Anyone who follows football knows how big a part of the game that parity is. One team can be good one year and bad the next and vice versa for seemingly no reason. This series, called Predicting Parity, seeks to discover why that is and figure out how to predict it. This is the last part of the season. In the 2^nd last part, talk about what I have named points of parity. A point of parity is a change in win total, either positive or negative. If a team wins 8 and then wins 5, that’s 3 points of parity. Same if they go from 8 to 11.

Since 2003, there has been about 98.3 points of parity per season, more than 3 per team. That means, on a yearly basis, teams, on average, either win or lose 3 more games than the year before. Season predictions almost never take this into account. Mine didn’t before this year, but it has to be taken into account. What teams did the year before is actually not that great a predictor of future performance.

On average, 1.8 teams have 7+ points of parity, 4.4 teams have 6+ points of parity, 7 have 5+ points of parity, 11.3 have 4+ points of parity, 15.5 have 3+, 23.8 have 2+, and 29.6 have 1+. That means, on a yearly basis, only 2.4 teams, on average, post the exact same win total as the year before.  In this final part of this series, I’ll put this into action, as well as the other parts, in order to predict team’s records for 2012. From that, I’ll be able to identify which teams are going to be under/overrated by Vegas early in the season.

7 or more points of parity (1.78 per season since 2003)

1. St. Louis Rams 9-7

6 or more points of parity (4.44 per season since 2003)

2. San Francisco 49ers 7-9

3. Oakland Raiders 2-14

4. Indianapolis Colts 8-8

5 or more points of parity (7.00 per season since 2003)

5. Cincinnati Bengals 4-12

6. Arizona Cardinals 3-13

4 or more points of parity (11.3 per season since 2003)

7. Buffalo Bills 10-6

8. Baltimore Ravens 8-8

9. Philadelphia Eagles 12-4

10. Chicago Bears 12-4

3 or more points of parity (15.5 per season since 2003)

11. Washington Redskins 8-8

12. Jacksonville Jaguars 2-14

13. Tampa Bay Buccaneers 7-9

14. Detroit Lions 7-9

15. Minnesota Vikings 6-10

2 or more points of parity (23.7 per season since 2003)

16. Houston Texans 12-4

17. Green Bay Packers 13-3

18. New Orleans Saints 11-5

19. San Diego Chargers 10-6

20. Tennessee Titans 11-5

1 or more points of parity (29.6 per season since 2003)

21. Atlanta Falcons 11-5

22. New York Jets 7-9

23. Miami Dolphins 5-11

24. Kansas City Chiefs 6-10

25. Seattle Seahawks 6-10

26. Carolina Panthers 7-9

27. New York Giants 8-8

28. Cleveland Browns 3-13

29. Denver Broncos 9-7

30. Pittsburgh Steelers 11-5

The rest

31. Dallas Cowboys 8-8

32. New England Patriots 13-3

Total points of parity: 85 (98.3 per season since 2003)

Now, this is actually a little bit on the conservative side (though you wouldn’t know it from some comments I get), but I figure that unpredictable injuries are going to account for a good amount of parity themselves and I’m not even going to try to predict those. What this has allowed me to do is find 5 underrated and 5 overrated teams for 2012.

What you see below are some Vegas odds from weeks 1-3 last season.

Detroit (+1) at Tampa Bay

Indianapolis (+9) at Houston

Cincinnati (+6.5) at Cleveland

Tennessee (+3) at Jacksonville

Seattle (+5.5) at San Francisco

Chicago (+7) at New Orleans

Houston (-3) at Miami

Dallas (-3) at San Francisco

San Diego (+7) at New England

St. Louis (+4.5) at NY Giants

Philadelphia (-3) at Atlanta

San Francisco (+3) at Cincinnati

NY Giants (+9) at Philadelphia

Kansas City (+15) at San Diego

Baltimore (-4) at St. Louis

Green Bay (-4) at Chicago

Those look comical to us now, but they were once legitimate lines. If you had predicted beforehand that teams like Detroit, San Francisco, Houston, Tennessee, and Cincinnati would exceed expectations and teams like Tampa Bay, Chicago, St. Louis, San Diego, Philadelphia would do the opposite, that’s 15 wins (and one push) for you in 3 weeks easily. Obviously, that’s easier said than done, but I’m going to try.

Underrated

St. Louis Rams

Indianapolis Colts

Buffalo Bills

Chicago Bears

Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Overrated

San Francisco 49ers

Oakland Raiders

Cincinnati Bengals

Baltimore Ravens

Detroit Lions

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

Anyone who follows football knows how big a part of the game that parity is. One team can be good one year and bad the next and vice versa for seemingly no reason. This series, called Predicting Parity, seeks to discover why that is and figure out how to predict it. This 2nd to last part talks about what I have named points of parity. A point of parity is a change in win total, either positive or negative. If a team wins 8 and then wins 5, that’s 3 points of parity. Same if they go from 8 to 11. The following chart lists team’s points of parity totals in descending order since 2003 and then totals them at the end.

[yard_barker]

2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
7	9	7	7	8	10	6	7	8
6	8	6	7	6	7	5.5	6	7
6	7	6	7	6	7	5	6	6
5	6	6	6	6	7	5	6	5
5	6	6	5	5	6	5	6	5
5	6	5	5	5	6	5	6	5
5	5	5	4	5	6	4	5	4
5	4	5	4	5	6	4	5	4
4.5	4	4	4	5	5	4	4	4
4.5	4	4	4	4	5	4	4	4
4	4	4	4	4	5	3	4	3
4	4	4	4	4	5	2	4	3
4	3	4	4	4	4	2	4	3
3	2	4	3	3	3	2	4	3
3	2	3	3	3	3	2	4	3
3	2	3	3	3	2.5	2	3	3
3	2	3	3	3	2	2	3	3
3	2	3	3	3	2	2	3	2
3	1	3	3	2	2	2	3	2
2	1	3	3	2	2	2	2	2
2	1	3	2	2	2	1.5	2	2
2	1	3	2	2	1.5	1	2	2
2	1	3	2	2	1	1	2	1
2	1	2	2	2	1	1	2	1
1	1	2	2	2	1	1	2	1
1	1	2	2	2	1	1	2	1
1	0	2	2	2	1	1	2	1
1	0	1	2	1	1	1	1	1
1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	0
1	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	0
1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
100	88	110	104	104	106	78	106	89

That just shows how much parity there is in the NFL. Since 2003, there has been about 98.3 points of parity per season, more than 3 per team. That means, on a yearly basis, teams, on average, either win or lose 3 more games than the year before. Season predictions almost never take this into account. Mine didn’t before this year, but it has to be taken into account. What teams did the year before is actually not that great a predictor of future performance.

