The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Which NFL Franchise was most improved this year? (it can be a year to year improvement or a more substantial change -- your choice)

Explain why.

KC Chiefs. From 4-12 last season to 10-6 this season + AFC West Champs and pretty good defense / QB play this season. That's a 6-game turnaround from last season.

They also improved upon:

Non-Conference Games: 4-0 in 2010 vs. 1-4 in 2009
Home Record: 7-1 in 2010 vs. 1-7 in 2009
Points Allowed: 326 PA in 2010 vs. 424 PA in 2009
Net Points: +40 in 2010 vs. -130 in 2009

Good answer.

I say that it's the Detroit Lions.

They aren't a great team with only 6 wins, but it's still triple what they had last year.  I think that they also have some pieces in place, with ownership, coaching, and QB that aren't on the same pathetic path that they'd been on for decades.  It's still dark, but there's some light at the end of the tunnel.

My vote would also go to the Chiefs, with a small side order of "I told ya so."

Runner-up... Tampa Bay Buccaneers

2009:  3-13 / 2010:  10-6
Bright young talent spots on offense like QB Josh Freeman, RB LaGarette Blount, WR Mike Williams and Arrelious Benn. Defensive young talent like Gerald McCoy and Aqib Talib... The future's so bright for the Buccaneers that they have to wear an eye patch.

I would also vote for the Chiefs.

You might throw in St. Louis, however in St. Louis and KC's case I wouldn't be surprised to see both of them drop down quite a few wins again next year.

Why?  Strength of schedule.  KC's and St. Louis' were both VERY easy.  KC especially should have a much tougher schedule next year.

This is actually one of the main reasons why I like the NFL much more than any other sports organization. Aside from their annual draft system of the lowest record receiving the highest pick, there is also scheduling that is fair to teams who sucked the previous year, and un-fair to excellent teams that went deep in the post-season.

The year the Dolphins went 11-5, their schedule was loaded with very easy teams to play against. Several sub-.500 teams were on their calendar. Remember, the Dolphins went 1-15 the year prior.

Same thing with the Chiefs and Bucs this season - 2 miserable teams last year at 4-12 and 3-13 respectively, who both finished at 10-6.

So, basically, the NFL system makes it difficult for one team to become the Pittsburgh Pirates or Baltimore Orioles - although, Cleveland does give it their best shot (and even they are somewhat competitive at times - at least they are getting some kind of talent and some opportunities to win games).

The whole "strength of schedule" factor should come with a warning label that reads:

"WARNING - The Surgeon General has determined that shit changes all the time, and what is considered strong today, could be weak tomorrow."

In other words, I see strength of schedule as a good "selective" factor, rather than a base modifier. Not only does it heavy-handedly apply opponent record without regard to potential (read: inevitable) change, but it doesn't even touch on the "really-real world" issue of matchup dynamics.

Wait, wait...before I get accused of blatantly using buzzwords to mask my trail, let me get all hypothetical with an explanation:

Miami has two potential opponents...
Opponent A had a record of 10-6 last season.
Opponent B had a record of 7-9.

However, despite the 3 game difference, there's a possibility that Miami would be more likely to beat Opponent A than Opponent B, depending on how the two teams match up against each other in all of the different areas of the game. Maybe Opponent A's biggest weaknesses are punt/kick coverage and defending the deep pass, and maybe Miami has Billy Badass returning kicks, and Joe Gunslinger and an arsenal of burners to exploit the deep coverage.

Strength of schedule would say "Opponent A is .188 more difficult" (in a numeric monotone)
Matchup dynamics would say "Hmmm, let's take a closer look here" (in a calm, contemplative voice)

^^ While I absolutely agree with EVERYTHING you just said, there's no denying that there IS a correlation between schedule strength and wins and losses.  It's not a DIRECT correlation, sometimes teams with easy schedules still lose a lot of games and sometimes teams with tough schedules still win a lot of games for a variety of reasons, but overall when you take everything into account in GENERAL teams with tougher schedules don't fair as well as equal teams with easier schedules.  That's is in fact why the NFL has the rules it has in place, to try to give last place teams a better chance of turning it around and being more competitive the following year.  If it meant nothing, then the rules would be a waste of time.  The NFL doesn't think it's meaningless or they wouldn't do it.

