Any answer to why Chicago and Arizona have such high standard deviations? Atlanta and New Orleans don't surprise me, but does Rex Grossman really cause that much variation in the simulations?

I'm still confused about Carolina's rise to power. How is their defense projected to be so great? Heck, why is their offense projected to be anything better than mediocre? Or is this again an artifact of Katrina and NO?

I can't get over how it's possible for the AFC South to be projected in such a manner. Is Indy's defense and special teams really that bad?
Is the Jags defense really that good?
WOW.
The Jags really the third best team in the league?

I read the article and I understand that they were an inconsistant team last year, but what other than the "projection to the mean" would explain the belief that they won't be as inconsistant as last year. They have the same coach and he is the person that is ultimately responsible for how a team plays week to week.

Is it really smart to add a variable to minimize 0-16, 1-15, 15-1, and 16-0 teams? I would guess that would artificially deflate (or inflate) the mean records of the best teams (worst teams).

AFC North Title will be a race worth watching, I think that a soft early schedule for the Steelers could help the o-line to gel before being truly tested by the others minefield-like AFC contenders

This is why I love this site. Everyone else predicts 6/7 repeats for Divisions whereas your projections give you Tampa & Green Bay. And you roll with them ...

Does this mean I should rethink my suicide pick of Seattle over Tampa Bay?

I love this site and almost everything you write, but I don't know where to begin with all the places where these projections look screwy. I would like to say more but the message board curse compels me to stop.

I agree with #8. I'd also like to add that I fear for my team this year. I've learned from the Falcon's fans. I dare not complain, but it still looks screwy to me.

Rairds at =12% a joke. Defense will be great, but so are Cullpepper and entire offense do for improvement. Win the division by Saturday, first rond bye by week 4. Entire offense rto prow bpwl!

I think it's amazing how wide of a variation there is between all the other sites projections and DVOA. Of course, this is the only statistically based one, but it still makes me scratch my head. For instance, Dallas at most other websites in the top ten, DVOA has them at 26. Wow.

Being in Brazil, I don't have access to the book and recent things shipped haven't arrived so...I have a Favre question. I'm thinking we will see a decline in skills this year, anyway we can get some similarity scores?

I like the standard dev for the Bears, gives me hope.

I'm not so much surprised at Indy's projected win total as I am by their very small standard deviation. Very surprised at how confident DVOA is about them.

How does this level of screwiness compare with previous years? How does it compare to the difference between reality and the predictions that this looks screwy against?

Every year the 'standard' predictions are just too conservative - they don't have enough changes at the tops of divisions, and they ignore the fact that you regularly do see teams jump from one end of the division to the other. I'd expect an accurate prediction to look somewhat screwy at first glance - and less so as the season progresses.

That's not to say I believe in the accuracy of this prediction - it has things that I find hard to stomach too - but I'm more open to a prediction that goes against common belief to this level than some people appear to be.

DVOA loves Philadelphia!

"Is Indy’s defense and special teams really that bad?"

Defense: They could probably be mediocre if Bob Sanders stays healthy.

Special Teams: Have you watched the Colts special teams? Ranking them 23rd is charitable.

If an offence including Pace, Bulger, Holt, Bruce, Jackson and Bennett is 24th best in the league defences are in for a tough time this year.

Love the site and will grin and bear it until the season at this stage but very frustrating for rams fans.

Is the Wash prediction based on their defense improving, for the most part? Who was injured last year and coming back on their D?

It seems weird to me that the best projected defense is only going to be -16.6% DVOA. Looking through the last 5 years there has one been one defense better than that every year, and usually about 3.

#8/9 - I completely agree. I love the site, but I am beginning to wonder how data-mined these projections are. It's one thing to build a predictive model based on your core football knowledge, it's completely another to datamine past trends and assume they will hold true in the future. Comments like these from Schatz really scare me:
(from the NO / STL projection comments link) "When the projection system spits out these weird numbers, that gives me ideas for new variables I might try. The goal is to find out where we are missing something. Believe me, I tried TONS of variables that I hoped would make Tampa Bay lower and New Orleans higher this year. Nothing worked. (I also had tons of ideas to make the Indianapolis projection higher and the Jacksonville projection lower, and those didn’t work either.)"

And this: "The Chargers had the worst red-zone defense in the NFL and ranked 30th in third-down run defense. Third-down run defense is a negative indicator, separate from the overall "third-down rebound" trend".