On average, 1.8 teams have 7+ points of parity, 4.4 teams have 6+ points of parity, 7 have 5+ points of parity, 11.3 have 4+ points of parity, 15.5 have 3+, 23.8 have 2+, and 29.6 have 1+. That means, on a yearly basis, only 2.4 teams, on average, post the exact same win total as the year before.  In the final part of this series (to be posted after all season previews are posted), I’ll put this into action, as well as the other parts, in order to predict team’s records for 2012. From that, I’ll be able to identify which teams are going to be under/overrated by Vegas early in the season.

[google_ad]

What you see below are some Vegas odds from weeks 1-3 last season.

Detroit (+1) at Tampa Bay

Indianapolis (+9) at Houston

Cincinnati (+6.5) at Cleveland

Tennessee (+3) at Jacksonville

Seattle (+5.5) at San Francisco

Chicago (+7) at New Orleans

Houston (-3) at Miami

Dallas (-3) at San Francisco

San Diego (+7) at New England

St. Louis (+4.5) at NY Giants

Philadelphia (-3) at Atlanta

San Francisco (+3) at Cincinnati

NY Giants (+9) at Philadelphia

Kansas City (+15) at San Diego

Baltimore (-4) at St. Louis

Green Bay (-4) at Chicago

Those look comical to us now, but they were once legitimate lines. If you had predicted beforehand that teams like Detroit, San Francisco, Houston, Tennessee, and Cincinnati would exceed expectations and teams like Tampa Bay, Chicago, St. Louis, San Diego, Philadelphia would do the opposite, that’s 15 wins (and one push) for you in 3 weeks easily. Obviously, that’s easier said than done, but I’m going to try. In the final part of this series, I will predict 5 overrated and underrated teams that I will bet on or against early and often.

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

Anyone who follows football knows how big a part of the game that parity is. One team can be good one year and bad the next and vice versa for seemingly no reason. This series, called Predicting Parity, seeks to discover why that is and figure out how to predict it. Every season since the NFL went to the new playoff format in 2002, the following season has always had at least one team has always won 6 more games than the year before and one team has always lost 6 more games than the year before. I’ve dubbed those teams plumeters and super sleepers. They are shown in the chart below.

[google_ad]

Team	Year	Change	Next Change		Team	Year	Change	Next Change
Oakland	2003	-7	1		Cincinnati	2003	6	0
NY Giants	2003	-6	2		Pittsburgh	2004	9	-4
Tennessee	2004	-7	-1		San Diego	2004	8	-3
Kansas City	2004	-6	3		Atlanta	2004	6	-3
Miami	2004	-6	5		Chicago	2005	6	2
NY Jets	2005	-6	6		Tampa Bay	2005	6	-7
Philadelphia	2005	-7	4		NY Jets	2006	6	-6
Green Bay	2005	-6	4		New Orleans	2006	7	-3
Washington	2006	-6	4		Baltimore	2006	7	-8
Tampa Bay	2006	-7	5		Cleveland	2007	6	-6
Baltimore	2007	-8	6		Baltimore	2008	6	-2
Chicago	2007	-6	2		Atlanta	2008	7	-2
NY Jets	2007	-6	5		Miami	2008	10	-4
Jacksonville	2008	-6	2		Cincinnati	2009	5.5	-6
Green Bay	2008	-7	5		Kansas City	2010	6	-3
Seattle	2008	-6	1		Tampa Bay	2010	7	-6
Cleveland	2008	-6	1		St. Louis	2010	6	-5
Detroit	2008	-7	2		San Francisco	2011	7
Tampa Bay	2009	-6	7
Cincinnati	2010	-6	5
Minnesota	2010	-6	-3
Carolina	2010	-6	4
Indianapolis	2011	-8
Tampa Bay	2011	-6
			3.181818182					-3.88235294

Those are actually the biggest changes I’ve gotten from any of these list. Teams that win 6+ fewer games than the year before win, on average, 3.18 more games the following season, while teams that win 6+ more games than the year before win, on average, 3.88 fewer games the following season. So many things have to go right for a team to improve by that much and so many things have to go wrong for a team to get that much worse. Things typically are different in the following year. Of the 17 teams to win 6+ more games than the year before since 2003, 6 of them won 6+ fewer the following year.

Last year, San Francisco had a record +28 turnover differential, which we’ve proven is both unsustainable and unpredictable on a yearly basis. They only had one defensive starter (Patrick Willis) miss any games defensively. They also had career years from 10 of 11 defensive starters (exception: Patrick Willis). If their turnover differential goes towards zero, and a few guys on defense miss significant time, and several guys regress defensively (all totally reasonable things), that team could easily miss the playoffs.

[yard_barker]

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Indianapolis and Tampa Bay figure to have better years this year. I don’t have Indianapolis in the playoffs or anything, just because of how poor that supporting cast is. They have drafted very poorly in recent years before this year and had minimal talent around Peyton Manning in 2010, so much so that he only managed 10 wins. Their supporting cast might have even been worse last year. If Peyton Manning can barely manage 10 wins, how is Andrew Luck supposed to win any more than 8 as a rookie? They’ll be better though.

Tampa Bay, meanwhile, should be in between what they were in 2010 and what they were last year. In 2010, they had less than 20 turnovers and won 10 games and last year they had more than 35 turnovers and won 4 games. Turnover differentials aside, this team has had 6 or 7 win talent for 2 years and this offseason added guys like Doug Martin, Vincent Jackson, and Carl Nicks, as well as Mark Barron, Lavonte David, and Eric Wright. They could also finally get a full season from Gerald McCoy (3rd overall pick in 2010) for the 1st time in his career and 2011 3rd round pick Mason Foster could improve off a miserable season. They’ll be in the playoff race in a loaded NFC.

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

Anyone who follows football knows how big a part of the game that parity is. One team can be good one year and bad the next and vice versa for seemingly no reason. This series, called Predicting Parity, seeks to discover why that is and figure out how to predict it.

