Analyzing the NFL Strength of Schedule

by John Gennaro on Sep 9, 2009 5:20 PM PDT

To me, not a big enough deal is ever made of the strength of schedule in the NFL. Every year, by looking at the strength of schedule, you can get a good idea which teams will play over their head and which will prove themselves to be one-year wonders after a good season.

Now sometimes, your predictions can be both wrong and right. You could argue that the Patriots and Chargers, who had the easiest and 2nd easiest schedules in 2008, were kept alive after injuries to their star players only because they were playing against such weak competition. It's also a great barometer to look back on towards the end of the season to see which winning teams are legit (the Steelers had the hardest schedule) and which ones are not (the Dolphins, Jets, Falcons and Panthers all had easy schedules).

After the jump, a rundown of the 2009 strength of schedules and what it means for the San Diego Chargers and the rest of the NFL.

Team	Winning Percentage	Opp. Total Wins	Opp. Total Losses
Dolphins	.594	152	104
Panthers	.592	151	104
Falcons	.591	150	104
Patriots	.590	151	105
Buccaneers	.580	148	107
Bills	.570	146	110
Jets	.569	145	110
Saints	.557	142	113
Eagles	.537	137	118
Giants	.528	134	120
Texans	.521	125	115
Cowboys	.516	131	123
Jaguars	.516	132	124
Colts	.512	131	125
Titans	.508	130	126
Redskins	.492	125	129
Chargers	.484	123	131
Chiefs	.484	123	131
Raiders	.482	122	131
Broncos	.480	122	132
Lions	.470	119	134
Bengals	.467	119	136
Rams	.467	119	136
Seahawks	.459	117	138
Browns	.451	114	139
Cardinals	.443	113	142
Ravens	.439	111	142
Steelers	.435	110	143
Packers	.431	109	144
49ers	.424	101	137
Vikings	.423	107	146
Bears	.413	105	149

What can we predict from this?

The Ravens, Steelers, Packers, Vikings and Bears should have no problem racking up a bunch of regular season victories. They were all towards the top of the toughest schedules in 2008 and still performed relatively well.
It wouldn't be too shocking if the Dolphins, Panthers and Falcons took a major step back in the standings even though they've made no personnel changes.
The Browns had a good season with a weak schedule in 2007 and could do the same thing in 2009, after spending 2008 with the 7th toughest schedule.
The Bengals should look considerably better with an easier schedule and a healthy Carson Palmer.
Expect the Texans to underachieve once again, with the toughest schedule in their division.
If the Patriots, Saints, Eagles or Giants win their division they'll be tough in the playoffs. They'll be "battle-tested".
The Chargers will have a tougher road to go through in 2009, which means they cannot afford a slow start and probably cannot afford a major injury to a starter. Not if they want to go deep in the playoffs, anyways.
Teams to look out for as surprise teams can usually be found at the bottom of this list, and are usually led by tough head coaches who gameplan around defense and running the ball. For those reasons, if I had to pick one team to come "out of nowhere" this season, it'd be San Francisco. The Browns would stand a better chance if they still had Winslow and Stallworth.

Don't forget to send in your mailbag questions to be answered on Saturday!

Tweet Comment 6 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

we'd have a tougher schedule

if our division wasn’t down. We play division winners, and the NFC East, but get a 6 game “break” against the AFC West. Strength of Schedule means nothing once the games start. Did anyone expect to lose to Carolina and Denver to start the season in ’08?

by Hoot1969 on Sep 9, 2009 5:45 PM PDT reply actions

7th easiest schedule this season according to FO’s DVOA projections, if I recall correctly.

Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

by Richard Wade on Sep 9, 2009 5:57 PM PDT reply actions

Strength of schdule can be very misleading

or 2008 strength of schedule, using opponents 2007 records was #31 with a opp w-l of 108-148 (.422), however at the end of the 2008 seasons, our opponents records in 2008 was 132-124 (.516) which ranked #11…

by truheeyo on Sep 9, 2009 6:57 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Yes.

That’s the problem with using strength of schedule based on previous years.

For example, everyone expects the NFC East to continue to be a powerhouse, but it could very, very easily become a mediocre division.

Giants – Eli isn’t that good; they don’t have Plax anymore; the defense doesn’t have Spagnuolo (sp?) anymore.
Eagles – McNabb always seems on the verge of a breakdown; God knows what Vick will do the the locker room; Johnson, likely more responsible for that team’s success than Reid, is gone.
Cowboys – TO, while a cancer, was a HUGE part of that offense and is now gone; Wade Phillips is their head coach; Jerry Jones is their owner.
Redskins – Campbell sucks; Haynesworth, no longer in a contract year, will likely underachieve; Dan Snyder is their owner.

I could easily forsee a scenario where the winner of that division goes 10-6, and no one else finished better than 9-7.

Greg Maddux for manager.

by Zach (maestro876) on Sep 9, 2009 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions

While I don’t disagree with your point….

-I like Jason Campbell and also don’t remember Albert Haynesworth ever underachieving.
-What the Cowboys lost in T.O, they gained in a healthy Felix Jones. That kid is Dangerous.
-McNabb is a great regular season QB. One of the best in history, actually. The guy who took over the defense has been interning under JJ since Reid took over as HC, so he will run basically the same defense.
-Eli Manning sucks.

"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock

by John Gennaro on Sep 10, 2009 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions