The Patriots had the easiest schedule in the NFL, while teams like the Rams and Lions had the hardest, i hate how they keep getting breaks, why is this

Let's assess your claims.

Patriots' schedule:

1. Titans - a mediocre team
2. Cardinals - another team that didn't play well, but they were hot at the start of the season and defeated NE
3. Ravens - division winner (NE certainly did NOT catch a break in the game itself either)
4. Bills - division rival, required game
5. Broncos - #1 seed in the AFC
6. Seahawks - pretty good team, unbeatable at home where they played them
7. Jets - division rival, required game
8. Rams - average team
9. BYE
10. Bills - division rival, required game
11. Colts - had a good year, seemingly above-average team
12. Jets - division rival, required game
13. Dolphins - division rival, required game
14. Texans - division winner
15. 49ers - #2 seed in the NFC
16. Jaguars - garbage team
17. Dolphins - division rival, required game

# of playoff teams played: 6
# of division-winners played: 4
Opponents' combined record: 105-85-2 (9-7 average)

and since we can't fairly count required divisional games against a schedule...

Opponents' combined record minus divisional games: 86-56-2 (10-6 average)

Now let's look at the Rams...

1. Lions - the other team you claimed had the hardest schedule...
2. Redskins - a good team and the Rams even beat them
3. Bears - another pretty good team
4. Seahawks - division rival, required game
5. Cardinals - division rival, required game
6. Dolphins - average team
7. Packers - division winner
8. Patriots - division winner
9. BYE
10. 49ers - division rival, required game
11. Jets - not a good team
12. Cardinals - division rival, required game
13. 49ers - division rival, required game
14. Bills - not a good team
15. Vikings - pretty good team
16. Buccaneers - average team at best
17. Seahawks - division rival, required game

# of playoff teams played: 6 (2 in their own division)
# of division-winners played: 3 (1 was their own)
Opponents' combined record: 103-88-1 (9-7 average)
Opponents' combined record minus divisional games: 76-68 (8-8 average)

Well, would you look at that? Take out the divisional games and the Rams' opponents had less than 10 more wins than losses all combined. That's less than 1 win better per team. How exactly is this schedule harder? Because the Rams are a worse team? I don't think that's a good excuse. The Pats would have probably went 14-2 on a schedule like that.

And since you mentioned Detroit... let's do theirs as well.

1. Rams - average
2. Niners - division winner
3. Titans - mediocre
4. Vikings - division
5. BYE
6. Eagles - garbage
7. Bears - division
8. Seahawks - a good team, but garbage on the road and this was a road game...
9. Jaguars - garbage
10. Vikings - division
11. Packers - division
12. Texans - division winner
13. Colts - good
14. Packers - division
15. Cardinals - bad
16. Falcons - division winner
17. Bears - division


# of playoff teams played: 7 (2 in their own division)
# of division-winners played: 4 (1 was their own)
Opponents' combined record: 113-93-2 (9-7 average)
Opponents' combined record minus divisional games: 82-76-2 (8-8 average)

At first glance, this looks to be at least harder than the Rams' schedule... but much of that is a byproduct of being in the toughest division in the NFL (every other team had double-digit wins). Take that away... and it's a fairly manageable schedule. It has its share of difficult teams balanced out with pushovers (Eagles, Jaguars).

I find that most people who complain about schedules don't really look into them very much and just want to make excuses for why one team did well or another did poorly. The Patriots are clearly a better team that will perform better no matter what schedule you give them. The only way the Rams are not going to look bad is if you make every one of their games against the 49ers.

SeanTheMon : This happens with every team in the NFL. It's not just the Pats. A lot of it has to do with how good the teams in their division are. Beyond that the teams that draw the easier non-division schedule are usually the teams that make the playoffs.

I agree with CrazyLi. People who complain about the schedules are usually just looking for an excuse as to why their team isn't doing well. 

Before you ask, I don't have anything against or for the Patriots.  I'm a Dolphins fan. (don't laugh, at least it's not the Bills, ok?) 

For a really good team, it doesn't matter who they play when. If they're good enough to win, they're going to win. If the other team beat them, don't go crying about schedules, the weather, the umps, the direction of the sun...it just means your team wasn't as good as the other team on that particular day.

