Actually you are incorrect.![]()
Teams Helped & Hurt By NFL Schedule: Chiefs, 49ers, Eagles
NFL rest edge, which teams are helped & hurt the most by 2023 NFL schedule, betting importance of rest edges, Colts, Commanders, Browns, 49ers, Chiefs, Eagleswww.sharpfootballanalysis.com
NFL 2023 Net Rest Edges
net rest = total days of extra rest vs a team's opponents over the course of the season
+12: NYJ, CHI, WAS
+11: TEN
+10: CLE
+9: BAL
+8
+7: MIA, PIT
+6: NE
+5: ARI
+4: NO, IND
+3: DEN
+2
+1: DAL, DET
0: GB, BUF
-1: CAR, CIN, JAX
-2: HOU, MIN
-3
-4: SEA, LV
-5
-6: TB, LAC, PHI
-7
-8
-9: NYG
-10
-11
-12: ATL
-13: KC
-14
-15
-16
-17: LA
-18
-19
-20: SF
(positive net rest is good, negative is bad)
San Francisco 49ers Schedule Notes:
The San Francisco 49ers stand out as the team that was negatively impacted the most. They have a negative-20 day net rest edge.
How is that possible? Well, for starters they play four teams coming off bye weeks:
Considering both teams have byes ahead of the Week 10 matchup, that particular game does not impact the net rest calculations as the rest disparity sums to zero.
- Week 6 @ Cleveland (who are off a Week 5 bye)
- Week 8 vs Cincinnati (who are off a Week 7 bye)
- Week 10 @ Jacksonville (both SF and JAX are off Week 9 byes)
- Week 15 @Arizona (who are off a Week 14 bye)
However, the game vs the Bengals in Week 8 gives Cincinnati plus-eight days of rest edge as the 49ers play on Monday Night in Minnesota in Week 7. Thus, the 49ers are coming off of a short-week road game with reduced rest while the Bengals are off a bye.
Three of these four games are on the road.
Additionally, the 49ers must face the Seahawks late in the season (Week 14) when Seattle is off a nice “mini-bye,” having played Week 13 on Thursday night and obtaining a plus-three day rest advantage over their division rival 49ers in Week 14.
The 49ers also play Washington in Week 17 on a short week. The 49ers play on Monday night in Week 16 at home vs the Ravens and then must travel across the country to visit the Commanders for an early 1 pm game just six days later in Week 17.
In total, the 49ers play five games with a rest disadvantage, and the total days of rest disadvantage they have in those games is 26 days.
They get two games with rest advantage: Week 4 vs the Cardinals follows a “mini-bye” off a Week 3 San Francisco home game on Thursday Night, and Week 13 @ the Eagles features an extra three days of rest and prep as the 49ers play Thanksgiving night in Week 12.
Now juxtapose that rest disadvantage totaling 26 days against a team like the Bears, who play zero games with a rest disadvantage and are tied at No. 1 in the NFL with a net rest edge of plus-12 days.
It definitely will be difficult for the 49ers this year
Plus the Niners have Cmac so it's really a matter of if the NFL will force Shanahan not to use him to give the other teams a chance.The probability of winning at home after a bye is actually slightly lower after a bye week, .5711 compared to .5787. More interestingly, winning on the road is considerably more likely after a bye week, .4697 compared to .4212.
I didn't write the articleActually you are incorrect.
Well then I'm correcting your spread of fake news.I didn't write the articleActually you are incorrect.
The article I posted isn't about wins or losses after a bye, it's about rest disparity. Totally different.Well then I'm correcting your spread of fake news.I didn't write the articleActually you are incorrect.![]()
Please explain to me what it's about.The article I posted isn't about wins or losses after a byeWell then I'm correcting your spread of fake news.I didn't write the articleActually you are incorrect.![]()
![]()
It's about rest disparity, which is all explained in the article.Please explain to me what it's about.The article I posted isn't about wins or losses after a byeWell then I'm correcting your spread of fake news.I didn't write the articleActually you are incorrect.![]()
![]()
How's it a disadvantage. Just saying it doesn't make it so. SF is net -20, but the stats show the away games are a push. Add 21 back to the -20 and the 49ers are +1.Here's another article about the rest disparity
![]()
How the NFL schedule makers made 49ers schedule one of NFL's hardest
The NFL schedule makers made life much harder on the 49ers this year. Here’s how:ninerswire.usatoday.com
Sharp’s excellent deep dive into the schedule shows a sizable disadvantage for San Francisco. They have an NFL-worst rest disadvantage with their opponents totaling 20 more days of rest over the course of the season. The Jets, Bears and Commanders all enjoy a league-best 12 more days of rest than their opponents over the course of the year.
The only weeks the 49ers will hold an advantage are in Week 4 vs. the Cardinals when they have extra days off from their Thursday night game in Week 4 vs. the Giants. They’ll have the same advantage when they visit the Eagles in Week 13 after playing on Thanksgiving.
Those two three-day advantages are the only time the 49ers will have more rest than an opponent all season, and those extra days off matter a ton in a league where health is paramount to winning championships.
