NFL Fantasy Projections

Okay, here's an interesting little study I did for the heck of it. There's a site out there that provides fantasy football tools and information with a solid mathematical background. They put out two tables recently. One was fantasy point projections by player, and one was a table of strength of schedule factors. I took the two tables, and combined them to get the number of fantasy points each player would score each week (treating defense/ST as one player). If you then treat each NFL team as a fantasy roster, these are the final records for the upcoming season:

AFC East:
NE 14-2
BUF 8-8
NYJ 8-8
MIA 7-9

AFC North:
PIT 11-5
CLE 9-7
BAL 8-8
CIN 3-13

AFC South:
IND 13-3
TEN 11-5
JAC 8-8
HOU 1-15

AFC West:
DEN 12-4
KC 9-7
OAK 4-12
SD 1-15

NFC East:
PHI 15-1
DAL 9-7
WAS 7-9
NYG 2-14

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

NFC South:
TB 14-2
NO 9-7
CAR 8-8
ATL 2-14

NFC West:
StL 10-6
SEA 9-7
SF 8-8
ARI 4-12

I don't quite agree with all of these predictions. In the AFC, I think that CIN is too low, and PIT is too high, HOU should do better than they say, and DEN might be a little high. In the NFC, PHI won't do quite that well, and ATL won't be that bad. SF might be a little high as well. However, overall, this looks like a pretty decent picture to me.

Tampa 14-2? With who? They have nobody left and their defense is going to be full of holes!! Philly 15-1, so their 1 will be week 2!! I highly doubt it!!

yeah can't say I agree with it either... football is so hard to predict though. Look at last year... it was a very unpredictable season for all

"VKG4LFE" wrote:

Quote:

---

Tampa 14-2? With who? They have nobody left and their defense is going to be full of holes!! Philly 15-1, so their 1 will be week 2!! I highly doubt it!!

---

You're right, I did miss TB in my little disclaimer at the end. Remember, the information I based this off of is meant for the fantasy game, not the real game. I just thought it would be fun to see what would happen if you applied it to the regular NFL.

Oh yeah I know, but those two teams just jumped out at me!! It's not too often even great teams only lose 2 games, and they had two very questionable (at least that's what I think) teams with 2 or less losses!! I guess you never know what is going to happen during the season!!

steelers will be lucky to win 6

In today's NFL, you can have a white rat in a cage select the matchups by picking the cheese of one of two logos of each of the matchups, and you'll have about the success rate of the official prognosticators.

you gotta admit though, about 70% fo those are pretty close to what you would expect.

"josdin00" wrote:

Quote:

---

Okay, here's an interesting little study I did for the heck of it. There's a site out there that provides fantasy football tools and information with a solid mathematical background. They put out two tables recently. One was fantasy point projections by player, and one was a table of strength of schedule factors. I took the two tables, and combined them to get the number of fantasy points each player would score each week (treating defense/ST as one player). If you then treat each NFL team as a fantasy roster, these are the final records for the upcoming season:

AFC East:
NE 14-2
BUF 8-8
NYJ 8-8
MIA 7-9

AFC North:
PIT 11-5
CLE 9-7
BAL 8-8
CIN 3-13

AFC South:
IND 13-3
TEN 11-5
JAC 8-8
HOU 1-15

AFC West:
DEN 12-4
KC 9-7
OAK 4-12
SD 1-15

NFC East:
PHI 15-1
DAL 9-7
WAS 7-9
NYG 2-14

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

NFC South:
TB 14-2
NO 9-7
CAR 8-8
ATL 2-14

NFC West:
StL 10-6
SEA 9-7
SF 8-8
ARI 4-12

I don't quite agree with all of these predictions. In the AFC, I think that CIN is too low, and PIT is too high, HOU should do better than they say, and DEN might be a little high. In the NFC, PHI won't do quite that well, and ATL won't be that bad. SF might be a little high as well. However, overall, this looks like a pretty decent picture to me.

---

New england is too high, no 14 wins again, giants wont be that bad, and the eagles wont lose just one game.

These standings are way off.

"amavikesfan" wrote:

Quote:

---

you gotta admit though, about 70% fo those are pretty close to what you would expect.

---

In what way? That their close to last years records? Honestly, do we need a computer for that?