The Athletic Football Show: A show about the NFL - Why the Houston Texans are a legitimate Super Bowl threat

Episode Date: July 2, 2026

The FTN Football Almanac is as close as we have to religious text in the NFL analytics world. The 2026 version is set to drop shortly, so Robert Mays welcomed the founder of the Almanac, FTN's director of analytics Aaron Schatz, to this episode of The Athletic Football Show to highlight the most surprising nuggets from this year's edition.0:00 Welcome to the show2:01 Texans Super Bowl threat12:30 2026 Super Bowl was almost impossible18:50 Gap between Bears offense and defense25:38 Patriots ease of schedule32:10 Bengals, Cowboys playoff chances38:34 Rams 13 personnel41:36 Best/worst overside coverage corners46:20 Jets defensive improvement49:35 Steelers offense oddity54:03 Jordan Love with vs without pressureHost: Robert MaysExecutive Producer: Michael BellerSenior Producer: Katy DuffySocial Producer: Scott KrinchFollow Robert on Bluesky: @robertmays.bsky.socialFollow Robert on X: @RobertMaysTheme song: HauntedWritten by Dylan Slocum, Trevor Dietrich, Ruben Duarte, Kyle McAulay, and Meredith VanWoert / Performed by Spanish Love SongsCourtesy of Pure Noise / By arrangement with Bank Robber Music, LLC Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to the Athletic Football Show. I'm Robert Mays. An old guest joining us today. It means that it's about that time in the NFL offseason calendar. We have turned to July and now we're starting to look forward a little bit to what this season is going to look like. Every year, part of my process, a huge part of my process in projecting this upcoming season, is rooted in the numbers from FTN now, but previously football outsiders. The almanac that they put together every single year is full of writers that I love,

full of information that I find useful. So we had our old buddy Aaron Schatz, the chief analytics officer from FtM, the founder of Football Outsiders, on to chat through 10 of his favorite nuggets from the Almanac in 2026. We talked about the Steelers play action weirdness from last year, the Patriots schedule,

a bounce back season potentially for the Bengals, massive projections for the Houston Texans, a wide range offensively and defensively for the Bears, and a lot more on this show. Huge fan of the work that Aaron has done for years and years and years on this product. I read it every single year. Wanted to give you guys a little bit of a sneak peek

into some of the most notable stats from the book. So let's get to that conversation with me and Aaron right now. Very excited to dig into our conversation today. I've said this many times. I said this at the end of yesterday's show. Now the FTN almanac, but once the Football Outsiders Almanac has been a mainstay.

for me in my offseason prep research, all of it. Really since I started doing this and even beforehand, I remember having copies of it in like the mid aughts and emailing Barnwell in the publicly available football outsiders email where you could get fantasy advice. So I have long been a follower of the work of our next guest today, joining us to run through some of the most important and best nuggets from the 2006 edition of the FTN Almanac.

It is the chief analytics officer from FTN, our old friend Aaron Schatz. Aaron, how you doing, man? I am good, man. It's been a lot of hard work. You know, it's funny, the rest of the NFL world kind of goes to bed in June. And that's when I put the pedal to the medal to get this thing out. But we're almost ready. Many friends of the show and members of the show have worked on the almanac in the past, right?

Derek did for years, did many chapters of the almanac when he was working for you guys. Dan Bezuda, who is a buddy that we all love, worked on this year's version. And so it is a project that has been near and dear to my heart, even if I've watched it from afar for a very long time. And today we're just going to talk about some of the most notable things that the numbers spat out about what we might expect from this season, teams that maybe DVOA expects to be a little bit better than we expect, maybe some surprises when it comes to playoffs, what the standings are going to look like at the end of the year, according to you guys. So let's just kick this off. Where do you want to start this? What was the nugget that you felt was most notable when you guys went through the simulations that you guys did

for what the season would look like? Yeah, I'm going to start with the big one, which is we have the Houston Texans as our favorite to come out of the AFC and make their first ever Super Bowl. Let's dig into this. I read the chapter this morning. Obviously, the formula for what this looks like is the defense staying as good as it's been,

which we can talk about a little bit. that's another thing that kind of an offshoot of this conversation that I want to have with you. But the formula for that is the defense staying as good as it's been and the offense being better than it was last year. So how do you square what C.J. Stroud look like down the stretch some of the low points from Houston's offense last year with a best in the AFC sort of prediction for 2026? Yeah, I think first of all that we all think too much about those playoff games and not about the regular season. In the regular season, C.J. Stroud was an average quarterback on a team that had no running game. Now they should have improved the offensive line. They now have David Montgomery to be the lead running back.

They should be getting Tank Dell back for their passing game. And I think that all of that combines to mean that Houston is very likely to be a slightly above average offense, like 13th, 14th. when you put that with the defense that they put on the field, that is the best team in the AFC. Who does that say more about? Does it say more about the quality of the Texans? Or does it say more about the relative pessimism you guys might have about the teams that are all bunched up near the top

when you're looking at AFC odds, Super Bowl odds, the Bills, the Ravens, teams like that? I mean, I think it says more about the defensive players on the Texans. You know, obviously we have the Rams and Seahawks as our two best teams. projected teams. They were our two best teams last year. NFC, right? The better teams are there. But the Texans defense, you know, we talk a lot in our books about defense being harder to predict than offense. And the way we show that is that our, you know, our projections are really the average of a range of possibilities. And the projections for defense are all closer to average

than the ones for offense are because you could be, you know, you can feel better than a good offense is going to be good. That being said, you can feel about as good that the Houston, Texas defense is going to be good as you can about any defense in the league in any year. I mean, they're just consistently good. It's not built on turnovers. It's not built on third downs. It's just built on stopping the other team. We know the talent is good. They didn't lose anybody. The defense just looks fantastic, like it should be really good again this year. So if you haven't improved offense with that, you're talking about a serious Super Bowl contender. Two questions off of that. Have you noticed anything over the last few years about the numbers

