Strength of schedule so far

[Fencer]

If I did the arithmetic correctly, the aggregate record of the Pats' opponents (double-counting Buffalo) is 34-50, or 32-43 omitting their games vs. the Pats.

Looking at things another way, the Pats:

• Beat New Orleans
• Lost to Cincy
• Split with the Jets
• Beat Miami
• Are 4-0 vs. teams having Very Bad Seasons

I.e., all the cliches about "We have to keep improving if we are going to win it all" are absolutely correct.

 

[Ivan]

It's really more about how teams have been playing when they play a team than overall strength of schedule. Cincinnatti can play like a play-off team one week and suck the next, same for the Patriots, same for the Jets (much as I hate to say it), same for N.O. etc....... etc.......This has been the most up and down season I can remember and any team really can beat any team any week. That said the Patriots have 2 really tough tests coming the next two weeks and I will be happy with a split. 8-3 with 5 to go would be a good situation for a team that always dominates in December.

 

[Sivy]

I think they will at least hold on to their current number 2 seed. Probably get 1, but will have a bye regardless.

 

[Ring 6]

If I did the arithmetic correctly, the aggregate record of the Pats' opponents (double-counting Buffalo) is 34-50, or 32-43 omitting their games vs. the Pats.

Looking at things another way, the Pats:

• Beat New Orleans
• Lost to Cincy
• Split with the Jets
• Beat Miami
• Are 4-0 vs. teams having Very Bad Seasons

I.e., all the cliches about "We have to keep improving if we are going to win it all" are absolutely correct.

Is there a team that doesn't fit that statement?
Of course you could say the Chiefs but looking at the closeness of wins and quality of opponents, they must improve a great deal to get through the playoffs.

 

[JMC00]

It's like this pretty much for every team in the playoff hunt.

Denver has 0 wins against winning teams and the only winning team they played they lost.

The flavor of the week Carolina just got their 1st victory over a winning team. Only Atlanta and Oakland have a lower Strength of Victory percentage right now. The teams combined record they beat are 18-37 and that's with SF's 6 wins.

 

[jmt57]

It's like this pretty much for every team in the playoff hunt.

Denver has 0 wins against winning teams and the only winning team they played they lost.

The flavor of the week Carolina just got their 1st victory over a winning team. Only Atlanta and Oakland have a lower Strength of Victory percentage right now. The teams combined record they beat are 18-37 and that's with SF's 6 wins.

The funny thing about that statistic is that the Associated Press ran an article a couple of days ago that appeared in both the Herald and the Globe in which the writer stated the following:

The New England Patriots rolled into the bye week after their best offensive game of the season.

Impressive, yes, but consider the opposition.

In fact, consider the opposition all season — hardly the toughest in the NFL.

The 55-31 win over the Pittsburgh Steelers last Sunday was just the latest on a soft schedule for New England. The Patriots (7-2) have played only two games against teams that had winning records going into their matchups.

Even the bye works in their favor. The Patriots can get a head start on their next two opponents, the only ones left with winning records, the Carolina Panthers (5-3) and Denver Broncos (7-1). The rest of the schedule — Houston, Cleveland, Miami, Baltimore and Buffalo — figures to provide the Patriots some momentum heading into the playoffs.​

He also went on to write that the "Patriots lead the typically weak AFC East by two games".


First off, you know the writer had to be really reaching to not use strength of schedule or even number of teams with a current winning record as his stat, but the record of teams at the time they played as the centerpiece of his evidence.

The tone clearly implies that two games against teams that fit into that category is much less than that of any other quality team, but even without bothering to look it up I am confident that it is comparable to many, and more than that of certain other teams (I'm looking at you AFC West teams).

Second, the 'weak AFC East' is a myth. Since the NFL went to the 8-division format the AFCE has one of the best collective records in the NFL; in the short term, this year there are five divisions with worse records, and only two that are better (AFCW and NFCW).


The first time I saw it in the Herald no name was listed; the second time I saw the article, in the Globe, I saw it was written by Howard Ulman.

I can't place it, but if I recall correctly he has had some rather negative things to say about the Patriots in the past. Perhaps a guy that keeps writing that the Pats filmed practices, or something like that?