If the 9ers pan out like this I'll be thrilled, but it may be the last straw in terms of trying to take anything meaningful from the preseason.

In our four games, our passing offense looked sharp, our running game looked very poor, but then there was no Gore, so it's hardly unreasonable to expect it to be somewhere around the level it was last year once he comes back. On the other hand, our passing defense looked mediocre at best, and our run defense ranged from being a flat out abomination at times to being very poor at others. It looked like another season of hoping our D wouldn't get us buried so deep that our offense couldn't dig us out.

But the projected DVOA seem to suggest that the strenght/weakness balance will be exactly the other way around, so who knows?

Four categories, and my team tops two of them. Shame it's special teams and strength of schedule. I LIKE special teams, too, but there's only so much Brian Moorman and Terrence McGee can do for the Bills this year.

The big hope, it seems, is that Losman, Lynch, and Posluszny, likely our biggest variables, bust the projection.

On the Redskins:

I made a post detailing my statistical and subjective reasons for why I thought the Redskins would easily pass the Cowboys and Giants to be the 2nd best team in the NFC East. I was dismissed as a Redskinjoe. (Click my name for the link.)

Obviously they've got a lot of depth issues, and I could easily see their season going bad, but the fact is their starters are pretty solid almost everywhere. I think their offense will probably be slightly better than the projections give them credit for. They have monster run-blocking, and I think a strong RB tandem will set Campbell up to be an efficient passer. (That's exactly what happened to Campbell at Auburn, incidentally.)

Obviously, I think 4th is considerably too high for the Redskins defense, because they are weak at CB and DL.

The Redskins defense is an interesting projection because of their two-year trend. They were 4th in defensive DVOA in 2005, and then 32nd in 2006. Generally a team that suffers a dramatic decline over two years improves, often dramatically, the third year. The 2004-2006 Bills ranked 1st, 26th, and 19th in defense those three years. The 2004-2006 Patriots ranked 6th, 27th, and 8th. 1996-98 Raiders: 10th, 29th, 2nd.

Maybe the Redskins might have a good defense, but once the inevitable Shawn Springs injury occurs, I can't imagine them being 4th.

18:

I'm as puzzled as you about the Redskins defensive injuries. Pierson Prioleau went down on the opening kickoff, and Springs missed about half the season. A few other players were banged up (Cornelius Griffin and Marcus Washington, particularly), but nobody else missed significant time.

The problem with the Redskins' defensive personnel wasn't depth--it extended into the starting roster. Kenny Wright was always going to be the nickel back. Warrick Holdman was expected to start, and so was Lemar Marshall. The improvement's going to come from promotion and free agents. There are 4 new starters on defense this year (5 if you count Smoot), and 3 (4) have at least a year in Williams' system, so the transition should be easy.

Is that enough to get them up to a top-5 defense? I don't have any idea. But I grew watching games at RFK, so I'm not going to be the one to argue it.

That’s not to say I believe in the accuracy of this prediction - it has things that I find hard to stomach too - but I’m more open to a prediction that goes against common belief to this level than some people appear to be.

I'm very open to this prediction, thats what has me worried as a Bears fan. My head tells me FO is right more than they are wrong, but I still can't see the Packers coming out ahead of the Bears. Would I be surprised? No, these are the Bears we are talking about and we are still starting Grossman. But,...the Packers? Favre at age 37/38? With their running backs? I just have a hard time seeing a 12th ranked OFF there. (And I'm not debating the Bears OFF at 20, it seems about right.)

Screwiness: doesn't look that bad to me. I wish it looked screwy for the Seahawks, but it's definitely not far offbase.

Only things that look real offbase is Carolina being high, and Pitt not being a little higher. I'd expect Green Bay to be a little higher, too, now that you've all gone & sold me on em.

19: "It seems weird to me that the best projected defense is only going to be -16.6% DVOA. Looking through the last 5 years there has one been one defense better than that every year, and usually about 3."

It's a mean projection. Jacksonville will certainly do better or worse than -16.6%, but the projection system thinks the average of all possibilities -16.6%. It's the same reason that only two teams have a projection of 11 wins.

#7

Does this mean I should rethink my suicide pick of Seattle over Tampa Bay?

