Team grades and season projections (1 Viewer)

[Despyzer]

From their preview mag, graded on a a scale of 100:

95. Chargers (14-2) stock ^

94. Patriots (14-2) stock <>

92. Cowboys (13-3) stock ^

92. Colts (13-3) stock <>

90. Giants (13-3) stock ^

90. Jaguars (12-4) stock ^

90. Packers (11-5) stock <>

89. Saints (11-5) stock ^

89. Seahawks (11-5) stock <>

89. Steelers (11-5) stock V

87. Bengals (10-6) stock <>

87. Bears (10-6) stock V

86. Broncos (9-7) stock <>

85. Browns (9-7) stock ^

85. Vikings (9-7) stock ^

83. Jets (8-8) stock ^

82. Buccaneers (7-9) stock <>

81. Eagles (7-9) stock ^

81. Panthers (7-9) stock <>

80. Rams (7-9) stock ^

79. Ravens (6-10) stock V

79. Titans (6-10) stock <>

77. Texans (5-11) stock ^

77. Bills (5-11) stock ^

77. Cardinals (5-11) stock ^

76. Chiefs (5-11) stock <>

72. Redskins (4-12) stock <>

71. 49ers (3-13) stock <>

71. Lions (3-13) stock <>

70. Dolphins (3-13) stock ^

69. Raiders (3-13) stock <>

61. Falcons (1-15) stock ^

AFC Wildcards

Jaguars over Steelers

Colts over Bengals

NFC Wildcards

Giants over Saints

Seahawks over Bears

AFC Divisional

Patriots over Jaguars

Chargers over Colts

NFC Divisional

Cowboys over Giants

Packers over Seahawks

AFC Championship

Chargers over Patriots

Cowboys over Packers

Super Bowl

Chargers over Cowboys

 

[QuizGuy66]

WHO DEY! We're going to the playoffs baby!!!!

Given the number of games the following teams play against each other, I'm not so sure exactly about the records they are projected though. For this to be true the combined record of these teams against teams outside of these two divisions would have to be 33-15. Seems like a stretch there.

92. Cowboys (13-3) stock ^

90. Giants (13-3) stock ^

89. Steelers (11-5) stock V

87. Bengals (10-6) stock <>

85. Browns (9-7) stock ^

81. Eagles (7-9) stock ^

79. Ravens (6-10) stock V

72. Redskins (4-12) stock <>

-QG

 

[Jeff Haseley]

For such a big Texans kisssas his projected 5-11 record doesn't coincide. Oakland will win more than 3 games. Washington will win more than 4 games, the Bears will win less than 10 games. The Titans will probably win more than 6 games and the Bills will likely win more than 5 games.

 

[Anarchy99]

Not sure there's ever been a year with 10 teams winning 11 games and 10 teams losing 11 games. I uderstand that the point of putting out a publication is to stir the pot and sell magazines, but these win totals seem extremely overboard in my book.

 

[Chase Stuart]

No chance the Dolphins and Falcons lose 28 games this year.

 

[Despyzer]

Not sure there's ever been a year with 10 teams winning 11 games and 10 teams losing 11 games. I uderstand that the point of putting out a publication is to stir the pot and sell magazines, but these win totals seem extremely overboard in my book.

You're right. It's probably the process. I assume they get together and go through the schedule together. If you and me and 30 other guys went through the schedule and sought a majority opinion on who would win each game, our results might be similar.

 

[culdeus]

No chance the Dolphins and Falcons lose 28 games this year.

yeah, 32 seems more likey.

 

[tombonneau]

Interesting to see the Chargers as the #1 team. If their three stars were 100% healthy I could see it, but I'm not sure how you rank them over the Pats, Colts or even Cowboys with LT, Rivers & Gates all coming off surgery.

 

[massraider]

Raiders, Redskins, Texans, Panthers too low, IMO.

 

[LILB811]

I personally like how all the divisional matchups are exactly the same as last year.

If the NFC East is 13-3, 13-3, 7-9, 4-12 in any order of teams I'll be shocked

 

[T Bell]

I personally like how all the divisional matchups are exactly the same as last year.If the NFC East is 13-3, 13-3, 7-9, 4-12 in any order of teams I'll be shocked

I have the 'Skins picked to finish last in that division, but no way that's a 4-win team. It's also basically impossible for there to be two 13-win teams, and I think 7 wins is low for the Eagles barring injuries. I think that division sends three teams to the playoffs again, with the division winner (probably Dallas) finishing with 11 or 12 wins.

 

[renesauz]

Wow...their "Team grades and projections" list is every bit as bad as their individual unit lists.

Color me shocked.

 

[sfl49er]

Wow...their "Team grades and projections" list is every bit as bad as their individual unit lists.Color me shocked.

