Jet Nut Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Because he was operating off his rookie deal. He was a 5th round pick. We didnt trade for him. He wasn't working on any deal, he signed for what we negotiated Or did I miss something. Again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 We didnt trade for him. He wasn't working on any deal, he signed for what we negotiated Or did I miss something. Again Well he was waived by Houston, so I assumed we were picking up his contract where it left off. Assuming thats untrue, his rookie deal steal averaged out to about 560K per season with Houston, and getting cut midseason limits your options. Coming off a decent finish to the season, a deal like Barth's still sounds about right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 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 If Bullock actually wins a job against the veteran Folk he's not getting $600K. He got that little because he was signed mid-season and before that he was still on a 5th round rookie contract. Regardless, you're squabbling over amounts that are so insignificant on a $150 million salary cap. Plus Folk received a signing bonus. So you don't wipe his cap number down to zero by cutting him. We paid him money that hasn't yet come off the cap, so if we cut him it still has to come off. Whether it's $1M even or $1.5M, it's nothing. The kicker decides too many games to worry about a maximum savings of 1% of the salary cap for 1 year. What do you think we're going to use even $1.5M on? Give everyone else on the roster a $30,000 raise? With every remaining game a must-win for us, Bullock missed a FG in 3 of 4 games in December, plus he missed an extra point. Sorry but that is not reliable no matter what his on-paper percentage is. He was fine for us under the circumstances, but he'd have to have totally killed it in December to replace Folk. He didn't, so he shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Nut Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 If Bullock actually wins a job against the veteran Folk he's not getting $600K. He got that little because he was signed mid-season and before that he was still on a 5th round rookie contract. Regardless, you're squabbling over amounts that are so insignificant on a $150 million salary cap. Plus Folk received a signing bonus. So you don't wipe his cap number down to zero by cutting him. We paid him money that hasn't yet come off the cap, so if we cut him it still has to come off. Whether it's $1M even or $1.5M, it's nothing. The kicker decides too many games to worry about a maximum savings of 1% of the salary cap for 1 year. What do you think we're going to use even $1.5M on? Give everyone else on the roster a $30,000 raise? With every remaining game a must-win for us, Bullock missed a FG in 3 of 4 games in December, plus he missed an extra point. Sorry but that is not reliable no matter what his on-paper percentage is. He was fine for us under the circumstances, but he'd have to have totally killed it in December to replace Folk. He didn't, so he shouldn't. Not disagreeing with you in that if Folk is better he needs to be paid. We've fallen way off my original statement. If Bullock is the equal with FGs and is better on KOs, then given the difference in money he may get a shot. I think he proved out well and the money is significant enough, its another 2 STs players so he'll get a chance in camp to prove it. If not, no harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
56mehl56 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Are we really arguing over this scrub Bullock. This shouldn't even be a conversation point. Folk is a better kicker than Bullock period. Same things were said about the scrub Folk when we picked him up after Dallas cut him. Bullock is younger , has a stronger leg and costs less. Its certainly not a slam dunk Folk is back next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BallinPB Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Same things were said about the scrub Folk when we picked him up after Dallas cut him. Bullock is younger , has a stronger leg and costs less. Its certainly not a slam dunk Folk is back next season. If Folk is not coming back then we need to look elsewhere. Bullock is too inconsistent especially missing XP's. I understand the same thing was said about Folk but they are different people and you can't expect the same turnaround to happen for Bullock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 If Folk was a UFA this would be a worthwhile debate. He's not, he's under contract. No need to create a need where there isn't one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyCarl40 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Listen, we all love the fat kicker meme. It's hysterical. That's no reason to keep him over Folk. If Folk sucks in training camp with a lingering injury or something, then address it. Not until then though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prime21 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 I'm looking to resign Folk if he is injur free. He was a little off this year but Listen, we all love the fat kicker meme. It's hysterical. That's no reason to keep him over Folk. If Folk sucks in training camp with a lingering injury or something, then address it. Not until then though. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
56mehl56 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 If Folk was a UFA this would be a worthwhile debate. He's not, he's under contract. No need to create a need where there isn't one. Geno's under contract and you want him replaced - just sayin. Bullock's been given a bad rap , he kicked very well for us , and gave us a better % of TB's than what Folk provided. With our specials being as subpar as they/were are - having the opponent start at the 20 is not a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Not disagreeing with you in that if Folk is better he needs to be paid. We've fallen way off my original statement. If Bullock is the equal with FGs and is better on KOs, then given the difference in money he may get a shot. I think he proved out well and the money is significant enough, its another 2 STs players so he'll get a chance in camp to prove it. If not, no harm. I think this is the point where we begin exchanging insults about each other's mothers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Oh, and for all the talk of trying to get Ferguson or Cromartie to take a pay cut, I suppose Maccagnan can lean on Folk a little, citing Bullock as a much cheaper option for us and how he hasn't been at 90% for 2 seasons and didn't even finish 2015. I wouldn't try to get too cute with him, though. It's not like his cap hit is $6M or something in that range that would actually get in the way of signing someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Our "permanent" new kicker? Like in the year 3000 he'll still be our kicker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayNoToDMC Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 How the did an argument about whether Folk or Bullock is a better kicker make it 7 pages? I presume people here watched the games this year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Nut Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 I think this is the point where we begin exchanging insults about each other's mothers. You have a mother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurnleyJet Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Bullock physically makes me wince whenever he comes out to kick. Folk the same, but only if it's over 45 yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJ Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 having the opponent start at the 20 is not a bad thing. No - a bad thing is missing clutch FG's and PAT's. To want Bullock over Folk is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
56mehl56 Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 No - a bad thing is missing clutch FG's and PAT's. To want Bullock over Folk is ridiculous. Your judging a guy by his past . Bullock missed 3 Fg's and 1 XP , Folk missed 3 Fg's with less attempts this season. When the team is up against the cap with trying to resign our Fa's the1 million saved with Bullock won't be that ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR24 Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 He looks like Randy from trailer park boys get him out of here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.