Jump to content

Meet our new permanent kicker - Randy Bullock


ARodJetsFan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Bullock is an upgrade.  Although they were statistically similar, the younger guy's stats were slightly better, field goals AND kickoffs.  

Folk: 13/16 (81%) with a 32% touchback efficiency

Bullock:  14/17 (83%) with a 48% touchback efficiency)

Not only does Bullock have the stronger leg... the imperative part of the equation is that he costs about 1/4 of the Folk's price going into a season where salary cap issues will be critical for re-structuring this squad.

Bullock will be our guy.  Unless, another team picks him up first... there are plenty of teams will need a kicker this season (Jax w/7 missed PATs, Buf w/6 missed PATs, NOLA w/69% FG accuracy just skimming the stats).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullock was a good pickup. He was ok, not great, He's not that inferior to Folk. He should have a job next season. He was cut by the Texans for missing two extra points but overall in the NFL there were plenty of missed extra points. I would assume he doesn't want to go to a team like the Jets where he's rated the no. 2 kicker. When all teams only carry one PK. He did well enough here to go into training camp as a team's no. 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullock was a good pickup. He was ok, not great, He's not that inferior to Folk. He should have a job next season. He was cut by the Texans for missing two extra points but overall in the NFL there were plenty of missed extra points. I would assume he doesn't want to go to a team like the Jets where he's rated the no. 2 kicker. When all teams only carry one PK. He did well enough here to go into training camp as a team's no. 1.

Dan Carpenter in Buffalo missed 6 PATs this year.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The team was scared to use him.  He was a liability.  Looking at percentages is all well and good, but you are going to say he was better than Folk because he made one extra FG?  He was 4-4 inside 30, while Folk was 2-2.  Folk also didn't miss any extra points.  Hell, even Quigley was 4-4 on points after.  Folk missed 3 FGs between 40-49, but one was 48 and another 49.  He basically had one miss all season where you expected him to make it.  He hit two from over 50.  Bullock was an adventure every time.  They will probably ask him back to camp, but if he doesn't take his conditioning more seriously and show more consistency he is not going to stick.  IMO no team in the NFL is going to go into the season with him as their #1 based on 2015. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that fat **** better not be anywhere near the jets balls in 2016.

'but omg he booms kickoffs!'

who cares? How many times does the ball get returned past the 20 yard line nowadays? I'd rather have Folk making FGs and kicking it to the goal line. At least with a KR there's a chance for a fumble.

other than Folk was worse and costs a lot more.

and is older 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folk is clutch. Bullock is not.

Folk is a lot more money and had a lower % of kicks made.  Folk hasn't had to make a clutch kick in awhile. I know he missed one last week but hit later, don't think clutch had anything to do with it.  It was windy, Carpenter missed too.  Folks missed a few more than in the past since we locked him up.   It's not the clear cut yuk fest some made it into.  Kind of reminded me of everyone going crazy of switching to Westies favorite punter.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullock is an upgrade.  Although they were statistically similar, the younger guy's stats were slightly better, field goals AND kickoffs.  

Folk: 13/16 (81%) with a 32% touchback efficiency

Bullock:  14/17 (83%) with a 48% touchback efficiency)

Not only does Bullock have the stronger leg... the imperative part of the equation is that he costs about 1/4 of the Folk's price going into a season where salary cap issues will be critical for re-structuring this squad.

Bullock will be our guy.  Unless, another team picks him up first... there are plenty of teams will need a kicker this season (Jax w/7 missed PATs, Buf w/6 missed PATs, NOLA w/69% FG accuracy just skimming the stats).

 

He was not better.   You may, quite literally, be the only person that thinks he was. 

Most think he'll at least be invited to camp. As I do. 

You, quite literally are the one making this into something bigger than it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folk is a lot more money and had a lower % of kicks made.  Folk hasn't had to make a clutch kick in awhile.

Bullock was so untrustworthy, the Jets only let him kick one field goal on the season 50+ yards in length.  He missed it.  If Bullock were treated like a normal kicker (like Folk), his % would have dropped.  He wasn't, because the coaching staff doesn't trust him like they do Folk.

Not to mention, if we were to get rid of Folk and sign Bullock to an extension, we'd have to eat $1.2M in dead money if we cut him before June 1, and $600K (pushed to 2017) if we cut him after June 1st.  Financially it makes no sense to do that.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullock was so untrustworthy, the Jets only let him kick one field goal on the season 50+ yards in length.  He missed it.

If Bullock were treated like a normal kicker, his % would have dropped.  He wasn't, because the coaching staff doesn't trust him like they do Folk.

Folks not all that trustworthy.  And he's expensive. 

None of know what the CS thinks about either.  Guess we'll know when they pick one over the other.

