2006 SOS (1 Viewer)

[BoltzNBrew]

LINK

2006 schedule: Strength of opponents

Team Opponents' '05 win pct. Opponents' '05 wins Opponents' '05 losses

Giants .543 139 117

Bengals .543 139 117

Saints .539 138 118

Buccaneers .539 138 118

Steelers .531 136 120

Titans .527 135 121

Chiefs .527 135 121

Texans .523 134 122

Ravens .523 134 122

Eagles .520 133 123

Redskins .516 132 124

Broncos .516 132 124

Raiders .516 132 124

Browns .512 131 125

Falcons .508 130 126

Rams .508 130 126

Panthers .504 129 127

Cowboys .504 129 127

Cardinals .500 128 128

Chargers .488 125 131

Jaguars .488 125 131

Colts .484 124 132

49ers .477 122 134

Bills .477 122 134

Lions .473 121 135

Patriots .473 121 135

Dolphins .469 120 136

Jets .465 119 137

Vikings .457 117 139

Seahawks .457 117 139

Packers .449 115 141

Bears .445 114 142

ETA:Looks like the threads were merged so I fixed the title. I also wanted to thank reg for formatting it correctly.

 

[ThisGuy]

Wow, Giants have the most difficult schedule, and thats BEFORE Eagles get McNabb back and Dallas gets TO. Should be interesting...and that much sweeter when they win the East again!!

 

[reg]

Team Opponents Opponents' Opponents' '05 win % '05 win '05 lossGiants 0.543 139 117Bengals 0.543 139 117Saints 0.539 138 118Buccaneers 0.539 138 118Steelers 0.531 136 120Titans 0.527 135 121Chiefs 0.527 135 121Texans 0.523 134 122Ravens 0.523 134 122Eagles 0.52 133 123Redskins 0.516 132 124Broncos 0.516 132 124Raiders 0.516 132 124Browns 0.512 131 125Falcons 0.508 130 126Rams 0.508 130 126Panthers 0.504 129 127Cowboys 0.504 129 127Cardinals 0.5 128 128Chargers 0.488 125 131Jaguars 0.488 125 131Colts 0.484 124 13249ers 0.477 122 134Bills 0.477 122 134Lions 0.473 121 135Patriots 0.473 121 135Dolphins 0.469 120 136Jets 0.465 119 137Vikings 0.457 117 139Seahawks 0.457 117 139Packers 0.449 115 141Bears 0.445 114 142
Formatted

 

[broncofan13000]

Team             Opponents           Opponents'       Opponents'                   '05 win %           '05 win          '05 lossGiants           0.543               139              117Bengals          0.543               139              117Saints           0.539               138              118Buccaneers       0.539               138              118Steelers         0.531               136              120Titans           0.527               135              121Chiefs           0.527               135              121Texans           0.523               134              122Ravens           0.523               134              122Eagles           0.52                133              123Redskins         0.516               132              124Broncos          0.516               132              124Raiders          0.516               132              124Browns           0.512               131              125Falcons          0.508               130              126Rams             0.508               130              126Panthers         0.504               129              127Cowboys          0.504               129              127Cardinals        0.5                 128              128Chargers         0.488               125              131Jaguars          0.488               125              131Colts            0.484               124              13249ers            0.477               122              134Bills            0.477               122              134Lions            0.473               121              135Patriots         0.473               121              135Dolphins         0.469               120              136Jets             0.465               119              137Vikings          0.457               117              139Seahawks         0.457               117              139Packers          0.449               115              141Bears            0.445               114              142

Formatted

thankyou

 

[Z-Dog]

Well, I guess 'Hawks fans can quit complaining that the NFL has it in for them. It's kind of surprising that the Bears and Seahwaks, both playoff teams, shoul get such cakewalk schedules. Also notable: Steelers .531, Patriots .473

 

[ThisGuy]

Well, I guess 'Hawks fans can quit complaining that the NFL has it in for them. It's kind of surprising that the Bears and Seahwaks, both playoff teams, shoul get such cakewalk schedules. Also notable: Steelers .531, Patriots .473

Nah, they were jobbed in the Super Bowl.