leaning toward maybe defense being a little bit more predictable from season to season when you are one of those top defenses? Because we have seen that over the last couple seasons specifically, where a lot of the defenses that finished in the top 10 in 2024 ended up finishing in the top 10 again in 2025 and there's just usually more attrition among that group than there was last year. And the fact that for two straight seasons, I believe this is true, I'm pretty sure the team that's finished number one in defensive DVOA and each of the past two seasons has won the Super Bowl. And so for the most part, you know, you guys, a lot of mainstream analytical football

thinking is downstream of what you guys have done over the last 20 years, right? Like the idea that offense is more consistent from year to year than defenses is a main say of what you guys have done, written the work that you have put in. Are we getting to a place for whatever broader environmental reasons that we can dig into it in another time where defense is more valuable than it's been over the past decade or so in the way that you guys have done this? And it's stickier than it's maybe been in a lot of years where you guys were doing this. I don't know if it's more valuable. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but looking at it, it has been a little bit more stickier in recent years.

I don't know if that's just random variation or if something has actually changed. It's still not as sticky as offense, but it has been a little stickier in the last couple years, I think, than it was before that, if I remember correctly, but I don't have the exact numbers in front of me. Why do you think, when you guys really were leaning into this idea that offense was just more consistent from year to year, when do you think that idea really started to take

shape and when do you think it really took hold? Like, what were the, what was the stretch of seasons and some of the teams that we're talking about when it really kind of solidified that you were like, you know what, offense is more consistent from season to season? Who are the teams that really drove that home for you? Golly, I am trying to remember, I mean, there was a point where, like, the Steelers and Ravens were the only defenses that were good year after year. Mm-hmm.

And there were, you know, teams would go back and forth. I'm trying to remember some good examples from the aughts from the first decade of a team that went back and forth on deep. I mean, I have a really good example from recent years, which is Cleveland, had a fantastic defense in 23, terrible in 24, and then fantastic again in 25. And Miles Garrett was on the team all three years. So it has nothing, you know, he was good all the three years. I can't remember specifically which of the early teams was the one where we were like, Oh, man, defense really is going, is a little cuckoo. But there was that point where, like, the Steelers and Ravens would be good every year

and then everybody else would bounce all around. Anecdotally, like thinking about even that Browns team, it was a man-heavy team, right? They played a more aggressive style of defense than some of the defenses that have been stickyer over the last couple seasons. And even if the Vikings are one of those teams, I believe the Vikings finished top five in defensive DVOA in each of the last two years. We think of them as an aggressive team, but in reality, they're actually a zone-heavy-heavy team. that's pretty passive in a lot of moments, despite the high blitz rates on early downs.

And then you think about the Eagles were a top five defense over the last two years, the Texans were a top five defense over the last two years, and the Seahawks were a top five defense over the last two years. Well, the Seahawks were a very good defense in the back half of 2024. Yeah. Yes. Like, it's the second half of the 2024 Seahawks and last year Seahawks were both very good defenses. All of those defenses, just in terms of play style, feel less volatile than a team like

those Browns teams were. a team like that Brown's team felt. So is there a world where the style of defense we're seeing from some of these really good defenses contributes to a lack of volatility compared to some of the like spike teams that we've seen over the last 15 or 20 years? I'm sure there's no answer to that yet, but I'm starting to get curious about the question. It may be, and the reason why is because defensive back coverage is so inconsistent. No matter how you measure it, cornerback coverage.

is like the most inconsistent thing in football from year to year. It doesn't matter if you use a charting stat. It doesn't matter if you use PFF's grades. It doesn't matter if you just use anecdotal evidence. Cornerbacks are sort of all over the place. So it might be that the more you depend on man coverage by your corners, the more you're sort of falling into that inconsistency and things kind of going all over the place. But the other thing about defense is that so much of defenses,

the weak link system. Right? So you can have a strong defense and then all you need is one position to get weak. And now all of a sudden you have something for opposing offenses to attack and now you're struggling. But with Cleveland in recent years as an example, there definitely was the difference was not the pass rush, right? Miles Garrett was Miles Garrett.

The difference was the coverage was nowhere near as good in 2024 as it was in 23 or 2025. The idea even that a team that you have projected to be, what did you say Houston was in the Offensive DVA rankings, 12th? They're like 12th or something, yeah. So the idea that a team that's 12th on offense and first on defense would be your pick to come out of the AFC, that falls in line with what the last couple seasons have looked like. Seattle was right in that same general range.

I think they were just outside of the top 10 in Offensive DVOA last year and they were the number one defense. Philly the year before, I think, was on the back half of the top 10 or just outside of it in an offensive DVOA number one on defense. So it actually is right in line with what we've seen over the last couple years. But to me, it still feels a little bit outside the norm of what we've seen over the last 10 to 15 years. And I think that's notable. And I think it's something that's worth paying attention to. Is because you have to say to yourself, did C.J. Stroud have a couple of bad games or does he have something that he just, that he's struggles in the playoffs against, I wouldn't say better defenses because the Patriots are not a

better defense, right? They were like an average defense last year when you, you know, correct for the quality of the quarterbacks that they played all year. So I know it feels like, you know, guys, there's guys who have never gotten over the hump until the year that they finally get over the hump. I think when you look at Stroud's performance overall, he is a above average quarterback. and that if you can give him an average offensive line, and we know Nico Collins is great, and there's good receivers there, and if Tankdale comes back and everything,

that can be an above-average offense, not a really good offense, but at least above-average. I see the path for it. I mean, I think that they absolutely could be a top-12 offense in the way that you're painting it out to be. And I think that not only is the personnel going to be better this year, and I think a little bit more reliable and consistent, especially out front,

but I just think year-two of an offensive system where they were really searching for answers last year and struggling to find them, I think it's all just going to feel a little bit more settled this year. And so I do think that path is there for them on offense. And if it is, that looks a lot like the formula we've seen from the last two Super Bowl champions. Yeah, I mean, I also think that if things hold to what we expect in the NFC,

they will go into the Super Bowl as underdogs. But, yeah, they look very good in the AFC. Let's get to your next one. Your next nugget from this year's almanac that you thought that people should know about. The Seahawks Patriots Super Bowl was the least likely Super Bowl ever, according to preseason projections. Based on Vegas lines going back to 1977, there was an implied odds of 0.08 percent that that would be the Super Bowl. And it goes to show just how much we write these books and we try to predict the season, but just how unpredictable it can be.

and last year was simultaneously the most predictable year because the Seahawks were number one almost all year and then won the Super Bowl. And the least predictable year because going into the year, they were at plus 6,000 and the Patriots were at plus 8,000. What did your guys' projections look like for the Seahawks last year?