Personally I don't think there's a whole lot to like for one over the other.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullock was so untrustworthy, the Jets only let him kick one field goal on the season 50+ yards in length.  He missed it.  If Bullock were treated like a normal kicker (like Folk), his % would have dropped.  He wasn't, because the coaching staff doesn't trust him like they do Folk.

Not to mention, if we were to get rid of Folk and sign Bullock to an extension, we'd have to eat $1.2M in dead money if we cut him before June 1, and $600K (pushed to 2017) if we cut him after June 1st.  Financially it makes no sense to do that.

and there it is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

please explain. Are you Bullock's mom?

Yeah that's what it takes.

because me saying I don't see much difference between the two?  And am taking into account money.

That was the really appropriate response.  You should go back and quote all that have said the same.  Not that hard to follow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because me saying I don't see much difference between the two? 

The difference between Bullock and Folk is like the difference between Geno and Fitz.  Sure, neither of them might be all that special.  But the former makes my stomach churn before they line up for a big kick/drop back to pass.  The latter does not.  And the coaching staff very clearly agrees on both counts. 

I'm really glad Bullock filled in admirably.  But his track record is to be a big-time choker (unlike Folk for the most part), and he displayed that lack of clutchness a few times even in limited opportunities here.  He's a free agent and we should just let him walk.  Folk is under contract and the better kicker.  He'll get healthy and be fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that's what it takes.

because me saying I don't see much difference between the two?  And am taking into account money.

That was the really appropriate response.  You should go back and quote all that have said the same.  Not that hard to follow

How clutch has Folk been for this team over the last few years? .. and you said he's untrustworthy?  i don't get it.

Bullock didn't have the trust of this staff and he missed a huge FG in week 17.

Unless we are that cap strapped that we need to save $1M on the kicker position, I don't see it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between Bullock and Folk is like the difference between Geno and Fitz.  Sure, neither of them might be all that special.  But the former makes my stomach churn before they line up for a big kick/drop back to pass.  The latter does not.  And the coaching staff very clearly agrees on both counts. 

I'm really glad Bullock filled in admirably.  But his track record is to be a big-time choker (unlike Folk for the most part), and he displayed that lack of clutchness a few times even in limited opportunities here.  He's a free agent and we should just let him walk.  Folk is under contract and the better kicker.  He'll get healthy and be fine. 

No, now youve gone too far.  Geno sucks, Bullock did a good job for us, be was better than some of the other shlt out there.  He's better than a Carpenter for ex.  I don't think hes great by any stretch.  I just don't think either is all that great to be honest.  HIs track record is not of anything, hes a rookie.  All I'm saying is that for what you get one over the other not sure if the huge money difference is justified.

Nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, now youve gone too far.  Geno sucks, Bullock did a good job for us, be was better than some of the other shlt out there.  He's better than a Carpenter for ex.  I don't think hes great by any stretch.  I just don't think either is all that great to be honest.  HIs track record is not of anything, hes a rookie.  All I'm saying is that for what you get one over the other not sure if the huge money difference is justified.

Nothing more.

Are you talking about Bullock?  This was his 4th season in the league.  He spent 3+ sh*tty seasons with the Texans.  The final straw for them was when he missed 2 extra points over a 3-game stretch, and also missed a 43-yarder in Week 3, to start the '15 campaign.  And that was playing for a dome team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How clutch has Folk been for this team over the last few years? .. and you said he's untrustworthy?  i don't get it.

Bullock didn't have the trust of this staff and he missed a huge FG in week 17.

Unless we are that cap strapped that we need to save $1M on the kicker position, I don't see it

How clutch was Folk before his injury? 

How could he possibly be more clutch, to the point you're questioning it?  What because he attempted 2 50 yarders?  That helped his numbers, he hit them both.  No one knows as fact that if Bullock tried two he would have missed any.  Not the point actually.  Other than imaginary Bullock would have missed if he attempted a 50 yarder his % is better than Folks so he should get a look.  

Why does bringing him in for a kick off have anyone twisted? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does bringing him in for a kick off have anyone twisted? 

But that's not what you're suggesting.  If that's all that you were saying no one would dispute it.  But you're saying Bullock is equal or better than Folk and could win that competition.  He's not.  There's pretty clear evidence that he's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's not what you're suggesting.  If that's all that you were saying no one would dispute it.  But you're saying Bullock is equal or better than Folk and could win that competition.  He's not.  There's pretty clear evidence that he's not.

Thats what I am suggesting and said it before.  I've never said they should keep one over the other.  If Bullock can kick similar to Folk at a lower cost they'll look at him.  Especially if they're looking to save money.  You want to ignore what Bullock did here last year.  He was solid, I think he's earned himself a tryout.  We're allowed to disagree, this isnt a huge deal either way

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats what I am suggesting and said it before.  I've never said they should keep one over the other.  If Bullock can kick similar to Folk at a lower cost they'll look at him.  Especially if they're looking to save money.