Crazy Li : you realize the rams had a record of 2-14? and going on http://www.betvega.com/nfl-strength-of-schedule/ how other teams did last year, and talk in september the rankings were new england with the easiest, and seeing how they'v been doing it's waayyy easier than what the rams and lions had. my point being the patriots had it easier then they should have, i wish they made the schedule like how they use to when it was the bad teams getting it a bit easier and so on. and before you say looking for excuses, i jsut made an observation , im not a fan of either teams.

SeanTheMon : It seems like they only had 3 or 4 teams that they played that were bad to mediocre. In most circles that would be seen as a pretty difficult schedule. Especially since they played teams like Houston, Denver, Ravens, and Seahawks to name a few out of their division. Those are all playoff teams lol. How much harder do you want it?

Oldschool41 : I don't get why it's a "Fault" they played 6 teams that are currently in the playoffs outside of their own division. In REALITY that's a pretty tough schedule. Not an easy one at least in my opinion.

Most of the easy games they had was because their division this year just wasn't that competitive. Teams like the Jets and Bills that were supposed to be good this year were disappointing.

Jordanv78 : Pretty much. In EVERY major team sport, teams play their own division more than anything else. That is a standard. It will not change. If a team is fortunate to be in a division where all the teams play like crap, that's just how it goes. It's not like anyone is trying to make it easy on them. It's just the rest of their division failing to be competitive. The schedule-makers can't do anything about that.

That's why I stressed looking at how the teams fair when you take away divisional games. The Patriots had no other playoff teams in their division and of course won their division. That means every division winner or playoff team they faced came outside the confines of the required games. In other words, the parts of their schedule that were optional were difficult.

The Rams and the Lions had the reverse cases in their divisions. Both played in divisions where two teams went to the playoffs. That means 4 games in the season right there that are against playoff teams that are required games that nobody can do anything about. But when you take that away, you're only looking at 4 or 5 other games against playoff teams. This is a lower number of playoff teams than the Patriots faced. The records of teams faced when averaged up for out of division was closer to 10-6 for the Patriots as opposed to something closer to 8-8 for the Rams/Lions.

Now if you wanna complain about a team having an easy schedule, the Falcons are actually the ones that you can make a legitimate case of this for. How many playoff teams did Atlanta have to play? A whopping TWO. That's right... only the Broncos and the Redskins.

Crazy Li : I disagree with you slightly on the Falcons.

Falcons schedule

@ Kansas City
vs Denver
@ San Diego
vs Carolina
@ Washington
vs Oakland
BYE WEEK
@ Philly
vs Dallas
@ New Orleans
vs Arizona
@ Tampa Bay
vs New Orleans
@ Carolina
vs Giants
@ Detriot
vs Tampa Bay

There were a couple of playoff calibur teams that should have been good this year besides Denver and Washington who did make the playoffs (San Diego, Philly, Dallas, New Orleans, Tampa Bay, Giants.) But like Jordan said, the Bills and Jets were suppose to be good this year, but they had a disappointing year. Same can be said about those teams, particularly the Giants, Eagles, and New Orleans. So I think Atlanta had a pretty challenging schedule at least to me.

Jordanv78 : Well its not really a fault when we look at it right now. Back when the schedule came out, I think you would have agreed that the Pats got an easy schedule as...

Seahawks- Rookie QB starting. Can't win on the road.

Arizona- Questionable QB situation. Lack of running game.

Rams- Not any good WR. Questionable Defense

49ers- Nothing wrong with them.

Jagaurs- No WRs. Terrible on Defense

Titans- Questionable Defense. Questionable Second Year QB

Texans- Nothing wrong with them.

Colts- Rookie QB starting (I don't care if its Andrew Luck, he's still a rookie). No run game. Questionable Defense

Ravens- Questionable Defense (remember they didn't have Suggs).

Jets- QB controversey. Questionable running game

Bills- Questionable QB. Questionable Defense

Dolphins- Rookie QB. Lack of WRs (they traded Marshall to the Bears remember).

Broncos- Nothing wrong with them.

So I think looking in hidsight, the Pats got an easy schedule. But looking at it now the Pats had a tough schedule this year.