I assume you had them penciled in as one of the best defenses in the league. Yeah, we did not because in general, defenses that improve in the second half of the year does not necessarily roll over to the following year. And I think what we wrote in the Seahawks chapter was we think that McDonald is a really good coordinator. And so we think that they're going to be able to keep these gains. But statistically, we can't say that that's going to happen. And it turned out that that is what happened. That's exactly what happened. I think they're one of those unique cases where obviously all of this requires the context around what that improvement in the second.

half of the year looked like. I think if you're looking at a second half of the season, and there's really no reason that a team got better, I would look at that with a healthy amount of skepticism. It's the same players. It's the same scheme. Maybe you just got a little bit luckier. The ball bounces your way a couple more times. With Seattle, the Ernest Jones trade and even Mike McDonald's own track record, like I think that he would admit this that in the first half of his seasons when he's had been in year one of a stop. He's been in figure it out mode. He was like that in Baltimore, and I think he was like that in the first half of the year with Seattle. So I think there are anecdotal reasons to have believed in what that defense would be.

I'm curious, where did you guys have their offense, Seattle's heading into last year? Not good, because like everybody else, we thought that they made a mistake by ditching Gino Smith for Sam Darnold. I mean, everybody thought nobody knew what Jackson Smith and Jigba could be. And everybody thought Sam Darnold was a step down at quarterback. So, no, we did not listen. We talk about having the most accurate preseason projections. That's over the course of years. That is not for last year.

Almost everybody had last year wrong, and we are honestly no exception. I was going to ask you this about another team, but I might as well just do it now because I think that Clint Kuback is a great example of it. We were, we did a show last offseason when we were trying to figure out which teams overperform and underperform. which teams are the ones that are just vastly far away from whatever the Vegas odds were heading into the season. And consistently, I think the best example from the year we were talking about was Washington two years ago. And if you look at Washington, they had a new quarterback and a new coordinator. And so that stuff is just really hard to predict. How do you guys account for a new play caller in your numbers?

Because there's so much uncertainty with it, there's really no way to properly account for what sort of impact a guy like Clint Kubiak. is going to have when you're looking at it mathematically, is there? Especially because there's almost no sample size. Let's take, for an example, Mike McDaniel. The sample size we have of Mike McDaniel calling plays is Miami. And we all believe that McDaniel was the reason that offense was good, and we all believe that he rose, you know, he helped talent rise that was not necessarily as good as its actual

performance, but we don't know that for sure. And we only have one example. It's very rare to have a play caller on either side of the ball where you can say, this guy's been in six different teams and he's always made things better, like Wade Phillips. He's been to six different teams. By the time you get to the seventh team, you've got enough of a sample that you can be like, this guy makes things better. But you don't know that. We had this problem last year with Vrable because how much of Vrable is in Tennessee was the players in Tennessee and how much was Vrable is a good coach. Now that we've had a sample size of two, we think, you know, he's probably a good coach. But we didn't know that going to last year, which again is one of the reasons why our Patriots projection was certainly nowhere near as high as they actually performed and wasn't even like, you know, for 8.5 or anything like that.

Yeah, it's really just the grizzled old defensive coaches that have bounced around for the last 40 years. Like, we with reasonable certainty, I think, can say Vic Fangio is a good defensive coordinator who gets a lot of good results. There aren't that many guys who have lived Vic Fangio's NFL life. I mean, how many teams is Vic Fangio been the defensive coordinator for in the NFL or the defensive play call, or at least seven or eight? Yeah, a lot. Although I will say the thing about Fangio is that in most of his career, his defenses don't really jump until year two. Yeah. Yeah, you, San Francisco was like that, I believe.

It was like the second half of year one. So one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. He's been eight defensive, eight teams he's been the defensive play caller for. So going back to the 1995 New War or the Carolina Panthers. So we got a lot of time with Vic Fangio as an NFL coach compared to some of these guys. Yes, whereas with Clint Kubiak, we don't. With Mike McDaniel, we don't, you know, et cetera, et cetera. Let's get to our next one here.

The next nugget you thought people should know from the 2026 Almanac is what? We have Chicago projected as the number two offense and number 32 defense. And I feel like of those two, the one that we are more likely to be wrong about is the offense. You think so? because the thing that our projection system has the hardest time with is judging how good important changes are on the offensive line and they were better with Ozzie Tripillo last year and now Tripillo's hurt. So I don't know whether we might be sort of overrating their offense because the offensive line is not as good and Dolman is gone now, the center, right? But we think,

you know, Ben Johnson, all other things being equal, when you have a new coordinator, you take a step back, even one who's well known. So second year in the offense, offense should be better. There's a lot of reasons to believe that offense is going to be really good. Caleb Williams obviously has great draft pedigree, played very well last year. Their defense, on the other hand, was 22nd last year, despite having the highest takeaway per drive of the entire decade so far, and being much better on third down than they were overall, which tends to regret. and having a great record in fumble recovery, which tends to regress.

It was like a 10 of 14, wasn't it? 75% of the fumbles? They recovered 10 of 15 on defense. 10 of 15, yeah. And by the way, they got rid of an all pro safety. So they've lost talent also. Yeah. All right.

Are you ready for me to bend over backwards to try to cope with this? Because I'm ready to do it. More healthy Jalen Johnson. That's the first bit of copium. That's huge, right? And the offense is, we're going to have a bear's offense conversation, I believe, on next week's lingering question show.

