Comparing Strength of Schedule from Start of the Year to Now

by metal_militia on Dec 29, 2008 5:42 PM EST Comment 12 comments

I constantly visit message board site and found this little tidbit. At the start of the season the Colts were believed to have had the second hardest schedule in the league. after doing the math this is how the final SOS for the regular season turned out to be.

Team Winning Percentage Opp. Total Wins Opp. Total Losses
Steelers .598 153 103
Colts .594 152 104
Jaguars .559 143 113
Vikings .551 141 115
Ravens .551 141 115
Titans .551 141 115
Bengals .547 140 116
Texans .547 140 116
Browns .547 140 116
Lions .543 139 117
Bears .531 136 120
Packers .531 136 120
Redskins .523 134 122
Cowboys .523 134 122
Eagles .520 133 123
Giants .520 133 123
Rams .488 125 131
49ers .484 124 132
Seahawks .477 122 134
Buccaneers .469 120 136
Falcons .469 120 136
Cardinals .465 119 137
Dolphins . 465 119 137
Panthers .465 119 137
Jets .457 117 139
Chiefs .453 116 140
Bills .449 115 141
Saints .449 115 141
Broncos .445 114 142
Raiders .438 112 144
Chargers .422 108 148
Patriots .387 99 157

(yeah I dont know how to make a chart out of this but its the best I can do. If anyone can edit to make a chart, im all for it)

As you can see, when comparing the SOS to the start of the year, it came out pretty accurate. The Colts did indeed have the 2nd toughest schedule in the league and came out 12-4. Pretty good for a team that has been decimated by injuries eh?

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors.

0 recs | Comment 12 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Most interesting to me

was that the Patriots ended up dead last in that list

by LovinBlue on Dec 29, 2008 5:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Feel good story

Chargers had the second easiest schedule….and finished 8-8.

by hoosierdore on Dec 29, 2008 6:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Which strengthens my argument

that the reason the Chargers have looked good lately is because they have played crappy teams lately.

I’ll buy that.

"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007

by peytonsthebest on Dec 29, 2008 6:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ESPN

analysts were talking about all the points the Chargers were putting in their games this past month. Duh, they played crappy teams! The Colts destroyed the Bengals and Ravens(who have the 2nd best Defense in the league), and when the Colts and Browns play; it’s always a low scoring game. Also, after reading MMQ today, I’ve voided the first half of the season after reading how hurt Peyton was.

by KMR24 on Dec 29, 2008 6:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Only matters

when the Colts play “poor” opponents. Washington when they were considered a playoff team beats them 14 to 11. The darling Steelers beat them the first time in September 10-6. The Browns stomped the Giants. And New England only beats Buffalo 13-0 in similar conditions. They weren’t as extreme but it was freezing rain and 40-50 mph winds and sub 30 degrees. And the Vikings beat Detroit by a COMBINED score of 6. Doesn’t matter that Dungy figured we could be them while resting starters and at no point did we have to come from behind like Tampa or Minnesota among others.

And Cincinatti ties Philly and puts up a good fight in other games, but disregard that we completely stomped them and had the largest margin of victory for the entire year. And imagine if we had lost to Houston? coTitansugh Yeah, you hear about that for about 2 days but if it was the Colts they’d still be talking about it. Just like they still talk about how we had to come back to beat them.

I had a writeup in this thread earlier but apparently the post didn’t work. If I remember and feel like writing it up again later I will. It basically said that the divisions with insane turnarounds benefitted from playing western conferences and they won’t be nearly as good next year.

by monstersbox on Dec 29, 2008 6:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You got that right!

2nd easiest schedule, yet only manages to be 8-8. Merriman plays a very important part for the Bolts just like Bob does for the Colts, but if Rivers was a great of leader as Peyton, then they would’ve least had a double-digit win season.

by KMR24 on Dec 29, 2008 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

wow

Yes, what an AMAZING CHART…since it is complete bullshit.

Explain how the Pats can be dead last and that far below the Dolphins when they had the same record (which means it cancels out their head to head record), played 14 of the same games and in the only 2 different games the opponents record for the pats was 24-8 (pitts and indy) while for the pats it was 19-13 (ravens, texans)

Please, explain how the Fins could have the harder schedule knowing that. the numbers say the pats had the harder schedule

If that isn’t enough, please explain how indy could have the 2nd toughest schedule when they played:

0-16 Lions
6-10 packers
5-11 jags
4-12 browns
4-11-1 bengals
8-8 chargers
8-8 texans

which is 35-76-1 or barely above 31% winning.

Explain how those records can come to an almost 60% win record since the other teams they played that had winning records can’t overcome those ones since they’d have to basically make up the difference thus all be over 85% winning and they werent close to that .

All it takes is 6 seconds to see this chart and know it is way off but hey, too hard for some to do I guess.

Then again, many people do not even know how the schedule in the nfl works and think some evil genius sits behind a computer picking matchups out of a hat so I shouldn’t expect much…

by loregnum on Dec 29, 2008 11:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

meant 19-13 for the fins of course.

all i know is it is amazing the stuff people can post to try and back up their view like the chart above which is clearly done to try and slam the pats/chargers and praise indy.

I COULD take the time and give a real chart but it is not worth my time..

by loregnum on Dec 29, 2008 11:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well let me help you then

Since you decided to run your mouth like a complete idiot and not actually check what you’re saying after saying someone did the exact same thing let me point you in the right direction…

http://www.theredzone.org/strength.asp

Wow. www.yahoo.com or www.google.com and put in 2008 nfl strength of schedule. I guess I’m just half man half amazing.

Or if you think those guys just slapped it together to make the Pats look bad as you say, here’s another.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10236651

Would you like me to keep looking? I mean I don’t mind spending 5 seconds to open up a window and type something into a search engine.

by monstersbox on Dec 30, 2008 12:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

1. Cleveland Browns 4-12 .572
2. Detroit Lions 0-16 .559
3. Cincinnati Bengals 4-11-1 .553
4. Kansas City Chiefs 2-14 .537
5. Jacksonville Jaguars 5-11 .537
6. St. Louis Rams 2-14 .533
7. Pittsburgh Steelers 12-4 .525
8. Baltimore Ravens 11-5 .521
9. Oakland Raiders 5-11 .520
10. Houston Texans 8-8 .518
11. San Diego Chargers 8-8 .516
12. Philadelphia Eagles 9-6-1 .514
13. Green Bay Packers 6-10 .504
14. Minnesota Vikings 10-6 .504
15. New York Giants 12-4 .502
16. Indianapolis Colts 12-4 .498
17. Seattle Seahawks 4-12 .498
18. Dallas Cowboys 9-7 .498
19. New Orleans Saints 8-8 .496
20. Carolina Panthers 12-4 .488
21. Arizona Cardinals 9-7 .486
22. Tampa Bay Buccaneers 9-7 .480
23. New England Patriots 11-5 .480
24. Washington Redskins 8-8 .479
25. Chicago Bears 9-7 .475
26. New York Jets 9-7 .471
27. Miami Dolphins 11-5 .461
28. Atlanta Falcons 11-5 .459
29. Tennessee Titans 13-3 .459
30. Denver Broncos 8-8 .457
31. Buffalo Bills 7-9 .453
32. San Francisco 49ers 7-9 .447