The Giants game last season was a shock, when our D, that had been looking like it was finally on its way to top 5, couldn't cope with Beckham. That is the only possible justification I can think of for having doubts about our D. With the exceptions of Long and Laurinitis, they are a young group who should be improving every year, and Long got hurt early last year and missed half of the season so should be better this year when properly fit. Akers and Fairley look like upgrades. If you add in another year in Wlliams' scheme, barring rotten luck on injuries I really don't see the D getting worse.
ST was generally really good last year, and was stacked with young guys who should still be improving, so I don't see any reason to predict their demise, either.
New QB, new and inexperienced OL, new and inexperienced OC, you can make a case for concern about the offence, but it's not as if we are trying to cope with the loss of great talents who performed really well for us last year. The OL we lost really had declined into unservicability, through age, injury or both. The QB position was filled by a journeyman backup and a scrub who bounced around our PS for a few years without ever being grabbed by anyone else. On paper, looking at his pedigree (undrafted, cut, PS etc) that is the bottom of the barrel as far as QBs are concerned. Overall, he didn't do much different to the journeyman, but it is hard to believe that our current choice of QBs (which still includes the scrub) could be worse than last year. I wasn't as down on Schottenheimer as some on here, but I don't see his loss as a big concern. There is continuity with Cignetti, Boras etc and it doesn't look like we will be running a high tech offence this year. The OL is a big question mark, but we have young, athletic guys and a great coach, so it is hard to imagine it could be worse than last year. Barring really bad luck with injuries, I expect our OL to be at least average by mid year and improving steadily from then on.
Given the above, I think 7-9 would be pessimistic. I think 9-7 is about right.