‘Football 301’ projects a step back for the Patriots, with Bills viewed as the division’s top tier

Win totals projections are a staple of the NFL offseason, but one popular analytics framework is drawing attention for how it divides the AFC East into two clear groups. In a new “Football 301” outlook, the model treats the Bills and Patriots as the division’s more stable contenders, while labeling the Dolphins and Jets in a more uncertain “have-not” tier heading into the next season.

The clearest quantified takeaway in the report involves New England. The piece quotes the model’s expectation that the Patriots “go from 14 wins to 10 wins,” a change that would still be a strong record but also a meaningful retreat from recent productivity. The same line suggests a difference between outcomes and identity, describing New England as feeling like a “better team” even if it does not return to the Super Bowl level of performance in the next campaign.

The report frames this through the “haves” versus “have-nots” lens, essentially ranking the two most structurally advantaged AFC East teams against two that the model views as less likely to sustain their level from year to year. Bills and Patriots are grouped together, while the Dolphins and Jets are grouped together, with the implication that the competitive gap is more about consistency and the ability to translate talent into wins than it is about any single offseason storyline.

That matters in the AFC East because the margin for error in the division is typically small. Even when the overall league landscape changes, the top of the division often becomes defined by which clubs can build a baseline of wins early and then survive late-season variability. A projection that moves one contender down by several games, while keeping the other “have” team in the same tier, can influence how teams set priorities in training camp and the early part of the regular season.

The “Football 301” approach, as presented in the report, is best understood as a forecasting tool rather than a prediction of specific events. Win totals are sensitive to the kinds of swings that do not show up in static team summaries, including the ability to stay healthy at key positions and to avoid the worst-case version of special teams and turnover outcomes. That is why even models that suggest the Patriots will “feel like” a better team while taking fewer wins can still coexist with the reality that NFL seasons rarely follow straight-line trajectories.

There is also a psychological component to projections. When a framework draws sharp tier lines, it tends to shape public expectations, which can affect how media coverage and fan sentiment handle slumps or streaks. The Patriots, if the 14-to-10 shift is close to the mark, would sit in a familiar middle of the league’s playoff conversation: good enough to compete, not guaranteed to be the league’s best story every week.

For the Bills, being grouped with New England in the “haves” tier suggests the model sees their winning profile as more durable across scenarios, though the report does not provide the specific win-total figures for each team in the excerpted material. For the Dolphins and Jets, the “have-not” label implies a lower confidence in translating potential into consistent results, at least relative to their division rivals.

What to watch next is less about whether the projection is right in a vacuum and more about whether the season plays out like a tiered division. If New England’s early-season rhythm resembles a team trending upward in quality, the “better team” framing could hold even if the record ends closer to the projected number. If Buffalo and New England separate from Miami and New York early, the “haves and have-nots” narrative will look like a useful map rather than a rebrand of preseason assumptions. Either way, the “Football 301” forecast should be treated as an offseason baseline, not a finish line, because the NFL rarely rewards the most linear forecast paths.