Strength of schedule numbers are tossed about in the preseason, but teams change. Some will be a lot better, while others will be worse. So teams with seemingly difficult schedules often wind up playing only modestly hard slates.
The Lions, Saints, Rams and Panthers. Those are the four teams that project to play the hardest schedules in the league.
But that doesn't mean they will. In fact, they probably won't.
Teams change. That's the reality in the NFL. So when trying to attach strength-of-schedule numbers to a franchise, keep in mind that you're shooting at a moving target.
Since the league went to a 32-team format in 2002, for example, look at the 41 teams that have entered the season projecting to play the easiest schedules. These are all teams whose opponents had combined for win-loss records of at least 138-118 -- 20 games over .500.
But look at how those schedules actually finished. Of those 41 teams, only 7-9 played what I would call a really tough schedule. About a fifth. And 10 of those hard-schedule teams played opponents that didn't even go over .500.
The 2005 Dolphins and Super Bowl Saints of 2009 lead the way. The Saints were supposed to have a hard schedule that year, but instead their 16 opponents went a combined 106-134. (They actually went only 109-147 overall, but for the purposes of this study, we're leaving those 16 New Orleans games out -- we want to see how they did against the opponents, without factoring in whether the Saints were any good themselves.).
The majority of these supposed hard-schedule teams played schedules that were harder than average but not particularly difficult.
So for this team, my guess is that of those four tough-schedule teams -- Lions, Saints, Rams, Panthers -- one will actually play a truly hard schedule. The other three probably will play pretty typical schedules.
And this works the same way at the other end, with the easy-schedule teams.
Hardest schedules, 2002-12 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | W | L | T | Pct | |
2002 | San Francisco | 123 | 117 | 0 | .513 |
2002 | St. Louis | 121 | 119 | 0 | .504 |
2002 | Seattle | 120 | 119 | 1 | .502 |
2003 | NY Jets | 125 | 115 | 0 | .521 |
2003 | Tampa Bay | 121 | 119 | 0 | .504 |
2003 | Philadelphia | 118 | 122 | 0 | .492 |
2003 | Dallas | 112 | 128 | 0 | .467 |
2005 | San Diego | 136 | 104 | 0 | .567 |
2005 | New England | 124 | 116 | 0 | .517 |
2005 | Miami | 110 | 130 | 0 | .458 |
2006 | Cincinnati | 129 | 111 | 0 | .538 |
2006 | Tampa Bay | 125 | 115 | 0 | .521 |
2006 | NY Giants | 125 | 115 | 0 | .521 |
2006 | New Orleans | 112 | 128 | 0 | .467 |
2007 | Buffalo | 123 | 117 | 0 | .513 |
2007 | Oakland | 120 | 120 | 0 | .500 |
2008 | Cleveland | 133 | 104 | 3 | .560 |
2008 | Pittsburgh | 129 | 108 | 3 | .544 |
2008 | Cincinnati | 130 | 110 | 0 | .542 |
2008 | Baltimore | 127 | 110 | 3 | .535 |
2008 | Detroit | 127 | 113 | 0 | .529 |
2008 | Jacksonville | 126 | 113 | 1 | .527 |
2008 | Houston | 124 | 115 | 1 | .519 |
2008 | Indianapolis | 123 | 116 | 1 | .515 |
2008 | Minnesota | 123 | 117 | 0 | .513 |
2008 | Tennessee | 114 | 125 | 1 | .477 |
2009 | Miami | 134 | 106 | 0 | .558 |
2009 | Carolina | 130 | 110 | 0 | .542 |
2009 | Tampa Bay | 129 | 111 | 0 | .538 |
2009 | New England | 126 | 114 | 0 | .525 |
2009 | NY Jets | 125 | 115 | 0 | .521 |
2009 | Buffalo | 122 | 118 | 0 | .508 |
2009 | Atlanta | 122 | 118 | 0 | .508 |
2009 | New Orleans | 106 | 134 | 0 | .442 |
2010 | Cincinnati | 137 | 103 | 0 | .571 |
2010 | Houston | 124 | 116 | 0 | .517 |
2010 | Dallas | 121 | 119 | 0 | .504 |
2010 | Tennessee | 120 | 120 | 0 | .500 |
2011 | Carolina | 119 | 121 | 0 | .496 |
2012 | NY Giants | 126 | 113 | 1 | .527 |
2012 | Denver | 114 | 126 | 0 | .475 |
--Ian Allan