Every season since the NFL went to the new playoff format in 2002, the following season has always had at least one team go from a 1st round bye to out of the playoffs, out of the playoffs to a 1st round bye, 5 wins or fewer into the playoffs, into the playoffs down to 5 wins or fewer (with 1 exception). On top of that, one team has always won 6 more games than the year before and one team has always lost 6 more games than the year before. In order to make things shorter, I have given those types of teams titles.

Fallers- 1st round bye to out of the playoffs

Creepers- Out of the playoffs to 1st round bye (name stolen from Bill Simmons)

Sleepers- 5 wins or fewer into the playoffs

Faders- Playoffs to 5 wins or fewer

Super Sleepers- 6+ win increase

Plummeters- 6+ win decrease

First, I will take a look at the fallers.

Team	Year	Change	Next Change
Oakland	2003	-7	1
Tampa Bay	2003	-5	-2
Kansas City	2004	-6	3
Atlanta	2005	-3	-1
Philadelphia	2005	-7	4
Denver	2006	-4	-2
Chicago	2007	-6	2
New Orleans	2007	-3	1
Green Bay	2008	-7	5
Dallas	2008	-4	2
New England	2008	-5	-1
NY Giants	2009	-4	2
Carolina	2009	-4	-6
Tennessee	2009	-5	-2
Pittsburgh	2009	-3	3 (Creeper)
Minnesota	2010	-6	-3
San Diego	2010	-4	-1
Chicago	2011	-3
			0.294117647

What I was hoping for here was some sort of bounce back, but there doesn’t seem to be much that can be learned from this.  Of the 17 fallers since 2003, only one ended up doing the opposite and becoming a creeper in the next season and the 17 teams won an average on 0.3 more games the next season, which is virtually nothing. We can’t conclude that Chicago has any more likely chance to make the playoffs next year just because they were a faller last year and I certainly can’t conclude that Chicago has any more likely chance of becoming a creeper. Now onto the creepers.

[yard_barker]

Team	Year	Change	Next Change
New England	2003	5	0
St. Louis	2003	5	-4
Kansas City	2003	5	-6 (faller)
Pittsburgh	2004	9	-4
Atlanta	2004	6	-3 (faller)
Chicago	2005	6	2
New Orleans	2006	7	-3 (faller)
Baltimore	2006	7	-8 (fader)
San Diego	2006	5	-3
Green Bay	2007	5	-7 (faller)
Carolina	2008	5	-4 (faller)
New Orleans	2009	5	-2
Pittsburgh	2010	3	0
Chicago	2010	4	-3 (faller)
Atlanta	2010	4	-3
San Francisco	2011	7
			-3.2

Here’s where things get interesting. Since 2003, of the 16 teams who have gone from out of the playoffs to a 1st round bye, 7 did the opposite thing the following season, and one, the 2006 Baltimore Ravens, actually won 5 or fewer games. Those 16 teams also won, on average, 3.2 fewer games the following season. This is more bad news for the San Francisco 49ers. Anyone who has been following this series knows that’s it been troubling for the 49ers. Now onto the sleepers.

[google_ad]

Team	Year	Change	Next Change
Dallas	2003	5	-4
Atlanta	2004	6	-3 (faller)
San Diego	2004	8	-3
Chicago	2005	6	2
Tampa Bay	2005	6	-7 (fader)
New Orleans	2006	7	-3 (faller)
NY Jets	2006	6	-6 (fader)
Washington	2007	4	-1
Tampa Bay	2007	5	0
Atlanta	2008	7	-2
Miami	2008	10	-4
Baltimore	2008	6	-2
Cincinnati	2009	5.5	-6 (fader)
Seattle	2010	2	0
Kansas City	2010	6	-3
Denver	2011	4
Cincinnati	2011	5
			-2.8

More good results here, the 17 teams who have gone from 5 wins to making the playoffs have averaged 2.8 fewer wins the following season. 2 of them turned into fallers (1st round bye to out of the playoffs) and 3 turned into faders (playoffs to 5 or fewer wins). Denver should be somewhat immune, even though they also greatly exceeded their Pythagorean Expectation this offseason, because of how they upgraded the quarterback position this offseason, but anyone expecting this team to win 11-12 games will be disappointed. Cincinnati, however, could be in trouble. They didn’t beat a single winning team last year, finished 3-6 including playoffs, and Andy Dalton’s play was significantly worse down the stretch. Now onto the faders.

Team	Year	Change	Next Change
Oakland	2003	-7	1
Cleveland	2003	-4	-1
NY Giants	2003	-6	2
Atlanta	2003	-4.5	6 (creeper)
Tennessee	2004	-7	-1
Green Bay	2005	-6	4
NY Jets	2005	-6	6 (sleeper)
Washington	2006	-5	4 (sleeper)
Tampa Bay	2006	-7	5 (sleeper)
NY Jets	2007	-6	5
Baltimore	2007	-8	6 (sleeper)
Kansas City	2007	-5	-2
Jacksonville	2008	-6	2
Arizona	2010	-5	3
Cincinnati	2010	-6	5 (sleeper)
Indianapolis	2011	-8
			3

Continuing the good news, 16 teams have gone from the playoffs to 5 wins (the only year this didn’t happen was 2009, the only year that didn’t have a fader, faller, creeper, and sleeper). Those 16 teams have averaged 3 more wins the following season. 5 of those teams actually did the reserve the following season and made the playoffs, while one actually ended up with a 1st round bye the following season. Indianapolis could definitely improve by 3 games. That would only be 5 wins, which is not unreasonable at all. I don’t see them making the playoffs or anything though. I’ll get to Super Sleepers and Plummeters in another post.

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

Anyone who follows football knows how big a part of the game that parity is. One team can be good one year and bad the next and vice versa for seemingly no reason. This series, called Predicting Parity, seeks to discover why that is and figure out how to predict it. Every year since the divisional format changed in 2002, at least 5 teams that did not make the playoffs the year before make it into the playoffs. Likewise, at least 5 are knocked out of the playoffs. The following chart is a list of these teams starting in 2003, the 1st year after 2002.

