Randy Bullock

[Shake n Blake]

(10-03-2017, 02:09 PM)PhilHos Wrote: As someone who wanted us to keep Elliot even after Bullock "won" the preseason, I will admit that I don't really have a complaint about Bullock right now. I could argue that the miss in the GB game cost us the game, but I won't. 

Now, if he misses an actual game winner, I will be back on the anti-Bullock bandwagon, but for now, it's nice that ONE problem from last season was fixed.

You could argue that, but the easy counter would be "maybe the defense shouldn't have collapsed and allowed 20 points after half". The offense also fell apart after halftime. It's really a stretch to pin that L on Bullock.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-03-2017, 02:13 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: You could argue that, but the easy counter would be "maybe the defense shouldn't have collapsed and allowed 20 points after half". The offense also fell apart after halftime. It's really a stretch to pin that L on Bullock.

That's why I said I "could" argue and that I wouldn't. :smirk"

[Shake n Blake]

(10-03-2017, 02:31 PM)PhilHos Wrote: That's why I said I "could" argue and that I wouldn't. :smirk"

I figured. 

[XenoMorph]

(10-03-2017, 07:59 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Good point, but do you ever think he would catch someone to make a tackle?

Well if he angles right sure... hes already on the other side of the 50

[XenoMorph]

(10-03-2017, 02:13 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: You could argue that, but the easy counter would be "maybe the defense shouldn't have collapsed and allowed 20 points after half". The offense also fell apart after halftime. It's really a stretch to pin that L on Bullock.

Ive talked about that with some people..

If he makes that kick we don't go to OT  but no guarantee we win in regulation.

Then you can get into Dalton taking the sack and losing 8 yards on 3rd down.


the week before I blamed on Eifert not know where his feet were. lol its the points missed you remember the most.

[Millhouse]

(10-03-2017, 04:26 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Ive talked about that with some people..

If he makes that kick we don't go to OT  but no guarantee we win in regulation.

Then you can get into Dalton taking the sack and losing 8 yards on 3rd down.  


the week before I blamed on Eifert not know where his feet were.  lol  its the points missed you remember the most.

Yup. If he made that kick, which was makeable in the anti-Bullock crowds defense, then every play after it would have been different.

He makes it, then Bengals kick off instead of the Packers getting the ball where they did. The kickoff could have went out of bounds, returned for a long one or a TD, or a touchback. From that point on every play would have been different and who knows how the game turns out. 

Regardless with a 21-7 lead at halftime, it shouldnt have come down to one kick that determined the outcome as the offense & defense did nothing in the second half and overtime to secure the win.

[NATI BENGALS]

Watching this Eagles game...

Man we should go draft a kicker like they have. Dude has a thunder leg. We could have him on a nice cheap rookie contract for 4 years. We really should think about it.

[Luvnit2]

(10-12-2017, 11:54 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Watching this Eagles game...

Man we should go draft a kicker like they have. Dude has a thunder leg. We could have him on a nice cheap rookie contract for 4 years. We really should think about it.

Yep, we cut the stud for the eventual dud.

[sandwedge]

Still miffed about that.

[Brownshoe]

I wish we would have kept Elliot, but he did lose the job to Bullock. I can't blame the coaches or the organization for letting Elliot go when Bullock won the job.

[sandwedge]

(10-13-2017, 12:18 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: I wish we would have kept Elliot, but he did lose the job to Bullock. I can't blame the coaches or the organization for letting Elliot go when Bullock won the job.

You're right about that, but looking at the 2 now, you can see who's future looks brighter. That future isn't to far off either....

[Shake n Blake]

Randy Bullock

7 of 8 on FG's
9 of 9 on XP's
only 27 years old, capable of kicking for 10 more years at least.

The more people complain, the sillier they look. At least wait until Bullock stops looking like gold.

[Shake n Blake]

(10-13-2017, 12:21 PM)sandwedge Wrote: You're right about that, but looking at the 2 now, you can see who's future looks brighter. That future isn't to far off either....

Not sure what you mean, wedge. Bullock has plenty of future left himself, and aside from his rookie year, he's been money.

64 of 75 on FG's (85.3%) 4 of 5 from 50+
40 of 44 on XP's since the rule change (90.9%)

Dude is a stud and he's not much older than Elliott.

[*Go Cards*]

Bullock has done fine, he is still young enough, and he won the battle in camp on FG's. Could be much worse.

He lost on kickoffs but do not think that factored in.

