What am I missing on these 2 season totals????

TheJer · 09-04-10, 08:01 PM

I like Oakland to win 7 games this season and beat the 6.5 total.

icancount2one · 09-04-10, 10:43 PM

Jason Campbell had a 64.5 % completion percentage last year and was 15th in passer rating. JaFail was 32nd and by a lot.

Carolina is okay, I'd have to see their schedule, but they seem like a break-even team. Had a weird off year after going 12-4 in '08

Addicted2Action · 09-05-10, 12:21 AM

oak could easily win 7 games, wouldnt be surprised if they won 9..rather not tie my money up for 4 months on win totals but think you crazy if you think oak under 6.5 is the best available.......

LLXC · 09-05-10, 12:32 AM

I think Oakland has a better chance with Gradkowski, but 9 is pushing it, lol

gryfyn1 · 09-05-10, 10:15 AM

Campbell wasn't bad last year, he's certainly no top QB, but he would embolden what i would call average -

he posted an 86 QB rating last year, and it wasn't his fault the skins went 4-12, it was the fact they had no running game - the year before when Portis was healthy they went 8-8 in a tough NFC east.

Lat year the Raiders won 5 games, Jamarcus started 9 of those and Chaz Frye started 3. Gradkowski really isnt that good he had one good game last year, thats it. Campbell, at average, is a HUGE upgrade at QB.

C-Gold · 09-05-10, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by icancount2one

Jason Campbell had a 64.5 % completion percentage last year and was 15th in passer rating. JaFail was 32nd and by a lot.

Jason Campbell was the king of throwing the 2 yard pass on 3rd and 12 when his team was down by 14 points. Yeah, the back catches the pass, might pick up 4 more yards but then what? You punt. The guy was a stat queen. He choaks in late game situations.

The problem with most QB's is that they are too aggressive, try and do too much, throw picks into double coverage etc. Look at Rex Grossman the Redskins current backup.

However the problem with Campell is that he doesn't try to do enough. He's perfectly content with throwing the ball 2 yards on 3rd and 12 over and over and over again... Winners aren't afraid to lose.

If you were the QB on a 4-12 team, he should have LOTS of (garbage) touchdowns and lots of picks, but instead he has a high completion pct, and not a lot of yards...

He has lots of fundamental problems, like holding onto the ball too long, his exaggerated delivery looks like a poor mans Byron Leftwich, he runs a poor 2 min drill, throws an inaccurate deep ball, and doesn't have that moxy/urgency/leadership. He is like a poor mans Byron Leftwich and will probably have a similar career path. A guy with weak fundamentals, wore out his welcome as a teams 1st round pick/future... then bounced around the league as a backup QB or a starter for really crappy teams...

Jason Campbell has been an NFL starter for 4 years, has a career losing record and has not ONCE led his team to the playoffs... In fact, he was outplayed by Todd Collins in 07 who had better stats, better winning pct etc. The Todd Collins ( career backup) led Redskins were 4-0 in the regular season beating the Giants ( SB Champs), Minnesota, Dallas and some other team maybe the Eagles. Meanwhile Campbell was 5-7 with the same team. That dog just don't hunt.

The Redskins were an automatic under for much of Campbell's tenure. You know he'd throw his checkdowns and the offense would go into a cocoon.

In general if a QB is on a very good team, you should focus on his "efficency", where as if a QB is on a bad team you just want to more or less see what he can do. If he throws 4 TD's with 2 picks in a losing effort that is fine, but if the team wins and the guy throws 1 TD, 0 INTs and had a good completion pct etc... On crappy teams you want to see if a guy has upside... Campbell throwing mindless checkdowns was a bad sign.

I'm a big Fader of Jason Campbell. A lot of people still think he is "ok", or that 4 losing seasons weren't his fault, but he sucks. He's especially a good fade vs good defenses... The Redskins couldn't score at all vs the Pittsburghs, Baltimores, Giants of the world unless it was garbage time.

Addicted2Action · 09-05-10, 10:34 PM

what "good defenses" is he gonna see in that division though?

C-Gold · 09-05-10, 10:47 PM

It's not like he is going to mop up... The guy has started about 50 games, how many times has he really impressed you?

I mean, look at all the trouble last year they had with the likes of the Tampa, Detroit, Kansas City, Rams last year... This are teams the Redskins should have dusted off... There is now way they should have had that close of a game vs Tampa and a D3 quarterback in his first NFL start... I mean, the Redskins started their season and played their first 5 games against winless teams... They should have been about 4-1 but instead they won 4 games all year. Campbell is a huge dud.

nbarlotta3 · 09-05-10, 11:00 PM

I'm not sure how I feel about those bets.

officepoolguy · 09-05-10, 11:28 PM

Oakland is going to struggle as Campbell is NOT the answer to their problems. The only thing they have going is that they play in a horrible division and have an easy schedule with only 4 playoff teams on it.

