8/22/03
As most fantasy football participants (and NFL fans in general)
are aware, the NFL does an admirable job of maintaining parity among
the teams in the league, partly by awarding "soft" schedules
to teams that are struggling. However, between free agency (which
allows franchises to shoot from worst to first-or vice versa-in
a single season) and the league's 8-division structure (which results
in 14 out of 16 match-ups being identical for all the teams in any
division), soft schedules are no longer as easy to come by as they
used to be.
Based on our projections (which have taken personnel changes into
account), it is clear to us here at FantasyFootballExperts.com that
several of last year's least successful teams have ended up with
much more challenging schedules in 2003 than many playoff teams.
For instance, we rank the Cowboys (who finished 2002 at 5-11) as
having the 8th-hardest schedule in 2003, whereas the AFC Champion
Raiders (who finished the regular season with the inverse record
of 11-5) will have this year's 6th-easiest schedule.
Because so many defenses were shaken up around the league during
the offseason, only four defenses are generally considered close
to being "sure things" in 2003: the Buccaneers, Dolphins,
Eagles, and Panthers. Because Dallas plays Philadelphia twice and
each of the other teams once, the beleaguered Cowboy offense is
in the untenable position of having to play five of the top four
defenses in the league-not to mention such up-and-coming units as
Buffalo and the New York Jets. The Raiders, on the other hand, will
not face a single one of the top four defenses in the NFL; instead,
Oakland returns from a trip to the Super Bowl to face four of the
league's worst five defenses (Minnesota, Cleveland, Cincinnati,
and Detroit) in addition to two games each against the underachieving
Chargers and Broncos. We probably do not have to persuade you that
Charlie Garner is a more talented running back than Troy Hambrick,
but our data indicate that conditions are right for Garner to outperform
himself and for Hambrick to come up shy of even modest expectations.
As I hope the examples of Dallas and Oakland make clear, it is
extremely important to consider strength of schedule when it comes
to projecting player performances over the year, and we have made
such projections in nine categories: 1) total yardage, 2) total
points, 3) rushing yards, 4) rushing points, 5) passing yards, 6)
passing points, 7) kicking points, 8) sacks, and 9) turnovers. As
I explained in last season's article concerning strength of schedule,
these projections have already been factored into our player rankings.
We currently rank Garner 13th partly because of his soft schedule,
so if you move him even higher because of Oakland's schedule, you
will be factoring the same information into the equation twice.
The full version of this article is far too long to post here, but
it is available at our website (www.fantasyfootballexperts.com);
this abbreviated version deals only with the first four categories.
For the following tables, we have focused not on what offenses
are expected to do, but on what the defenses around the league have
done in the past and are capable of doing in 2003. Of course, we
do not assume that the team with the most favorable schedule will
be the one to win the most games. To return to the example of Garner
and Hambrick, we would not expect a simple swapping of the two teams'
schedules to result in the Cowboy outperforming the Raider. But
these tables do give us valuable insight when it comes to those
players who could easily go either way. Is Detroit's James Stewart
poised to have a better-than-average or a worse-than-average year?
Will poor David Carr (of the Texans) have to face teams that are
particularly effective at registering sacks? If these questions
interest you, you will want to review these projections.
Total Yardage Yielded By Opponnents |
RANK |
TEAM |
TYYO |
1 |
St. Louis |
5728.5 |
2 |
Seattle |
5707.3 |
3 |
Chicago |
5705.7 |
4 |
Green Bay |
5674.6 |
5 |
Denver |
5673.8 |
6 |
Oakland |
5666.6 |
7 |
Minnesota |
5660.1 |
8 |
Pittsburgh |
5632 |
9 |
Cleveland |
5599.6 |
10 |
San Francisco |
5590.2 |
11 |
Baltimore |
5585 |
12 |
Arizona |
5581.7 |
13 |
Cincinnati |
5576.2 |
14 |
Detroit |
5564.3 |
15 |
Kansas City |
5555.8 |
16 |
San Deigo |
5517.6 |
17 |
Carolina |
5471.2 |
18 |
Tampa Bay |
5428.5 |
19 |
Houston |
5359.6 |
20 |
Miami |
5355.6 |
21 |
Jacksonville |
5321.1 |
22 |
Tennessee |
5310.9 |
23 |
Indianapolis |
5304.7 |
24 |
Atlanta |
5300.5 |
25 |
Dallas |
5287.9 |
26 |
Buffalo |
5287.7 |
27 |
New Orleans |
5256.7 |
28 |
Washington |
5235.4 |
29 |
NY Giants |
5216 |
30 |
Philadelphia |
5211.8 |
31 |
New England |
5201.2 |
32 |
NY Jets |
5169.8 |
|
One point that this chart makes dramatically plain is that the most
challenging schedules have gone overwhelmingly to the teams of the
NFC East, with all four teams from that division ranked in the bottom
ten. Three of the four teams of the AFC East also made their way into
the bottom ten (with Miami being the lone exception because, of course,
Miami does not have to play Miami).
