Guess who has the easiest schedule again???

[1960Pats]

Not our fault the other teams are not on the same level.

Technically speaking it's Brady and Belichick's fault.

 

[1960Pats]

Trying to guess who has the easiest schedule before the season starts is a clear exercise in futility. This time last year everyone thought the Panthers would be tough and the Raiders easy, and that happens every year. There's way too much year-to-year variance to even pretend you can make these calls during the offseason.

Although true that it happens, the variances are not really that great. The same teams make the playoffs most of the time with only a few exceptions.

 

[neuronet]

Although true that it happens, the variances are not really that great. The same teams make the playoffs most of the time with only a few exceptions.

I'm sure someone has done the stats properly. It is predictive but noisy is my guess.

 

[1960Pats]

Too much changes year to year, useless to talk SOS now.

There aren't that many surprises really.

Discounting injuries it's usually Pats, Steelers, Ravens, Denver, KC, Houston/Indy in the AFC and Dallas, NY, Green Bay, Carolina, Atlanta, Seattle in the NFC, with a few exceptions thrown in over the years, like Oakland and Miami last year.

 

[PatsBoy12]

So no other team has an *easy* schedule in a given season? I'm to believe that 17 seasons of dominance can be reduced to a schedule? Isn't everyone playing NE as if it's their SB every year anyway? Is the AFCE the only bad division?

Look at @TheBostonStraggler and what he posted. That tells me a lot about parity in the league. It can exist, but the Patriots won't allow it. And that's why the league hates NE. Their defiance is systematic. Their coach doesn't give a ****. Their organization doesn't give a ****. They use the rules and the rule book to their absolute advantage. All they care about is winning. Everything else is to a large degree irrelevant.

 

[Kontradiction]

The NFC South may not be as much a push over as the experts would make it seem in 2017. The Falcons are a season removed from a Super Bowl appearance and have a very good squad, the Panthers could rebound and are two seasons removed from a Super Bowl appearance, the Saints have a potent offense, and the Bucs arrow seems to be pointing upward.

 

[IllegalContact]

the league is 50% doormats

now go get optimus prime and beast mode and make em all puke

 

[Raymond]

The worlds top physicist and cosmologist have hard research pointing to the possibilities of numerous "bubble universes" where New England may be able to search for an actual universe where the other NFL teams are competition worthy. It could also be a boon to their players as the Caps may also be significantly higher.

Researchers strongly caution however that the chances a universe can be found, where the Jets are any better than now is probably quite remote.

 

[Sfpat]

It's funny how when the Niners ran their dynasty (and had the easiest schedule), nobody complained. Hmm..

There were grumblings back then about the niners playing in the "easy" NFC west

 

[JJR4884]

Of course they do. Literally every team in the league other than NE, with no exceptions whatsoever, absolutely sucks. They're all college level trash.

This is actually spot on.... i mean, there are several well established teams, but the gradual decline in crappy teams is getting significantly worse.

10 years ago you had about half the league that really had a true shot at the playoffs and going all the way. Now, forget it. You have 4 or 5 teams in the entire league that you know are SB caliber, and the rest of the division leaders are garbage as well as the wild cards.

It is very very simple now to have an "easy" schedule when 24 out of 32 teams are legit terrible.

 

[BobDigital]

There is just no pleasing some people. I was going to write more after that but i think that sums it up nicely.

 

[AHoodieWorshipperInParis]

There has to be something, they might have been blessed by St Patrick the day they picked TFB or something, because the way the schedules are designed by the NFL makes few room for unfairness or consistent luck : we have to face other AFC divisions every three years, NFC ones every four years + the previous season's afc division winners each and every year + our own "only-look-bad-because-they-are-in-the-pats-division" division rivals, and still St Patrick (the GOAT Saint obviously) is making his unparalleled blessing work year after year after year, managing to weaken all our upcoming opponents specifically the year they play against the Blessed New England Patriots. This miracle happens the holy friday preceding the "strenght of schedules" calculation's day.
#YouGotToBelieve

 

[doesntmatter1]

I've noticed a long time ago that your schedule is crap if it doesn't include the NFC east. There have been many years where we have played other top qbs and at the end of the season we still have our usual 10+ wins and their is still an excuse. And when we do play the NFC east, they have to be relatively healthy for it to count.

 

[XLIX]

I made the mistake of reading the article, the writer uses a made-up statistic called DVOA (or something stupid like that) to decide that the Patriots have the easiest schedule.

Your post here got me to actually click on the link to read the article and I found it was even more idiotic than I originally thought.

First of all, they are projecting how teams are going to do this season, and they are just casually assuming that Miami, Buffalo, NYJ, Denver, Atlanta and KC will all be worse.

Second of all - and I swear I am not making this up - the guy who worked on the projections said: "our projections see a big difference between playing NFC West/East (really good divisions except San Francisco) or NFC North/South (not as good divisions),"

So the division with a 4-12 team AND a 2-14 team, and only 1 team went .500 (the Seahawks were 10-5-1) is a "really good division."

The NFC West went 23-39-2 and is a "really good division".
The NFC South (which we play) went 33-31 last year and is "not as good".

 

[jmt57]

Back to the myth of the Patriots benefiting from playing in the AFC East for a moment.

The crux of that argument has to do with the three other teams - ie, the 2nd place, 3rd place and 4th place teams in the division. Let's compare those three clubs versus the bottom three of all divisions in the NFL last year.

Cumulative wins of 2nd, 3rd and 4th place teams

• 26 --- NFC East
• 26 --- AFC West
• 22 --- AFC East
• 22 --- NFC South
• 20 --- AFC South
• 20 --- NFC North
• 15 --- AFC North
• 13 --- NFC West

Time to bury that old untrue narrative.

