08-23-2018, 05:18 PM
(08-23-2018, 05:02 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not saying Bullock was the wrong choice, the guy won the competition, I'm just saying that the guy we don't want to supplant Bullock has, um...historically speaking, done pretty well.
We're working totally different angles as usual.
Elliott did turn out to be a good kicker (so far). I've never disputed that. The argument that we made a huge mistake would hold more weight (for me) if Bullock didn't hit 90% of his FG's and 94% of his XP's (both better than Elliott). Right now, the only argument that we made a horrific blunder is (a) Elliott hits long ones and (b) the Eagles won the SB.
Neither of those seems likely if Elliott were a Bengal. Marv is a conservative defense-minded coach, and often takes the field position over long FG's - and we weren't going to the SB with Elliott last year. We only kicked 20 FG's which is awful. The offense was lame. People think Bullock only had one 50 yarder because he can't do it...ignoring that we only kicked 20 total FG's. How many opportunities were really passed because Bullock doesn't have the leg?
I don't even think his leg was a factor at all. He took one from 50 and crushed it, so why not take more? The answer is that we didn't really have many opportunities to even consider it.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
