Randy Bullock

[XenoMorph]

(10-13-2017, 02:10 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: 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. 

taking the guy that's making most the kicks in practice vs the one who isn't  doesn't sound like a bad decision to me.

You see these young guys getting plenty of playing time.    You want the guys winning the comps in training camp on the roster.  (why keep weaker players just cause you drafted them when you already have better on the roster)

if you cant show any consistency in practice why would they think game time would be different?

[THE PISTONS]

(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. 

One has to wonder why Elliott didn't do better in camp.

[Brownshoe]

(10-13-2017, 03:00 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: One has to wonder why Elliott didn't do better in camp.

Fat Randy always took his lunch, so he was suffering from malnutrition.

[*rfaulk34*]

(10-13-2017, 02:58 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: taking the guy that's making most the kicks in practice vs the one who isn't  doesn't sound like a bad decision to me.

You see these young guys getting plenty of playing time.    You want the guys winning the comps in training camp on the roster.  (why keep weaker players just cause you drafted them when you already have better on the roster)

if you cant show any consistency in practice   why would they think game time would be different?

I would take into consideration how Bullock has done in pressure situations--there's plenty to draw from--and Elliott adjusting to the NFL. 

Regardless of who "won" in training camp, sometimes you have to consider things the Bengals don't seem to be capable of considering. 

[*bfine32*]

Where my "We shoulda drafted Zane Gonzalez" folks at?

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(10-13-2017, 03:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Where my "We shoulda drafted Zane Gonzalez" folks at?

He's proving me right so far!

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2017, 04:31 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: He's proving me right so far!

No doubt. The "he's the best kicking talent in the history of football" folks have kinda faded. Although I think I see one or two that used to be on his bandwagon and hating the Elliott draft now on the Elliott bandwagon.

Bullock has done a fine job for us and won the job fair and square in PS; although we gave Elliott every chance to take it. Anybody that says we should not have kept Bullock should never complain about lack of competition in PS again.

Will Elliott be the next Tucker? Who knows. But no one can be blamed for keeping Bullock over him. We even put him on our practice squad when no one else claimed him

[Truck_1_0_1_]

I agree, bfine; I was against the call from the beginning, I was against the competition, even, but they ept their word and followed though.

Just miffed, that's all; seeing his kicks in the pre-draft video, as mentioned, I've nevr seen such beatifully kicked footballs.

[Shake n Blake]

(10-13-2017, 02:40 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: 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.

Maybe you guys are right and Elliott winds up being a legendary kicker. For now it's just a wait and see thing. It seems folks badly want to say "I told you so", but can we really say that the Bengals made a bad choice when Bullock (a) won the competition and (b) is doing a bang up job?

[sandwedge]

(10-13-2017, 05:49 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: I agree, bfine; I was against the call from the beginning, I was against the competition, even, but they ept their word and followed though.

Just miffed, that's all; seeing his kicks in the pre-draft video, as mentioned, I've nevr seen such beatifully kicked footballs.

I think that is what I liked. His kicks were effortless. His demeanor is pretty damn good too! We have Randy and I will gladly cheer him on, he's our kicker!

[sandwedge]

(10-13-2017, 06:03 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Maybe you guys are right and Elliott winds up being a legendary kicker. For now it's just a wait and see thing. It seems folks badly want to say "I told you so", but can we really say that the Bengals made a bad choice when Bullock (a) won the competition and (b) is doing a bang up job?

Very true! It won't make me any less miffed, but like I said above Randy is our man now and I back him fully!

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Mhm, we'll make do and maybe in the upcoming draft, we get the Auburn kid that's built like a LB lol

[TheUberHuber]

Nothing against bullock, just wish we didn't waste a draft pick.

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-13-2017, 02:58 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: taking the guy that's making most the kicks in practice vs the one who isn't  doesn't sound like a bad decision to me.

You see these young guys getting plenty of playing time.    You want the guys winning the comps in training camp on the roster.  (why keep weaker players just cause you drafted them when you already have better on the roster)

if you cant show any consistency in practice   why would they think game time would be different?

I think Allen Iverson has some famous words about that.

I for one was not surprised a multi year veteran was more adjusted and had a better summer than a freaking rookie fresh out of college adjusting to a new city and life with the biggest payday of his life on the line.

[HarleyDog]

(10-13-2017, 06:50 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: Nothing against bullock, just wish we didn't waste a draft pick.

Which is why all this controversy exists.

[Steve]

(10-02-2017, 01:22 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Partially because Bullock has a not-so-favorable track record and while Nugent was the bulk of the problem, don't forget Bullock was part of the problem last year as well.
He missed a game winner vs Houston. 
That matters. The north remembers. 

I think that miss was b/c of a high snap....threw off the timing....
not Bullocks fault ...

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-13-2017, 06:50 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: Nothing against bullock, just wish we didn't waste a draft pick.

(10-13-2017, 11:09 PM)Steve Wrote: I think that miss was b/c of a high snap....threw off the timing....
not Bullocks fault ...

Elliot had to deal with a high snap last night. Drilled it

[BURROWorBUST]

(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. 

How could anyone argue that it didn't? 

[Shake n Blake]

(10-14-2017, 03:18 AM)Shady Wrote: How could anyone argue that it didn't? 

Because the offense went dead in the 2nd half, Marv decided to play Marv-ball and the defense gave up 20 points in the 2nd half?

If any of those things don't happen, we're not trying to to hang the L on the kicker for missing a FG midway through the 3rd quarter.

[Shake n Blake]

(10-14-2017, 01:01 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Elliot had to deal with a high snap last night. Drilled it

It wasn't a high snap, it was a slightly wide snap, and the holder did an amazing job getting the ball perfectly in place at the exact time it was supposed to be there.

See 1:22 in this video for the kick:





Bullock's missed game winner vs the Texans didn't have a high snap, it had a bad snap count IIRC. It threw Bullock's timing off.