Yes.

re 22

I think the niners wisely played a pretty vanilla preseason. It will take a few games for the defense to really get going due to the inconsistencies up front, but the linebackers should be excellent. The offense didn't display any of the Smith/Davis/Gore combo that will be the foundation of this offense over the next several years. Lots of unknowns, but that's what makes nfl football fun.

Disclaimer: I firmly believe that DVOA is by far the best measure of team/unit quality out there, and that the DVOA projections are very likely to thrash my intuitions or those of any professional expert.

That said . . .

1. Unless Gaines Adams is a dominant (not good, dominant) pro pass rusher from the word go, I cannot believe the Bucs will rebound to that extent, given the loss of Rice and McFarland and the continued aging of other key contributors.

2. The Redskins still have horrendous depth problems. I'll defer to DVOA on the likelihood of them being good, but the standard deviation looks too low given how devastating even a few injuries could be.

3. Carson Palmer is too good for the Bengals offense to be only pretty good if he is healthy.

4. I find it very hard ineed to believe that replacing Vick with Harrington will not affect the performance of the Falcons' running backs. Both Dunn and Norwood will probably get more carries than they would have with Vick under centre, but their yards per carry and DVOA be lower than they would have been. There is virtually no chance the Falcons will be able to field a middle of the pack DVOA offense. If they can, we will know that Vick was not merely hurting but killing the production of their receivers.

5. Not a criticism, but we should all note the high variance on the Bears projection. The biggest reason for projecting decline for the Bears is the year-year variability of defense, but teams have been known to field elite defenses for three successive years (notably the Bucs in their heyday), and if the Bears can keep their key men healthy they seem to me to have a better chance of this than most such teams, given their comparative youth and the lack of major losses in free agency.

6. Loathe as I am to bring the wrath of the Curse upon my own team, I expect the Texans to have strong special teams DVOA this year, where the projections list them at 27th. Jerome Mathis is healthy, two preseason touchdowns suggest Jacoby Jones may be an elite punt returner, Kris Brown is good at kickoffs, which should carry over, and the awful Chad Stanley has been replaced by the excellent Matt Turk.

The NO pick is definitely one to question, but I think the staff here is perhaps backing off too much by saying they don't believe it. They're still projected as the #5 offense in the league, and that's an offense highly dependent on two second year players (Colston, Bush) who may not be as good this year as last year. The NO defense wasn't that much better last year than two years ago, so there may be something to the stats from two years ago to suggest it will still be bad this year, hurricane or no hurricane.

Is the Wash prediction based on their defense improving, for the most part? Who was injured last year and coming back on their D?

Oh yes. Washington's defense was pretty much near the worst in the league last year. They heavily - and I mean heavily - overhauled it, and when you have the worst defense and replace a bunch of the players, good chance it's going to be better, because it can't get much worse.

I touted Washington last year as a "better than they looked" team - the projection's probably a bit optimistic, but when you've got a team that's as thin depth-wise as the Redskins are, preseason projections are often optimistic.

And this: “The Chargers had the worst red-zone defense in the NFL and ranked 30th in third-down run defense. Third-down run defense is a negative indicator, separate from the overall “third-down rebound� trend�.

What the heck is so odd about that?

Here's what the third-down rebound trend means. A defense's performance on first, second, and third down isn't going to be that different. They're still the same players. They don't get magically better just because the down marker says "3". But third down has much more leverage on the effect of the game than first or second down, and so if a team manages to do better on third down than first or second, their defense will look much better than it actually is.

This idea is a recurring theme in all sports. Teams have a "true strength" and an "observed strength," and "luck" is when a team plays over their head. Sometimes it truly is luck! Imagine if a team has the worst punter known to man. If they face a team who has such a poor performance on defense that the punter never came into play, their poor special teams won't affect the game. They had no control over that fact, but it makes them look better than they are. That's luck.

The third-down run defense is also a leverage issue - why? Because a team with a poor third-down run defense can't stop another team from running out the clock when they're ahead - so third down run defense has more leverage to win/lose games. If they manage to avoid games where the other team gets ahead, it won't kill them, but again - that's just getting lucky with opponents.

It's like with Rex Grossman last year. It was noted a while ago that Bad Rex comes out versus competent pass rushes/defenses. Last year, they faced an abnormal number of poor pass defenses. You'd be crazy to bet on them getting that lucky again.

Some teams will get lucky two years in a row (someone has to) but in any projection, you have to assume that they won't.

