Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Paul D. Jim O. 53
#21
(08-31-2017, 01:48 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Never liked the Dielman pick. I don't really see anything in him besides the fact he's played some OT along with C. I can understand why he was expected to be a UDFA by various sites/scouts.
Seems like a good PS candidate.

Spent a lot of time on the ground at Utah. 
Reply/Quote
#22
(08-31-2017, 01:53 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Spent a lot of time on the ground at Utah. 

So he's Bodine? Hilarious
Zac Taylor 2019-2020: 6 total wins
Zac Taylor 2021-2022: Double-digit wins each season, plus 5 postseason wins
Zac Taylor 2023: 9 wins despite losing Burrow half the season
Zac Taylor 2024: Started 1-4. If he can turn this into a playoff appearance, it will be impressive.

Sorry for Party Rocking!

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#23
(08-31-2017, 01:55 PM)ochocincos Wrote: So he's Bodine? Hilarious

Eh. 
If I had to pick, I'd probably take Bodine. 

It's just weird when you look at what's worked for us drafting on the OL but then we keep drafting against type now. 

So strange. 
Reply/Quote
#24
(08-30-2017, 09:40 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Why is it okay to cut Elliot (5th rounder) and not Dielman?

He hasn't actually played a snap yet has he? I missed the very end of the last game so I didn't see if he got in.

If he hasn't played, shouldn't IR be a viable option at this point?

EDIT:

Apparently he has played a little bit. Well then...would still be an odd use of a roster spot.

I don't see Elliot getting cut simply because he's going to be financially cheaper, $90,000 per season cheaper than Bullock and pretty close in competition. It's really tough to cut Bullock, but it's dollars and cents we're talking about.. 
In the immortal words of my old man, "Wait'll you get to be my age!"

Chicago sounds rough to the maker of verse, but the one comfort we have is Cincinnati sounds worse. ~Oliver Wendal Holmes Sr.


[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#25
(08-31-2017, 02:03 PM)grampahol Wrote: I don't see Elliot getting cut simply because he's going to be financially cheaper, $90,000 per season cheaper than Bullock and pretty close in competition. It's really tough to cut Bullock, but it's dollars and cents we're talking about.. 

I just dont get how, they seemingly gave Bullock all the chances at big kicks and know they had a kicking problem BULLOCK WAS A PART OF, then draft a kicker in the 5th round (1st STer off the board) and yet now he may not even make the roster?

I feel like if you drafted a specialist that high, he should all but be a lock over a guy who was part of a problem you had the year before...something about it just seems odd. 
Reply/Quote
#26
(08-31-2017, 02:05 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: I just dont get how, they seemingly gave Bullock all the chances at big kicks and know they had a kicking problem BULLOCK WAS A PART OF, then draft a kicker in the 5th round (1st STer off the board) and yet now he may not even make the roster?

I feel like if you drafted a specialist that high, he should all but be a lock over a guy who was part of a problem you had the year before...something about it just seems odd. 

He wasn't around long enough to be a problem last season. He misses one kick coming straight off the street.. That's not part of the problem in the grand scheme of things.  But to the bean counters of the world he is.. 
In the immortal words of my old man, "Wait'll you get to be my age!"

Chicago sounds rough to the maker of verse, but the one comfort we have is Cincinnati sounds worse. ~Oliver Wendal Holmes Sr.


[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#27
(08-31-2017, 02:21 PM)grampahol Wrote: He wasn't around long enough to be a problem last season. He misses one kick coming straight off the street.. That's not part of the problem in the grand scheme of things.  But to the bean counters of the world he is.. 

Missing a potential game winning kick isn't a problem? Hmm. Interesting theory. 

And if by "off the street" you mean not on an NFL roster for a week and a half
Reply/Quote
#28
Bullock has aced the pre-season but I don't see them cutting a 5th rounder.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#29
Driskel in a cast makes it easy to place him on the IR and stash him away now. That should free up another roster spot for someone.

[Image: bengals08-1-800small.jpg]




[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#30
Throwing out my 53 before the announcements:

QB: Dalton, McCarron (2)
RB: Hill, Bernard, Mixon, Carson (4)
WR: Green, LaFell, Boyd, Ross, Erickson, Malone, Core (6)
TE: Eifert, Kroft, Hewitt, Uzo (4)
Oline: Ced, Boling, Bodine, Hopkins, Fisher, Smith, Westerman, Johnson, Deilman (9)

DL: Johnson, Atkins, Sims, Dunlap, Smith, Billings, Glasgow, Willis (8)
LB: Vigil, Rey, Evans, Lawson, Minter, Nickerson, Dawson (7)
DB: Jackson, Kirkpatrick, Williams, Iloka, Smith, Dennard, Russell, Shaw, Fej, McRae (10)

ST: Elliott, Huber, Harris (3)

After waivers: Uzo goes to IR and we bring back Core

McRae to PS after week 1 and Adam comes back

Nickerson and Dawson have a 3 week battle before Burfict comes back.
Reply/Quote
#31
Core would never clear waivers...we cut him he's gone
 
Winning makes believers of us all


They didn't win and we don't beleive
 




Reply/Quote
#32
(08-31-2017, 02:05 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: I just dont get how, they seemingly gave Bullock all the chances at big kicks and know they had a kicking problem BULLOCK WAS A PART OF, then draft a kicker in the 5th round (1st STer off the board) and yet now he may not even make the roster?

I feel like if you drafted a specialist that high, he should all but be a lock over a guy who was part of a problem you had the year before...something about it just seems odd. 

Marv ball.

Spend a draft pick on a guy, then give him and the guy you picked up last year--who isn't all that great for his career--strict, every other kicks--then pick the proven average guy because he did better in preseason, even though he's never been known as anything close to clutch.





[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]

"The measure of a man's intelligence can be seen in the length of his argument."
Reply/Quote
#33
(09-02-2017, 10:02 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Throwing out my 53 before the announcements:

QB: Dalton, McCarron (2)
RB: Hill, Bernard, Mixon, Carson (4)
WR: Green, LaFell, Boyd, Ross, Erickson, Malone, Core (6)
TE: Eifert, Kroft, Hewitt, Uzo (4)
Oline: Ced, Boling, Bodine, Hopkins, Fisher, Smith, Westerman, Johnson, Deilman (9)

DL: Johnson, Atkins, Sims, Dunlap, Smith, Billings, Glasgow, Willis (8)
LB:  Vigil, Rey, Evans, Lawson, Minter, Nickerson, Dawson (7)
DB: Jackson, Kirkpatrick, Williams, Iloka, Smith, Dennard, Russell, Shaw, Fej, McRae (10)

ST: Elliott, Huber, Harris (3)

After waivers: Uzo goes to IR and we bring back Core

McRae to PS after week 1 and Adam comes back

Nickerson and Dawson have a 3 week battle before Burfict comes back.

Man...you totally screwed up the WRs. You predicted all 7 make it (which they did) but listed the number at (6).

Extended suspension!!!!





[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]

"The measure of a man's intelligence can be seen in the length of his argument."
Reply/Quote
#34
(09-03-2017, 12:01 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Marv ball.

Spend a draft pick on a guy, then give him and the guy you picked up last year--who isn't all that great for his career--strict, every other kicks--then pick the proven average guy because he did better in preseason, even though he's never been known as anything close to clutch.

That's what I hated about it. It was built for the veteran to win. 
Rookies need reps. He's only getting half of them. Seems like they'd want him to get as many as he can.

We know what Bullock is. 
Reply/Quote





Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)