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.

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).

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.

:: comments to mike davis