[GTripp0012]

I'm going to take this time now to point out one of my main gripes with the offseason. When it comes time to predict results for the upcoming season, experts tend to look at teams who filled holes with explosive talent. Well that's all well and good, but the idea of roster building isn't really to fill holes. No matter how many holes a team fills, they will still exist. There are a few tried and true methods I use when it comes time to pick divisions:

Rather than look at key additions, I think the focus should be on player improvement. For example, last year I took the G-Men to make the playoffs because I figured Eli would take a big step foward as a QB, and took Washington to win the division because I figured we would get consistent QB play from Ramsey. At least we got consistent QB play. I think Houston is a team that could see big production increases from Carr and Davis, and should have a good deal of success in Kubiak's first season.

The other thing I look at is if any team lost games the previous year that they should have won. We lost to TB, OAK, and SD in three games that should have been won. Kansas City lost a bunch of games last year they should have won. These teams I believe will finish better this year because they had a better team a year ago then their record shows. Oakland is in the same boat, but they won't be a playoff team.

I apoligize for the essay, but I felt I needed to point out one of the flaws in accepted 'expert' logic. If one believes that Washington has an improved roster, not neccessarily great additions, then they should pick them to win a division.