Just about what are like reasonable expectations for Caleb Williams? What was last season really? Down to down, what was he last season? Because obviously we saw the late game heroics and the spectacular plays. That stuff is amazing. But in terms of what he is as a quarterback, game in, game out, play in, play out. I think for the Bears to have the number two defense, number two offense in the league, this year. He needs to play better than he did last year.

Oh yeah. No, no, no, this is expecting an improvement, no question. And that's necessary. And if that improvement happens, then I think that's absolutely achievable for them next year. The offensive line is, it's obviously worth pointing out, beyond the personnel downgrades, which I do think exists. I think there's a chance Braxton Jones is better this year than he was in spot duty last year because he's a year further removed from the injury, hopefully coming through entire offseason healthy. I do think that's possible. Again, that might be a little bit of cope,

but I do think that's possible. My biggest thing, and you guys always do such a good job accounting for this, I expect the offensive line not to be as healthy as it was last year. I think that to me is one of the scariest points I have about the Bears' offense is that even if the left tackle was a revolving door, for the most part, Jonah Jackson's been hurt a lot in his career.

He didn't miss it. He missed no time. Darno Wright didn't miss time. And so I just think that the health, of the offensive line, even with concern to left tackle for most of last year, is probably going to be a bigger issue for them this season than it was last season. One of the other interesting variables in our projection system is that in general, teams with highly drafted receivers tend to dip a little bit, and then they go up in year two.

And the bears have that guy in year two and burden, you know, I think subjectively the idea of, burden is ready to take over as the number one guy sounds like it makes a lot of sense. And you throw Leveland in there as well. I mean, he probably fits the same sort of building. Yeah, and Loveland is in his second year as well, absolutely. I would love if they had the second best offense in the league last year. And I do think that's within the range of outcomes.

Like if that happened, I wouldn't be shocked. I would be pleasantly surprised, but I wouldn't be shocked. The defense, the Jalen Johnson point, I think, is a really important one. He was not good last year. He was actively bad when he played for a good chunk of this season. There's that inconsistency for cornerbacks. And he's hurt, right? And I think that's part of the issue is that with him and Kyler Gordon hurt all of last year.

Gordon's been banged up throughout this spring as well. So I'm not penciling him in as somebody that you can rely on. But I think potentially having him and Kyle or Gordon back next year really does help stabilize the secondary in a way that it wasn't last season. And even if they lost Nashan Wright, Kevin Byard, the guys who created all those turnovers, I still think that there's a chance they're better at safety this year. And I think maybe a lot better at safety this year on a down-to-down basis, even if the turnovers go away.

So if Kyler Gordon and Jalen Johnson are healthy and they have more range and speed at safety this year, I absolutely see a path and a possibility where the secondary is a much better unit this season than it was last season. And then if you can crawl out of the basement with that, that's hopefully the path to where you want to get to. Yeah, I can see the path absolutely. I mean, first of all, I can always see the path more on defense than offense. But I can see the path. Jalen Johnson was fantastic in 2023 and 2024. So I absolutely see the path to, if he's healthy, they're back to having a shutdown corner.

Pass rush is going to be, and you guys wrote about this in the chapter, that's going to be the biggest question. And that's where you have to do a little bit of talking yourself into it. The secondary, I can kind of see it. The pass rush, it's like maybe Austin Booker takes another step forward now that he's coming into a season fully healthy. They never really play with Odenbo and Booker together last year. Does Shemar Turner give them anything? Like, that's where you're doing a little bit of wishcasting as a fan and you hope that maybe it's better than it was last season. But I feel less confident about the pass rush being better than I do about the secondary being better.

Yeah, the good news if you're a Bears fan is that the pass rushes and the rest of your division, have the same problem only more so. Like, look at the depth charts. The depth charts in the NFC, I mean, obviously, you know, the top of those past rushes is better, right? But if you look at the depth charts in the NFC North, every team, the depth chart, you're like, who are these guys?

Like after Micah Parsons and Lucas Van Ness, who are these people and the same in Minnesota when you get past their top two guys and everything? So at least the bears have some depth. What's the depth of C pluses? maybe the depth isn't that valuable. But you're right. They do actually have some potential options

compared to the other teams in the division. All right, we're going to take our first quick break and then we're going to come back and run through some more of these nuggets from the FtN at Allmec. All right, let's get to the next one here. Your next nugget from this year's Almanac that you think people should know about.

I'll remind people first, by the way, if you like all the stuff we're talking about, you can pre-order the Almanac at FtnFantasy.com slash almanac. And it should be available on July 9th, and then the physical book comes out a few days after that. The fourth tidbit I have, the Patriots had the fourth easiest schedule of the last 50 years by DVOA. We all know they had a really easy schedule, but this actually puts it into numbers.

It was the easiest schedule of this century so far. The only teams with easier schedules were the 91st, Bills, the 77 bears, and the 99 Rams. And I say that in order to say, I don't think they're going back to the Super Bowl, even with the improvements that they've made. And I say that as a Patriots fan. Curious, I mean, obviously there's no way to, like, actually measure this. But is it possible to have such an easy regular season schedule that you can look like a

completely different team against that schedule in the regular season? and in the playoffs and the way that the Patriots kind of did this year. Like, do you think that is possible considering how much work you've done looking at strength of schedules and how advantageous they are to some of these teams? Yes, but when they did play teams with good past defenses in the regular season, they were good against them. Like Cleveland, for example. Right?

They beat Cleveland by a lot, not just because Cleveland's offense was bad. But Drake May had a good game against a good pass defense against Cleveland, right? for all of Cleveland's problems at quarterback, that was a good past defense. So it was a little bit of a surprise that things went so awry once you got to the playoffs because usually you can adjust for schedule and say, yes, the schedule was easy, but he still played really, really well. And so against harder defenses, we should expect him to play not as well, but still pretty well. usually it's not as extreme as what we saw from the Patriots last year. Obviously the D in DVOA is defensive adjusted and it's really just opponent adjusted, right?

