Fantasy Football Player Outlook: Jason Campbell
Jason Campbell is one of those fantasy football players that is labeled everything from complete bust to team savior. Campbell has many risks attached to him when discussing his fantasy football potential so as a result that leaves many questions inside a fantasy team owner's mind about Jason. Luckily, here is Jason Campbell's 2010-2011 fantasy outlook.
As stated earlier, Campbell has multiple risks associated with him, one key risk being a downgrade in his receiving cores.
Campbell, traded to the Oakland Raiders during the off-season by the Washington Redskins, leaves behind one of the most underrated 1-2 receiving punches in the NFL in Chris Cooley and Santana Moss while he will inherit one of the worst in Zach Miller and Darrius Heyward-Bey. Miller recently established his position as a decent fantasy tight end but Heyward-Bey has exactly 9 receptions for 124 yards and one touchdown in his one-year career. That is one of the worst downgrades possible for a quarterback fantasy-wise.
In addition, despite Campbell having a career year last season with the Redskins, he still maintained his reputation as being risky with his throws as he threw a total of 15 interceptions last season. In a regular scoring ESPN Fantasy Football league that amounts to 30 lost fantasy points or two points lost for every interception.
Regardless of Campbell averaging 12.6 fantasy points per game last season*, his interception rate and the receiving core downgrade are too many factors to overcome and I believe that Campbell will be a bust this season.
Therefore, you should not consider drafting Jason Campbell but if you are in a deep league, you could consider acquiring Campbell off waivers as a backup quarterback.
So to everyone playing a fantasy sport, good luck with your team this season.
*Fantasy PPG (FPPG) are based on ESPN Fantasy Football's Standard Scoring System.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?