The Bears will not win 10 games this year. They wouldnt have won 10 with Benson either. And again, the Bills are much better than 5.My projections hopefully are more valued:AFCEast: Pats 12-4Bills 9-7Jets 6-10Dolphins 5-11North:Steelers 11-5Browns 8-8Ravens 6-10Bengals 5-11South:Jaguars 12-4Colts 10-6Texans 9-7Titans 6-10West:Chargers 12-4Broncos 9-7Chiefs 6-10Raiders 4-12NFCEast:Cowboys 14-2Giants 10-6Eagles 8-8Redskins 7-9North:Vikings 10-6Packers 9-7Bears 6-10Lions 5-11South:Buccaneers 9-7Saints 7-9Panthers 7-9Falcons 3-13West:49ers 9-7Cardinals 8-8Seahawks 8-8Rams 6-10

 

[SSOG]

According to TSN, the Broncos have:

The worst LBs in the league

The 2nd worst DLine in the league

The 3rd worst receivers in the league

The 5th worst OLine in the league

The 7th worst RBs in the league

a below-average secondary (17th out of 32)

and the 11th best QB unit in the league.

Despite this, they're the 13th best team, and projected to have a winning record? Their rankings don't even agree with themselves!

 

[pizzatyme]

Wow...their "Team grades and projections" list is every bit as bad as their individual unit lists.Color me shocked.

The Bears will not win 10 games this year. They wouldnt have won 10 with Benson either. And again, the Bills are much better than 5.My projections hopefully are more valued:AFCSouth:Jaguars 12-4Colts 10-6

No way do the Jags finish 2 games ahead of the Colts. Put down the kool-aid!

 

[BusMan]

According to TSN, the Broncos have:The worst LBs in the leagueThe 2nd worst DLine in the leagueThe 3rd worst receivers in the leagueThe 5th worst OLine in the leagueThe 7th worst RBs in the leaguea below-average secondary (17th out of 32)and the 11th best QB unit in the league.Despite this, they're the 13th best team, and projected to have a winning record? Their rankings don't even agree with themselves!

I noticed this too. Maybe TSN doesn't have any editors and/or proofers? I tend to agree with their projections, while disagreeing with their unit grades.

 

[Despyzer]

According to TSN, the Broncos have:The worst LBs in the leagueThe 2nd worst DLine in the leagueThe 3rd worst receivers in the leagueThe 5th worst OLine in the leagueThe 7th worst RBs in the leaguea below-average secondary (17th out of 32)and the 11th best QB unit in the league.Despite this, they're the 13th best team, and projected to have a winning record? Their rankings don't even agree with themselves!

Maybe they have a lot of faith in Shanahan.

 

[SSOG]

According to TSN, the Broncos have:The worst LBs in the leagueThe 2nd worst DLine in the leagueThe 3rd worst receivers in the leagueThe 5th worst OLine in the leagueThe 7th worst RBs in the leaguea below-average secondary (17th out of 32)and the 11th best QB unit in the league.Despite this, they're the 13th best team, and projected to have a winning record? Their rankings don't even agree with themselves!

Maybe they have a lot of faith in Shanahan.

I can understand that to some extent, but looking strictly at the rankings, you're talking about a team that they're calling one of the four or five least talented teams in the NFL, with absolutely no saving graces (their strongest unit is QB, which isn't even top 10). Coaches don't get winning records out of one of the 4 worst teams, no matter WHO they are. They don't even come close unless their division/conference is historically bad.I'd argue that, over a long enough timeline, a coach's winning percentage is going to in large part shadow the talent level of his team. The coach might eke a bit extra out of the team (maybe taking a .550 team to a .600 team), and the coach will definitely raise the talent level of the team by developing the players, but you can't make something out of nothing.

 

[cj*]

According to this, The AFC north teams are going to win 36 games. That is an average of 9 wins per team. That is not gonna happen. I honestly cannot see any team in the division going better than 8-8. The schedule is very difficult for all of these teams.

 

[Despyzer]

According to this, The AFC north teams are going to win 36 games. That is an average of 9 wins per team. That is not gonna happen. I honestly cannot see any team in the division going better than 8-8. The schedule is very difficult for all of these teams.

You might be right.Steelers 11-5Bengals 10-6Browns 9-7Ravens 6-10This might be a little high, but it doesn't seem like a ridiculous projection. How do you think it will shake out?

 

[T Bell]

According to this, The AFC north teams are going to win 36 games. That is an average of 9 wins per team. That is not gonna happen. I honestly cannot see any team in the division going better than 8-8. The schedule is very difficult for all of these teams.

You might be right.Steelers 11-5Bengals 10-6Browns 9-7Ravens 6-10This might be a little high, but it doesn't seem like a ridiculous projection. How do you think it will shake out?

The NFC East had 38 wins last year, so it certainly can happen, especially in divisions that are tightly contested and tend to beat each other up. The issue really is the strength of schedule in the non-divisional games.