For defenses it's offenses and you guys, it's always just the phrase has been the same. Have you guys made any changes to what those adjustments look like over the years? Like where have you felt like they've been imperfect? How much tweaking have you done to that formula? Because it's supposed to adjust for opponent, right? And so the quality of your opponent does factor into those numbers when you look at it over the course of the year. But for the Patriots specifically, I think we might be able to make an argument that the adjustments didn't account enough for like how bad the opponents were. So how has that process shifted and changed since you guys started accounting for the quality of the opponents?

Not as much as you would think. I do more iterations of the numbers to try to get more accurate adjustments at this point than I did when I started. but I've done it mostly the same for a few years. I'll point out, by the way, there are some numbers out there that suggest that it was only the defense that had an easy schedule, that May did not have an easy schedule. By our numbers, May had a very easy schedule and the defense had a very easy. It was easy on both sides of the ball. One change I am going to make this year when people come to FTN early in the season and get the DVOA ratings with one of our NFL Pro subscriptions, is that I am going to, usually in the past,

I have not done any opponent adjustments early in the season. This year, based on a little bit of research, I am going to do a little bit of opponent adjustments early in the season based on last year's numbers. I'm curious when you guys are projecting schedule quality, what those numbers have told you over the years. Like right now, if you were trying to project schedule quality for the 2026 season for any given team,

how much of that reality, how much of that is reality and how much of that ends up not mattering when we actually see how the season starts to play out? We actually have a table in the book looking at the last six years. There are a couple years where there is like no correlation at all. And then most years, there's a good amount of correlation between the projection and the actual because our projections are not based on last year's records. Right? The projections are based on things like personnel changes.

So, you know, the year that is completely wrong is like the year that Aaron Rogers went to the Jets and we thought the Jets would have a good offense and then Aaron Rogers tore as Achilles and so much for that idea, right? But for the most part, there is value in preseason projection of schedule strength, but not as much value as you wish there was. and I can say that the hardest schedules for next year look like the Rams, Cardinals, and Chargers, and the easiest, the Bengals.

So that's, so this is funny because I'm looking at it right now and those numbers are not necessarily in line with like opponent record from the previous year. So you guys have the Rams at the hardest schedule in the league, right? The Rams right now, just normal, the way that we normally measure strength of schedule,

have the 13th. hardest schedule in the league based on last year's records. And so I think that's a really good example of where your numbers are accounting for things that the finishes from last year just probably weren't accounting for. I wonder where those discrepancies are with the RAMs specifically. I don't have the RAM schedule in front of me to know what the differences are, but since the Cardinals are also high up, my guess, it is in the teams that are being played by the NFC West as a whole.

Yeah, that makes sense. And the Cardinals actually are third in terms of opponent quality, in terms of opponent records from the year before. And you said the Bengals have the easiest schedule per year. The Bengals have the easiest projected schedule, yep. They are 30th when you just look at winning percentage from last year. And so there is some overlap, but the Rams specifically is a really good example of a team that if you just look at the records from last year, they're 13th compared to the hardest schedule in the league

by just most traditional measures. I'm happy to hear that because by those traditional measures, do you know who has the hardest schedule in the NFL next year? Is it the Bears? Yes. I mean, the Bears have one of the hard. in our numbers too. Everyone in that division does because they have to play each other. Yes. Yeah. And so, yeah, the Bears, the 550 combined winning percentage for the Bears

2026 opponents from last season, which is crazy. Like, that's just an over 500 record to that degree for all of your combined opponents is not a place that you want to be. All right. What's your next one? We're on number five, I believe. Sticking with the Bengals, we have the Bengals returning to the playoffs in our numbers, most likely. But the Cowboys are less likely. Both of these defenses were absolutely horrible last year. So both teams are very similar. Offenses should be good.

Defenses are hoping to be better, but we do like the Bengals more and a big thing there is the schedule. So the Bengals, we talked about this a little bit earlier in the show. The improvement in the back half of the year is not necessarily an indication of what's going to happen the season after. And the Bengals, yeah, improved significantly

in the back half of the year, but that's not part of our projection because it doesn't tend to I know you want common sense says it should roll over it just it doesn't well the 2023 bank or the 24 bangles are a perfect example like remember the 2024 bangles were much better on defense in the back half of that 2024 season they were not a dormant anymore they actually were playing much better in the back half of that year and then they were the worst defense in the league for the first half of last season so that's a very clear example of when it didn't roll over So the schedule is part of that. Totally understand that. What else goes into that?

Because I think that this is an interesting test case because the Bengals improved their personnel considerably with the moves that they made this offseason. You have multiple new defensive linemen, multiple new guys in the secondary. The Cowboys upgraded their personnel a little bit, not to the same extent that the Bengals did, but the Cowboys have a new defensive coordinator

that we've never seen do this before. So I'm not surprised to hear that your guys' numbers foresee a clearer improvement for the Bengals than it does for the Cowboys. Right. The, it's interesting, defensive rookies, top rookies have an easier to measure effect on the defense than the offense. So we like when you draft rookies on defense more than when you draft them on offense as far as the projections go. Why is that? I have no idea.

It's just sort of with offense, it's all over the place, whereas with defense, it's more of a trend that if you draft defensive guys high, your defense gets a little bit better. And obviously Dallas drafted Caleb. I always get the two Caleb's mixed up. Caleb Downs and Malachi Lawrence, both in the first. And Malachi Lawrence, the guy from UCF, who our Saxier system really likes. That's not surprising. But they didn't have, there's no Dexter Lawrence there, right? There's no veteran addition that is as good as what the Bengals had it.