All of that disparity is facing teams on the road after after a bye where there is historically zero advantage having rest days.It's about rest disparity, which is all explained in the article.Please explain to me what it's about.The article I posted isn't about wins or losses after a byeWell then I'm correcting your spread of fake news.I didn't write the articleActually you are incorrect.![]()
![]()
I see maybe 2 teams other than the Niners doing this. No one is wasting 3 roster spots on the QB position on gameday for the most part.The Brock Purdy rule has passed.
Per Rapsheet:
The NFL bylaw on allowing a third QB to be active without burning a roster spot was approved, per source.
And yet the owners voted it in.I see maybe 2 teams other than the Niners doing this. No one is wasting 3 roster spots on the QB position on gameday for the most part.The Brock Purdy rule has passed.
Per Rapsheet:
The NFL bylaw on allowing a third QB to be active without burning a roster spot was approved, per source.
The Brock Purdy rule has passed.
Per Rapsheet:
The NFL bylaw on allowing a third QB to be active without burning a roster spot was approved, per source.
What am I missing between these two posts?I see maybe 2 teams other than the Niners doing this. No one is wasting 3 roster spots on the QB position on gameday for the most part.The Brock Purdy rule has passed.
Per Rapsheet:
The NFL bylaw on allowing a third QB to be active without burning a roster spot was approved, per source.
What am I missing between these two posts?
I have no issue with the rule at all. I think we all think its just funny, to go along with the players/coaches still obsessing over the game with the "We woulda won it with Purdy" narrative.What am I missing between these two posts?
Couldn't tell you. Eagles fans have an issue with the rule for some reason.
![]()
I don't see anyone saying that, at least not for about 3 months now. But you keep going back to it if it makes you feel betterI have no issue with the rule at all. I think we all think its just funny, to go along with the players/coaches still obsessing over the game with the "We woulda won it with Purdy" narrative.What am I missing between these two posts?
Couldn't tell you. Eagles fans have an issue with the rule for some reason.
![]()
Deebo Samuel 15 days ago: https://www.si.com/nfl/2023/05/07/d...n a recent interview with,, they would've won.I don't see anyone saying that, at least not for about 3 months now. But you keep going back to it if it makes you feel betterI have no issue with the rule at all. I think we all think its just funny, to go along with the players/coaches still obsessing over the game with the "We woulda won it with Purdy" narrative.What am I missing between these two posts?
Couldn't tell you. Eagles fans have an issue with the rule for some reason.
![]()
Neither brought it up, but if it helps you sleep at night, run with that narrative.Not trolling actually to be honest. Just stating that coaches/players on the 49ers are *still* bringing it up.
Isn't the point of the rule that you can dress a 3rd QB without the 3rd QB counting against your active players? The 3rd QB can only come in if the other 2 get hurt. Seems that all teams would take advantage of it.I see maybe 2 teams other than the Niners doing this. No one is wasting 3 roster spots on the QB position on gameday for the most part.The Brock Purdy rule has passed.
Per Rapsheet:
The NFL bylaw on allowing a third QB to be active without burning a roster spot was approved, per source.
There was never a rule that stopped any team from carrying 4/5/6 QB's either. Its just a matter of asset management overall. There are like 15 "pretty good QB's in the league, maybe 5-8 average ones and you got the bottom teams usually with "bad QB play" and we are talking about starting QB's. I think the league basically was like "well whats the difference between the 50th best QB to the 75th best QB" and the truth is, there isn't much. Once you get to your backup QB, you count your lucky stars you can win a few games during a stretch until the starter comes back. Once you are on your 3rd QB, I am on the same page "its pretty much over" although Brock Purdy last year seems to be a giant exception to this rule. No one has been carrying 3 active QB's on game day like forever, but hey, the 49ers think they can really make a difference by taking advantage of this, so they proposed the rule and the league obliged, bc tv ratings or whatever the logic is to have it. I'd like to see a list of the top 10 3rd string QB's in the NFL, that would be an interesting discussion.Isn't the point of the rule that you can dress a 3rd QB without the 3rd QB counting against your active players? The 3rd QB can only come in if the other 2 get hurt. Seems that all teams would take advantage of it.I see maybe 2 teams other than the Niners doing this. No one is wasting 3 roster spots on the QB position on gameday for the most part.The Brock Purdy rule has passed.
Per Rapsheet:
The NFL bylaw on allowing a third QB to be active without burning a roster spot was approved, per source.
When the rule was in effect previously, I thought it made sense. Nobody wants to see a team without a QB in case both got hurt. Not sure why the NFL thought it was a bad idea and got ride of it.