Regardless, that was some really sloppy research, and poor usage of statistics to support a slanted opinion.

 

[sb1]

I didn't think this schedule was soft at all going into the season.

And division games always have to be respected no matter how weak the Fish/Bills/Jets might look on paper.

 

[BradyFTW!]

If I did the arithmetic correctly, the aggregate record of the Pats' opponents (double-counting Buffalo) is 34-50, or 32-43 omitting their games vs. the Pats.

Looking at things another way, the Pats:

• Beat New Orleans
• Lost to Cincy
• Split with the Jets
• Beat Miami
• Are 4-0 vs. teams having Very Bad Seasons

I.e., all the cliches about "We have to keep improving if we are going to win it all" are absolutely correct.

I think you'll find that that's true of almost every good team. If you consistently beat bad teams and then win more often than not against good teams, you're in pretty good shape.

Besides, NFL teams don't stay the same over the course of a season, and in many cases who you were and how you played in week 1 has little to nothing to do with who you are and how you play in January. That's why I don't put a ton of stock in strength of schedule.

At the very least any evaluation of the first 7 games of the season should come with a giant asterisk that reminds you that Gronk wasn't playing. Just like it should be noted that in the wins over the Falcons and Saints, Julio Jones and Jimmy Graham were 100%. That makes those wins a whole lot more impressive than they would be if you beat them now.

 

[ausbacker]

I'm hopeful the Patriots beat 3 good teams in January and February. That's all that particularly matters to me.

 

[crypto]

strength-of-schedule tears are the dumbest

 

[Fencer]

I'm hopeful the Patriots beat 3 good teams in January and February. That's all that particularly matters to me.

Indeed. Or 4 if necessary.

Has anybody except Indy beat 3 good teams so far the whole season?

 

[BradyManny]

I like how everyone kills on us for an easy schedule, yet the Broncos, who have damn near lost to every +.500 team they've played in the last two seasons (which is only a couple) are the greatest show on turf.

 

[Kontradiction]

I like how everyone kills on us for an easy schedule, yet the Broncos, who have damn near lost to every +.500 team they've played in the last two seasons (which is only a couple) are the greatest show on turf.

Thing is, New England's schedule really isn't "easy", per se. Some of the bad teams they've played this season, like Atlanta, are actually good teams having down years but are/were talented enough to be dangerous. Compared to Denver, the Pats schedule is a murderer's row.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

for what it is worth,

Sagarin computer rankings say

worst schedule so far = Chiefs
2nd worst schedule so far = Broncos
3rd worst schedule so far = Patriots

USA Today | Sports | NFL

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

In 2011 the pats had the easiest schedule in the reg season and people said "oh they won'[t go far...look who they played!"

Then they made it to the SB.... What matters is when you catch fire. Early in year..or late

 

[sb1]

In 2011 the pats had the easiest schedule in the reg season and people said "oh they won'[t go far...look who they played!"

Then they made it to the SB.... What matters is when you catch fire. Early in year..or late

In the case of the 2011 Pats if by "catching fire" you mean a benefitting from a tremendous amount of luck then yes.

 

[SB39]

for what it is worth,

Sagarin computer rankings say

worst schedule so far = Chiefs
2nd worst schedule so far = Broncos
3rd worst schedule so far = Patriots

USA Today | Sports | NFL

The problem with that formula - and the whole concept of strength of schedule - is that the top teams are a combined 40-6. So yeah, they are going to have what looks like weak strength of schedules because right there their opponents are 6-40. It's not a perfect correlation but in general, as you go down the list, the SOS gets gradually tougher.

 

[BlueThunder]

You play the schedule that's handed to you.

Nobody knows which "tough" teams are going to have a down year due to injury,coaching, new player integration, etc.

Same can be said of the teams considered "easy" wins on schedule jelling and getting some breaks to suddenly become a tough game.

You are what your record says you are.

 

[sb1]

The Patriots are perennially a good team and unlike other teams they don't get to play against the Patriots so they'll always take a big hit in rankings like these.

 

[sb1]

The 99 Rams lost to the only team that they played in the regular season that finished with a winning record.

Then they beat them in the Super Bowl.