Here's a comparison of what I have for strength of schedule for this year from toughest to easiest and comparing it to the previous year.  The lower the number for strength of schedule the tougher the schedule.  A negative difference means the schedule got more difficult and a positive difference means the schedule got easier.  Also in the case of difference, a larger number either positive or negative suggests a larger change.
 
Team                    2010    2009    diff  Win/Loss
Cincinnati Bengals      12.94   16.63   -3.69    -6
Buffalo Bills           13.31   15.63   -2.31    -2
Miami Dolphins          13.56   14.31   -0.75     0
Washington Redskins     13.81   16.81   -3.00    +2
Cleveland Browns        13.94   16.56   -2.63     0
Carolina Panthers       14.13   13.88    0.25    -6
Minnesota Vikings       14.19   18.75   -4.56    -6
Houston Texans          14.94   17.06   -2.13    -3
Detroit Lions           15.19   14.56    0.63    +4
Indianapolis Colts      15.38   18.06   -2.69    -4
New England Patriots    15.44   16.19   -0.75    +4
Dallas Cowboys          15.75   17.13   -1.38    -5
New York Jets           15.94   16.81   -0.88    +2
Philadelphia Eagles     15.94   16.38   -0.44    -1
Baltimore Ravens        16.06   16.44   -0.38    +3
New York Giants         16.56   14.56    2.00    +2
Green Bay Packers       16.63   18.38   -1.75    -1
Seattle Seahawks        16.94   16.69    0.25    +2
Tennessee Titans        16.94   16.06    0.88    -2
Oakland Raiders         17.06   15.63    1.44    +3
Pittsburgh Steelers     17.25   16.63    0.63    +3
Tampa Bay Buccaneers    17.25   13.44    3.81    +7
Denver Broncos          17.25   15.44    1.81    -4
Atlanta Falcons         17.31   16.19    1.13    +4
Chicago Bears           17.50   15.75    1.75    +5
Jacksonville Jaguars    17.63   17.00    0.63    +1
New Orleans Saints      17.75   19.00   -1.25    -2
San Francisco 49ers     18.75   17.56    1.19    -2
San Diego Chargers      20.44   19.13    1.31    -4
Kansas City Chiefs      20.69   16.94    3.75    +6
St. Louis Rams          20.94   15.50    5.44    +6
Arizona Cardinals       21.50   18.69    2.81    -5

Notice anything?  Where do the teams that had the biggest positive change in wins and losses (St.Louis, Kansas City, Tampa Bay and Chicago) from 2009 to 2010 show up?  All 4 show up in the bottom third of the list, 2 of them in the bottom 3. 

Now what about teams that had the biggest negative change in wins and losses (Minnesota, Cincinnati, Carolina and Dallas).  Again they are all within the top 1/3 or very close (Dallas at #12 is just outside the top 1/3).

Now forget about where the teams fell for this year and focus strictly on the difference from 1 year to the next.  Notice anything?  The top 3 teams with the biggest drop in schedule from 2009 to 2010 are....you guessed it....St. Louis, Tampa Bay and Kansas City.  The top 3 teams with the biggest increase in schedule from 2009 to 2010 are Minnesota, Cincinnati and Washington.  Only Washington defied the odds and won more games in 2010 than in did in 2009 despite having a tougher schedule.  After Washington it's Indianapolis who also lost 4 more games this year than in 2009.