Potential wins: St. Louis, at Arizona, Kansas City (2), Denver, Miami, Seattle and at Jacksonville.

That is 8 wins if they pull off those and 6 if they lose 2 of those road games. I think they could get to 7 wins if all goes right so I might stay away.

Carolina on the hand also has an easy schedule and has the running game to make up for some inconsistent qb play.

Potential wins: Tampa (2), Cincinnati, Chicago, at St. Louis, at Cleveland, at Seattle, Arizona, San Fransisco.

This would give them 9 wins and an easy over. They could also beat the Giants for 10 wins. So I really like this one.

THE HITMAN · 09-05-10, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by officepoolguy

Oakland is going to struggle as Campbell is NOT the answer to their problems. The only thing they have going is that they play in a horrible division and have an easy schedule with only 4 playoff teams on it.

Potential wins: St. Louis, at Arizona, Kansas City (2), Denver, Miami, Seattle and at Jacksonville.

That is 8 wins if they pull off those and 6 if they lose 2 of those road games. I think they could get to 7 wins if all goes right so I might stay away.

Carolina on the hand also has an easy schedule and has the running game to make up for some inconsistent qb play.

Potential wins: Tampa (2), Cincinnati, Chicago, at St. Louis, at Cleveland, at Seattle, Arizona, San Fransisco.

This would give them 9 wins and an easy over. They could also beat the Giants for 10 wins. So I really like this one.

I can't see putting Cinn & SF in the category of potential wins. I mean all 16 games are potential, but to put them on the list of gam,es they should win..........I dunno. Juat my 2 cents. GL with it.

officepoolguy · 09-06-10, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by THE HITMAN

I can't see putting Cinn & SF in the category of potential wins. I mean all 16 games are potential, but to put them on the list of gam,es they should win..........I dunno. Juat my 2 cents. GL with it.

I guess I see potential wins as games that I could see them winning...I dont see them winning all 16 games but you cant tell me Cincinnati and San Fransisco are a whole lot better than Carolina. Notice I did not put Atlanta, New Orleans, Baltimore and even at Pittsburgh on the list of potential wins. I did NOT say SHOULD win but I did say COULD win.

C-Gold · 09-06-10, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by officepoolguy

Oakland is going to struggle as Campbell is NOT the answer to their problems. The only thing they have going is that they play in a horrible division and have an easy schedule with only 4 playoff teams on it.

Potential wins: St. Louis, at Arizona, Kansas City (2), Denver, Miami, Seattle and at Jacksonville.

That is 8 wins if they pull off those and 6 if they lose 2 of those road games. I think they could get to 7 wins if all goes right so I might stay away.

Carolina on the hand also has an easy schedule and has the running game to make up for some inconsistent qb play.

Potential wins: Tampa (2), Cincinnati, Chicago, at St. Louis, at Cleveland, at Seattle, Arizona, San Fransisco.

This would give them 9 wins and an easy over. They could also beat the Giants for 10 wins. So I really like this one.

but you overestimate campbell. The guy losses games he's supposed to win...

I really doubt the Raiders go into arrowhead and win a tough road game... MAYBE they beat the Chiefs at home but I really doubt they sweep them...

I'm also not so hot on Miami, @ Jacksonville, @ Denver or @ Arizona and Seattle. That's 5 games, and they most likely go 2-3 in those games, maybe even 1-4.

They SHOULD beat St. Louis but so what... Jason Campbell was losing games he should have won last year, and you want to tell me Gradkowski is going to bring this team to almost .500 vs these other teams?

officepoolguy · 09-06-10, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by C-Gold

but you overestimate campbell. The guy losses games he's supposed to win...

I really doubt the Raiders go into arrowhead and win a tough road game... MAYBE they beat the Chiefs at home but I really doubt they sweep them...

I'm also not so hot on Miami, @ Jacksonville, @ Denver or @ Arizona and Seattle. That's 5 games, and they most likely go 2-3 in those games, maybe even 1-4.

They SHOULD beat St. Louis but so what... Jason Campbell was losing games he should have won last year, and you want to tell me Gradkowski is going to bring this team to almost .500 vs these other teams?

Yeah...I can see that scenario. I am not a big fan of Oakland and Campbell and I think they will struggle but I just worry about the easy schedule. Oakland under could be a good bet but I am going to stay away.