 

[cj*]

Browns 8-8

Steelers 8-8

Bengals 6-10

Ravens 5-11

Goes to tie breakers between the browns and steelers. Either team gets a first rd exit in the playoffs.

 

[sfl49er]

Wow...their "Team grades and projections" list is every bit as bad as their individual unit lists.Color me shocked.

The Bears will not win 10 games this year. They wouldnt have won 10 with Benson either. And again, the Bills are much better than 5.My projections hopefully are more valued:AFCSouth:Jaguars 12-4Colts 10-6

No way do the Jags finish 2 games ahead of the Colts. Put down the kool-aid!

Trying to be funny, thats funny. You dont have have to make sarcasm cuz it doesnt get you any laughs, but the Jags are very much improved and are building upon last years overall success and all the Colts have done is head into the surgery room. What have they done in free agency? They always have had trouble with Jacksonville on top of that. Did I mention Peyton Manning is one of my favorite players? So when there are opinions to be had, let them be had. I think you might be missing something about the two teams but I wont say that you are on something

 

[Brownsfan07]

From their preview mag, graded on a a scale of 100:

95. Chargers (14-2) stock ^

94. Patriots (14-2) stock <>

92. Cowboys (13-3) stock ^

92. Colts (13-3) stock <>

90. Giants (13-3) stock ^

90. Jaguars (12-4) stock ^

90. Packers (11-5) stock <>

89. Saints (11-5) stock ^

89. Seahawks (11-5) stock <>

89. Steelers (11-5) stock V

87. Bengals (10-6) stock <>

87. Bears (10-6) stock V

86. Broncos (9-7) stock <>

85. Browns (9-7) stock ^

85. Vikings (9-7) stock ^

83. Jets (8-8) stock ^

82. Buccaneers (7-9) stock <>

81. Eagles (7-9) stock ^

81. Panthers (7-9) stock <>

80. Rams (7-9) stock ^

79. Ravens (6-10) stock V

79. Titans (6-10) stock <>

77. Texans (5-11) stock ^

77. Bills (5-11) stock ^

77. Cardinals (5-11) stock ^

76. Chiefs (5-11) stock <>

72. Redskins (4-12) stock <>

71. 49ers (3-13) stock <>

71. Lions (3-13) stock <>

70. Dolphins (3-13) stock ^

69. Raiders (3-13) stock <>

61. Falcons (1-15) stock ^

AFC Wildcards

Jaguars over Steelers

Colts over Bengals

NFC Wildcards

Giants over Saints

Seahawks over Bears

AFC Divisional

Patriots over Jaguars

Chargers over Colts

NFC Divisional

Cowboys over Giants

Packers over Seahawks

AFC Championship

Chargers over Patriots

Cowboys over Packers

Super Bowl

Chargers over Cowboys

several bullcrap projections!1. steelers - tough schedule. i say 9-7

2. BENGALS?! - oh hell no! this is a damn joke, seriously! 6-10 to 8-8 best

3. bears - 10-6? bullcrap! 6-10 is more likely!

4. broncos - should be 7-9 best

5. vikings - may be a damn poor choice, especially due to the most ####### qb in the league!

6. falcons - may suck ###, but 1-15? bull i say 4-12 to 6-10!

and also, colts a wildcard matchup? that's some seroius bullcrap!

bears won't have .500 period!

cowboys are overrated, but many will say that cleveland is overrated, but yet they could win the division just as easily as the stoolers!

cowboys in the superbowl? ain't gonna happen, especially with that chokejob quarterback tony roman meal!

 

[Despyzer]

and also, colts a wildcard matchup? that's some seroius bullcrap!

Weren't the Colts in the wildcard the year before last when they won the SB? Not sure why that would be bullcrap. Finishing third in the AFC only suggests that you are one the three best teams in the NFL, which the Colts are.

 

[Truman]

How did the Falcons get worse? Was it because they upgraded their line with Baker? Because last year's crop of high picks will be a year older? Because they finally have a MLB? Because they got rid of the worst RB in the league?

The running game should be hugely upgraded just by replacing Dunn with Turner.

Only losses I can see are Hall (secondary is probably now league's worst) and Crumpler (spent much of last year injured). Reigning NFC offensive player Chris Redman will be the opening day starter. That should be good for at least 3 wins.

 

[Despyzer]

How did the Falcons get worse?

61. Falcons (1-15) stock ^

They didn't say they would be worse; they just predicted fewer wins. Like I said before, I think their process is flawed. My guess is that they got their 32 "experts" together and tried to seek a majority opinion on which team would win each game for the entire schedule. If you were to poll a group of football fans (not just Falcons fans), specifically which games from their upcoming schedule do you think the majority of people would say that the Falcons are definitely going to win? I doubt that most people have the faith in Chris Redman as the starting QB or a single addition to the offensive line that you do.