Team	Year	Change in Wins	Next Change in Wins		Team	Year	Change in Wins	Next Change in Wins
Oakland	2003	-7	1		Dallas	2003	5	-4
Pittsburgh	2003	-4.5	9		Carolina	2003	4	-4
NY Jets	2003	-3	4		St. Louis	2003	5	-4
Cleveland	2003	-4	-1		Seattle	2003	3	-1
Tampa Bay	2003	-5	-2		New England	2003	5	0
San Francisco	2003	-3	-5		Baltimore	2003	3	-1
NY Giants	2003	-6	2		Kansas City	2003	5	-6
Atlanta	2003	-4.5	6		Denver	2003	1	0
Dallas	2004	-4	3		Minnesota	2004	-1	1
Carolina	2004	-4	4		Atlanta	2004	6	-3
Baltimore	2004	-1	-3		NY Jets	2004	4	-6
Tennessee	2004	-7	-1		Pittsburgh	2004	9	-4
Kansas City	2004	-6	3		San Diego	2004	8	-3
Minnesota	2005	1	-3		Carolina	2005	4	-3
Atlanta	2005	-3	-1		Washington	2005	4	-5
NY Jets	2005	-6	6		NY Giants	2005	5	-3
San Diego	2005	-3	5		Chicago	2005	6	2
Philadelphia	2005	-7	4		Tampa Bay	2005	6	-7
Green Bay	2005	-6	4		Cincinnati	2005	3	-3
St. Louis	2005	-2	2		Jacksonville	2005	3	-4
Carolina	2006	-3	-1		NY Jets	2006	6	-6
Washington	2006	-6	4		San Diego	2006	5	-3
Tampa Bay	2006	-7	5		Philadelphia	2006	4	-2
Cincinnati	2006	-3	-1		New Orleans	2006	7	-3
Jacksonville	2006	-4	3		Kansas City	2006	-1	-5
Pittsburgh	2006	-3	2		Baltimore	2006	7	-8
NY Jets	2007	-6	5		Washington	2007	4	-1
Philadelphia	2007	-2	1.5		Tampa Bay	2007	5	0
New Orleans	2007	-3	1		Jacksonville	2007	3	-6
Kansas City	2007	-5	-2		Pittsburgh	2007	2	2
Baltimore	2007	-8	6		Green Bay	2007	5	-7
Chicago	2007	-6	2		Tennessee	2007	2	3
Washington	2008	-1	-4		Baltimore	2008	6	-2
Tampa Bay	2008	0	-6		Philadelphia	2008	1.5	1.5
Jacksonville	2008	-6	2		Minnesota	2008	2	2
Green Bay	2008	-7	5		Carolina	2008	5	-4
Dallas	2008	-4	2		Atlanta	2008	7	-2
Seattle	2008	-6	1		Arizona	2008	1	1
New England	2008	-5	-1		Miami	2008	10	-4
Miami	2009	-4	0		Green Bay	2009	5	-1
Carolina	2009	-4	-6		Dallas	2009	2	-5
Atlanta	2009	-2	4		New England	2009	-1	4
NY Giants	2009	-4	2		New Orleans	2009	5	-2
Pittsburgh	2009	-3	3		NY Jets	2009	0	2
Tennessee	2009	-5	-2		Cincinnati	2009	5.5	-6
Dallas	2010	-5	2		Atlanta	2010	4	-3
Cincinnati	2010	-6	5		Pittsburgh	2010	3	0
Minnesota	2010	-6	-3		Kansas City	2010	6	-3
Arizona	2010	-5	3		Seattle	2010	2	0
San Diego	2010	-4	-1		Chicago	2010	4	-3
Chicago	2011	-3			Cincinnati	2011	5
Seattle	2011	0			NY Giants	2011	-1
Kansas City	2011	-3			Detroit	2011	4
Philadelphia	2011	-2			San Francisco	2011	7
NY Jets	2011	-3			Houston	2011	4
Indianapolis	2011	-8			Denver	2011	4
			1.37					-2.37

[yard_barker]

One thing we can learn from this is that teams that are in the 5 up group are often in the 5 down group the next year. Of the 56 up since 2003, 62.5% have missed the playoffs in the following season. Given that exactly 62.5% of the league misses the playoffs in any given year, that means that teams in the 5 up group have the exact same probability to make the playoffs as any other team in the league. Those teams also lose, on average, 2.37 more games in their next season.

Given that, teams like Cincinnati, the Giants, Detroit, San Francisco, Houston, and Denver could be in some trouble. If you’ve been reading the previous parts of this series, you would know that for various reasons, San Francisco is already in trouble, so this is more bad news for them. Houston won 10 games despite tons of injuries last year, while Denver upgraded their quarterback position this offseason, but the other 4 could easily miss the playoffs. The Giants and Bengals barely made it last year, San Francisco’s 2011 was aided by an unsustainable turnover differential and minimal injuries, and if Detroit were to improve on their 10 wins from last year, it would be the first time in at least a decade that a team improved their win total in 4 straight seasons.

[google_ad]

The other end of the spectrum is not as powerful. 39.6% of teams who are part of the 5 down make it back into the playoffs the following season, only slightly up from the 37.5% of teams overall who make the playoffs. Those teams also improve by 1.37 wins the following season. Teams like Indianapolis and Kansas City would appear to lack the talent to be part of that 39.6% and the Seahawks and Jets would appear to need a lot of things to go right to make the playoffs.

Chicago and Philadelphia could definitely have bounce back years though. Chicago added Brandon Marshall this offseason, got rid of Mike Martz, who was never a fit, and they were 7-3 last year before Jay Cutler and Matt Forte went down. Philadelphia, meanwhile, had a high Pythagorean Expectation last year, were plagued by turnovers, and won their final 4 games. They definitely have the talent to make the playoffs.

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

Anyone who follows football knows how big a part of the game that parity is. One team can be good one year and bad the next and vice versa for seemingly no reason. This series, called Predicting Parity, seeks to discover why that is and figure out how to predict it. One statistic, turnovers/takeaways, also seems to have a tremendous amount of parity on a yearly basis and since there is a strong correlation between turnovers and wins, this has a lot to do with parity.

The following chart shows teams since 2002 with 20 or fewer turnovers.

