Redskins' Strength of Schedule: We Are A Decent Team

Sally Jenkins' recent boneheaded article got me thinking, "What is our strength of schedule?" It turns out that our opponents combined records thus far is 82-60. Pretty tough. Plus, we have faced 4 of the league's 8 division leaders (Chicago, Seattle, Denver, and the Giants) and split such games (beating Chicago and Seattle and losing to Denver and the Giants).

We are beating and losing to some pretty darn good teams. The only team that beat us that shouldn't have beaten us is Oakland. Oakland aside, the combined record of the teams that beat us is a whopping 41-19. Moreover, with the notable exception of the Giants game, those losses have been decided by the last play of the game.

In short, we are at worst an average team and at best, an above average team that has faced, and lost to, some damn fine opponents.

I say...we are what we are, a 6-6 ball club. If we had lost those games more convisingly (that we were actually a worse team), then I would say we fell victim to our record. Outside of the Cheifs and Giants games, we pretty much outplayed all our opponents but couldnt finish the job. Therefore, I think we are what we are.

:iamwithst I agree with Gmac If if werent for turnovers and penalties we would have a better record. Those reasons being Nobodys fault but theirs they are what they are. (sorry I voted the other way tho)

According to NFL.com we have a .577 strength of schedule which is good for the second hardest in the NFL this year(Poor Houston has a .601). Our strength of victory is good for 3rd. So we have officially played a pretty hard schedule this year. The good news is that of the remaining NFC teams in the hunt we have the easiest strength of schedule prior to this weekend, All this adds up to diddly poo as Jim Mora Sr, would say. Just win our next four and we're almost guranteed to be in.

Actually, part of what makes our strength of schedule hard is that WE lost games, making our opponents record stronger, at least as you look back over the season (not sure if that's clear--sorry!).

Anyway, wins talk, everything else walks--we're 6-6 because we have a bad TO ratio, couldn't hold some late leads, and have trouble on 3rd-and-short at crucial moments. No one to blame but our selves--if we take care of our own house, our record will improve.

(I'm not saying anyone disagrees with that, just that it's hard for me to see much in this strength of schedule thing.)

We're a better team than the record but not by a ton.

Actually, part of what makes our strength of schedule hard is that WE lost games, making our opponents record stronger, at least as you look back over the season (not sure if that's clear--sorry!).

That's a good point - I wonder how it works out when you subtract your own losses from your opponents' wins?

We are what we are, an average team. Good teams don't beat themselves and don't let themselves be put in position to lose close games due to referee errors, coaching decisions and fate.

We are what we are, an average team. Good teams don't beat themselves and don't let themselves be put in position to lose close games due to referee errors, coaching decisions and fate.

I agree - all but three of our games have been close, and we have won some and lost some. We could easily have won more, but we didn't. We could easily have lost more, but we didn't. 6-6 sounds about right.

We have won almost as many close games as we have lost, but here are my thoughts.

We are better than our record simply because Alstott did not get in. We won.
We are better on offense than we were last year.
We have had one hell of a tough schedule and are still alive to make the playoffs.

If we go 9-7, I would be happy. We need another receiver and a couple of d-linemen to be dominant.