Just if we were going to keep Bullock why waste a draft pick ?

If the pick was wasted, why have a competition ?

When he was selected it said Bengals were not happy with what they already had, did it not ?

The whole thing is just confusing to me with all the holes we had to fill in draft.

Oh well it is spilled milk now.

[Luvnit2]

(10-13-2017, 01:44 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Randy Bullock

7 of 8 on FG's
9 of 9 on XP's
only 27 years old, capable of kicking for 10 more years at least.

The more people complain, the sillier they look. At least wait until Bullock stops looking like gold.

You don't do all kinds of research on a kicker and then draft him in round 5 I believe, then cut him. If they were that confident Bullock was the long  term answer, they had a major screw up drafting a kicker. My point is simple and I said immediately, should have never been a competition in 1st place. It simply made no sense to spend that high a pick on a position most teams never use a pick of any kind.

My guess Simmons lobbied and won to draft Elliott. 

As far as stats you loved to provide Elliott stats after he missed a 30 yard field goal, but yet you don't include his stats to date which are off the charts over 50 yards and a game winner from 61. I believe in 4 games he has kicked more 50+ yard field goals than Bullock in his entire career. 

How about an update on the Elliott stats now? Then tell us we are silly again.

To say some are silly is silly based on the results to date.

[Luvnit2]

(10-13-2017, 02:02 PM)Go Cards Wrote: Bullock has done fine, he is still young enough, and he won the battle in camp on FG's.  Could be much worse.

He lost on kickoffs but do not think that factored in.

Just if we were going to keep Bullock why waste a draft pick ?

If the pick was wasted, why have a competition ?

When he was selected it said Bengals were not happy with what they already had, did it not ?

The whole thing is just confusing to me with all the holes we had to fill in draft.

Oh well it is spilled milk now.

My points as well.

[*rfaulk34*]

(10-13-2017, 12:18 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: I wish we would have kept Elliot, but he did lose the job to Bullock. I can't blame the coaches or the organization for letting Elliot go when Bullock won the job.

That's the whole problem with this organization. By the book 'won the comp in training camp'. 

It's not just coincidence, curse or voodoo that there are so many 'almost's' and 'what ifs' with this franchise. The Geno Atkins turnout is the exception rather than the norm or even the sometimes. They're just bad at making decisions, man. 

[Shake n Blake]

(10-13-2017, 02:06 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You don't do all kinds of research on a kicker and then draft him in round 5 I believe, then cut him. If they were that confident Bullock was the long  term answer, they had a major screw up drafting a kicker. My point is simple and I said immediately, should have never been a competition in 1st place. It simply made no sense to spend that high a pick on a position most teams never use a pick of any kind.

My guess Simmons lobbied and won to draft Elliott. 

As far as stats you loved to provide Elliott stats after he missed a 30 yard field goal, but yet you don't include his stats to date which are off the charts over 50 yards and a game winner from 61. I believe in 4 games he has kicked more 50+ yard field goals than Bullock in his entire career. 

How about an update on the Elliott stats now? Then tell us we are silly again.

To say some are silly is silly based on the results to date.

Elliott is 12 of 14 and 13 of 13. 

They've both been amazing. It's still silly to complain when our current kicker has been amazing.

It's like saying "man I really wish I had that guy's gold brick" instead of the gold brick you currently have in your hands.

Who cares if we lost a 5th rounder? Those rarely pan out anyway. 

[sandwedge]

(10-13-2017, 01:51 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Not sure what you mean, wedge. Bullock has plenty of future left himself, and aside from his rookie year, he's been money.

64 of 75 on FG's (85.3%) 4 of 5 from 50+
40 of 44 on XP's since the rule change (90.9%)

Dude is a stud and he's not much older than Elliott.

Believe me, I hope you're right. It's water under the bridge now. 

[Brownshoe]

(10-13-2017, 02:22 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Elliott is 12 of 14 and 13 of 13. 

They've both been amazing. It's still silly to complain when our current kicker has been amazing.

It's like saying "man I really wish I had that guy's gold brick" instead of the gold brick you currently have in your hands.

Who cares if we lost a 5th rounder? Those rarely pan out anyway. 

It doesn't matter too much to me, but I would rather have Elliot. He seems to have a stronger leg, and a lot more potential. Bullock has been playing well for us, and I'm happy we aren't going through what we did last year with our kicker. The only way to see if we made a mistake is to wait and see.