 

[bagger.]

lol at arguing about who has the toughest schedule when the difference between #1 and #32 is a tenth of a point.

 

[Gold Plated Nails]

Keep in mind only 2 teams made the playoffs last season who played a schedule better then .500 (Pats being .508 and Skins .538).

Obviously the strength of schedule will be in constant motion as the season goes on so things can radically change by Week 8. That said it can actually get harder for some teams. The SOS is a much bigger factor in who makes the playoffs then most people consider.

I'll say it right now that one of either the Giants or Bengals aren't making the playoffs next year.

 

[Gold Plated Nails]

Well, I guess 'Hawks fans can quit complaining that the NFL has it in for them. It's kind of surprising that the Bears and Seahwaks, both playoff teams, shoul get such cakewalk schedules. Also notable: Steelers .531, Patriots .473

In addition the Hawks played the NFLs easiest schedule in 2005 at a .430 clip.

 

[Monarch]

Does this even matter in today's NFL? Weren't the bears, cowboys, and Bucs easy wins on most of the so called good teams schedules. The Pack was a shoo in for 10 wins, right? I would be interested in seeing how reliable this is over the last few years. Does the easiest schedule really turn out to be the easiest?

 

[Sweetness_34]

I said it before - Target the Bears & Pats defense boys

Look at their schedules (if Favre retires or does not, since he will throw tons of picks again with no Walker etc)

Bears - Minny, Det, GB have no real QB. NFC West (49ers & Zona wth Warner behind no OL). Bills & Jets with no QB and maybe even Miami if Culpepper does not get back.

Pats - Play NFC North (so include Bears with Rex too) & Bills + Jets twice.

 

[Jous]

Well, I guess 'Hawks fans can quit complaining that the NFL has it in for them. It's kind of surprising that the Bears and Seahwaks, both playoff teams, shoul get such cakewalk schedules. Also notable: Steelers .531, Patriots .473

Nah, they were jobbed in the Super Bowl.

 

[ashybaby]

I said it before - Target the Bears & Pats defense boys

Look at their schedules (if Favre retires or does not, since he will throw tons of picks again with no Walker etc)

Bears - Minny, Det, GB have no real QB. NFC West (49ers & Zona wth Warner behind no OL). Bills & Jets with no QB and maybe even Miami if Culpepper does not get back.

Pats - Play NFC North (so include Bears with Rex too) & Bills + Jets twice.

Good points.

 

[Billy Ball Thorton]

Strength of schedule. Is the NFC champs suppose to get the 3rd easiest schedule while the Cards get 19th?

I know by the simple fact they play each other twice will effect this but still

2006 schedule: Strength of opponents

Team Opponents' '05 win pct. Opponents' '05 wins Opponents' '05 losses

Giants .543 139 117

Bengals .543 139 117

Saints .539 138 118

Buccaneers .539 138 118

Steelers .531 136 120

Titans .527 135 121

Chiefs .527 135 121

Texans .523 134 122

Ravens .523 134 122

Eagles .520 133 123

Redskins .516 132 124

Broncos .516 132 124

Raiders .516 132 124

Browns .512 131 125

Falcons .508 130 126

Rams .508 130 126

Panthers .504 129 127

Cowboys .504 129 127

Cardinals .500 128 128

Chargers .488 125 131

Jaguars .488 125 131

Colts .484 124 132

49ers .477 122 134

Bills .477 122 134

Lions .473 121 135

Patriots .473 121 135

Dolphins .469 120 136

Jets .465 119 137

Vikings .457 117 139

Seahawks .457 117 139

Packers .449 115 141

Bears .445 114 142

 

[reg]

Phins will be the 'sexy' pick this year.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

At the end of the season, most of the teams will have played a similar SOS. There will be some outliers that played super easy or super hard schedules. Everyone else's SOS is very comparable. It's a non-issue. Go out and win games.

 

[NoCheese]

At the end of the season, most of the teams will have played a similar SOS. There will be some outliers that played super easy or super hard schedules. Everyone else's SOS is very comparable. It's a non-issue. Go out and win games.