God, Shawne Merriman is a monster.

Strewth, yeah. Obviously there's a major sample size issue and a number of other variables involved, but still, a 19 point DVOA swing? I imagine Manning and probably a few other quarterbacks would be worth that much or more, but . . .

Some observations
-I don't really understand why NE has a better projected offense than Indy
-Doesn't DVOA penalize for lack of depth? I'd think that would drop Washington
-Tampa Bay is not the 6th best team in the NFL, etc
-San Diego's 'bad' projection is fueled entirely by the 29th ranked projected defense. It's hard to imagine that a team with that defensive line, Merriman, Phillips, and a couple decent corners (Jammer and Cromartie) could be that bad.
-The Jets come out pretty well. Does the system think Pennington will stay healthy the whole year?
-I think Manning & co's ability to consistently move the chains may not be dealt with effectively by the system because of the lack of comparable reference points.
-The system is surprisingly optimistic about Atlanta, especially the defense.
-Has there been a 'Bengal arrest factor' addition to DVOA? The offense seems under-predicted even after accounting for oline problems. It's not like there weren't problems last year, and they were still pretty good.
-I wouldn't be surprised to see NO come close to that prediction (within 5%). This is a team that still employs Fred Thomas, after all.
-Why is Detroit predicted to have an above-average defense? Are they the Cardinals of '04 (underrated D, aging qb, good young receivers, no oline)?
-No love for Oakland's defense? I thought that with their young talent, especially concentrated in pass defense, they would be one of the few teams expected to overcome defense variability.
-DVOA hates Matt Leinart, apparently.
-This has been said before, but the STL offense should be better than that (even though I still think it's a 6-7 win team).
-The projections (especially on the defensive side of the ball) are very clustered.

26. I think our Defense is where we can make up. I don't think our offense will be the 12 best in the league either, but I think the Packers are not unlike the Bears about 2 years ago. Thomas Jones was no superstar runner, and Benson has been underwhelming. So expecting Morency/Jackson to be close to as good is not too much of a stretch, and our O-line should solidify some more with experience this year. Favre is still significantly better than Orton was as a rookie, that is for sure. And our receivers are as good if not better if Driver stays healthy. So it comes down to our defense. They are young (other than the corners) and our front 7 will certainly be the strength of our Defense if not the whole team. So if we can keep things close with our D, Favre should be able to minimize the mistakes if we're not down by 14 in the 4th quarter every week.

Also, rewatch the week 17 game from last year.

The Eagles.

You remember it.

The Eagles.

Why do you guys discount the Giants being able to improve their record conciderably like the Jags (as top 10 DVOA teams at 8-8)? They were a top five DVOA team before injuries and all else struck at mid-year. You say because they got significantly worse in the 2nd half of the season. You do realize in the 2nd half they also lost their LT, most consistent WR (though not the most dynamic), 3 of their top 4 DEs, 2 starting LBers (although neither were very good), their top CB for a time (again, not a great player anymore, but their best starter last year (RW did better than Madison but he was nickel)). I realize theres no way you guys can add a "Got rid of 2 deadbeat coordinators" factor, but they did that this offseason as well. But back to the main point, shouldn't your 2nd half rise/decline numbers account for injuries?

There are too many other variables (new coach, amazingly better offensive scheme, change in offensive line style) to attribute any change in the Falcons offensive DVOA this year solely to the change to Harrington from He Who Will No Longer Darken My Jersey.

I personally would not be surprised to see the Falcons finish 8-8, or possibly better if the key rookies (Anderson, Blalock, Houston, possibly Robinson) hit the high end of expectations. IF the Falcons get to 8-8, Petrino will win Coach of the Year in a runaway.

It's a bit disheartening to see Jacksonville's special teams at 28 with a new ST Coordinator, new punter, new punt returner and Maurice Jones-Drew returning kicks. And a very strong-legged kicker.

Other than that, I am keeping my mouth shut. This Jacksonville team is loaded even with Dave Garrard at QB. If they aren't a top-5 team at season's end, send Jack Del Rio packing (and I am a big fan of Del Rio's).

"A defense’s performance on first, second, and third down isn’t going to be that different. They’re still the same players"

Often they are not the same players.

"But third down has much more leverage on the effect of the game than first or second down,"

Absolutely untrue.
First of all, third down plays only account for about 20% of all plays.
Second of all, The success rate on first and second downs corralate higher with points that third down conversions.