At the other end of the spectrum, we see that in the NFC West,
only Arizona failed to make the top ten (though the Cardinals did
rank a promising 12th). Although it is true that there are no stellar
defenses in the NFC West, the high rankings for these teams have
more to do with extra-divisional opponents, as the NFC West is matched
up this year against both the NFC North (with three of the bottom
ten defenses in the league: the Vikings, Lions, and Bears) and the
AFC North (with two of the bottom ten defenses in the league: the
Bengals and Browns). Weak defenses in the AFC and NFC North and
mediocre-to-poor competition within the NFC West give St. Louis,
Seattle, and San Francisco very bright prospects indeed.
Those of you in scoring-only leagues will want to consult the following
chart (which has to do with points-rather than yardage-yielded by
opponents), but the results are extremely similar to those obtained
in the yardage chart (and for almost identical reasons).
TOTAL POINTS YIELDED BY OPPONNENTS : |
RANK |
TEAM |
TPYO |
1 |
Seattle |
387.3 |
2 |
St. Louis |
380.4 |
3 |
Chicago |
373 |
4 |
Pittsburgh |
369.3 |
5 |
Arizona |
366.8 |
6 |
Cleveland |
365.8 |
7 |
San Francisco |
365.2 |
8 |
Green Bay |
364.5 |
9 |
Oakland |
363.2 |
10 |
Denver |
362.5 |
11 |
Baltimore |
362.4 |
12 |
Minnesota |
360.7 |
13 |
Detroit |
358.5 |
14 |
Cincinnati |
356.2 |
15 |
Kansas City |
356.1 |
16 |
San Deigo |
350.7 |
17 |
Carolina |
336.4 |
18 |
Tampa Bay |
333 |
19 |
Miami |
326.9 |
20 |
Houston |
325.5 |
21 |
Atlanta |
323.1 |
22 |
Buffalo |
322.7 |
23 |
Jacksonville |
320.5 |
24 |
Indianapolis |
320.3 |
25 |
Dallas |
318.2 |
26 |
Philadelphia |
317.2 |
27 |
Tennessee |
316.3 |
28 |
NY Giants |
315.7 |
29 |
New Orleans |
315 |
30 |
New England |
311.9 |
31 |
NY Jets |
311.7 |
32 |
Washington |
304.6 |
|
Perhaps the most important difference between yardage and points concerns
the Cardinals, who vault from 12th-most-desirable-schedule in yardage
to 5th-most-desirable-schedule in points, giving the skill players
of the NFC West (whose teams are ranked 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 7th) the
most favorable schedules this season, hands down. Unfortunately, shifting
the focus from yardage to points does nothing to improve the prospects
for skill players in the NFC East, whose teams still rank in the bottom
ten in terms of facing the most difficult defensive squads in the
league. The Running Game
For many reasons, 2003 does not appear to be the year of the running
back. Chicago's Anthony Thomas suffered a sophomore slump last season;
the years have taken their toll on the Jets' Curtis Martin, the Bengals'
Corey Dillon, and the Titans' Eddie George; the perennial Emmitt Smith
is now behind an unfamiliar o-line in Arizona; Duce Staley's training
camp holdout has the Philadelphia front office considering a one-two
punch of Correll Buckhalter and Brian Westbrook; "Fragile" Fred Taylor
is nursing a bone bruise; Marshall Faulk and Ahman Green both fell
back to earth in 2002; Edgerrin James has yet to prove that he is
back to 100%; Cleveland's William Green still needs to convince most
of us that he can start this year the way finished last year; etc.,
etc. With tested, durable running backs in short supply, it is imperative
to weigh strength of schedule along with such factors as injury-risk
and surrounding cast. To that end, please consult the following two
tables (the first concerning yardage and the second concerning points).