You're the Matt Foley of the message boards. I'm inspired.

 

[CapnJB]

I know by the simple fact they play each other twice will effect this but still

The Seahawks can't help that they went 13-3 last season. The ONLY difference in the Cards and Hawks schedule is that aside from playing each other, the Cards play Dallas and Atlanta (17 wins in 2005) and the Seahawks play Tampa and the Giants (22 wins in 2005). So all things being equal... the Hawks have a tougher schedule.But I'd hold on to the icon if I were you.

 

[Sweetness_34]

Well, I guess 'Hawks fans can quit complaining that the NFL has it in for them. It's kind of surprising that the Bears and Seahwaks, both playoff teams, shoul get such cakewalk schedules. Also notable: Steelers .531, Patriots .473

No it is not surprising at all since they both get to play their own patsy division and the other's division tooBears get NFC North twice and NFC West once

Hawks get NFC West twice and NFC North once

Also add to the fact that BEars get Bills and Jets since they play AFC East and barring significant injuries, the Bears are a lock to win the NFC NOrth this upcoming year

 

[cracKer]

Will someone please post an SOS based on opponents 2006 winning percentage.

TIA

 

[DoctorDetroit]

lol at arguing about who has the toughest schedule when the difference between #1 and #32 is a tenth of a point.

Very

 

[Twilight]

Keep in mind only 2 teams made the playoffs last season who played a schedule better then .500 (Pats being .508 and Skins .538).

Obviously the strength of schedule will be in constant motion as the season goes on so things can radically change by Week 8. That said it can actually get harder for some teams. The SOS is a much bigger factor in who makes the playoffs then most people consider.

I'll say it right now that one of either the Giants or Bengals aren't making the playoffs next year.

Is that based on 2005 records or 2004 records? Because it is only relevant if that stat is based on '04 records.

 

[matuski]

lol at arguing about who has the toughest schedule when the difference between #1 and #32 is a tenth of a point.

Very

You understand the comcept of percentages right...as in a tenth of a point is a 10% difference?

 

[snorlax]

Why on earth would this thread have been deleted yesterday?

 

[DoctorDetroit]

lol at arguing about who has the toughest schedule when the difference between #1 and #32 is a tenth of a point.

Very

You understand the comcept of percentages right...as in a tenth of a point is a 10% difference?

So in a 16 game schedule that is what 1.6 wins? So the Lions would have had an easier schedule in 2005 becuase they played the Bears twice right? In preseason that is what wopuld have been said. They also played Carolina, Cincinnati, and Green Bay. This is a completely useless measuring stick in today's NFL.

 

[Monarch]

lol at arguing about who has the toughest schedule when the difference between #1 and #32 is a tenth of a point.

Very

You understand the comcept of percentages right...as in a tenth of a point is a 10% difference?

So in a 16 game schedule that is what 1.6 wins? So the Lions would have had an easier schedule in 2005 becuase they played the Bears twice right? In preseason that is what wopuld have been said. They also played Carolina, Cincinnati, and Green Bay. This is a completely useless measuring stick in today's NFL.

agree. Teams that were bad one year make the playoffs the next every year. (Bears, Bucs, etc) The eagles had one of the best records until TO KO'd them. Injuries, coaching changes, free agency, and player development make last year's performance an unlikely indicator of future results. Can the Texans win 9 games? Can the Saints with a new coaching staff a healthy Deuce make the playoffs? Can the Cards with Edge turn the corner? Most teams have a least one player who if lost for the season would cause them to lose 10 games. Could the Patriots afford to lose Brady? Could the Broncos afford to lose Plummer? Will Eli Manning develop into a younger version of his brother? This is why we love this game!

 

[snorlax]

I don't think we can say it's completely useless unless there a study of preseason versus postseason strength of schedule has been done.

 

[matuski]

lol at arguing about who has the toughest schedule when the difference between #1 and #32 is a tenth of a point.

Very

You understand the comcept of percentages right...as in a tenth of a point is a 10% difference?

