2016 Strength of Schedule

[oakleaf]

Lately I have been hearing that the Packers are a shoo-in for the 2016 post-season playoffs due to Strength of Schedule. The Packers go from having one of the tougher schedules in 2015 to the easiest of all NFL teams 2016 schedules based on their 2016 opponents’ combined 2015 winning percentage of 45.7%. You would think that would be to the Packers benefit, right? Not so fast...

In 2015, the top five teams going into the season with the hardest Strength of Schedule were the Steelers, Bengals, 49ers, Seahawks, and Cardinals. Four of five made the playoffs! (FYI: Broncos had the 10th toughest schedule.) The five teams with the easiest schedule were the Saints, Buccaneers, Texans, Colts and Falcons. Only the Texans made the playoffs!

The Packers Strength of Schedule is not a good determiner of whether the Packers will make the 2016 playoffs. Especially when you also consider that two of the Packers opponents were without their star QBs (Romo and Luck) which contributed to their poor 2015 records.

 

[Mr. Mid-Life-Crisis]

Good stuff Oak.
Also noticed the Packers are currently 12-1 to win the 2017 Super Bowl with only the Panthers and Seahawks in the NFC listed as stronger favorites.

I can tell you that no team has gone to the Super Bowl and then returned back to win it the following season since the early 1970's when the Miami Dolphins did it. So this does not fair well for the Panthers.

 

[eyecatcher]

Good stuff Oak.
Also noticed the Packers are currently 12-1 to win the 2017 Super Bowl with only the Panthers and Seahawks in the NFC listed as stronger favorites.

I can tell you that no team has gone to the Super Bowl and then returned back to win it the following season since the early 1970's when the Miami Dolphins did it. So this does not fair well for the Panthers.

Denver won back to back 1997 and 1998.
NE did a few years back too. Did you mean no team has lost one year and gone back to win the next?

 

[Mr. Mid-Life-Crisis]

Denver won back to back 1997 and 1998.
NE did a few years back too. Did you mean no team has lost one year and gone back to win the next?

Sry eyecatcher, what I meant was no team LOST the Super Bowl then returned back to win it the following season since the Dolphins in the early 1970's - my bad.

There must be something about the pain of losing in that big game that lingers in to the following season. Perhaps the shock of the loss on the big stage is just too much to overcome.

 

[eyecatcher]

Sry eyecatcher, what I meant was no team LOST the Super Bowl then returned back to win it the following season since the Dolphins in the early 1970's - my bad.
There must be something about the pain of losing in that big game that lingers in to the following season. Perhaps the pain of the loss on the big stage is just too much to overcome.

There have only been a couple repeat winners since the 70's and only a handful of teams that have returned in back to back seasons. Getting to the Superbowl is tough business.

 

[Cheesedog]

Sry eyecatcher, what I meant was no team LOST the Super Bowl then returned back to win it the following season since the Dolphins in the early 1970's - my bad.

There must be something about the pain of losing in that big game that lingers in to the following season. Perhaps the shock of the loss on the big stage is just too much to overcome.

Part of it is the cap.. Just too hard to keep a SB winning team together without guys cashing in in FA after a SB victory..

 

[Mark87]

The Packers Strength of Schedule is not a good determiner of whether the Packers will make the 2016 playoffs. Especially when you also consider that two of the Packers opponents were without their star QBs (Romo and Luck) which contributed to their poor 2015 records

I agree wholeheartedly. I never liked looking at next years schedule and saying we are a shoe in for x number of wins. You can't gauge next season on last year... many people thought for sure GB would win a SB this season based on the season before. With injuries and off field issues it's almost impossible to predict how things will turn out.

Welcome Oakleaf ! Thanks for jumping in and starting a topic !

 

[57packer]

I agree that the strength of schedule guarantees nothing. That said, let's remember that the teams that are most likely to get the "easier" schedules are the last place teams in each division. They play the last place teams in the other divisions in their conference. It's therefore not surprising that many teams with easy schedules don't make the playoffs.

Then there is the crossover effect. The Packers getting the easiest schedule is a bit of a fluke. We play the AFC South and NFC East which were the 2 weakest divisions last year. You'd think that would mean the Bears would have the easiest schedule, but they have to play the 11-5 Vikings and 10-6 Packers twice in addition to those 2 weak divisions, whereas the Packers get to play the 6-10 Bears twice and the 7-9 Lions twice. The thing is, those division games are hardly gimmees (as our losses to the Bears and Lions this past season showed) so the schedule strength is a bit misleading.

Three of the 5 teams mentioned as having easy schedules had losing records the year before so were in an uphill struggle to make the playoffs anyway. The Colts were kind of an oddity in that they had some injuries and just plain had a crappy season. The 5 teams with the hardest schedules were also among the best teams in the league the year before with the exception of the 49ers. No surprise that all but the 49ers made the playoffs.

Next years schedule on paper looks easier than last year. Does that guarantee the playoffs, no. AR and a handful of other critical players being healthy guarantees the playoffs. A deep run in the playoffs will have nothing to do with schedule strength.

 

[FlaPack]

Strength of schedule is like pre season polls on College sports. For the most part useless.

 

[Mark87]