Look Back at the 2006 SOS, who drafted by it? (1 Viewer)

[GQ1NYC]

While looking at the SOS for this year. I took a look at the SOS for 2006 and how the top 5 teams finished at the end of the year. Looking at QB SOS & RB SOS there were alot of let downs. The teams are in order of Top (1st easiest, 2nd easiest, ect) and Bottom (1st hardest, 2nd hardest, ect,)

QB SOS '06 Top 5

Ranked Team

10 Ari (Split Warner/ Lienart)

4 StL (Bulger)

25 Den (Split Plummer/ Cutler)

20 Sea (Spilt Hasselbeck/ Wallace)

14 Chi (Grossman)

One out of the 5 Top 5 QB's finished in the top 5. Two were in the top 10. Only 2 of the top 5 teams had a QB for the whole season.

QB SOS '06 Bottom 5

32 Atl (Vick)

1 NO (Brees)

6 Cin (Palmer)

19 NYG (Manning)

26 TB (Simms/Rattay/Gradkowski)

The bottom 5 featured 2 teams that buck the harsh schedule and finished in the top 10.

RB SOS '06 Top 5

Ranked Team

23 GB (Green/Morency)

3 Chi (Jones/Benson)

29 Mia (Brown/Morris)

22 Buf (McGahee/Thomas)

21 Det (Jones/ Bryson)

Only one team finished in the top 5. the other 4 teams were near the bottom of the league.

RB SOS '06 Bottom 5

1 SD (LT/Turner)

32 Oak (Jordan/Fargus)

15 KC (LJ/Bennett)

17 Den (T.Bell/M.Bell)

10 StL (Jackson/Davis)

The team with the hardest run SOS finished 1st in the league but having the best RB didn't effect LT from going 1st in most drafts. 3 of the 5 finished middle of the pack while OAK showed it was an up hill battle all season.

I think you have to determan how much of a factor the SOS will be on players.

 

[Z-Dog]

I NEVER factor season-long SOS in choosing players. I don't think there is any validity to the approach whatsoever.

 

[Chase Stuart]

What do the numbers in the first column mean?

 

[Jason Wood]

Projecting strength of schedule from Year N into Year N+1 is, at best, an inexact science. One of the things I love about what Bruce has done with the Draft Dominator is allow you to use our forward-looking SOS if you want, but easily toggle it off if you're not a fan of SOS.

 

[rdstorm]

SoS is a modifier, not a primary rankings factor. As should be evident from your lists, talent and opportunity (including lack of injury) are the #1 factors, along with OL strength and coaching philosophy.

For example, looking at the QBs in your list (including the backups that played) and disregarding SoS, you would probably rank them like this:

Palmer

Bulger

Hass

Manning

Warner/Plummer

Brees

Vick

Leinart?

Simms

Grossman

Cutler

Wallace

Rattay

Gradkowski

The ones that played the full season are in bold. Plummer stunk it up for some reason (I'd speculate he didn't sit well with the drafting of Cutler), and I'd argue that Leinart as a rookie should be ranked lower in the list. Make those adjustments and you'll see that the end results are largely the same as the original ranking except that the teams who made QB changes got more of an average of the two qbs that they used.

The big surprises were Brees and Vick, and they don't really fit into the above statement that the end results matched the pre-SoS rankings, but it's doubtful that SoS was a major factor in their surprising play. With Vick, it's possible, as it has been proven thoughout his career that a good defense can hold him in check. With Brees, it was a combination of factors that allowed him to rise above his SoS.

Palmer is an elite QB who, when healthy and not recovering from a serious injury, is expected to give Peyton a run for his money as the top QB. Just as LT is at RB. Elite players typically rise above factors such as SoS, and that's where the saying "always start your studs" comes from.

The mid-tier players are where SoS becomes a factor. When you are comparing Bulger to McNabb or Hasselbeck (last year), or comparing FWP, Westbrook, and Ronnie Brown for instance, SoS will help you rank those players that are supposed to be of similar value.

 

[simsarge]

I would think the variables from play to play would be an inexact science in itself, let alone year to year. But to an extent, the SOS has to be part of a consideration when drafting. How much so is one of the great things about the DD. It lets you see that the "default" SOS is, lets you take your gut (a SWAG) and lets you either fix or screw it up as as you see fit.

We all know that it's all about factoring as many variables as reasonably possible together and making an educated guesstimate.