Team	Year	Turnovers	Turnovers next	Change in wins	AVG Turnovers	AVG Turnovers next	Difference	AVG Change in Wins
San Francisco	2002	17	25	-3	16.63888889	26.27777778	-9.638889	-2.694444444
Kansas City	2002	15	18	5
Jacksonville	2002	15	31	-1
Oakland	2002	19	26	-7
NY Jets	2002	19	20	-3
Kansas City	2003	18	27	-4
Indianapolis	2004	17	18	2
NY Jets	2004	16	34	-6
San Diego	2004	18	26	-3
Cincinnati	2005	18	24	-3
Denver	2005	16	27	-4
Indianapolis	2005	18	18	-2
Jacksonville	2005	16	22	-4
Seattle	2005	15	33	-4
San Diego	2006	14	24	-3
Indianapolis	2006	18	19	1
St. Louis	2006	18	37	-5
Atlanta	2006	19	24	-3
Washington	2006	15	29	4
New England	2007	15	21	-5
Indianapolis	2007	19	17	-1
Miami	2008	13	29	-4
Tennessee	2008	17	31	-5
Indianapolis	2008	17	24	2
NY Giants	2008	13	31	-4
Carolina	2008	19	31	-4
Washington	2008	17	28	-4
Green Bay	2009	16	22	-1
Minnesota	2009	18	37	-6
Dallas	2009	19	30	-5
San Diego	2009	17	29	-4
New England	2010	10	17	-1
Pittsburgh	2010	18	28	0
Kansas City	2010	14	28	-3
Atlanta	2010	17	21	-3
Tampa Bay	2010	19	40	-6
San Francisco	2011	10	?	?
Green Bay	2011	14	?	?
New England	2011	17	?	?
Cleveland	2011	19	?	?

As you can see, there have been 36 teams since 2002 with 20 or fewer turnovers. In their next season, those teams, have had, on average, 9.64 more turnovers and won 2.69 fewer games. Of those 36 teams, only two either had the same amount or fewer the next year. Those two teams were both the Colts. The Colts also were the only team to have 20 or fewer turnovers 5 times so they look like an outlier. That’s makes sense since they had one of the most consistent quarterbacks of the decade. If you take out Indianapolis’ 5 times, the increase in turnovers jumps to 10.97 and decrease in wins jumps to 3.19.

That’s good news for the Patriots and Packers, two teams who had fewer than 20 turnovers last year, who have very strong quarterbacks. For San Francisco and Cleveland, however, this is bad news for their offense so they are unlikely to be as efficient as they were last year. Cleveland added players such as Brandon Weeden and Trent Richardson this offseason so that should cancel out the decrease in efficiency, but San Francisco could easily see a significant decrease in wins after tying the NFL record for fewest turnovers in a season last year.

[google_ad]

The following chart shows teams since 2002 with 35 or more turnovers.

Team	Year	Turnovers	Turnovers next	Change in wins	AVG Turnovers	AVG Turnovers next	Difference	AVG Change in Wins
Carolina	2002	40	31	4	38.07142857	28.33333333	9.73809524	1.607142857
Washington	2002	40	28	-2
Minnesota	2002	41	24	3
St. Louis	2002	45	39	7
Chicago	2002	35	29	3
Arizona	2002	35	36	-1
Cincinnati	2002	36	22	6
Pittsburgh	2002	35	28	-4.5
Baltimore	2003	38	23	-1
NY Giants	2003	38	24	2
St. Louis	2003	39	39	-4
Arizona	2003	36	29	2
San Francisco	2004	40	34	2
Cleveland	2004	40	27	2
Miami	2004	42	30	5
Chicago	2004	37	28	6
Tampa Bay	2004	36	23	6
Dallas	2004	37	27	3
St. Louis	2004	39	37	-2
Oakland	2004	35	23	-1
New Orleans	2005	40	21	7
Green Bay	2005	42	32	4
Arizona	2005	35	29	0
St. Louis	2005	37	18	2
Oakland	2006	43	37	2
Detroit	2006	38	36	4
Pittsburgh	2006	35	22	2
Cleveland	2006	39	29	6
Baltimore	2007	40	21	6
Houston	2007	37	32	0
Oakland	2007	38	23	1
Arizona	2007	36	30	1
St. Louis	2007	37	31	-1
Detroit	2007	36	29	-7
San Francisco	2008	35	24	1
Detroit	2009	41	25	4
Arizona	2009	36	35	-5
NY Giants	2010	42	24	-1
Carolina	2010	37	23	4
Minnesota	2010	37	26	-3
Buffalo	2010	39	30	2
Arizona	2010	35	32	3
Washington	2011	35	?	?
Philadelphia	2011	38	?	?
Tampa Bay	2011	40	?	?

One thing that stands out is the 42 teams who’ve had 35 or more turnovers since 2002 have had 28.3 turnovers on average the next season. That’s only 2 turnovers more than the 26.3 averaged by the 36 teams with 20 or fewer turnovers. If that doesn’t prove that turnovers are unpredictable on a yearly basis, I don’t know what does. Those 42 teams have averaged 9.74 fewer turnovers the next season and won 1.61 more games. It’s not as significant of a difference in wins as it is with teams with fewer than 20 turnovers, but it’s still notable. It’s also notable that turnovers, in general, are pretty unpredictable on a yearly basis.

Teams done in by turnovers in 2011, like Washington, Philadelphia, and Tampa Bay, have major sleeper potential in 2012. Philadelphia also finished significantly worse than their Pythagorean Expectation and won their final 4 games. They could have a huge year in 2012. Washington upgraded the quarterback position and should be much better this year, especially after failing to meet their Pythagorean Expectation last year. Tampa Bay was on the 1st list in 2010 when they won 10 games and had fewer than 20 turnovers. Last year they had more than 35 and won 4 games. They should be somewhere in the middle this season.

[yard_barker]

The following chart shows teams since 2002 with 20 or fewer takeaways.

