The numbers suggest Carolina will play the most games against bad defenses this year. Their opponents allowed more combined points than anyone else in 2016. So we should all be moving guys like Cam Newton and Jonathan Stewart up on our board. Or should we?
Strength of schedule, after all, is built around what happened last year. When a defense had a lousy pass rush or couldn’t stop the run, you can be sure said team made some attempt to correct the issue in the offseason. Some of the defenses that were terrible last year will now be good, and some good defenses will fall off.
So consider the numbers this way.
Of the last 15 teams going into a season with the projected No. 1 easiest schedule, only 6 indeed ended up playing top-5 schedules. That’s 40 percent (and I’ve got them tagged with black dots). But for the 60 percent of those teams, there was no real advantage. Three of the teams ended up playing bottom-10 schedules.
Only two teams have been able to pull things off perfectly. The 2003 Bears and the 2012 Falcons. In those years, those teams were coming into the season with the projected easiest schedule, and they ended up playing the No. 1 easiest schedule.
Pittsburgh in 2006 almost pulled the reverse, going from expecting to be first to in reality finishing next-to-last.
| EASIEST SCHEDULES SINCE 2002 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Team | Pts | Rnk |
| 2002 | Jacksonville | 21.2 | 24 |
| 2003 | • Chicago | 22.4 | 1 |
| 2004 | • Tampa Bay | 22.9 | 2 |
| 2005 | • Arizona | 21.8 | 3 |
| 2006 | Pittsburgh | 18.9 | 31 |
| 2007 | Carolina | 21.8 | 15 |
| 2008 | • San Francisco | 23.6 | 4 |
| 2009 | • Seattle | 23.6 | 3 |
| 2010 | Washington | 22.8 | 10 |
| 2011 | Washington | 22.9 | 12 |
| 2012 | • Atlanta | 24.4 | 1 |
| 2013 | Denver | 23.2 | 16 |
| 2014 | Indianapolis | 22.8 | 15 |
| 2015 | Tampa Bay | 22.9 | 17 |
| 2016 | Dallas | 22.0 | 26 |
| 2017 | Carolina | ? | ? |
I had the numbers out, so I also ran the numbers for the 2nd-easiest schedules. And on these, again, I’m not looking at wins and losses but instead at average points allowed by opponents.
Minnesota is supposed to have the 2nd-easiest schedule, just like last year. It didn’t end up making much of a difference last season; the Vikings instead finished 12th (a notch better than average, but not enough that anybody should have been altering their picks in fantasy drafts).
With the No. 2 teams, only 4 of the 15 ended up playing top-5 schedules. Just as many of those teams finished in the bottom 10.
As we put together our draft plans, I don’t think Strength of Schedule should play a prominent role.
| 2ND-EASIEST SCHEDULES | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Team | Pts | Rnk |
| 2002 | Pittsburgh | 21.0 | 27 |
| 2003 | • Seattle | 21.8 | 4 |
| 2004 | • Denver | 23.0 | 1 |
| 2005 | Philadelphia | 20.8 | 15 |
| 2006 | Miami | 20.0 | 25 |
| 2007 | • Tampa Bay | 22.7 | 4 |
| 2008 | New England | 23.0 | 9 |
| 2009 | San Francisco | 19.3 | 31 |
| 2010 | Dallas | 22.4 | 13 |
| 2011 | Tennessee | 22.1 | 18 |
| 2012 | New Orleans | 22.1 | 26 |
| 2013 | Dallas | 24.9 | 7 |
| 2014 | • Detroit | 23.5 | 4 |
| 2015 | Carolina | 23.3 | 12 |
| 2016 | Minnesota | 23.0 | 12 |
| 2017 | Minnesota | ? | ? |
A book-keeping note. On the charts above, points are listed next to each team. Those aren’t the preseason expectation but instead represent what actually happened – the average NFL points allowed by opponents in their other games that year. With Pittsburgh in 2002, for example, it played 16 regular-season games. Set those games aside, and then look at what those 16 opponents did in their other 15 games. Total up all those points, then divide by 240 – that’s the average scoring total you’re look at.
—Ian Allan