How much, we talked about this a little bit recently about certain, falling below a certain barrier as an offensive defense in year one under a new coach. The Bengals last year under Al Golden, their example of this. I think the first year Brian Calhant Titans are an example of this where it was so bad that even if, all right, well, we're dropping a new quarterback into this thing. We have a couple new offensive linemen. Is there, can an offensive defense, can a unit be so bad in year one of a coach that even with a notable amount of personnel or talent additions,

it can still leave your numbers pessimistic about what that team is going to achieve in and plus one season? Yeah, I think that that is possible. Sure, if you're really, really, really bad. Absolutely. But at least you're going to be better. I mean, there's no question that personnel changes that make you better usually make you better, right? I mean, not always.

That's why we project a range of possibilities. But in general, when you have a bad quarterback, it's good to get a new one. When you add players with value, usually you get better, you know, that kind of thing. I want to dig into this at some point. I'm sure we will on a future show. But one of the bits of conventional wisdom that I think we always consistently fall back on just as an NFL media talking heads group is well if this defense to just get to average then this team can be a contender right like they can be dangerous and i think the cowboys

and the bangles are both perfect examples of this because we expect the offenses to be very good i wonder if that's true anymore i wonder if you get your defense to just not disgusting and you have a top 10 offense if you actually are a contending level team in 2026 based on what the league has looked like over the last five years. I have no idea what the answer is, but I just think it's worth interrogating more than we collectively have done recently. I mean, the Patriots last year were that. Yeah, that's true.

The Patriots last year were a top five offense even after adjusting for opponent, and they were a slightly below average defense after you adjust for opponent. Were the Patriots really a contender last year? Yes, they were. By the end of the year, if you look at how they were playing by the end of the year, they were the best team in the AFC even after the adjusting for opponent and everything. One last point on the Cowboys, I'm just curious.

And we talk about Bengals too here. Are there any reasons that you guys are more skeptical about the Cowboys offense than the general public and just conventional wisdom around them would lead you to believe? Because I think the thought is like, yeah, the offense will be great again. They didn't lose anybody.

They didn't add anybody. Let's just roll with this again. Where do you guys come out on Dallas's offense and whether that's going to be good enough for a moderate defensive improvement to not offset it. I think a little bit of Plexiglass principle, which is the idea that when a team improves significantly in one area, it tends to take a step back in year three. And the other thing is what I said about offensive line, which is it, I will admit,

the hardest thing we do is trying to figure out the value of the offensive line. And the Cowboys definitely have a better offensive line than the. the Bengals do. Where do you guys have the Bengals offense shaking out? Can you project it to be like one of the best offense in the league? I think it's top 10, but I don't think it's top five. So you think the schedule does a lot of lifting in the Bengals getting back to the playoffs then? Yes.

What's the next one? Your next nugget that you think people should know from the Almanac. This is the one everyone's talking about, but we talk about it too. The Rams used more 13 personnel than any team pretty much ever and by a huge. huge margin. So we have personnel numbers going back to 2010. The Rams were at 31%, including 44% after week six. The highest 13 personnel until that was the 2021 Browns at 17%. Oh man. That was the David and Joku, Harrison Bryant's Austin Hooper teams? Yeah, nobody has played like a completely different thing. And you can see it.

in the book when you get the book and you get to our player comments and we do this thing called Going Deep where we write about, you know, guys who aren't really fantasy viable but might be so you want to know something about them if something happens with an injury. My God, did we write about so many tight ends this year. Oh my God, every team's got more tight ends. Got my guys who might catch 15 balls. Oh, this guy and that guy and the Rams have five of them and whatever. Oh, my God, so much tight end write-ups. Jeez. Any other personnel things that jumped out to you?

You guys have a lot of really good situational stuff. Anything else that you found notable, whether it was situational decision-making, personnel stuff, certain rates. I'm putting you on the spot, but anything that jumped out that you remember? Teams went back. The move towards Nickel finally reversed last year.

Teams used more base than they did the year before. Every year pretty much had been more. nickel, more nickel, more nickel, more nickel. Last year, teams used more base than they had. Even with teams like the Seahawks playing basically all nickel because of them in Worry, the league as a whole used more base. Was it a significant percentage or was just that it didn't decrease again? No, a couple percent.

Probably in reaction to all the 12th stuff. Curious whether how much of that is specific teams doing a lot of lifting with those numbers. like the lions playing a ton of base, even if they probably didn't want to, maybe because of some of the secondary injuries, they were forced to do it. How it goes this year, I think, will be really interesting to watch because...

Yeah, because it's going to be interesting to see the offenses all try to copy the Rams and then figure out which defenses are trying to copy the Seahawks and which defenses are going to be more traditional. Because I think in talking to coaches just about, okay, what's going to be the reaction to heavier personnel across the league, more base defense is a it makes sense as an answer right like it's a well if this then that but that's what they want you to do right and so they want you to play more base defense so we do

we actually see teams not lean into it quite as heavily i mean obviously that's going to be something that we're watching a lot in the early parts of the season all right let's take one more quick break and then come back and chat through our last few nuggets that we wanted to hit all right what is the next one here Nuggets number six, or nugget number seven, let's get into it. Number seven, we have a stat coverage DVOA based on marking coverage, so not like tackles or whatever guys are actually in coverage and how often they're thrown out and what they give up.

The shocking leader, I said cornerback stats are inconsistent. The best coverage DVOA last year for an outside corner was Jamel Dean of Tampa Bay now with Pittsburgh. People did not realize what a good season he had. And the worst was the now departed Carian Arnold.

And I bring that up as to say that the Arnold situation may not be as much of a loss for the lions on the field as it seems like it will be. This is not a judgment

on the decision that they made regarding his legal issues. I'm just saying on the field, they may not have lost as much as you would think. It's a great thing to bring up. How are those numbers calculated?

I look at every play where you're in coverage on a receiver, and then if you give up a pass, you're giving up value, and if you get an interception, you're getting value, and then it gets adjusted for the fact that it's easier to cover guys in the slot, and it's easier to cover the third receiver than the first receiver or whatever. And it's easier to cover certain teams. Right, it's adjusted for all that stuff. And then I get a number.