Team	Year	Takeaways	Takeaways next	Change in wins	AVG Takeaways	AVG Takeaways next	Difference	AVG Change in Wins
Buffalo	2002	19	18	-2	18.28947368	25.81578947	-7.5263158	1.407894737
Cincinnati	2002	20	24	6
Chicago	2003	20	29	-2
NY Jets	2003	20	33	4
Denver	2003	20	20	0
San Diego	2003	20	33	8
Buffalo	2003	18	39	3
Denver	2004	20	34	3
Oakland	2004	18	19	-1
Green Bay	2004	15	19	-6
St. Louis	2004	15	23	-2
New Orleans	2005	19	19	7
Green Bay	2005	19	27	4
Oakland	2005	19	23	-2
New England	2005	18	32	2
Houston	2005	19	19	4
Tennessee	2005	15	28	4
New Orleans	2006	19	23	-3
Houston	2006	19	25	2
Washington	2006	12	24	4
Tampa Bay	2006	19	35	5
Carolina	2006	20	30	-1
Philadelphia	2007	19	29	1.5
Jacksonville	2008	17	25	2
Denver	2008	13	30	0
Washington	2008	18	17	-4
Atlanta	2008	18	28	-2
Seattle	2008	20	23	1
Detroit	2008	20	23	2
San Francisco	2008	18	33	1
Washington	2009	17	27	2
St. Louis	2009	20	26	6
Cleveland	2009	19	28	0
Oakland	2009	20	24	3
Denver	2010	18	18	4
Miami	2010	19	19	-1
Jacksonville	2010	18	28	-3
Houston	2010	18	27	4
New Orleans	2011	16	?	?
St. Louis	2011	18	?	?
Arizona	2011	19	?	?
Cleveland	2011	20	?	?
Miami	2011	19	?	?
Denver	2011	18	?	?
Indianapolis	2011	17	?	?
Pittsburgh	2011	15	?	?

The change isn’t as significant here, but the 38 teams who have managed 20 or fewer takeaways since 2002 have had 7.53 more takeaways and won 1.41 more games. That means that top-10 scoring defenses like Pittsburgh (#1), Cleveland (#5) and Miami (#6) could be even better this season. The Steelers won 12 games last year and had the league’s best scoring defense despite the fewest amount of takeaways in the league. That’s impressive and bodes well for the future. Meanwhile, as poor as Cleveland’s and Miami’s offenses are, their defenses will win them some games. If Matt Moore or David Garrard can game manage like Matt Moore did late last year (6-6 as a starter), they could be a decent team.

Arizona had a middle of the pack defense last year (17th) and while they could improve, their inconsistencies at quarterback, as well as a poor offensive line, will make their offense struggle. They greatly exceeded their Pythagorean Expectation last year on the strength of a 4-0 record in overtime. They could easily be among the worst in the NFL this year. New Orleans was also middle of the pack (13th). Their missing guys thanks to BountyGate, but they also added some guys in free agency so they could be an improved defense to match their amazing offense. If their offense can remain amazing in spite of the loss of Sean Payton, they should be among the best in the NFL again.

Denver, Indianapolis, and St. Louis all had among the worst defenses in the league last year, 24th,  28th, and 26th respectively. Denver’s poor defense was part of the reason why they had a Pythagorean Expectation significantly lower than their record. Their offense will be improved with Peyton Manning coming in and while their defense figures to be a little better, that will once again be a weakness this year.

Indianapolis and St. Louis, meanwhile, were the league’s worst two teams last year, but they have reason to be optimistic this season. Indianapolis has a strong draft class headlined by Andrew Luck, who likely solidifies the most important position on the field. Meanwhile, St. Louis should have better health than last year and added players like Cortland Finnegan and Scott Wells in the offseason.

The following chart shows teams since 2002 with 35 or more takeaways.

Team	Year	Takeaways	Takeaways next	Change in wins	AVG Takeaways	AVG Takeaways next	Difference	AVG Change in Wins
Green Bay	2002	45	32	-2	38.08333333	27.5	10.5833333	-2
Tampa Bay	2002	38	33	-5
Philadelphia	2002	38	26	0
Atlanta	2002	39	31	4.5
New Orleans	2002	38	27	-1
St. Louis	2003	46	15	-4
New England	2003	41	36	0
San Francisco	2003	37	21	-5
Minnesota	2003	35	22	-1
Kansas City	2003	37	21	-6
Miami	2003	36	25	-6
Carolina	2004	38	38	4
Seattle	2004	35	24	4
Indianapolis	2004	36	29	2
Buffalo	2004	39	30	-4
New England	2004	36	18	-4
Cincinnati	2004	36	43	3
Minnesota	2005	35	36	-3
NY Giants	2005	37	28	-3
Carolina	2005	38	20	-3
Cincinnati	2005	43	24	-3
Chicago	2006	43	33	-6
Minnesota	2006	36	31	2
Baltimore	2006	37	23	-8
San Diego	2007	48	24	-3
Indianapolis	2007	37	26	-1
Cincinnati	2007	35	24	-2.5
Tampa Bay	2007	35	30	0
Detroit	2007	35	20	-7
Green Bay	2009	40	32	-1
Philadelphia	2009	38	34	-1
New Orleans	2009	39	25	-2
Carolina	2009	37	29	-6
Chicago	2010	35	31	-3
Pittsburgh	2010	35	15	0
New England	2010	38	34	-1
San Francisco	2011	38	?	?
Green Bay	2011	38	?	?

As was the case with turnovers, the difference between average takeaways by teams who had previously had 35 or more and by teams who had previously had 20 or less is minimal. Teams with 35 or more had 27.5 in their next season and teams with 20 or fewer had 25.8 in their next season. I’ll repeat it, it’s very tough to predict turnover totals on a yearly basis. Teams with 35 or more have had 10.58 fewer turnovers and 2 fewer wins in their next season.

Two familiar teams here, San Francisco and Green Bay. Green Bay had fewer than 20 turnovers and more than 35 takeaways. That could be a sign of a regression, but if anyone can keep up a low turnover rate, it’s Aaron Rodgers (and Tom Brady). Defensively, meanwhile, they’ll have to play better this year as they won’t be able to rely solely on the turnover as much in 2012. They added three good rookies, Nick Perry, Jerel Worthy, and Casey Hayward to help them play better, but they could be worse than the 19th rated defense they had last year. They also greatly exceeded their Pythagorean Expectation last year, but they have the ultimate trump card: the quarterback. They probably won’t win 15 games again, but 12 or 13 is definitely possible.

San Francisco, meanwhile, could be in some trouble. They don’t have an elite quarterback like the Packers so it’s highly unlikely they’ll even be remotely close to the mere 10 turnovers they had last year, fewest all time. Defensively, they have a lot of talent, but suffered almost no injuries on that side of the ball last year and had so many players with breakout years. If they have a few injuries and a few guys regress defensively, it’ll be noticeable. They won’t be bad defensively, but they probably won’t be the 2nd rated scoring defense they were last year. They figure to be noticeably worse than the 13-3 they were last year.

The following chart shows teams since 2002 with turnover differentials of +15 or better.

