Some are fans of strength of schedule, and not just for wins and points. They like to see rushing and passing schedules as well, and those figures are published below.
On these charts, I used only the first 15 games for each team. Most fantasy leagues don’t use Week 17, so I left those games out. On the charts, I’m listing per-game numbers for yards; I think that’s more understandable and intuitive for people to read. But I’m using per-season numbers for touchdowns. I think most people have a better feel for what 27 TD passes in a season feels like, rather than 1.69 TD passes per game.
For rushing, the Bears, Broncos and Patriots project to play the easiest schedules. That’s using standard scoring and assuming defenses will play like they did last year. Washington, Tampa Bay and the Giants project to play the hardest schedules (for rushing).
STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE, RUSHING (G 1-15) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Team | Yd/G | TD/Yr | Pts/G |
Chicago | 112 | 12.6 | 16.3 |
Denver | 113 | 12.3 | 16.2 |
New England | 111 | 12.8 | 16.2 |
Oakland | 112 | 11.9 | 15.9 |
Arizona | 113 | 11.6 | 15.9 |
Minnesota | 111 | 12.1 | 15.9 |
Tennessee | 115 | 11.0 | 15.9 |
LA Chargers | 109 | 12.2 | 15.8 |
Cleveland | 112 | 11.4 | 15.7 |
Carolina | 111 | 11.6 | 15.7 |
Green Bay | 110 | 11.8 | 15.7 |
NY Jets | 108 | 12.0 | 15.6 |
Baltimore | 110 | 11.6 | 15.6 |
San Francisco | 109 | 11.8 | 15.6 |
Miami | 112 | 10.9 | 15.6 |
Cincinnati | 108 | 11.6 | 15.5 |
Kansas City | 111 | 10.8 | 15.4 |
Jacksonville | 110 | 10.9 | 15.4 |
Indianapolis | 112 | 10.4 | 15.4 |
Buffalo | 111 | 10.4 | 15.3 |
Pittsburgh | 110 | 10.6 | 15.2 |
Seattle | 108 | 11.0 | 15.2 |
New Orleans | 108 | 10.9 | 15.1 |
Dallas | 109 | 10.6 | 15.1 |
Detroit | 107 | 10.8 | 15.0 |
Houston | 109 | 10.3 | 15.0 |
LA Rams | 105 | 11.1 | 14.9 |
Philadelphia | 110 | 9.9 | 14.9 |
Atlanta | 107 | 10.3 | 14.8 |
Tampa Bay | 107 | 9.9 | 14.7 |
NY Giants | 107 | 9.8 | 14.7 |
Washington | 106 | 9.4 | 14.3 |
For passing, Jacksonville, Washington and Houston project to play the easiest schedules. And note that Chicago (No. 1 for rushing) is up there at 4th.) Kansas City, Green Bay and Oakland project to play the hardest schedules for passing. Again using standard scoring (6 points for TD passes and 1 point for every 10 yards).
STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE, PASSING (G 1-15) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Team | Yd/G | TD/Yr | Pts/G |
Jacksonville | 248 | 23.4 | 34.2 |
Washington | 245 | 24.1 | 34.1 |
Houston | 242 | 23.4 | 33.6 |
Chicago | 247 | 22.1 | 33.5 |
Atlanta | 243 | 22.7 | 33.3 |
Minnesota | 245 | 21.9 | 33.3 |
Philadelphia | 241 | 22.8 | 33.2 |
Dallas | 243 | 22.1 | 33.1 |
Indianapolis | 239 | 22.9 | 33.0 |
Miami | 243 | 21.6 | 33.0 |
NY Giants | 240 | 22.2 | 32.9 |
Buffalo | 241 | 21.8 | 32.8 |
Tampa Bay | 239 | 22.1 | 32.8 |
Carolina | 242 | 21.4 | 32.8 |
Denver | 240 | 21.8 | 32.7 |
Cincinnati | 240 | 21.6 | 32.6 |
LA Chargers | 240 | 21.3 | 32.6 |
Seattle | 238 | 21.8 | 32.5 |
Tennessee | 237 | 22.1 | 32.5 |
New Orleans | 240 | 21.3 | 32.5 |
NY Jets | 239 | 21.3 | 32.4 |
Cleveland | 238 | 21.4 | 32.3 |
San Francisco | 239 | 21.0 | 32.3 |
Pittsburgh | 238 | 21.1 | 32.2 |
New England | 239 | 20.8 | 32.2 |
Baltimore | 238 | 20.8 | 32.2 |
Arizona | 236 | 20.9 | 32.0 |
LA Rams | 236 | 20.9 | 32.0 |
Detroit | 236 | 20.6 | 31.9 |
Oakland | 232 | 21.3 | 31.7 |
Green Bay | 235 | 19.6 | 31.4 |
Kansas City | 229 | 20.9 | 31.3 |
I am not, by the way, much of a believer in trying to using specified strength of schedule. I don’t think it’s the secret edge to help you win fantasy football games. Look, for example, at teams that projected to play top-5 (easy) rushing schedules in the last four years. There was some correlation with these 20 teams; 40 percent of them (8 of 20) played top-6 rushing schedules. But almost half (9 of 20) actually played below-average schedules.
