975 replies to this topic

[EL GRANDE WHOPPO]

EOG, on 22 September 2010 - 10:51 AM, said:

So Grankowski is the new starter. what happened to Al saying Campbell is the new Plunkett? Look i like Grankowski, i think he's a gritty, mobile qb with great leadership but Campbell should be starting.

If the Raidas had a better offensive line I think Campbell would be starting. Under the circumstance I think that they made the right decision.

[Nanizm]

Steven, on 21 September 2010 - 01:07 PM, said:

The Cardinals are a vastly better team at home than on the road.  I wouldn't count the Raidas chickens before they hatch.

If they dont hatch they can still make an awesome omelette.

[Mohican83]

Everyone keeps talking about Gradkowski coming in and having a great game.  He had a 70 passer rating, compared to Campbells 64.  He had 1 TD and 1 Interception and the team scored 13 points.  

Campbell led the team to 3 points but SeeBass missed a field goal and the raiders ran a poor 4th and inches play at the rams 6 which should have been converted and then scored a td.  7 more oints.  That is 13 points for the half.  Gradkowski benefits from limted game footage on him.  The more he plays, the more teams will prepare for him.  He is a poor mans Jeff Garcia

[Bryon]

Mohican83, on 22 September 2010 - 12:42 PM, said:

Everyone keeps talking about Gradkowski coming in and having a great game.  He had a 70 passer rating, compared to Campbells 64.  He had 1 TD and 1 Interception and the team scored 13 points.  

Campbell led the team to 3 points but SeeBass missed a field goal and the raiders ran a poor 4th and inches play at the rams 6 which should have been converted and then scored a td.  7 more oints.  That is 13 points for the half.  Gradkowski benefits from limted game footage on him.  The more he plays, the more teams will prepare for him.  He is a poor mans Jeff Garcia

Gradkowski or Campbell, does it really matter as long as that old fart is at the helm. The Raiders on just plain old bad year after year.

[EvenSteven]

Bryon, on 22 September 2010 - 12:45 PM, said:

Gradkowski or Campbell, does it really matter as long as that old fart is at the helm. The Raiders on just plain old bad year after year.

I think the Raidas will break through this year and go 7-9!

[Mohican83]

Don't know steven.  The other teams in the division may sweep them.

[Juan23]

6-10

[Bryon]

Juan23, on 22 September 2010 - 02:54 PM, said:

6-10

They may beat the Cardinals and the Jags, after that, who can they beat?

[Nanizm]

Bryon, on 22 September 2010 - 03:16 PM, said:

They may beat the Cardinals and the Jags, after that, who can they beat?

@Arizona, @SF, Seattle, KC, @JAX, Denver + 2 upsets = 9-7

[EvenSteven]

Bryon, on 22 September 2010 - 03:16 PM, said:

They may beat the Cardinals and the Jags, after that, who can they beat?

I am taking the Cards this week man....who's with me?

[Nanizm]

Steven, on 22 September 2010 - 03:25 PM, said:

I am taking the Cards this week man....who's with me?

[EvenSteven]

Nanizm, on 22 September 2010 - 03:36 PM, said:

Nothing against the Raidas, Nan.  I am just trying to pick the winners.

[EOG]

Nanizm, on 22 September 2010 - 03:21 PM, said:

@Arizona, @SF, Seattle, KC, @JAX, Denver + 2 upsets = 9-7

they won't beat the Niners or the Broncos. maybe not even Seattle. their defense is decent and good enough to stop the Raiders.

[Bryon]

Bryon, on 22 September 2010 - 03:16 PM, said:

They may beat the Cardinals and the Jags, after that, who can they beat?

My bad, they might beat the Jags = 2 and 14. unless they get lucky and the colts and chiefs rest players.

[Shal]

Nanizm, on 22 September 2010 - 03:21 PM, said:

@Arizona, @SF, Seattle, KC, @JAX, Denver + 2 upsets = 9-7

You can scratch Arizona from that hilarious list.

[EL GRANDE WHOPPO]

Shal, on 26 September 2010 - 07:53 PM, said:

You can scratch Arizona from that hilarious list.

Kinda glad we did not bet after that joke of a game today. Raidfa did cover though and the game easily went over as well. Cardinals are wretched and Raidas still found a way to lose the game.

[Mohican83]

I truly dislike field goal kickers

[Nanizm]

I love football but hate this part of the game and it is what I use as one reason the NBA is a better game than the NFL. You have highly skilled athletes that beat each other up for 4 long quarters and at the end of a hard fought game, where your team just gutted it out to get in field goal range, you hand over the game to the most unathletic guy on the team; usually a foreigner with 9 consonants and no vowels in his last name which you cant pronounce. It would be like after 47 mins and 58 seconds of a hard fought game for the Lakers, after Kobe, Gasol, Artest, Odom, Bynum worked their butts off to get within 1 point, they then bring Mbenga off the bench to seal the win with a 5 foot bank shot and he misses, Lakers lose.

[Mohican83]

Nanizm, on 27 September 2010 - 09:33 AM, said:

I love football but hate this part of the game and it is what I use as one reason the NBA is a better game than the NFL. You have highly skilled athletes that beat each other up for 4 long quarters and at the end of a hard fought game, where your team just gutted it out to get in field goal range, you hand over the game to the most unathletic guy on the team; usually a foreigner with 9 consonants and no vowels in his last name which you cant pronounce. It would be like after 47 mins and 58 seconds of a hard fought game for the Lakers, after Kobe, Gasol, Artest, Odom, Bynum worked their butts off to get within 1 point, they then bring Mbenga off the bench to seal the win with a 5 foot bank shot and he misses, Lakers lose.

As opposed to having a guy like Sasha sitting on the bench the whole game then coming out and hitting a game winning 3 pointer?   Your forgeinger comment is truly bogus.  It shouldn't matter where they were born.  He's the highest paid kicker in NFL history(stupid Al Davis again).  Fact is, the raiders were 1/5 in the red zone.  They lose games because of their inability to score touchdowns

[Nanizm]

Mohican83, on 27 September 2010 - 10:02 AM, said:

As opposed to having a guy like Sasha sitting on the bench the whole game then coming out and hitting a game winning 3 pointer?   Your forgeinger comment is truly bogus.  It shouldn't matter where they were born.  He's the highest paid kicker in NFL history(stupid Al Davis again).  Fact is, the raiders were 1/5 in the red zone.  They lose games because of their inability to score touchdowns

i was speaking of FG kickers in general, not just Janakowski. im also not saying the Raiders lost ONLY because of the missed FG at the end. Im not one of those that focuses only on the last play of the game as the sole reason why a team lost. In that game Arizona made a bunch of mistakes, such as crucial turnovers, to place the Raiders in a position to win. The Raiders really shouldnt have been in that game. Its still a big downer when they lose like that.

I was saying that I dont like that aspect of Football. That a FG goal kicker is usually the one at the end that will make or break a game and/or a whole season. A FG kicker shouldnt have that big of a role. Your basketball example is a very rare occurance in the NBA, whereas a FG kicker kicking for the win at the end of the game is a regular occurance. In the NBA, the star will usually have the ball in his hand at the end of the game or a play will be called to get the ball to one of the stars.