And, you know, in general, the best corners in the league are not number one. They're like four or five because there's inconsistency in it. But like, you know, Stingley and Mitchell were like near the top. But Jamel Dean was number one. Who else was in like the top five to ten? Do you have that in front of you? Dante Jackson is the surprising one. Dr. Jackson had a very good year last year.

Where was like Mike Jackson from the Panthers? Hi. Yes. Yeah. He's the other guy that I think the guys that just to me kind of out of nowhere had like really, really good seasons. Mike Jackson's probably the first name that comes to mind for like a full time player. And again, it just speaks to the volatility of this. Like Mike Jackson's 31 or like maybe that's a little bit old. But he's up.

He's up there. he's excuse me this is his i'm sorry for making him older than i would in cornerback age he might as well be 31 this is going to be his age 30 season he will turn 30 in january so he is an older corner to be having a breakout best season of his career at age 28 so is dante jackson by the way dante jackson's the same way like it even and just it that it's so hard to pin down and then when you're trying to figure out what guys should be valued as as free agents that's what makes it difficult. I remember the PFF numbers,

it's probably 2013, 2014. I can't remember exactly what year it was. And it might have been Eric Geiger that wrote about it, but it was in an era where they were really talking about how coverage grades are the best indication

of defensive quality as you get into the playoffs. Like, the best defenses have the best overall coverage quality, best overall coverage quality. But if it's going to be so volatile from season to season, then it just doesn't become actionable.

Like if you try to build your defense that way, it's actually a way to be super volatile from year to year. And so it's this weird quagmire where you know how important it is for being successful, but it's hard to understand how much to invest in it because it's not going to be consistent from season to season. Yeah. Coverage is more important,

but you have a much better idea of what you're going to get out of an edge rusher. So it's a real push and pull. And I remember, talking to a gym about this a couple years ago as to whether that was affecting the depressed cornerback market because the corner market didn't change for years. I mean, we considered it like this high end premium position. And when you looked at that market compared to the exploding markets for receiver defensive line, now defensive tackle, it just wasn't keeping in step with those. And his response was kind of like, no one's thinking about it like that. That's not

why it's happened. It's more about the lack of like game changing talents. that have been there, but I think it should affect the way that people have been thinking about it and how they pay. We have the game-changing talents now, but let's be really honest. They are also susceptible to this. As good as they are, Sartan was not in my top 10 last year. Like right now, I probably take Sertan over any cornerback in the league just based on his track record, but for the year, he was not in the top 10. All right, what's our next one here?

Your next nugget you wanted to share with folks. We got three more. Jets defense. Jets' defense will be dramatically improved. That thing with the interceptions is completely unsustainable. They had a 1.7% of their drives takeaway rate. No other team in our data is below four. That's insane.

If you look at the teams that have been at 6.0% or below, half of them had top 10 defenses the next year. there is a world in which Gino Smith somehow gets some of his swagger back throwing to Garrett Wilson and the Jets defense is good and they're a wildcard team. I don't think that world exists in most realities because I don't think the offense is there at all, but that defense is going to be better than anyone realizes. What did, in your guys' numbers, what did they look like like down to down outside of the turnovers? Was the turnover with the main corporate?

Bad, but not like the worst in the league. And don't forget they added a lot of veteran talent. They added a lot of veteran talent in a dramatic attempt to be average, which I don't think is a good way to build your team. But all right, that's what they did. And they're going to do it. They're going to be average. 1.7 when no one else had ever been below 4%.

I want just, and this is a good example and a good entry point into this. but can you just explain a little bit more about how important turnover spikes or turnover dips are in dictating the quality of a defense from season to season? Because we inherently know that it's really important to take the ball away. It's the most important thing that you can do. But I still don't think we probably have like a proper appreciation for why a defense feels the way that it feels in a given year based on how many turnovers it creates or does not. I mean, it's huge because you take the ball away from the other team and all of a sudden they don't have a chance to move the ball.

The Jaguars were the worst team in takeaways two years ago. Last year, all of a sudden, they're a top 10 defense with normal takeaways. It's just a huge thing and there's a lot of randomness. Fumble recoveries in particular are very random, but also interceptions. They're not entirely random. but in general, you can expect about 20% of passes defense to turn in our interceptions. And that would have given the Jets 10 or 12 interceptions last year, not zero. It's like at 0.7 interceptions a game, you feel like a completely different team over the course of a season if you average 0.7 interceptions a game compared to zero.

And so I completely understand that. What it means for the 2026 Jets probably warrants a larger conversation, but I totally anticipate them being better in exactly the ways and for exactly the reasons that you're saying. All right, we got two more nugget number nine here. What do you got? This one is backward looking, not forward looking, but this is the craziest thing in the whole book, I think.

The Steelers had the biggest reverse split on play action, meaning that they were better without play action. Most teams are better with play action, right? not only the Steelers 4.2 yards per pass with play action, 6.5 without. Not only did they have that huge gap, it was the 11th straight year that the Steelers have had a reverse split on play action. Remember, most teams are better with play action. 11 straight years. And we used to think this was a Rothschilder thing, but he's gone.

he's been gone for years now and they're still doing it. It makes no sense. It is the weirdest wildest stat from last year, 11 straight years that the Steelers have been bad with play action. So I think you can, you can explain it in a decent chunk of those seasons because it's absolutely partially a Rothesberger stat. Because especially when you think it, right? Well, when you think back to the final years of the Rothesburg tenure, year. The last year of the Rathusberger tenure, thankfully, I think we've forgotten a lot of this and we look back at his career as him being a really good player. It was unwatchable. The last season of Ben Rothesberger's time with the Steelers was unwatchable. They were just sitting in the gun. He was getting rid of the ball in 1.8 seconds. It was terrible. But the last couple seasons before that, we were drifting in that direction, even if it hadn't gotten that bad. Like they were playing a lot in the shotgun and they were getting rid of the ball very, very

quickly during his last few years in the league. And this year, I think it's very easy to explain because Aaron Rogers, if you're going to be productive throwing the ball off play action, for the most part, that approach is asking you to access the intermediate areas of the field. Is that what you're saying? And it asks you to access areas of the field. He has no interest in accessing. So the fact that it's true for Rogers and the fact that it's that.