Crazy Li : Uh, I understand that. I've been following "Major Sports" and football specifically my whole life. I was just telling SeanTheMon that was the only reason they had as bad of a schedule as they did.

If you read my previous posts you can see that I have a pretty good grasp on what is going on and how the NFL works and you pretty much posted a lot of the same points I made...lol

Oldschool41 : you could say that every year about every team. There are also times when a team looks like crap to start the season and winds up going to the playoffs "See Washington"

The fact is that the Jets and Bills were picked by many to have a chance to get to the playoffs in the preseason.

Also:

Arizona didn't have a questionable QB situation (In their minds) they had Kolb and actually they started the season 4-0 when he was healthy, just sayin.

Say whatever you want about Baltimore, but the fact is they won their division last year.

The Titans just barely missed the playoffs last year with a 9-7 record just barely beat out by the Bengals with the same record...

Jordanv78 : If I remember correctly. I believe Hasselback was the starting QB for the Titans for most of the season. Locker did start for some games and he looked okay (I don't really watch Titans' games so I guess I can't say for certain how Locker looks).

I'll counter your Arizona argument with John Skelton almost helping the Cardinals getting into the playoffs during the end of the season when Kolb got hurt. But I think Arizona's issue is more with the lack of running game and a terrible O-Line (which they can easily solve in the draft for a RB and free agency for O-Line.)

I also wasn't dissing Baltimore. I just pointing out that the defense this year without Suggs wouldn't be as good. Not to mention Ray Lewis and Ed Reed being old (which I will say I don't buy at all).

I find it laughable that the many would pick the Jets and/or Bills to make the playoffs. There are too many better teams in the AFC that had a better chance of getting into the playoffs (Pats, Texans, San Diego, Denver, Ravens, Steelers, Bengals). While no doubt the Bills improved (the Jets I thought didn't improve, but didn't exactly regress either); I can't see them making the playoffs or at least having a solid shot of making it.

Oldschool41 : I'm not really sure what you are talking about regarding Arizona. There were far out of the playoff race for weeks and wound up finishing with one of the worst records in the league. They started the season 4-0 with Kolb. That's pretty much all that needs to be said regarding that. Although that is kinda getting away from my original point.

You are failing to understand what I was saying though. The point I was getting at was how the teams finished the year prior. Although teams may have had injuries at certain points (Suggs) That doesn't factor into how they make the schedule. So saying this problem and that problem going into the season kinda doesn't matter with this debate.

You could say the same thing about any team in the league. Green Bay had one of the worst defenses in the history of the NFL last year. Did you really think they wouldn't compete for a playoff spot this year?

Jordanv78 : Kind of sandwhiching a bit so I won't post any longer on this thread until a certain number of other users post.

With regards to Arizona I was refering to the 2011 season when Arizona nearly missed the playoffs. Kolb got replaced by Skelton during Week 9 of which the Cardinals were 1-6 with Kolb as a starter going into Week 9. When Skelton got put in, the Cardinals went 5-2 the rest of the season finishing 8-8. Now of course this is last year. Hope I cleared things up a bit.

I do see your point and its a valid one as well. However we tend to view schedule strength by who the starters are going to be. Take for example Peyton Manning last year. Not until near the Houston opener did Manning get ruled out and of course he ended up not playing a game all last season. Now when the NFL schedule came out did we expect that Manning would play in the Houston opener and the rest of the 2011 season? Of course we did because Manning was the Colts QB.

So getting into what Sean starting off saying about how this season's Patriots had an "easy schedule", while your correct that injuries doesn't play a factor into how they make the schedule; injuries play an important role as to if the teams you are playing are better or worse then they really are. You can have a team that has a tough schedule on paper, only to have them play non-starter players who are filling in for the starters because in injury (of course the opposite is true as well). Now this is a hypothetical situation.