 

[FourierSeries]

This is actually spot on.... i mean, there are several well established teams, but the gradual decline in crappy teams is getting significantly worse.

10 years ago you had about half the league that really had a true shot at the playoffs and going all the way. Now, forget it. You have 4 or 5 teams in the entire league that you know are SB caliber, and the rest of the division leaders are garbage as well as the wild cards.

It is very very simple now to have an "easy" schedule when 24 out of 32 teams are legit terrible.

These supposed "well established teams" aren't anything special, either. Seattle is no longer any kind of threat to win anything significant, Denver was atrocious last year and actually much worse than their 9-7 record indicated, GB never has a defense, Pittsburgh's zone defense will never get them past NE and Big Ben is declining, Las Vegas was a fraudulent team last season with a good offense but a college level defense, KC will never win an important game as long as Andy Reid and Alex Smith are on that team. Carolina and Atlanta will have to show me some consistent success if they're to be taken seriously.

Barring injuries, NE will blow out the vast majority of teams they play, both in the regular season and in the playoffs.

 

[TB_Helmet]

Back to the myth of the Patriots benefiting from playing in the AFC East for a moment.

The crux of that argument has to do with the three other teams - ie, the 2nd place, 3rd place and 4th place teams in the division. Let's compare those three clubs versus the bottom three of all divisions in the NFL last year.

Cumulative wins of 2nd, 3rd and 4th place teams

• 26 --- NFC East
• 26 --- AFC West
• 22 --- AFC East
• 22 --- NFC South
• 20 --- AFC South
• 20 --- NFC North
• 15 --- AFC North
• 13 --- NFC West

Time to bury that old untrue narrative.

I would actually like to see this analysis over the past 15 years. Not asking you to do it yourself, but it would definitely put the myth to rest, as you say.

Also -- does this include playing within the division? If so, it actually makes the AFC East look better given that only 1 of those wins came against the Pats.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Although true that it happens, the variances are not really that great. The same teams make the playoffs most of the time with only a few exceptions.

There's definitely some truth to that in the AFC, but overall it's not really true and even within the AFC I'd say it's overstating things. Look at last year:

AFCE: Patriots, AFCW: Chiefs, AFCN: Steelers, AFCS: Texans, AFC Wildcards: Raiders, Dolphins
NFCE: Cowboys, NFCW: Seahawks, NFCN: Packers NFCS: Falcons, NFC Wildcards: Giants, Lions

and compare it to 2015:

AFCE: Patriots, AFCW: Broncos, AFCN: Bengals, AFCS: Texans, AFC Wildcards: Chiefs, Steelers
NFCE: Redskins, NFCW: Cardinals, NFCN: Vikings, NFCS: Panthers, NFC Wildcards: Seahawks, Packers

To summarize, only 2 of the 8 divisions had the 2015 winners repeat in 2016. And one of those was the Texans, who I don't think are anyone's idea of a stalwart at the top of the league. They're just doing what we're accused of: riding a godawful division to an easy playoff berth. 6 of 12 playoff teams from 2015 returned to the playoffs in 2016, thanks to wildcards. I wouldn't call a 50% turnover rate the same teams making the playoffs with few exceptions.

There is something like a permanent playoff class in the NFL, but it's basically just the Patriots, Steelers, Packers and Seahawks, and of those the Patriots are the only one that's basically a lock to win their division. The other three have had to get in as a wild card just in the last two years.

 

[JJR4884]

These supposed "well established teams" aren't anything special, either. Seattle is no longer any kind of threat to win anything significant, Denver was atrocious last year and actually much worse than their 9-7 record indicated, GB never has a defense, Pittsburgh's zone defense will never get them past NE and Big Ben is declining, Las Vegas was a fraudulent team last season with a good offense but a college level defense, KC will never win an important game as long as Andy Reid and Alex Smith are on that team. Carolina and Atlanta will have to show me some consistent success if they're to be taken seriously.

Barring injuries, NE will blow out the vast majority of teams they play, both in the regular season and in the playoffs.

I wouldn't necessarily go off of just one season. Lets give teams the benefit of the doubt that they will improve just like the Patriots do.

Injuries hindered the Seahawks last year, I"m sure they will be fine this year. Lets not forget they did beat us on our own turf this past year.

Atlanta - historic offense, who knows what next season will bring.

Green Bay needs help on defense but if it wasn't for their ridiculously slow start last year I don't think their issues would be as large as they are now. They did get whipped tho in the NFCCG.

Giants, Cowboys, Chiefs, Raiders, Denver, Pitt, and Baltimore all have the staff and players to make good teams. Granted on paper (and more than likely on the field) the Patriots stand alone, but hey... any given sunday.

I just don't want to enter this season thinking we are untouchable. Reminds me of 2007 and I don't want to feel that way, regardless of our defense being better hand over fist.

 

[jmt57]

I would actually like to see this analysis over the past 15 years. Not asking you to do it yourself, but it would definitely put the myth to rest, as you say.

Also -- does this include playing within the division? If so, it actually makes the AFC East look better given that only 1 of those wins came against the Pats.

The cumulative win totals for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th place teams in the post above are for all 2016 games. I used that rather than out-of-division games simply because it was a lot easier and less time consuming to come up with those numbers.

Guess who has the easiest schedule again???

A few years back I had each division's won-loss record (total and out of division) as well as ranking on both a yearly and cumulative basis, going back to when the NFL realigned to four divisions in both conferences. The only real down year for the AFC East was 2007.

I'll see if I can find it, and if so update it - though that may be a lost cause at this point, it has been a while. If I recall correctly the AFC East and NFC East were the top two, swapping the top place depending on which year the totals were through.