Re #20:

I love the site, but I am beginning to wonder how data-mined these projections are. It’s one thing to build a predictive model based on your core football knowledge, it’s completely another to datamine past trends and assume they will hold true in the future.

Long time reader response:

In 2004, the projections showed a major improvement in San Diego's offense, and nobody, including Aaron, quite believed it. Lo and behold, the Chargers went from 0.8% offensive DVOA to 19%. That was what convinced many of us to take the projections at face value, rather than try to fit them into what we think we already know. They won't all be right (that's why they play the games), but they're real information that you won't get elsewhere in many cases.

And you should take some comfort in the idea that Aaron's looking for ways to correct the system's overrating of Tampa Bay and underrating of St. Louis, even if this particular statement wasn't as strong as you might like.

Re: New Orleans
I don't understand why everyone is shocked at the Saints projection of 7.5 wins. Last year they were 10 - 6. 1 - 3 against the much better AFC. They won one playoff game against the marginal Seahawks. Essentially they are still the same team this year, and will be less likely to have as strong "unmeasurables" (i.e., emotion, etc.). Media types will say they are taking a step back but I think New Orleans in 2008 will be quite scary.

Re: Jacksonville
There is no correlation year to year with inconsistency. As much as I think Del Rio is a buffoon, I don't think this prediction is unreasonable.

As others have said, these predictions far beat most media outlets who seem to be picking the same 6 division winners.

BTW, did the general luddity (not a word-I know) of the FOX Sports clientèle prompt them to drop the DVOA ratings, or was this an FO decision?

I get to be GiantsGer.

I believe the numbers have the Giants number all wrong. I think the offensive and special teams DVOA numbers look about what I expect, but I think that our defensive DVOA will end up being closer to -10% this year than 7.7%. If so, that should have us in the top 10 for DVOA again, just like last year.

If one can't be a dreamer the day before the season starts, when can one be? But I simply do not see a below-average defense barring another season of multiple injuries all at the same time to our linebackers, or our DL, or our secondary.

I kind of expected the Broncos to be a middle-of-the-pack team, but I sure wasn't expecting a 24th ranked defense. I'm not sure how that happens with the personnel they've assembled--though they weren't impressive in the preseason.

#44 The Saints beat the Eagles in the playoffs.

As a Saints fan, I recognize that a regression in results this year is not unlikely (and I *really* hate that so many "experts" are picking them to have a big year) - they're not nearly the best team in the NFC (if I had to pick today, it'd be the Eagles). On the other hand, I have more hope for them than I have for a while. Also, I just feel like they're in for a sustained run of respectability.

My 2 cents as a Ravens fan:

I'd be perfectly content with an 11th ranked offense, I think that is a reasonable projection. I'm a bit worry about their O-line right now, but inserting Ogden in the lineup should make a huge difference.

I'd be shocked if their defensive DVOA is a mere -6.5%, but FO's defensive projection of the Ravens D last year was about a mile off, so I'm not that worried.

The special teams DVOA projection is going to be flat out wrong. Their 2nd half Special Teams DVOA tanked when Sams got injured last year, this year they have Sams plus Yamon Figurs (fastest player drafted) who is a terror returning kicks. Not to mention the import of Lloyd Rhys (sp?) from England, I didn't see a single kickoff of his that didn't land in the endzone, and his 55 yard FG in Atlanta landed halfway up the netting. He's got a monster leg. Factor in old reliable Stover, who is the exception to the FG% doesn't carry over from year to year rule. Also relevant is their roster is tilted heavily towards LBs and secondary players who excel on special teams.

I don't even understand how NE's offense gets in the top 3 (a place they've never been in the Belichick era). They're just not that kind of offense that's going to light it up every week.

They're also relying on a RB to carry the load that looks pretty injury prone and hasn't been able to show how he does in goal line situations. Sammy Morris is hardly a good player.

Donte Stallworth is always hurt. Randy Moss hasn't shown anything yet in NE, nor the last 2 seasons really. Wes Welker catches mostly just short passes. Ben Watson has some shaky hands. These guys like Washington and Gaffney can't be relied on for much. Kyle Brady is just a blocker at this point.

How's that going to be better than the more cohesive unit in Indy that is probably the most consistent offense the league's ever seen? I also would take Sean Payton's offensive mind over the Patriots to field a better offense.