Team	Year	Turnover Diff	Turnover Diff Next	Change in wins	AVG Turnover Diff	AVG Turnover Diff Next	Difference	AVG Change in Wins
Green Bay	2002	17	0	-2	18.45	2.1	16.35	-2.3
Tampa Bay	2002	17	2	-5
Kansas City	2002	16	19	5
Kansas City	2003	19	-6	-6
New England	2003	17	9	0
Indianapolis	2004	19	11	2
NY Jets	2004	17	-10	-6
San Diego	2004	15	-6	-3
Cincinnati	2005	25	5	-3
Denver	2005	18	2	-4
Baltimore	2006	15	-17	-8
San Diego	2007	24	4	-3
Indianapolis	2007	18	9	-1
New England	2007	16	1	-5
Tampa Bay	2007	15	4	0
Miami	2008	17	-8	-4
Green Bay	2009	24	10	-1
Philadelphia	2009	15	9	-1
New England	2010	28	17	-1
Pittsburgh	2010	17	-13	0
Green Bay	2011	24
San Francisco	2011	28
New England	2011	17

This is basically combining things. Turnover differential is basically just takeaways minus turnovers. Teams with differential of +15 have had a differential 16.35 points lower and won 2.3 fewer games the following season. We see some usual suspects here. Green Bay, San Francisco, and New England. Green Bay and New England are better off because of their quarterbacks so while they might not combine for 28 wins next year, they should be among the best in their respective conferences. San Francisco, as I’ve gone into, could be in some trouble.

The following chart shows teams since 2002 with turnover differentials of -15 or worse.

Team	Year	Turnover Diff	Turnover Diff Next	Change in wins	AVG Turnover Diff	AVG Turnover Diff Next	Difference	AVG Change in Wins
Cincinnati	2002	-15	2	6	-17.94736842	1.368421053	-19.3157895	2.578947368
Minnesota	2002	-18	11	3
St. Louis	2002	-19	7	5
Buffalo	2003	-16	10	3
NY Giants	2003	-16	4	2
Dallas	2004	-15	-1	3
San Francisco	2004	-19	-10	2
St. Louis	2004	-24	-14	-2
Miami	2004	-17	0	5
Oakland	2004	-17	-4	-1
New Orleans	2005	-21	-2	7
Green Bay	2005	-23	-5	4
Oakland	2006	-20	-11	2
Baltimore	2007	-17	13	6
San Francisco	2008	-17	9	1
Denver	2008	-17	7	0
Detroit	2009	-18	4	4
Jacksonville	2010	-15	5	-3
Buffalo	2010	-17	1	2
Tampa Bay	2011	-16

The opposite of the last chart, but similar results. These are teams with turnover differentials of -15 or worse since 2002. Those teams have had a differential 19.3 points better in their next season and won 2.58 more games. Further proving that takeaways and turnovers vary on a yearly basis is the fact that the teams with differentials higher than +15 and teams with differential lower than -15 have almost the same differential in their next season, a difference of .7. Tampa Bay qualifies in this group this year and I’ve already gone into why they could have a bounce back season this year, especially after adding players like Carl Nicks, Doug Martin, and Vincent Jackson.

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

Anyone who follows football knows how big a part of the game that parity is. One team can be good one year and bad the next and vice versa for seemingly no reason. This series, called Predicting Parity, seeks to discover why that is and figure out how to predict it. The first thing we will look at is knows as the Pythagorean Expectation.

Overview

Use of the Pythagorean Theorem in sports began with Bill James in baseball, which what he called the Pythagorean Expectation. James theorized that the amount of runs a team scored and allowed was a more accurate predictor of the quality of a team than their actual win loss record. Much like the what you’ll remember from Middle School math, the Pythagorean Expectation in baseball used the following formula.

This same method has been adapted for football, though with a different exponent.

                          PF^2.37
Expected record =~  -----------------
                    PF^2.37 + PA^2.37

Below are two charts, one sorted by Pythagorean % and one sorted by the differential of Pythagorean wins and Actual wins from the 2011 season. These charts allow us to see which teams were the best last season and which teams were actually better or worse than their record would suggest. This is important for making predictions into 2012.

Teams sorted by Pythagorean Wins

Team	PF	PA	Pythagorean %	Pythagorean Wins	Pythagorean Losses	Actual wins	Differential
SF	380	229	0.76857543	12.29720688	3.702793123	13	-0.70279312
NO	547	339	0.756562223	12.10499557	3.895004431	13	-0.89500443
GB	560	359	0.741491691	11.86386705	4.136132952	15	-3.13613295
NE	513	342	0.723312432	11.57299891	4.427001085	13	-1.42700109
PIT	325	227	0.700679179	11.21086686	4.789133141	12	-0.78913314
BAL	378	266	0.696949393	11.15119029	4.848809705	12	-0.84880971
HOU	381	278	0.67851866	10.85629856	5.143701439	10	0.85629856
DET	474	387	0.617888325	9.886213206	6.113786794	10	-0.11378679
PHI	396	328	0.609809	9.756943993	6.243056007	8	1.75694399
ATL	402	350	0.581343219	9.3014915	6.6985085	10	-0.6985085
SD	406	377	0.543796445	8.700743126	7.299256874	8	0.70074313
CIN	344	323	0.537252023	8.596032371	7.403967629	9	-0.40396763
DAL	369	347	0.536357794	8.581724706	7.418275294	8	0.58172471
MIA	329	313	0.52950451	8.472072155	7.527927845	6	2.47207215
NYJ	377	363	0.522406577	8.358505233	7.641494767	8	0.35850523
CHI	353	341	0.52048049	8.327687845	7.672312155	8	0.32768785
TEN	325	317	0.514762827	8.236205238	7.763794762	9	-0.76379476
SEA	321	315	0.511177714	8.178843429	7.821156571	7	1.17884343
NYG	394	400	0.491046127	7.856738031	8.143261969	9	-1.14326197
CAR	406	429	0.467397347	7.478357548	8.521642452	6	1.47835755
ARZ	312	348	0.435658147	6.970530348	9.029469652	8	-1.02946965
BUF	372	434	0.409668219	6.554691497	9.445308503	6	0.5546915
OAK	359	433	0.390746755	6.251948077	9.748051923	8	-1.74805192
DEN	309	390	0.365458736	5.847339769	10.15266023	8	-2.15266023
WAS	288	367	0.360201141	5.763218262	10.23678174	5	0.76321826
MIN	340	449	0.340954592	5.455273469	10.54472653	3	2.45527347
JAC	243	329	0.327811238	5.244979806	10.75502019	5	0.24497981
CLE	218	307	0.307597385	4.921558163	11.07844184	4	0.92155816
KC	212	338	0.248709041	3.979344659	12.02065534	7	-3.02065534
TB	287	494	0.216354866	3.461677857	12.53832214	4	-0.53832214
IND	243	430	0.205443127	3.287090036	12.71290996	2	1.28709004
STL	193	407	0.145752436	2.332038974	13.66796103	2	0.33203897