I don't understand the Packers arguement. Yes the defense as terrible, but they had an offense that carried the load. Now if we dig into the schedule...

vs Saints (13-3)
@ Panthers (6-10)
@ Bears (8-8)
vs Broncos (8-8)
@ Falcons (10-6)
vs Rams (2-14)
@ Vikings (3-13)
BYE WEEK
@ San Diego (8-8)
vs Vikings (3-13)
vs Tampa Bay (4-12)
@ Lions (10-6)
@ Giants (9-7)
vs Raiders (8-8)
@ Chiefs (7-9)
vs Bears (8-8)
vs Lions (10-6)

Number of playoff teams faced: 5 (I'm counting Detriot once as its just the team they faced).
Record against these teams: 6-0 (I'm counting Detriot twice as this is the record).
Number of teams faced with a winning record or .500 record: 8
Record against these teams: 10-0 (Bears and Lions are counted twice)

Now the Packers faced 5 playoff teams during the regular season (Lions twice, Giants, Saints, Falcons) and most of those teams had either a winning record or a .500 record (Vikings, Chiefs, Rams, Panthers, Tampa Bay didn't so the Packers faced 6 terrible teams where they went 5-1 for just those teams alone.)

Now even thou the Packers went 15-1 that season, they lost to the Giants who were 9-7. Was the Packers the better team? Yes. Did the Packers have the tougher schedule? Lets see who the Giants faced...

@ Redskins (5-11)
vs Rams (2-14)
@ Eagles (8-8)
@ Arizona (8-8)
vs Seattle (7-9)
vs Buffalo (6-10)
BYE WEEK
vs Dolphins (6-10)
@ Patriots (13-3)
@ 49ers (13-3)
vs Eagles (8-8)
@ Saints (13-3)
vs Packers (15-1)
@ Cowboys (8-8)
vs Redskins (5-11)
@ Jets (8-8)
vs Cowboys (8-8)

Number of Playoff teams face: 4 (Patriots, 49ers, Saints, Packers)
Record against the Playoff teams: 1-3
Number of teams faced that had a winning record or .500 record: 10
Record against those teams: 6-4

While the Gaints faced more teams with winning or .500 records (10-8); the Packers faced off against more teams that made the playoffs (5-4). So I will say that the Packers had the tougher schedule.

Now let us suppose that the Giants and Packers faced off and nobody was injured entering this game. Who would be the better matchup?

Offense: Packers
Defense: Gaints
Special Teams: Packers (I don't really pay attention to Special Teams stats unless they are either really good or really terrible).

So should have the Packers won against the Giants in the playoff game? Yes they should have as they were the better team and faced better teams. But they lost.

Another example I might point out would be the 2010-11 playoffs were the 7-9 Seahawks beat the 11-5 Saints. Would you expect the Seahawks to beat the Saints?

Jordanv78 : I think you misunderstand. I wasn't trying to give you information I didn't think you had... I was just agreeing with you and elaborating further on the topic itself :x

I mean you clearly know WAY more about the sport than I do considering I don't actively follow it. I just hear stuff on TV at work.

Oldschool41 : The team that should win isn't always the team that does win. And of course everyone has their own opinion of who "should" win. The Giants destroyed the Falcons in the playoffs last year and this year got shut out in the regular season against them. It seemed like everything just went right for the Giants in the post season last year. The owned the Falcons, got past the Packers, beat the 49ers because of a bad backup kick returner... I can't say much about Atlanta... but you could make a case about most of the teams the Giants beat en route to Super Bowl victory being teams that should have defeated them. But in the end, none of them did.

And it's a good thing for NY that things did go their way last season because they didn't even make the playoffs this year at all!

Crazy Li : Yeah I'm sorry when I first read the response it sounded like the tone was a little different than when I actually re-read it. I apologize.

You looked like you are pretty well informed one way or the other because you gave a lot of great stats. Either way I commend you on your research.

Jordanv78 : Well I don't like making a complete fool of myself and just making up crap without a basis... so I fill in the gaps between what I learn from NFL Network at work with actually looking information up on NFL.com to have some actual substance to what I'm saying.

I know sports in general so I know what to look for and have an understanding of things that are good versus things that are bad... I just don't closely follow the players or teams or names or any of that... but if I look at the figures, I can usually figure it out.

It's worth mentioning that each division has a set of teams that everyone plays against as well. This year the AFC East played against the NFC West and the AFC South. That accounted for 8 of their games. I'm not sure how they determine which divisions play each other, but I think the fact that the AFC East is pretty weak probably factored in.