It was over once Purdy got hurt. Josh Johnson wasn't going to win that game against Philly, so obviously in that situation, someone who is worse than Josh Johnson wouldn't have made a difference either.There was never a rule that stopped any team from carrying 4/5/6 QB's either. Its just a matter of asset management overall. There are like 15 "pretty good QB's in the league, maybe 5-8 average ones and you got the bottom teams usually with "bad QB play" and we are talking about starting QB's. I think the league basically was like "well whats the difference between the 50th best QB to the 75th best QB" and the truth is, there isn't much. Once you get to your backup QB, you count your lucky stars you can win a few games during a stretch until the starter comes back. Once you are on your 3rd QB, I am on the same page "its pretty much over" although Brock Purdy last year seems to be a giant exception to this rule. No one has been carrying 3 active QB's on game day like forever, but hey, the 49ers think they can really make a difference by taking advantage of this, so they proposed the rule and the league obliged, bc tv ratings or whatever the logic is to have it. I'd like to see a list of the top 10 3rd string QB's in the NFL, that would be an interesting discussion.Isn't the point of the rule that you can dress a 3rd QB without the 3rd QB counting against your active players? The 3rd QB can only come in if the other 2 get hurt. Seems that all teams would take advantage of it.I see maybe 2 teams other than the Niners doing this. No one is wasting 3 roster spots on the QB position on gameday for the most part.The Brock Purdy rule has passed.
Per Rapsheet:
The NFL bylaw on allowing a third QB to be active without burning a roster spot was approved, per source.
When the rule was in effect previously, I thought it made sense. Nobody wants to see a team without a QB in case both got hurt. Not sure why the NFL thought it was a bad idea and got ride of it.
but hey, the 49ers think they can really make a difference by taking advantage of this, so they proposed the rule and the league obliged
Prior to 2011, teams dressed 45 active players and were able designate 1 emergency QB for a total of 46 players. Then they changed the rule to have 46 active players, allowing teams to carry their 2 QBs plus an extra at any position, for a total of 46 active players. Same number of active players.When the rule was in effect previously, I thought it made sense. Nobody wants to see a team without a QB in case both got hurt. Not sure why the NFL thought it was a bad idea and got ride of it.
But carrying a 3rd QB counted against the roster limit. Teams carrying a 3rd QB lost another position player. Regardless of the amount of players active, I like the rule of carrying a 3rd QB who doesn't count against the game day roster. It makes sense. Chances of two QBs getting hurt the same game is slim but it happens and nobody wants to see a RB/WR play QB.Prior to 2011, teams dressed 45 active players and were able designate 1 emergency QB for a total of 46 players. Then they changed the rule to have 46 active players, allowing teams to carry their 2 QBs plus an extra at any position, for a total of 46 active players. Same number of active players.When the rule was in effect previously, I thought it made sense. Nobody wants to see a team without a QB in case both got hurt. Not sure why the NFL thought it was a bad idea and got ride of it.
Now for whatever reason, they changed it yet again to allow 46 active players *plus* an emergency 3rd QB, for a total of 47 active players. They've effectively just expanded the active roster by 1 player.
Teams were not restricted in carrying a 3rd QB prior to this rule change.
If you go back prior to 2011, the active roster was 45 + emergency QB. After 2011 until today, it was still 45 + another player QB or otherwise. Teams just chose to add another position player and go with 2 QBs. They could have continued to carry 3 and the same 45 as it was prior to 2011. Now teams (or at least SF) were choosing to carry 2 QBs and add a position player elsewhere. Teams only *lost* another position player if they so chose. The 2011 rule change gave teams another position player IF they decided to go with 2 QBs.But carrying a 3rd QB counted against the roster limit. Teams carrying a 3rd QB lost another position player. Regardless of the amount of players active, I like the rule of carrying a 3rd QB who doesn't count against the game day roster. It makes sense. Chances of two QBs getting hurt the same game is slim but it happens and nobody wants to see a RB/WR play QB.Prior to 2011, teams dressed 45 active players and were able designate 1 emergency QB for a total of 46 players. Then they changed the rule to have 46 active players, allowing teams to carry their 2 QBs plus an extra at any position, for a total of 46 active players. Same number of active players.When the rule was in effect previously, I thought it made sense. Nobody wants to see a team without a QB in case both got hurt. Not sure why the NFL thought it was a bad idea and got ride of it.
Now for whatever reason, they changed it yet again to allow 46 active players *plus* an emergency 3rd QB, for a total of 47 active players. They've effectively just expanded the active roster by 1 player.
Teams were not restricted in carrying a 3rd QB prior to this rule change.
I'm seriously not trolling or jabbing, its just a matter of practicality. Who was the 3rd QB that could have come in last year instead of having McAffery play QB? Was there a guy that was even on the practice squad that you guys could have taken advantage of had this rule been in place last year?but hey, the 49ers think they can really make a difference by taking advantage of this, so they proposed the rule and the league obliged
Not sure why you're in this thread, other than to deliver jabs like this one.
DudeI'm seriously not trolling or jabbing, its just a matter of practicality. Who was the 3rd QB that could have come in last year instead of having McAffery play QB? Was there a guy that was even on the practice squad that you guys could have taken advantage of had this rule been in place last year?but hey, the 49ers think they can really make a difference by taking advantage of this, so they proposed the rule and the league obliged
Not sure why you're in this thread, other than to deliver jabs like this one.
Really hope Ronnie Bell works out for you guys. He was a true leader and high character guy at Michigan. Tough as nails. Highly competitive and eager to mix it up blocking for RB's.