 

Teams sorted by differential

Team	PF	PA	Pythagorean %	Pythagorean Wins	Pythagorean Losses	Actual wins	Differential
MIA	329	313	0.52950451	8.472072155	7.527927845	6	2.47207215
MIN	340	449	0.340954592	5.455273469	10.54472653	3	2.45527347
PHI	396	328	0.609809	9.756943993	6.243056007	8	1.75694399
CAR	406	429	0.467397347	7.478357548	8.521642452	6	1.47835755
IND	243	430	0.205443127	3.287090036	12.71290996	2	1.28709004
SEA	321	315	0.511177714	8.178843429	7.821156571	7	1.17884343
CLE	218	307	0.307597385	4.921558163	11.07844184	4	0.92155816
HOU	381	278	0.67851866	10.85629856	5.143701439	10	0.85629856
WAS	288	367	0.360201141	5.763218262	10.23678174	5	0.76321826
SD	406	377	0.543796445	8.700743126	7.299256874	8	0.70074313
DAL	369	347	0.536357794	8.581724706	7.418275294	8	0.58172471
BUF	372	434	0.409668219	6.554691497	9.445308503	6	0.5546915
NYJ	377	363	0.522406577	8.358505233	7.641494767	8	0.35850523
STL	193	407	0.145752436	2.332038974	13.66796103	2	0.33203897
CHI	353	341	0.52048049	8.327687845	7.672312155	8	0.32768785
JAC	243	329	0.327811238	5.244979806	10.75502019	5	0.24497981
DET	474	387	0.617888325	9.886213206	6.113786794	10	-0.11378679
CIN	344	323	0.537252023	8.596032371	7.403967629	9	-0.40396763
TB	287	494	0.216354866	3.461677857	12.53832214	4	-0.53832214
ATL	402	350	0.581343219	9.3014915	6.6985085	10	-0.6985085
SF	380	229	0.76857543	12.29720688	3.702793123	13	-0.70279312
TEN	325	317	0.514762827	8.236205238	7.763794762	9	-0.76379476
PIT	325	227	0.700679179	11.21086686	4.789133141	12	-0.78913314
BAL	378	266	0.696949393	11.15119029	4.848809705	12	-0.84880971
NO	547	339	0.756562223	12.10499557	3.895004431	13	-0.89500443
ARZ	312	348	0.435658147	6.970530348	9.029469652	8	-1.02946965
NYG	394	400	0.491046127	7.856738031	8.143261969	9	-1.14326197
NE	513	342	0.723312432	11.57299891	4.427001085	13	-1.42700109
OAK	359	433	0.390746755	6.251948077	9.748051923	8	-1.74805192
DEN	309	390	0.365458736	5.847339769	10.15266023	8	-2.15266023
KC	212	338	0.248709041	3.979344659	12.02065534	7	-3.02065534
GB	560	359	0.741491691	11.86386705	4.136132952	15	-3.13613295

As you can see, Miami leads the way in differential. Though they were just a 6-10 team, they actually played as well as a 8.47 team. This was because they actually had a solid defense. As many questions as they have offensively, their strong defense should prevent them from bottoming out once again in 2012. Bad teams like Minnesota, Carolina, and Indianapolis are also high up on this list so they should be able to bounce back some in 2012, while teams with solid records like the Eagles and Seahawks should improve and possibly make the playoffs.

On the other end of the spectrum, teams like Green Bay and New England had #1 seeds last year, but they also had differentials higher than -1. That being said, that’s normally the case with really good teams like that and teams with elite quarterbacks tend to frequently exceed their Pythagorean Expectation. Peyton Manning did it over his final 9 healthy seasons in Indianapolis, while Tom Brady has done so in 8 of his 10 seasons. Aaron Rodgers is not nearly as experienced as those two, but he’s certainly just as talented. Meanwhile, Brady frequently exceeds his Pythagorean Expectation and should be able to do so again this year. The Packers and Patriots will remain among the best teams in the league this year, barring injury to Rodgers or Brady.

Meanwhile, Manning’s new team, the Denver Broncos, are near the bottom of this list, but given that he missed all of last year with injury, is joining a new and inferior supporting cast, now to has play his home games out doors, had 4 neck surgeries in less than 2 years, and turned 36 in March, I don’t know if we can still consider Manning on the same level of Brady or Rodgers or Drew Brees. Manning is certainly an upgrade at quarterback over Tim Tebow even if he’s only 70% of his old self, but he might only be barely enough of an upgrade to cancel out their differential. Anyone expecting them to make an 3 or 4 game jump to being a 11-12 team will be disappointed. 9-7 or so seems more appropriate.

Meanwhile, average teams like Kansas City and Oakland could also be much worse this year than last year, especially Oakland. Oakland has lost a lot in free agency over the past 2 offseasons, including their two starting cornerbacks from their 2010 team and their top pass rusher, Kamerion Wimbley. With minimal cap space and draft picks, they haven’t been able to make up for all of these losses and now have a pretty thin team, especially defensively.

Kansas City, on the other hand, will be getting guys back from injury, including Jamaal Charles, Eric Berry, and Tony Moeaki, and Matt Cassel. However, this says they had the talent of a mere 4 win team last year. The year before, they won 10 games, but they only went 2-5 against teams with winning percentages of .500 or better, with those two wins coming against a Jacksonville team starting its 3rd string quarterback and the early season Chargers, against whom Matt Cassel passed for just 68 yards. The Chargers avenged that loss with a 31 point win later that year. Over those 5 losses, 4 were by double digits and 3 were by 21+.

The other two teams with -1 or worse differentials were the Giants and Cardinals. The Cardinals figure to have a worse record this season and while the Giants may do the same, especially in an improved NFC East, there are some that believe they’ve turned the corner after winning the Super Bowl last year and are now an elite regular season team. I am not one of those people, but I can understand it.

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]