I don't think cost-cutting should extend to kicker when you have a pretty good one under contract.  We play in an outdoor, cold weather stadium and the kicking game matters a lot for us.  If Folk was no good and Bullock was trustworthy, sure, make that move.  But neither statement is true.  Folk is fine, Bullock can't be trusted.  You need to be able to trust your kicker. 

Whether you want to believe it or not, there were several times down the stretch where we went for it on 4th down despite being in FG range.  That's because of our coaching staff's lack of trust in Bullock.  That doesn't always show up on the stat sheet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think cost-cutting should extend to kicker when you have a pretty good one under contract.  We play in an outdoor, cold weather stadium and the kicking game matters a lot for us.  If Folk was no good and Bullock was trustworthy, sure, make that move.  But neither statement is true.  Folk is fine, Bullock can't be trusted.  You need to be able to trust your kicker. 

Whether you want to believe it or not, there were several times down the stretch where we went for it on 4th down despite being in FG range.  That's because of our coaching staff's lack of trust in Bullock.  That doesn't always show up on the stat sheet.

I agree, don't think cost cutting anywhere it risks performance is a bad idea.  A big part of us going on 4th down was we were so damn good in close and that we needed the points.  I also think Bowles is proving himself to be a little Parcells at times and plays really aggressively. I'm trying to think of a game where we needed the 3 and passed up a 50 yard FG.  

Like I said, I think he's going to get invied to camp.  We don't even know what Folk will be post injury.  His last injury turned him around and got him dumped in Dallas when he was slow to recover

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The team was scared to use him.  He was a liability.  Looking at percentages is all well and good, but you are going to say he was better than Folk because he made one extra FG?  He was 4-4 inside 30, while Folk was 2-2.  Folk also didn't miss any extra points.  Hell, even Quigley was 4-4 on points after.  Folk missed 3 FGs between 40-49, but one was 48 and another 49.  He basically had one miss all season where you expected him to make it.  He hit two from over 50.  Bullock was an adventure every time.  They will probably ask him back to camp, but if he doesn't take his conditioning more seriously and show more consistency he is not going to stick.  IMO no team in the NFL is going to go into the season with him as their #1 based on 2015. 

Really, that's not what I saw with Bullock this season.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folk is a lot more money and had a lower % of kicks made.  Folk hasn't had to make a clutch kick in awhile. I know he missed one last week but hit later, don't think clutch had anything to do with it.  It was windy, Carpenter missed too.  Folks missed a few more than in the past since we locked him up.   It's not the clear cut yuk fest some made it into.  Kind of reminded me of everyone going crazy of switching to Westies favorite punter.  

There isn't much savings by going with Bullock. Figuring Bullock will be around $1M, and cutting Folk saving $2M, the savings is around $1M (around 0.7% of the salary cap limit). Not enough to base such an important decision upon. As such, the savings are totally insignificant.

Citing such minute differences in FG percentage as anything meaningful is ridiculous. It's not even a significant difference if you were grading each after 100 FG attempts. At 16-17 attempts apiece, it's absurd. And Bullock missed 3 XPs in 2015. Moving the XP back, maybe you can tolerate one miss after a full 16 games of attempts.

As a mid-season pickup to mop up the season, we could have done a lot worse than Bullock. That doesn't mean keep him after the reliable one returns. Bring him in to camp, fine, just in case Folk has to change his kicking motion to avoid pain or something, meaning he may not be the same as before. But if it's even close, you go with the guy you know not the guy the coach has no confidence in. JMO.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There isn't much by going with Bullock. Figuring Bullock will be around $1M, and cutting Folk saving $2M, the savings is around $1M (around 0.7% of the salary cap limit). Not enough to base such an important decision upon. As such, the savings are totally insignificant.

Citing such minute differences in FG percentage as anything meaningful is ridiculous. It's not even a significant difference if you were grading each after 100 FG attempts. At 16-17 attempts apiece, it's absurd. And Bullock missed 3 XPs in 2015. Moving the XP back, maybe you can tolerate one miss after a full 16 games of attempts.

Do you really think Bullock with get 1 mil?  He was only $585,000 this year

Folk way overpriced to me at $2,750,000 to the cap in 2016. 

Thats almost 2.2 mil in savings off of Bullocks 2015 number

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really think Bullock with get 1 mil?  He was only $585,000 this year

Because he was operating off his rookie deal.  He was a 5th round pick.  A decent comparison would be Connor Barth in Tampa, who signed a 2-year deal for $1.75M before the season.  He's set to make $1M in 2016.  That sounds about right for Bullock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...