Strength of schedule doesn't explain everything, but it has a bearing.  Teams like Arizona for instance dropped 5 games in the standings despite having a very easy schedule and easier than the previous year, but I think you can thank Kurt Warner for that.  Likewise Denver dropped 4 games despite a fairly easy schedule and being easier than the previous year, but again I think you can thank Josh McDaniels for that.  New England and Baltimore are the only 2 team that really went up in the standings significantly despite the fact they played a tougher schedules than last year, but both of them were only slightly tougher.  And one last thing, Notice how New Orleans is near the bottom of the list, wouldn't that suggest that they should have gotten better?  It would except that last year they played an even EASIER schedule so they still managed to lose 2 more games than last year.

If you compare SoS from 1 year to the next and then compare wins and losses, there's a very strong relationship overall.  There are always going to be anomolies because teams do get better or worse for various other reasons, but stength of schedule cannot be ignored.

I can't disagree with the Chiefs.

As for the conversation around the balancing of the schedule based on records, there are only two games on a 16 game schedule that are affected based on previous year's record. It is overblown in terms of actually creating any balance.

The other factor is often the reason why one team in a division has an easier or harder SoS is they don't play themselves.

For example next years SOS based on this year's W-L

Bills 2nd hardest at .535 137-119-0
NEP tied for 15th hardest at .504 129-127-0

What is the difference in the schedule...Is NEP SOS easier because of the games against pushover Colts and Steelers while the Bills face the powerhouse Texans and Bengals?  No what makes the Bills SOS harder is the Bills have to play the NEP, but don't get to play against themselves.

By anyone with  common sense looking at NE and Buff schedule would say NE has the harder schedule of the two (Colts and Steelers) but SOS says the opposite.   

The problem here is you are comparing ONLY Buffalo's and New Englands SoS.  What I tend to look at is all the SoS's.  Yes, I agree the reason that NE's schedule is easier than Buffalo's is because they get to play Buffalo twice a year and vice versa, but so does every team.  Pittsburgh plays all the teams in their division twice, so their SoS will look easier because of Cincy, however if we compare Pittsburgh's SoS with NE's, then we have a meaningful comparison.

I still fully believe that SoS is best used as a surgeon's scalpel, rather than a sledgehammer. Sure, you can look at the numbers, but you have to see the elements that will change the numbers, and how potentially applicable those numbers are to determining the numbers to come.

You're giving the schedule too much credit.

There are only two games on the schedule that are affected by how crappy (or awesome) you were the year before.  When people say that the 2008 Dolphins benefited from an easy schedule because of their 1-15 record the year before, they are wrong.  Miami's position-determined games (vs. 4th place in AFCS and AFCN) that year were against BAL and HOU... both of which MIA lost.  If MIA had played a first-place schedule, they could not have done any worse.

The single biggest factor in a team's schedule is the matchup of divisions for that year.  Over the last 4 years or so, a trend has emerged: if your division is matched up with the NFC West or AFC West, you can expect one of the teams in your division to improve significantly.  In 2008, the AFC East played against both of those divisions.

That's true, but there are also 8 more games on the schedule that are NOT affected by how crappy or awesome you were the year before.  That's a total of 10 out 16 games that can be different from the year before.  Strength of schedule can vary widely from year to year for a variety of reasons, how good or crappy you are being only 1 factor.

Correct.  They benefitted from an easy schedule because they happened to play the NFC west that year who were a combined 22-42 that year.  The entire AFC East benefitted in SoS that year.

Exactly.  Thanks for reinforcing my point that SoS does matter.

Sorry, when I said "you're giving the schedule too much credit," I meant "you're giving the scheduling formula too much credit."

Very little of a team's schedule is impacted by their previous year's finish.

Fair enough.  SoS doesn't have as much to do with a 1st or last place schedule as some other factors maybe, but it's still a factor in a teams win/loss column.  I don't think I specifically mentioned a first or last place schedule being the primary reason, but if I did, then I stand corrected.

Tampa Bay!!

Tampa went from a doormat that was god awful to double digits in wins with a bunch of young rookies in a tough division!!