I was just working on the Experts Poll for the magazine. That’s the feature where we have 20 different fantasy analysts submit a top 20 at each position, average the results, and see what the order of players is. One of the participants is Justin Eleff, who’ll be the main guy on the Fantasy Index Podcast this year.
Justin was the only one on the panel who didn’t include the Minnesota defense in his top 20. I asked him about it, and he explained that he saw the Vikings as pretty similar to the teams in the teens, but that he felt they’d offenses that would be less likely to be banged up this year – specifically, the Packers twice, Cowboys and Colts.
Fair enough. So I figured I would double-check defensive production against strength of schedule.
That is, Carolina, Kansas City, Denver, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati finished with the most sacks and interceptions last year. Did they do so because they’re good? Or did the benefit from playing easy schedules.
On the chart below, those productive defenses are in bold.
Similarly, the Ravens, Saints, Falcons, 49ers and Cowboys finished with the worst numbers in those categories. Was that because of scheduling? Or where those units simply bad?
For those teams, I put a black dot in front of their names.
I’m simplifying things on this one. I figured I’d just leave fumbles and touchdowns out of it. Interceptions and sacks tend to be what a lot of us look at, so let’s just use those. And I’m using 2 points for interceptions and 1 for sacks, to bring some balance between the two.
Suppose you had the season-ending stats in your hand, and you could travel back in time to draft night back in August. Would you be better off if you selected teams with easier schedules? Or is this kind of production dictated more by the defenses themselves?
For this past year, the Chargers, Colts and Raiders played the easiest schedules. That is, they tended to play offenses giving up more sacks and interceptions. But none of those defenses ranked in the top 10.
Of the 10 easiest schedules, only three defenses ranked in the top 3. The Jets (at 6th), and the Patriots and Texans (tying for 9th).
At the other end of the scale, of the 10 hardest schedules (defenses in theory that should do poorly), only two of those teams actually had bottom-10 seasons (the 49ers and Cowboys, who were the two worst defenses and had two of the hardest schedules).
Of the five best defenses, none of them played one of the 10 easiest schedules.
Of the five worst defenses, only two played hard schedules (the other three played schedules that were easy – 5th to 11th).
Doesn’t say much for the theory of trying to select defenses based on what opposing offenses are supposed to do.
On this chart below, you’re seeing combined interceptions, sacks and points (using 2 for interceptions) by each team’s opponents in their other 240 combined games. The “Actual” number show what the NFL defense actually did, followed by its rank (with 1 behind good and 32 being poor).
| DEFENSES WITH EASIEST SCHEDULES IN 2015 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Team | Int | Sack | Pts | Actual | Rk |
| San Diego | 213 | 612 | 1,038 | (11-32-54) | 23t |
| Indianapolis | 219 | 590 | 1,028 | (17-35-69) | 11t |
| Oakland | 211 | 600 | 1,022 | (14-38-66) | 15 |
| New England | 237 | 543 | 1,017 | (12-49-73) | 9t |
| • Baltimore | 209 | 597 | 1,015 | (6-37-49) | 28t |
| Houston | 208 | 588 | 1,004 | (14-45-73) | 9t |
| • New Orleans | 233 | 526 | 992 | (9-31-49) | 28t |
| Jacksonville | 219 | 553 | 991 | (9-36-54) | 23t |
| NY Jets | 195 | 599 | 989 | (18-39-75) | 6t |
| Tennessee | 211 | 566 | 988 | (11-39-61) | 17 |
| • Atlanta | 211 | 565 | 987 | (15-19-49) | 28t |
| Kansas City | 205 | 567 | 977 | (22-47-91) | 2 |
| Cleveland | 225 | 527 | 977 | (11-29-51) | 26t |
| Cincinnati | 209 | 558 | 976 | (21-42-84) | 3 |
| Miami | 216 | 539 | 971 | (13-31-57) | 21 |
| Buffalo | 200 | 569 | 969 | (17-21-55) | 22 |
| Carolina | 211 | 533 | 955 | (24-44-92) | 1 |
| Chicago | 181 | 593 | 955 | (8-35-51) | 26t |
| Tampa Bay | 221 | 510 | 952 | (11-38-60) | 18t |
| NY Giants | 206 | 540 | 952 | (15-23-53) | 25 |
| St. Louis | 185 | 577 | 947 | (13-41-67) | 13t |
| Denver | 186 | 573 | 945 | (14-52-80) | 5 |
| Green Bay | 187 | 571 | 945 | (16-43-75) | 6t |
| Minnesota | 187 | 568 | 942 | (13-43-69) | 11t |
| Detroit | 180 | 581 | 941 | (9-42-60) | 18t |
| Arizona | 179 | 579 | 937 | (19-36-74) | 8 |
| Pittsburgh | 194 | 547 | 935 | (17-48-82) | 4 |
| Seattle | 196 | 537 | 929 | (14-37-65) | 16 |
| Washington | 218 | 479 | 915 | (11-38-60) | 18t |
| • San Francisco | 192 | 525 | 909 | (9-28-46) | 32 |
| • Dallas | 192 | 515 | 899 | (8-31-47) | 31 |
| Philadelphia | 204 | 479 | 887 | (15-37-67) | 13t |
—Ian Allan