The Chargers are loaded with weapons, Rivers is only going into his 2nd year as a starter, Norv does know offense, and Vincent Jackson should emerge for them to go along with the best RB and TE in the league.

The Eagles could be very good too if McNabb stays healthy.

That's the top 4 there.

Oh and Jacksonville winning 11-12 games with Garrard is laughable. They'll do their usual: split with Indy, beat some other good teams, get swept by Houston, lose some games late in the season they need to win and finish with a disappointing 8 or 9 wins. A lot of talent there but a fraud at QB mixed with bad WR's won't win that division this year.

#39... It's not surprising considering I saw Aaron Schatz go on ESPNNews and act like Luke Petitgout to David Diehl was as similar a transition as Anthony Munoz being replaced by Guy Whimper. Plus, I'm sure the projections believe Bob Whitfield is going to start at LT. I agree 100% regarding your point about the injuries... it really doesn't get as much publicity as the Tiki-Coughlin relationship but was 80 billion times more important.

My question for Redskins fans (I don't know much about their roster)... isn't the defensive line essentially the same players as last year's group? If that's the case, how is their run defense and pass rush projected to improve?

Jaguars 3, Raiders 27

Something is rong with that computer DVOa thing. Jaguars can't be 3rd best team,. QB sucks, WRs suck, rest of team good. Some good players on defense. Raiders defnitely better than 27. More like 10-15 area. That would majke them be about 10-6.

The issue for the Redskins last year wasn't depth, it was that their worst starters didn't belong on the field.

Starting safety Archuleta was a bust for the role the assigned him, and they may have improved with a street free agent.

Starting DT Salave'a (much as I loved him) was not as good as his injury replacement Golston.

Nickel back/fill in starter Wright didn't belong on the field.

Starting MLB Lemar Marshall was marginal to begin with and a bit nicked up.

Starting OLB Warrick Holdman was awful, and his backup, Rocky McIntosh would likely have been better if he had seen the field.

Starting DE Philip Daniels is not starting quality--well maybe on a really good line (too bad he is back in the same role). On the other side, Andre Carter did have a good sack rate in the second half of the season, after being totally unproductive in the first half (and not great against the run).

They did have some trouble when Griffin went down (as they did the year before), and Springs hurt, as did Prioleau, but the significant problems were the starters, not the depth.

Let's look at these projections:
Superbowl champion (Ind)defense DVOA rank: 32
NFC championship game loser (NO) defense DVOA rank: 31
NFL best regular season record 14-2 (SD) defense DVOA rank: 29

Let's just say you screwed up.

Several other reasons to look for Redskins improvement:

a) The Redskins created a record breaking number of turnovers last year--12. That just won't happen again. Even if they were just really bad, they'd get about 20. They will catch more interceptions and recover more fumbles. [They will also likely give up a few more with Campbell under center, but the net turnovers should improve.]

b) They were afraid to blitz much because the secondary was so bad and they kept getting burned on their run blitzes too but improved safety play should allow for more pressure, even though the D-Line is still a major weakness.

Even if it doesn't, they could hardly give up more big plays than last year, so blitzing more as in Williams 46 roots will at least create more negative plays for the offense.

c) Campbell is virtually guaranteed to improve from his first seven games played, and the offense, based on Saunders history with the Rams and Chiefs, is likely to improve in its second year.

The Patriots defense isn't going to crack the top 10 if Seymour doesn't get on the field, and even missing six games is going to make it harder.

I hope Aaron is once again more accurate than I regarding the Vikings. I only have them projected at 6 wins, although I think their upside is bigger than their downside. I don't think they can fall much short of four or five wins, while I think 9 isn't totally out of the question. It all depends on whether any receiver they have can end up punishing a defense which puts eight or nine in the box, and blitzes incessantly. I have doubts, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

I agree that the Packers win the NFC North. I hope the Cowboys and Chargers lose 13 games apiece; it really feels good to re-adopt my traditonal hatred of all things Jerry Jones.

I had 5/6 playoff teams last year, and I'd bow down to the guy who had all 6 ( that would mean Naw Awlans). It took juevos to have the NFC East send 3, but it happened.

ESPN and the likes had the Redskins winning the east last year, because Brandon Lloyd and Randel El were supposed to solve their passing game, but I correctly had the Redskins in last, when everybody else had them in first.

