Here are the projections from the same timeframe in 2006. Each column indicates the season win projections of a very similar model following weeks 2, 3, and 4. The actual total numbers of wins aren't terribly great, but the relative position of teams within each division is pretty good. I can't emphasize that point enough.
Seven of eight division winners were correctly projected. The only exception was Atlanta in the NFC South, which suffered an epic collapse at the end of the '06 season. The model actually had NO winning the division in week 3, but gave it to ATL by week 4.
| Team | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | Actual |
| AFC E | ||||
| 06New Engl | 9.2 | 6.6 | 8.7 | 12 |
| 06Buffalo | 5.7 | 7.0 | 8.1 | 7 |
| 06NY Jets | 7.5 | 6.9 | 7.0 | 10 |
| 06Miami | 5.6 | 6.1 | 5.6 | 6 |
| AFC N | ||||
| 06Baltimor | 9.8 | 10.6 | 10.9 | 13 |
| 06Cincinna | 10.5 | 10.9 | 9.5 | 8 |
| 06Pittsbur | 7.4 | 6.9 | 6.3 | 8 |
| 06Clevelan | 5.4 | 5.5 | 4.6 | 4 |
| AFC S | ||||
| 06Indianap | 7.1 | 9.4 | 10.4 | 12 |
| 06Jacksonv | 10.9 | 9.5 | 8.2 | 8 |
| 06Houston | 3.8 | 3.6 | 4.3 | 3 |
| 06Tennesse | 3.9 | 3.2 | 2.1 | 8 |
| AFC W | ||||
| 06San Dieg | 12.6 | 14.2 | 13.0 | 14 |
| 06Denver | 6.0 | 10.2 | 10.1 | 9 |
| 06Kansas C | 7.2 | 7.4 | 9.4 | 9 |
| 06Oakland | 5.7 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 2 |
| NFC E | ||||
| 06Philadel | 10.4 | 12.1 | 13.1 | 10 |
| 06Dallas | 10.5 | 9.7 | 12.1 | 9 |
| 06NY Giant | 11.4 | 11.5 | 11.5 | 8 |
| 06Washingt | 7.5 | 9.3 | 10.9 | 5 |
| NFC N | ||||
| 06Chicago | 11.3 | 11.3 | 12.2 | 13 |
| 06Minnesot | 8.8 | 10.2 | 9.3 | 6 |
| 06Green Ba | 6.7 | 6.0 | 4.9 | 8 |
| 06Detroit | 6.1 | 5.2 | 4.4 | 3 |
| NFC S | ||||
| 06Atlanta | 10.3 | 9.4 | 11.1 | 7 |
| 06New Orle | 9.2 | 11.1 | 10.1 | 10 |
| 06Carolina | 4.5 | 4.1 | 5.8 | 8 |
| 06Tampa Ba | 4.4 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 4 |
| NFC W | ||||
| 06Seattle | 9.5 | 10.6 | 8.6 | 9 |
| 06St. Loui | 6.3 | 6.5 | 7.8 | 8 |
| 06San Fran | 10.7 | 8.3 | 6.5 | 7 |
| 06Arizona | 7.2 | 5.0 | 3.1 | 5 |
The biggest misses were the Jets and Redskins. The Jets have returned to mediocrity and were most likely very luckly last year. The model was very wrong about the Redskins, and I have no idea why they took the downturn they did last year.
One more note: Although these predictions were based on a similar model to the current one, the coefficients were derived solely from 2005 season data. 2005 turned out to be uniquely favorable to running offenses and defenses, which skewed the projections. I redid the model using data from 2002-2006 and the results were much better.
The Titans don't count?
Matt-The Titans were an interesting case last year. They were absolutely terrible in the beginning of the year. I believe they were one of the rare teams to fundamentally improve throughout the year, primarily due to Vince Young's quick learning curve.
I think young new QBs are always a wildcard. If you look at most QB career stats, their first starting year is almost always very rough, then they hit their steady-state performance level by their second year. Jason Campbell in Washington is a good example of that tendency this year.