big of a gap. That part is not surprising. I wish I had an explanation for like why the Kenny Pickett season is also like that. I do not have an explanation for that one. Right. Or Rothlisberger back when he was still Rothersberger, like 11 years ago when he was still

a really good quarterback. Why was it like this? I would have to look up the numbers, but I have to assume even in like, I can't remember. And it's like, what were the years that Rathustberger was in the league? 2005 to like what 2020 something like that

so if we went to like the 2015 season I'm curious how much shotgun we were getting from the Steelers at that point it was only like 65% in like 2015 that was the last year that's the last year before you guys have that right so let's do like 2017 no that would be the first year of the streak

2015 was the first year of the 11 year streak so if you look at it in the years beyond that like in 2017, they were about 70% shotgun, which was the sixth highest rate in the league. And so they were drifting to being like a mostly shotgun offense in those final years. But most of those offenses that are mostly shotgun are still better with play action. I think it's partially because a lot of those, like perfect example here, right? So 2018, we have the top four offenses in the league by shotgun percentage per per per media. Kansas City is number one. The Ravens are number two. The Bears are number three.

are number four. Mahomes, kind of, but with Lamar in Baltimore in the back half of that season and Mitch Trubisky in Chicago, the quarterback is a running threat on those plays.

So if you're in the gun, you can, there's some credibility to a play fake that you can use because the quarterback in theory can keep the ball. Unfortunately,

that is not the case for Ben Raffesberger in 2018. He's not going to be a threat to keep that on play action out of the shotgun. So I do think them being like a 78% shotgun team with a quarterback that couldn't move more than a couple feet for several of those

seasons and then coming all the way back around to that this year with Aaron Rogers. I think that does some of the explaining, if not all of it. One more here. What is your final nugget that you wanted to share with folks from the 26th, I figured I'd finish you up with Packers, Good and Bad. The good Packers stat, Jordan Love was the best quarterback in the league without pressure. and one of the worst with pressure. And remember, how you play without pressure is more sticky from year to year.

So Jordan Love could be the same quarterback without pressure and a little bit better with pressure, and all of a sudden he's a better quarterback. The bad for the Packers, I already mentioned. Go and look at their death chart at Edge Rusher if Micah Parsons is not back in September. It is horrifying. The defense fell off a cliff in the back half of last year. Like I was looking up some back half of the season numbers. Yeah.

I mean, I was looking at just back half of the season numbers yesterday because we were talking about the lions. And you look at the numbers for the Packers during that stretch. And my God, is it ugly. The Jordan Love thing is not necessarily surprising. I'm pretty sure you guys tweeted today that he led the NFL in DVOA against man coverage last season, which it's so funny because the season before that, they were really bad against man coverage the season before that. that's just another example of like how fast stuff can change in what is inherently a volatile environment right like man coverage is a volatile place and so the fact that the packers could be

actively bad in it in 2024 and then he could lead the league and dv o a against it in 2025 some of that is driven by romeo dobs and just the step forward he took as a player but that is a massive swing from one season to the other for that like situational aspect of their offense specifically. Yeah, and Watson, you know, he only played whatever 10 games, but he was tremendous. He's number two, I think, among qualifying receivers in DVOA last year behind Alec Pierce. And Alec Pierce, I mean, both those guys getting paid this off season, good for them. Yeah, both of them got paid.

Well, when Watson first got paid, I was like not so sure about it. And then I looked a little closer at the numbers. And I was like, all right, okay, it makes sense. All right. We have to reframe our understanding of what are good and bad. wide receiver contracts at this point. Like the Jamison Williams contract, I think is, I don't think it's crazy,

but I do think that that number has become a reference point for certain receivers of a certain tier. Like Jameson Williams is getting paid like $26 million a year or something like that. Yeah, so it's $27.7 million a year for Jameson Williams contract. So the fact that 26.7, so the fact that Alec Pierce is, making what Alex Pierce is making as a true free agent, it's actually not surprising given some of

the other deals we've seen handed out of the position over the last couple years. The way that the cap goes up every year, you have to readjust your opinions about salaries every year. Yeah. And with that position specifically, it's just the reality has changed in the last five years. Like if you're going off of what things looked like in even 2021, 2022, you're going to be shocked compared to what those numbers are looking like these days. Aaron Schatz, anything else you want to share about the Almanac and where it will be available and when for the people that are listening. Just a reminder, like if you liked all this stuff, there's way more of it about all 32

teams with all the projections, all of Jeff Radcliffe's fantasy projections, all in the book, FtnFantasy.com slash almanac. I believe the 2025 sample chapter is still available, and we're going to have a 2026 sample chapter soon. And of course, check out everything we have at FTN. We do a ton of charting. We make all that data available. All the DVOA is all updated during the season.

You can filter it by everything from man coverage to inside zone runs. And you just want an NFL pro subscription or an NFL goat subscription from FtN, FTNFantasy.com. I have been a reader of the almanac for almost probably 20 years now. I mean, I think, when was the first one? 2005 was our first one. This is our 22nd book. And I've been reading them for pretty much that entire time. I remember having the physical copies on my shelf when I was in college.

And I told the story yesterday, but I printed off the 2011 version in the Grantland offices at ESPN. So I think I cost the Walt Disney company like $70 in printing that day after printing out the whole book and stapling it. Yeah, I think they'll be okay. I think they'll be okay. Aaron Schatz, thank you very much for the time, sir. Always great to catch up with you.

We'll do it again down the road. It's good. Thanks for having me on, man. All right, guys, that's all we got. Thank you so much to Aaron for his time. Thank you to you guys for listening. We will be back on Monday with our next mailbag. Until then, appreciate it. Talk to you guys soon.

Thanks for tuning in. Make sure to hit that subscribe or follow button so you never miss an episode. If you enjoyed what you heard, please like, comment, and leave a rating. We'll see you next time.