 

[GQ1NYC]

What do the numbers in the first column mean?

The numbers is the ranking for Passing offense and Rushing offense.

 

[GQ1NYC]

I would think the variables from play to play would be an inexact science in itself, let alone year to year. But to an extent, the SOS has to be part of a consideration when drafting. How much so is one of the great things about the DD. It lets you see that the "default" SOS is, lets you take your gut (a SWAG) and lets you either fix or screw it up as as you see fit.We all know that it's all about factoring as many variables as reasonably possible together and making an educated guesstimate.

Does the SOS update automaticaly or do you have to fix it yourself?

 

[tomarken]

What do the numbers in the first column mean?

The numbers is the ranking for Passing offense and Rushing offense.

Why wouldn't you compare the 2006 preseason SOS predictions with the 2006 actual SOS? As others mentioned, just because SD's projected SOS was low, doesn't mean anyone thought SD would have a bad rushing offense, so comparing their offensive ranking with their projected SOS doesn't really make any sense.I would be interested to see the projected SOS vs the actual final SOS, to see how accurate the predictions were...

 

[GQ1NYC]

What do the numbers in the first column mean?

The numbers is the ranking for Passing offense and Rushing offense.

Why wouldn't you compare the 2006 preseason SOS predictions with the 2006 actual SOS? As others mentioned, just because SD's projected SOS was low, doesn't mean anyone thought SD would have a bad rushing offense, so comparing their offensive ranking with their projected SOS doesn't really make any sense.I would be interested to see the projected SOS vs the actual final SOS, to see how accurate the predictions were...

I didn't have the actual SOS I used what was posted in the 2006 archives.

 

[The Man with the Plan]

Didn't the Colts have the easiest passing schedule last year? They made the best of it. #1 QB, 2 of the top 3 WR. Good stuff.Frank Gore had a ridiculously easy rush defense schedule in 2006 also and he certainly capitalized as well.

I think it's important to look at everything that you can to take advantage of a situation. Matchups are very important but not the only thing. And I wouldn't necessarily get scared off by a tough schedule either. If the value's there you have to take it. No player has ever been a bust because their schedule was too hard. But an easy schedule certainly doesn't hurt.

 

[Z-Dog]

At the beginning of the season, you just don't know who is going to have a good defense by week 8. One or two injuries can dramatically alter a team's complexion, as can factors external to the defense, like how the offense does. Teams with bad offenses often drive down the performance of the defense, since it is on the field for longer and in worse field position.

On a week-to-week basis, matchups are important for figuring out your starting lineup, but SoS is doomed to failure. I may downgrade players if they play in a very tough division, but not much - Emmit Smith put up great career numbers playing in a division that featured great defensive teams year in and year out.

And we haven't even talked about SoS being the product of biased numbers from the previous year. If your favorite NFL team happened to face a bunch of poor teams the previous year, or teams with missing stars the week they played them, your defense is going to look a lot better than it was. The next year, anyone who plays your favorite NFL team will show a more difficult SoS as a result. As I see it, it's piling bias on top of bias to produce largely meaningless results.

 

[Chase Stuart]

What do the numbers in the first column mean?

The numbers is the ranking for Passing offense and Rushing offense.

Denver ranked 8th in rushing offense. There's a 17 next to them. I'm confused.

 

[GQ1NYC]

What do the numbers in the first column mean?

The numbers is the ranking for Passing offense and Rushing offense.

Denver ranked 8th in rushing offense. There's a 17 next to them. I'm confused.

They ranked 17 in Rushing offense according to the stats on NFL.com

 

[AB in DC]

RB SOS '06 Bottom 5

1 SD (LT/Turner)

32 Oak (Jordan/Fargus)

15 KC (LJ/Bennett)

17 Den (T.Bell/M.Bell)

10 StL (Jackson/Davis)

The team with the hardest run SOS finished 1st in the league but having the best RB didn't effect LT from going 1st in most drafts.

Well, of course LT would go first - even if everyone knew he'd have a tough schedule. What were you expecting? You're not making any sense here.

 

[AB in DC]

What do the numbers in the first column mean?

The numbers is the ranking for Passing offense and Rushing offense.

Denver ranked 8th in rushing offense. There's a 17 next to them. I'm confused.

They ranked 17 in Rushing offense according to the stats on NFL.com

Do you mean these NFL.com stats?