Can anyone explain the DST Projections on NFL.com? They seem to be totally at odds with their own assessments of the units,

e.g. "This is a unit worth drafting late in keeper leagues since they could break out and be strong in 2007, but owners in seasonal formats should only look this way if the Bills have a soft matchup.", but the Bills are somehow top of the Projections list!

I wish I'd realised how screwed up their list was BEFORE the draft!

The players and defences are ranked according to how many fantasy points they are expected to make.
Buffalo is ranked no. 1 because they are a reasonable unit with a soft schedule eg they play the Pats, Jets twice a season.

They will not necessarily be a number 1 ranked defence in yards or points against like Chicago and Tampa Bay will.
Ideally you have 2 defences on your roster and you pick the one with the softest matchup that week.

Historically defensive form does not tranfer well from season to season. Last year the colts were not highly rated yet put in awesome fantasy numbers early in the season.  Buffalo on the other hand felt that they were going to be the best defence in history but only finished middle of the pack. An anemic offence did not help their cause.

So when picking a defense it is often potluck and why a lot of experts say not to waste an early pick on a defence.

Having said all that I would dearly love to have Chicago or Tampa's defense as I expect them to perform better than they did last year.

Well, if anyone fancies the Patriots DST (projected to be No. 5 Fantasy defence this season), be sure and let me know!

Quote :

TOM RICHARDS wrote : I would dearly love to have Chicago or Tampa's defense as I expect them to perform better than they did last year.

Not sure Chicago will better last season's sterling performance, but I agree that they both look good this season. I've been trying to persuade the Sick Puppies to part with the TB DST but no dice - doesn't help that he's a Buccs fan!

I dropped the bills as they are in rebuilding mode, have lots of rookies, have had main man takeo spikes out for a while and I didn't think they were worth keeping on my roster, I didn't think anyone would want them, sounds like they will be starting 3 rookies!
DST is certainly one of the potluck positions to fill on your roster, a poor D on paper can put on a real show at times.

Apart from yardage turnovers do count for points. It's why I hope the Vikings will be a viable reserve DST for me. After their iffy defensive line the rest are looking pretty good turnover material.

John, you have zero chance of getting the sick puppies to trade the Bucs defense. To say he is a fanatic is an understatement!

By the way I also thought that the write ups for DSTs on NFL.com rankings were nebulous.  I've got the Eagles who they state are one of the "elite units" yet are ranked way down the list (15 I think). Very confusing to say the least.

Buffalo may, I repeat may, be a decent option with Spikes back in the lineup and the offence surely could not perform as woefully as last year......

The recomendations for Buffalo were to get them for NEXT year, if you are in a carry over league, because of the rebuilding.

Why the Bills were ranked no.1 is beyond me.  I think the writer was on drugs of the non-prescrïption type!

My 3 QBs are selected as starters by the following amounts:
Culpeppper  2%
Leftwich  4%
Pennington  0%

Perhaps I was also on those non-prescrïption drugs during the draft.  Or else I am a genius and no one else has caught on....

Its interesting to look at people's teams with an eye on the starting % of their players in different leagues, some teams, like Pauls are good alround with no weaknesses (like everyone is about 70% and other teams have a few stars and a few holes at lesser positions like TE or KK, can't wait for the games to start!

I hadn't really looked at these stats before, but now I have I'm quite surprised to see only 1% starting Bush and only 4% starting TO!! I know they're both slightly risky for different reasons, but really that few?!? Only 2% even OWN Bush!

Still, doesn't bother me - I'm quite pleased with my line-up now and also can't wait for the season to start. I'm still not totally happy with my DST situation but I figure that with 3 reasonably promising units on board, it gives me a fair chance of one of them coming good this season. I'm not sure why Dave didn't rate the Chiefs, as I see them as a pretty useful unit and jumped at the chance of snapping them up to replace the Pats (who no doubt will now start showing their pre-2005 form! )

Those % for Bush and TO seem odd. The figures may be skewed by leagues that aren't playing to our rules (keeper leagues). Don't have anything odd like that in my team.

I did just see a headline suggesting Owens is injuried.

Also games haven't started yet!