I think you guys are way too high on Washington again, and I think this is your way of covering up last years mistake. If any team had Peyton and Harrison they would be good. You can't call it dumb luck that an old corner with an injury history, and Clinton Portis ( who got run into the ground 2 years ago) got injured.

Write down these projections all you want, but Vegas is still king. The guy picking season O/U win totals was 17-15 last year. You could flip a coin and be 17-15.

Re: 47

I'll bow to your expertise for the Broncos, since I haven't been able to see them yet. However, I'm pretty nervous about the defense; that's about as much reshuffling of the front seven as I've even seen at once. My other worry is age; some of them are clearly one or two year fill-ins, and will need to be replaced. I hope it works.

Other than that, I'm pleased with Denver's offensive rank. Certainly, I wouldn't put it higher without some proof to back it up. But I'd be most worried if the offense ranked 24th. Lastly, a quick look at defense predictions in the AFC West puts Denver's D behind only the Raiders. If SD's coaching works its magic, this may be good enough.

I'm a Chiefs fan, and the great thing about this pre-season it's pushed my expectations into the Marianas Trench. First, I see that FO projects the Chiefs to win 5 games. Then, I watch Hard Knocks, which makes the team look about as professional as an elementary school recess.

Now, I'm going to be delighted as long as we finish ahead of the Raiders.

# 19 Don't predictions of this sort auto-mediate. If you were predicting the outcomes of 32 coins flip series you would predict them to have the correct distribution of outcomes.

BUT if you were predicting the outcome for any individual one you would need to say it was 50% despite your knowledge that more likely than not some would drastically over or under perform.

Same thing with these projections I am thinking.

@47: As much as I hate to say it, I think FO may be right about the Broncos D. Our secondary is incredible (tho I don't think Bly will quite live up to expectations), but our LBs are suspect in coverage and our defensive line has been a disaster in the pre-season - even against the run, many of our stops have been the LBs or even Lynch and Bailey playing the line. Dumervil and Rice make for a good pass-rushing pair of ends, but our tackles have been horrible so far. I'm willing to be proven wrong tho...

57,58
So, what doesn't DVOA account for that you do?

“A defense’s performance on first, second, and third down isn’t going to be that different. They’re still the same players�

Often they are not the same players.

Hence the reason I said "that different" other than "not different at all." Often they aren't the same players if it's nickel, etc., but nickel shows up in 2nd down plays as well.

Second of all, The success rate on first and second downs corralate higher with points that third down conversions.

Yoda says "Means not what you think it does, this." Or something like that.

I said third down conversions have higher leverage, not higher importance. The fact that they do not have higher importance, while having higher leverage, is the entire point.

A team with poor success on third down relative to their success on first and second will necessarily significantly underperform what you would expect from their overall average performance. Switch "third" and "second" there, and the answer is much, much less because second down has less leverage than third down.

If 2007 is going to mirror 2004 (Eagles and Patriots the best two teams in the league, Eagles lose Super Bowl to Patriots) just let me know now. I'll have to move my family because, and I'm serious, Philadelphia might be put to the torch.

Write down these projections all you want, but Vegas is still king. The guy picking season O/U win totals was 17-15 last year. You could flip a coin and be 17-15.

You do not judge projection systems by success like this. You judge them by least mean square error. Two systems can be exactly identical in terms of how they do versus an O/U win total, and one can be vastly better than the other.

There are other uses for projection than betting.

#39 - I think it's because all the problems that arose from those second-half losses are still with the Giants. Their LT spot is being filled by their LG, Toomer & Strahan's injuries were less about luck than about age, and this year's starters at LB and CB aren't any better than last year's starters who were lost to injury.

#43 For every projection FO got right (SD 2005), they got one (or two) wrong (PHI 2005 projection = 12.1; actual wins = 6; HOU 2005 projection = 8.8; actual wins = 2). Whoops.

I think it's been shown that FO's projections are no better or no worse than Vegas lines:
http://www.bbnflstats.com/2007/09/pre-season-predictions-are-worthless.h...

http://footballpredictionnetwork.blogspot.com/2007/08/accuracy-of-vegas-...

http://footballoutsiders.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=146&sid=ad09c9bc...

*sigh*

Don't you kids know anything? This is how it's done:

Washington is clearly ranked too high because they still haven't hired coach Janky Spanky. RaiderJoe is way better than this.

