You come across as authoritative on TV. Nothing new that isn't in the book, however, other than emphatic table-pounding for the Ravens. I'd like to know your thoughts on the 49ers WR situation with the emergence of O'Dropped as the new QB. Are you still high on Battle or Hill emerging as a solid receiver this year?

This argument against Dallas is tiresome.

For one, they haven't been as injury free as FO claims. In 2007, for example, add in 16 games missed for the starting DT Ferguson, and 15 games for Glenn. Just like you'd count Osi's injury against the giants for 2008.

Secondly, it is a gambler's fallacy to think they are "due" for injuries. Past performance has no bearing in a random event. If anything, their relative health is an indicator of a good strength and conditioning program, which would lead to more relative health.

2:
No gambler's fallacy here. Aaron isn't saying that the Cowboys are "due" for injuries to "make up for" their good health in recent years. He's saying that we should expect them to have more injuries than in the past, simply because we expect them to be average on average.

It's an interesting point about whether lack of injuries in the past predicts a lack of injuries in the future. Factors like aging, playing hurt, scheme, and general durability make that a hard one to call.

Awesome! I want more video of FO. Keep putting these up please!

Also, why is your comment verification process so harcore? It's a bit annoying...

It makes no sense to say the Cowboys will suffer more injuries, and therefore be worse ("can you imagine them without TO, Ware, etc.") then turn around in the same interview and say for example that Green Bay is a Super Bowl contender and name off their stars. The same rules apply to every team. The Giants will be much worse without their stars on the D-line, for example. Yet the PSP made no prediction about Osi.

The question should be, Apples to apples, when comparing healthy team A to healthy team B, who is the best? Trying to predicting a rate of injury is foolish.

The PFP book has 11+ wins for the Pats at 89%. Which is wrong? 99% doesn't seem right.

re #6:

He's not trying to predict that the Cowboys will have more stars hurt than any other team. Its just that every team has a certain chance of having a "star" get hurt, and the Cowboys don't have as good of depth as some other teams to deal with those injuries should they occur.

#1: Hardly emphatic for Baltimore... he predicted they win it at 9-7. basically, he says the whole division is mediocre-bad... which means any one of them could steal it.

Remember these win totals are probably +/- 2 or 3 games... even without an outlier case (which is ALWAYS possible), close divisions like the NFCE, AFCN, etc. are pretty much a crapshoot, even if the projection system has team talent pegged perfectly.

8. Which is only true at two positions: OLine and WR. Technically Safety as well, but they would probably compensate by playing more 3 CB sets (which they do a lot of now anyway in obvious passing downs).

I don't count QB since Brad Johnson is at least an average backup QB compared to all teams. If they lose Romo, they're as vulnerable or less so compared to Indy without Manning or NE without Brady or NO without Brees, etc. Hell, I don't even know who Brees' backup is in NO.

Look at the players already injured so far this season: Newman (starter), Anthony Spencer (part time starter), Kyle Kosier (starter), Miles Austin (3rd WR), Kevin Burnett (3rd down/passing down LB).

Spencer and Newman are not expected to miss any time in the regular season, but lets assume all these guys don't start. Are the Cowboys crippled? I don't think so... Pacman (or Mike Jenkins) steps in for Newman, Ellis becomes the full time starter for Spencer, Sam Hurd steps in as the 4th option on passing downs, and Zach Thomas or Bobby Carpenter step in on passing downs as the MLB. Only problem is we have no idea what we have behind Kosier at guard, but Kosier was the weakest link on the OLine and was being pushed for the starter's job early in camp.

TLDR; except for WR and OLine, the Cowboys have solid depth.

And I didn't mention Isiah Stanback, who needs shoulder surgery either now or after the season, but if he was even active on game day it'd be as Kick Returner.

RE #11: I am not trying to personally argue for or against the Cowboys depth. I don't know their personnel well enough. I was just trying to clarify the injury argument that I believed Aaron was making was not that the Cowboys would suffer more injuries than an average team. You could easily be right that they do, in fact, have good depth. Although poor O-line depth is slightly worrisome.

13. I know you were just articulating FO's position, and they do have some points.

The lead receiver is 35 years old and has had a performance-altering injury in the last 3 years that he's attempted to play (I'm discounting the last Eagles year). The OLine has not had a key injury in forever (not talking about stuff like last year, when Gurode missed a couple of meaningless games with a bum knee), and thus all the backups are unproven (I literally have no idea how they'll perform.

Nothing new that isn’t in the book, however, other than emphatic table-pounding for the Ravens.

I don't think it's table pounding, it is a bold prediction considering how god awful the ravens were last year. However as pointed out in the book the Steeler's get the Chargers and Pats out of division while the Ravens I think get the Raiders and Giants. Yeah, schedule can have a lot to do with who wins a division.

#15: Schedule had everything to do with who went to the playoffs out of the NFC East last year, for instance. Same thing. Yeah, it's only two games, but it can be huge.

#15: I think you meant the Raiders and the Dolphins. Strength-of-schedule games are all in-conference; the whole AFCN plays the Giants this year.

5: Don't bother with the first anti-spam word.

"#15: Schedule had everything to do with who went to the playoffs out of the NFC East last year, for instance. Same thing. Yeah, it’s only two games, but it can be huge."

Dallas was 13-3 so maybe not everything.

2/3 et al, re: cowboys injury norms...

Okay, the argument is that they, on average, will regress towards average.

But what if it wasn't just luck? Given there is an article analyzing medical staffs for the 32 teams, could it not just be some factor that Dallas has in their favor, either better medical staff, better home playing surface, better weather or something along those lines that keeps them high?

Breakout year for Santonio Holmes, accompanied by a picture of Nate Washington.

GO ESPN.