So in a 16 game schedule that is what 1.6 wins? So the Lions would have had an easier schedule in 2005 becuase they played the Bears twice right? In preseason that is what wopuld have been said. They also played Carolina, Cincinnati, and Green Bay. This is a completely useless measuring stick in today's NFL.

In this case if you paid attention it would be closer to 25.6 (256 games used). Or you could say 1.6 games is the difference between a 10-6 team or an 8-8 team... or you could focus on the fact that I made a typo.And I never mentioned the value of this as a measuring stick... only that you have missed (again) what the numbers say.

 

[Snotbubbles]

You can't just look at the schedule by wins and losses you have to dig deeper to see if Arizona really has a harder schedule than Seattle. On its face you may think so but if you look closer you'll see it not really so.

First, the numbers are skewed because Seattles Division schedule is easier than Arizona's. Seattles division opponents record is 15-33, while Arizona's is 23-25. There's nothing you can do about that because you have to face your division opponents twice each year.

Second, if you look at the like opponents that Seattle and Arizona face KC, CHI, OAK, GB, DET, MIN, DEN, SD. Seattle has to go on the road to KC, DEN, CHI and DET. KC, DEN and CHI may be three of the toughest places to play for a visiting team (The 2005 home records for those 4 teams were 25-7). Arizona gets all of those opponents at home, where those teams aren't nearly as formidable (the 2005 road records for those 4 teams were 14-18). Seattle gets OAK, GB, MIN and SD at home (the 2005 road records for those 4 teams were 11-21), where Arizona has to face those teams on the road (the 2005 home records for those 4 teams were 17-17). So you see, Seattles like non-division oppents schedule is waaaayyyyyy tougher than Arizona's even though they play the same teams.

Last, the non-like opponents for Seattle are NYG (2005 road record 4-4) and @TB (2005 home record 6-2), while the Cards get DAL (2005 road record 4-4) and @ATL (2005 home record 4-4). That seems pretty much a wash to me although, I'd prefer Arizona's non-like opponents.

When you look at it from this standpoint, I doubt anyone from the Seahawks is going to send the NFL schedule-maker a Christmas card for giving them the 3rd easiest schedule based on opponents won-loss record.

 

[cstu]

You can't just look at the schedule by wins and losses you have to dig deeper to see if Arizona really has a harder schedule than Seattle. On its face you may think so but if you look closer you'll see it not really so.

First, the numbers are skewed because Seattles Division schedule is easier than Arizona's. Seattles division opponents record is 15-33, while Arizona's is 23-25. There's nothing you can do about that because you have to face your division opponents twice each year.

Second, if you look at the like opponents that Seattle and Arizona face KC, CHI, OAK, GB, DET, MIN, DEN, SD. Seattle has to go on the road to KC, DEN, CHI and DET. KC, DEN and CHI may be three of the toughest places to play for a visiting team (The 2005 home records for those 4 teams were 25-7). Arizona gets all of those opponents at home, where those teams aren't nearly as formidable (the 2005 road records for those 4 teams were 14-18). Seattle gets OAK, GB, MIN and SD at home (the 2005 road records for those 4 teams were 11-21), where Arizona has to face those teams on the road (the 2005 home records for those 4 teams were 17-17). So you see, Seattles like non-division oppents schedule is waaaayyyyyy tougher than Arizona's even though they play the same teams.

Last, the non-like opponents for Seattle are NYG (2005 road record 4-4) and @TB (2005 home record 6-2), while the Cards get DAL (2005 road record 4-4) and @ATL (2005 home record 4-4). That seems pretty much a wash to me although, I'd prefer Arizona's non-like opponents.

When you look at it from this standpoint, I doubt anyone from the Seahawks is going to send the NFL schedule-maker a Christmas card for giving them the 3rd easiest schedule based on opponents won-loss record.

Seattle also plays in a division that can't be worse next year. The Rams, Cards, and 49ers had a combined 15 wins. I expect the Rams and Cards to go at least 8-8 and the 49ers to win at least 5 games. That alone would be a 6 game increase in their SOS and put them at the 10th easiest.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

lol at arguing about who has the toughest schedule when the difference between #1 and #32 is a tenth of a point.