TOP-5 RUSHING SCHEDULES (last 4 years) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | Team | Yd/G | TD/Yr | Pt/G | Rnk |
2014 | NY Jets | 109 | 9.7 | 14.5 | 27 |
2014 | Minnesota | 107 | 11.2 | 14.9 | 19 |
2014 | Indianapolis | 115 | 11.6 | 15.9 | 10 |
2014 | Jacksonville | 117 | 12.1 | 16.2 | 5 |
2014 | Houston | 117 | 13.2 | 16.6 | 2 |
2015 | Houston | 107 | 11.9 | 15.1 | 17 |
2015 | Carolina | 111 | 12.9 | 15.9 | 5 |
2015 | Washington | 115 | 11.9 | 16.0 | 4 |
2015 | Tampa Bay | 112 | 12.7 | 16.0 | 3 |
2015 | Atlanta | 114 | 12.3 | 16.0 | 2 |
2016 | Green Bay | 105 | 12.7 | 15.2 | 29 |
2016 | Minnesota | 104 | 12.8 | 15.2 | 28 |
2016 | Chicago | 107 | 12.4 | 15.3 | 27 |
2016 | Detroit | 105 | 13.2 | 15.5 | 26 |
2016 | Dallas | 109 | 13.0 | 15.8 | 20 |
2017 | Carolina | 108 | 12.1 | 15.3 | 23 |
2017 | LA Chargers | 110 | 11.7 | 15.4 | 15 |
2017 | NY Jets | 112 | 12.3 | 15.8 | 6 |
2017 | Tennessee | 112 | 12.7 | 16.0 | 4 |
2017 | New England | 111 | 13.3 | 16.1 | 3 |
It’s similar with passing. Look at the 20 teams projecting to play easy schedules in the last four years – top-5 schedules. Again, only a slight majority even played above-average schedules (12 of 20). Four played top-6 schedules, but four played bottom-10 schedules.
In general, when trying to build your team, I think your time is better spent elsewhere.
TOP-5 PASSING SCHEDULES (last 4 years) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | Team | Yd/G | TD/Yr | Pt/G | Rnk |
2014 | Detroit | 256 | 24.6 | 34.8 | 10 |
2014 | Seattle | 255 | 24.1 | 34.5 | 13 |
2014 | Buffalo | 247 | 25.3 | 34.2 | 16 |
2014 | Chicago | 250 | 23.0 | 33.6 | 24 |
2014 | Miami | 248 | 23.4 | 33.5 | 26 |
2015 | Atlanta | 266 | 30.3 | 38.0 | 2 |
2015 | Tampa Bay | 266 | 29.1 | 37.5 | 3 |
2015 | Carolina | 264 | 28.4 | 37.1 | 6 |
2015 | NY Giants | 262 | 27.7 | 36.6 | 12 |
2015 | New Orleans | 256 | 26.5 | 35.5 | 18 |
2016 | NY Giants | 261 | 26.1 | 35.9 | 2 |
2016 | Dallas | 259 | 24.5 | 35.1 | 11 |
2016 | Cleveland | 260 | 23.9 | 34.9 | 15 |
2016 | Baltimore | 255 | 24.7 | 34.8 | 17 |
2016 | Cincinnati | 250 | 24.7 | 34.3 | 27 |
2017 | Carolina | 247 | 22.5 | 33.1 | 7 |
2017 | Chicago | 244 | 22.9 | 32.9 | 10 |
2017 | New Orleans | 242 | 22.3 | 32.6 | 17 |
2017 | Tampa Bay | 240 | 22.9 | 32.6 | 20 |
2017 | Minnesota | 241 | 22.3 | 32.5 | 23 |
—Ian Allan