rather go with the lesser of two evils.

But worry not. As I said, I see no way in hell this front office spends nearly $300k to cut a fifth round kicker. Your kicker crush is safe regardless of how much he struggles. I see a problem with that. Most people here do. But the people that count likely don't. This kicker competition is a facade. 

(08-18-2017, 10:55 AM)BoBengal Wrote: I'll answer for them:  Elliot is a "weak" kicker for two reasons to most on this board:

1)  ESPN.com shows that Elliot only made 77% of his field goals... that's pretty bad.  In grade school... that would be a 'C'.  The college goal posts are also several feet wider than the NFL, and it's significantly less pressure.  Heck, Nugent made more kicks than that each year.  The PAT stat is also meaningless for the NFL beyond 2015-2016, because we are comparing the collegiate PAT spot that is equivalent to that of ~17 yard field goal to the new NFL spot of ~33 yard field goal.  

2)  Elliot is missing kicks in games and practices that he should make.  We probably would have been better off bringing in a 2nd NFL-proven kicker to compete with Bullock (or drafting Zane Gonzalez, the guy that was clearly the best kicker in the draft)

Now that we are several weeks into it and Week 1 is quickly approaching, the numbers are telling a clear story... but emotions and an unwillingness to admit that all teams make mistakes in the draft may cloud the results of the competition.

(08-18-2017, 09:54 AM)Pat5775 Wrote: What "talented rookie/potential star", where? I don't see it at all. We already made a huge mistake by taking Elliott over Gonzalez. I figured you of all people would be beyond pissed about that, you were pushing for Gonzalez on draft day more than anyone else here. 

And trust me, I'm not saying Bullock is a hall of famer or anything. In fact, I'm not incredibly happy he's an option either. But if you been paying attention to the reports coming out of camp, you'll see that Bullock has consistently been the better kicker. Elliott has been consistently inconsistent. Yes, Bullock has been average over the past several years. But if he's outperforming Elliott, what does that tell you? Kicker struggles absolutely killed this team last year, I'd rather not go down that road again. Unfortunately, since we have little choice I'd rather go with the lesser of two evils.

But worry not. As I said, I see no way in hell this front office spends nearly $300k to cut a fifth round kicker. Your kicker crush is safe regardless of how much he struggles. I see a problem with that. Most people here do. But the people that count likely don't. This kicker competition is a facade. 

(08-18-2017, 11:45 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think Robert Aygueo is an example of why you simply cannot go by College accolades. I know it is crazy talk, but let's see what they do in games before we consider Elliott a bust and Zane the GOAT.

(08-18-2017, 11:41 AM)sandwedge Wrote: What game has he missed kicks in?

(08-18-2017, 10:55 AM)BoBengal Wrote: I'll answer for them:  Elliot is a "weak" kicker for two reasons to most on this board:

1)  ESPN.com shows that Elliot only made 77% of his field goals... that's pretty bad.  In grade school... that would be a 'C'.  The college goal posts are also several feet wider than the NFL, and it's significantly less pressure.  Heck, Nugent made more kicks than that each year.  The PAT stat is also meaningless for the NFL beyond 2015-2016, because we are comparing the collegiate PAT spot that is equivalent to that of ~17 yard field goal to the new NFL spot of ~33 yard field goal.  

2)  Elliot is missing kicks in games and practices that he should make.  We probably would have been better off bringing in a 2nd NFL-proven kicker to compete with Bullock (or drafting Zane Gonzalez, the guy that was clearly the best kicker in the draft)

Now that we are several weeks into it and Week 1 is quickly approaching, the numbers are telling a clear story... but emotions and an unwillingness to admit that all teams make mistakes in the draft may cloud the results of the competition.

(08-18-2017, 10:55 AM)BoBengal Wrote: I'll answer for them:  Elliot is a "weak" kicker for two reasons to most on this board:

1)  ESPN.com shows that Elliot only made 77% of his field goals... that's pretty bad.  In grade school... that would be a 'C'.  The college goal posts are also several feet wider than the NFL, and it's significantly less pressure.  Heck, Nugent made more kicks than that each year.  The PAT stat is also meaningless for the NFL beyond 2015-2016, because we are comparing the collegiate PAT spot that is equivalent to that of ~17 yard field goal to the new NFL spot of ~33 yard field goal.  

2)  Elliot is missing kicks in games and practices that he should make.  We probably would have been better off bringing in a 2nd NFL-proven kicker to compete with Bullock (or drafting Zane Gonzalez, the guy that was clearly the best kicker in the draft)

Now that we are several weeks into it and Week 1 is quickly approaching, the numbers are telling a clear story... but emotions and an unwillingness to admit that all teams make mistakes in the draft may cloud the results of the competition.

(08-18-2017, 06:47 PM)McC Wrote: He played in one game and missed no kicks.  In fact, he put them straight down the middle.  

(08-19-2017, 12:07 PM)BoBengal Wrote: You are correct, he did make his only field goal attempt during the single game.  That should have read "scrimmage."  

Correction:  He played in (1) scrimmage on Family Day with us watching and missed a pair kicks... one was a PAT.

Next time, I'll proofread better!  Muchos gracias.

Either way, we may want to start looking more seriously at Elliot as "trade bait?"  

(08-19-2017, 12:21 PM)McC Wrote: Who trades for kickers?