RUSHING
YARDAGE
YIELDED BY OPPONNENTS : |
|
RUSHING
POINTS
YIELDED BY OPPONNENTS : |
Rank |
Team |
RYYO |
|
Rank |
Team |
RPYO |
1 |
St. Louis |
1937.1 |
|
1 |
Seattle |
92.8 |
2 |
Minnesota |
1922.9 |
|
2 |
Cleveland |
92.3 |
3 |
Seattle |
1914.4 |
|
3 |
Pittsburgh |
90.6 |
4 |
Chicago |
1904 |
|
4 |
St. Louis |
90.4 |
5 |
Denver |
1886.3 |
|
5 |
Chicago |
90.1 |
6 |
Pittsburgh |
1885.1 |
|
6 |
Cincinnati |
89.6 |
7 |
San Francisco |
1883.3 |
|
7 |
Oakland |
89.3 |
8 |
Detroit |
1873 |
|
8 |
Denver |
89.2 |
9 |
Green Bay |
1869.9 |
|
9 |
Minnesota |
88.7 |
10 |
Arizona |
1854.2 |
|
10 |
Baltimore |
88.1 |
11 |
Carolina |
1853.6 |
|
11 |
Kansas City |
87.5 |
12 |
Oakland |
1850.9 |
|
12 |
Arizona |
87.1 |
13 |
Tampa Bay |
1843.5 |
|
13 |
San Deigo |
86.6 |
14 |
Cleveland |
1841.1 |
|
14 |
San Francisco |
85.7 |
15 |
Baltimore |
1840.5 |
|
15 |
Green Bay |
85.4 |
16 |
Cincinnati |
1836.6 |
|
16 |
Detroit |
84.8 |
17 |
Miami |
1836.1 |
|
17 |
Miami |
80.9 |
18 |
San Deigo |
1832.7 |
|
18 |
Tampa Bay |
80.3 |
19 |
Buffalo |
1821.6 |
|
19 |
Houston |
80.2 |
20 |
Kansas City |
1820.2 |
|
20 |
Carolina |
80.1 |
21 |
Houston |
1815.9 |
|
21 |
Tennessee |
79 |
22 |
Tennessee |
1806.4 |
|
22 |
Jacksonville |
78.1 |
23 |
Indianapolis |
1802.5 |
|
23 |
Indianapolis |
77.7 |
24 |
Jacksonville |
1785 |
|
24 |
Buffalo |
76.4 |
25 |
Dallas |
1784.5 |
|
25 |
Atlanta |
75.2 |
26 |
New Orleans |
1774.4 |
|
26 |
NY Jets |
74.8 |
27 |
Washington |
1772.5 |
|
27 |
Philadelphia |
74.5 |
28 |
Philadelphia |
1768.6 |
|
28 |
New England |
74.5 |
29 |
New England |
1764.4 |
|
29 |
Dallas |
73.9 |
30 |
NY Giants |
1754.4 |
|
30 |
New Orleans |
72.1 |
31 |
NY Jets |
1751.9 |
|
31 |
NY Giants |
71.6 |
32 |
Atlanta |
1750.9 |
|
32 |
Washington |
70.9 |
|
According to these charts, the Browns face a much more favorable
schedule for rushing scores (2nd) than for rushing yardage (14th).
Whether William Green will take advantage of opposing defenses who
yield points on the ground or not remains to be seen, but if the
sophomore back fails to deliver on points, the explanation will
have to be Butch Davis' offense or Green's own lack of talent-not
the quality of his opposition. On the other hand, if Green is limited
to mediocre in terms of yardage, then he could very easily point
to the opposing defenses and say that they are the kind of defenses
that only allow mediocre success.
Backs whose schedules set them up for success in both categories
(yardage and scoring) are Marshall Faulk, Shaun Alexander, and Clinton
Portis. Faulk and Alexander should do particularly well, as the
Rams and Seahawks face only one defense (Pittsburgh) likely to hold
opponents to less than 100 yards. Between Michael Bennett's injury
in Minnesota and rumors of the Chicago Bears' interest in acquiring
Duce Staley, it is difficult to say who will emerge as the most
consistent ball carrier for the Vikings and Bears, but what is certain
is that both teams face very favorable schedules in terms of rushing
games. If Duce Staley were to be traded to Chicago, then he would
go from facing the fifth-hardest schedule in the league (in terms
of rushing yardage) to the fourth-easiest. This difference would
presumably go a long way toward mitigating the fall-off that we
might expect in his receiving game.
Other points worth considering: 1) Buffalo's Travis Henry should
have an easier time taking advantage of opponents in terms of yardage
than in terms of scores; 2) Curtis Martin does not face a favorable
schedule for a comeback year; and 3) Tiki Barber's productivity
is almost certain to fall off because of personnel changes in the
Giants' o-line-and even more certain to falter because of his schedule.
|