Falcons are gonig all the way this yeear!!!.

I'm curious whether a mix of Vegas lines and FO projections would do better than either one by itself. The FO projection system is obviously really good for a non-subjective system, but the Vegas lines probably include subjective elements.

Most people's subjective judgement would probably make the FO projection system worse, but I wonder if Vegas's could make it better.

I am just going to say squat this year as last year Will Pacifist and I cursed the Vikings into oblivion :)

You were 100% right about them at least.

Hey Schatz,
Just because everyone is questioning the dvoa doesn't mean that it's not loved. We question and we critique because we love.

btw...#52 did have me laughing my butt off.

Okay, so the Chiefs will have paid LJ for nothing when they get that top pick in the draft? This year is remarkably deep at RB(probably 5 1st rders)including the next big thing in Run DMC Darren McFadden of Arkansas.
Im going on record. The Redskins will fall flat on their face.
These projections just feel off. QB play isn't factored strong enough. Most of the top 12 have serious questions at QB, will Jason Campbell, Jake Delhomme, Jeff Garcia, and Chad Pennington really not get replaced for poor play?

#67... The Giants LBs and DBs are almost meaningless to how the Giants defense has performed the past few years. The defensive line (when HEALTHY) was 2nd best in adjusted line yards and the defense 6th overall a week before Michael Strahan's injury (Umenyiora and Tuck were already out 2 weeks each). By the end of the season, they had dropped to 5th in adjusted line yards and 13th overall. Strahan's injury may have been caused by age, but that surely can't be the case for Umenyiora and Tuck?

Diehl actually moved to LT the last 2 games of 2006 and the Giants run offense was the best it had been since Petitgout's injury. I'd be a complete homer if I didn't mention the 2 teams they faced were among the league's worst run defenses. His pass blocking was poor in the first game and excellent against the Eagles in the playoffs. Let's not judge him solely on the Baltimore preseason game.

I don't expect Jacobs to replace Tiki, but he's no journeyman. He was third in DPAR last year.

Fraud of a quarterback? So Garrard has no chance to improve after his 22 career starts? He's just done, that's all. Ouch. OK then. Well, I guess you might want to apply for a job as a jaguars talent evaluator because you clearly are qualified and they might as well all quit right now.

Or maybe, DVOA actually can predict offensive success (despite all the crap their pass offense hastaken this offseason, they weren't last. They were in the low 20's. Not good, but not abysmal/black-hole-of-suck either).

Write down these projections all you want, but Vegas is still king. The guy picking season O/U win totals was 17-15 last year. You could flip a coin and be 17-15.

For now, let's ignore the fact that this isn't how a projection system is correctly judged. The reason Vegas isn't still king is that Vegas doesn't publish any predictions for each teams offensive, defensive, and special teams performance. If they did, FO would absolutely blow them out of the water. Remember, what makes DVOA great isn't that it tells you who will win (although it does a good job of that), it's that it tells you why they'll win.

Not that anyone cares, but here's what I came up with going down the full schedule and picking a winner for every game:

AFCE:

NE 11-5
NYJ 6-10
BUF 5-11
MIA 4-12

AFCN:

BAL 13-3
CIN 11-5
PIT 10-6
CLE 7-9

AFCS:

IND 13-3
JAC 10-6
TEN 7-9
HOU 3-13

AFCW:

SD 13-3
DEN 12-4
KC 5-11
OAK 4-12

NFCE

PHI 12-4
DAL 11-5
NYG 8-8
WAS 7-9

NFCN:

CHI 10-6
MIN 7-9
DET 5-11
GB 5-11

NFCS:

NO 12-4
CAR 10-6
TB 6-10
ATL 3-13

NFCW:

SEA 9-7
STL 8-8
SF 5-11
ARI 4-12

Yeah my friend and I do a contest each year. This is my wild guess.

NE 12
NYJ 7
BUF 5
MIA 5

CIN 11
BAL 10
PIT 9
CLE 6

IND 11
JAC 10
TEN 7
HOU 5

DEN 11
SD 10
KC 6
OAK 6

PHI 12
WAS 9
DAL 8
NYG 5

NO 9
CAR 8
TB 8
ATL 5

CHI 10
GB 8
MIN 7
DET 6

SEA 9
SF 8
STL 7
ARI 6