Very

You understand the comcept of percentages right...as in a tenth of a point is a 10% difference?

So in a 16 game schedule that is what 1.6 wins? So the Lions would have had an easier schedule in 2005 becuase they played the Bears twice right? In preseason that is what wopuld have been said. They also played Carolina, Cincinnati, and Green Bay. This is a completely useless measuring stick in today's NFL.

In this case if you paid attention it would be closer to 25.6 (256 games used). Or you could say 1.6 games is the difference between a 10-6 team or an 8-8 team... or you could focus on the fact that I made a typo.And I never mentioned the value of this as a measuring stick... only that you have missed (again) what the numbers say.

Wait a second did you see what you wrote here? What's 16 X 1.6? 25.6 How do you call out someone for paying attention again?

Here is something for you:

(First number is preseason SOS and the second is regular season SOS. Notice the difference between the numbers. Reason #1 SOS ranking are overrated.)

Panthers .492 .449

Bears .480 .457

Redskins .465 .538

Seahawks .457 .430

Reason #2 they mean nothing:

Panthers 29 Bears 21

Seahawks 20 Redskins 10

Seahawks 34 Panthers 14

 

[coolnerd]

14 of a team's 16 game schedule is set until 2009. Only two conference games with non-division are true SOS games. The schedule has become pretty much a luck of the draw.

http://www.johnnyroadtrip.com/schedules/nfl_future_nfce.htm

 

[Doug Drinen]

A blog entry inspired by this thread:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/wordpress/?p=17

The NFL schedule was released last week. Like most people who are neither season ticket holders nor executives for FOX or CBS, I like the new flexible scheduling plan that will allow more interesting games to be shown on Sunday nights.

As has been noted elsewhere, the toughest schedules (based on last year’s records) belong to the Giants and Bengals, whose 2006 opponents were a combined 139-117 in 2005. The Bears have the easiest slate; their opponents were 114-142 last year.

But as we all know, some teams that were bad in 2005 will be good in 2006 and vice versa. And some schedules that look easy right now will actually be tough and vice versa. The question is: to what extent, if any, do the Bears have an advantage over the Giants because of their schedules. Two games? One game? Half a game?

To investigate this, I went back to 1990 and recorded three bits of data about every team.

1. their own record in Year N-1

2. their preseason estimated strength of schedule. I.e. the combined Year N-1 records of the team’s Year N opponents.

3. their record in Year N

For the 2005 New York Jets, for example, I have

1. .625 (their 2004 record was 10-6)

2. .535 (the combined 2004 record of their 2005 opponents)

3. .250 (their 2005 record ended up being 4-12)

I then labeled every team, based on their Year N-1 performance, as either Very Bad (less than 5 wins), Bad (5 or 6 wins), Mediocre (7 to 9 wins), Good (10 or 11 wins), or Very Good (12 or more wins). I also labeled each team’s projected schedule as either Easy (combined opponents record under .500) or Hard (over .500).

Take a look at the Very Bad teams, for example. The Very Bad teams with a projected Easy schedule averaged 6.44 wins the next year. The Very Bad teams with a projected Hard schedule averaged 6.63 wins. The difference is not significant, and that’s the point. Here is the complete breakdown:

Average Wins in Year N Easy Sched Hard SchedVery Bad in Year N-1 6.44 6.63 Bad in Year N-1 7.67 7.26Mediocre in Year N-1 7.82 8.27 Good in Year N-1 8.94 8.57Very Good in Year N-1 8.78 10.06 TOTAL 7.73 8.27An eyeballing of this table indicates that the estimated schedule strength is essentially irrelevant and official statistical tests confirm that. [For example, a regression of Year N record on Year N-1 record and projected Year N schedule strength produces a not-even-close-to-significant coefficient for schedule strength.]Note that I’m not saying that schedule strength isn’t important. Some teams will have harder schedules than others in 2006 and it will make a difference. The point is that these strength-of-schedule estimates that are being thrown around right now seem to have no role at all in determining teams’ 2006 records.