2025 Fantasy Football Strength of Schedule methodology: How to project the best and worst schedules
It's the Draft Day information you never even thought of
By
Dave Richard
•
6 min read
Fantasy Football managers have everything they need to draft a team without looking like an idiot: Scouting reports, data analytics, average draft position, mock drafts, cheat sheets, podcasts and videos, counterpoint arguments, insider whispers and gut feelings.
But the one thing Fantasy managers don't even think about having is a detailed layout of who every player will play. Not just the teams, but the players on the teams and the schemes of the defenses they'll try to win against. Shoot, most Fantasy managers don't even consider the NFL schedule -- the most basic and easily accessible piece of information -- until after they draft. By then it's too late.
So for the fifth year in a row, I dedicated time this offseason to study every single defense, every single projected starter, every single quality depth player, and every single defensive scheme. This wasn't just looking at stats and coming to conclusions, it involved watching film, diving into analytics, studying playcaller tendencies and ultimately projecting the effectiveness of how every defense will operate this year.
That's a hell of a lot better than taking last year's win-loss records and plugging that in to create a strength of schedule for every team.
Instead, you've got a Fantasy Strength of Schedule -- every element of every defense graded and ranked based on actual factors that will matter now. This will be my fifth season delivering these projections, and every year I've felt better and better about the results and how they can help you make better Fantasy decisions.
The process
Every defense has strengths and weaknesses. Finding those at the start of researching each team helps me understand where a team wants to get better or stay great. In many cases, a team will be strong in a certain category (like pass rush or pass defense) but get worse because of basic factors like a player declining or leaving the team and not being properly replaced. This is a good starting point because it shows me how a defense tried to re-tool for the upcoming season.
I then used relevant team data like blitz rate, pass rush pressure rate, missed tackles, success rate, red-zone numbers, inside-the-10 numbers, etc. to paint a picture of how aggressive each defense is. A lot of these numbers are tied to playcallers -- some are more passive than others and are still effective. These are especially handy when evaluating a playcaller on a new team.
Just like offensive players, each defensive player has his own data set. Those are invaluable, but not limited to what a guy did in 2024. Some defenders have been ascending for years and should be thought of as breakout players. Others are declining and could drag a defense down. Advanced metrics including missed tackle rates, big plays allowed, stop rates, QB rating allowed on targets and overall rate of being targeted help, as do simple stats like number of snaps played. It all helps with the evaluation.
Some players have been good for a long time but had a bad 2024. Some players have been bad for a long time but had a good 2024. In those cases, stats might not help determine how good or bad a guy projects -- for me, it's film that casts the deciding vote. If the defender looked slower or got confused more often, then he probably has hit the skids. If the defender made clutch plays and was in the right place more often, then he probably is truly evolving.
Once a determination is made for how good or bad I think a player is, I'll combine player grades by team based on their position and rate how a full unit in five different ways: pass rush, run defense, pass coverage against wide receivers, pass coverage against tight ends and pass coverage against running backs. These ratings are on a simple scale of 1-to-10 where 10 is amazing and 1 is irreparably bad. These ratings fuel the results.
Doing the math
So now I have these ratings for each part of every defense. The next move is blending them to better represent how they'll impact offenses.
I'll use the Super Bowl champion Eagles as an example. This year I graded Philadelphia:
- 8.5 in run defense
- 9.0 in pass rush
- 8.5 in pass coverage
- 7.5 in pass coverage against TEs
- 6.0 in pass coverage against RBs
Because multiple players and multiple units (defensive linemen, linebackers, defensive backs) of every defense have to work together on every play, I blend two ratings together in a specific-but-simple formula to create final grades for each position. Here's the rundown:
- QUARTERBACK: 50% of the pass rush grade and 50% of the pass coverage grade. That means 4.5 (for the pass rush) plus 4.25 (for the pass coverage) created a total of 8.75. Only two defenses -- the Steelers and the Ravens -- graded higher. Bad news for every quarterback who faces the Eagles.
- RUNNING BACK: 90% of the run defense grade and 10% of the pass coverage against RB. Until running backs start collecting six-plus targets per game en masse, there's no reason to overcompensate a grade based on how a pass defense covers a RB. Most of them just aren't great at it anyway. The tally: 8.125, which was third-highest behind the Ravens and Chiefs. This means they're projected to be a tough matchup for rushers again.
- WIDE RECEIVER: 80% of the pass coverage grade and 20% of the pass rush grade. The argument against using the same blend for WRs as QBs is that defensive backs are much more capable of impacting a play against a receiver than pass rushers are, but pass rushers obviously impact the quarterback. Predictably, the Eagles landed a strong 8.6 cumulative rating; only Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Detroit were higher.
- TIGHT END: 80% of the TE pass coverage grade and 20% of the pass rush grade. Same formula as for receivers except I used the grade for specific coverage of whoever a defense typically uses to cover tight ends (usually linebackers and safeties). Yes, there will be times where cornerbacks cover tight ends, but it's not common save for special situations. This formula equated to a 7.725 grade for Philly, which was tied for second-best behind Detroit.
The last step
Once each grade is figured out, I apply them to each team's schedule of opponents to form a cumulative grade. Teams are slightly penalized for three-game road trips, playing outside of North America or playing Thursday night games on a short week (through Week 13; the NFL will flex Thursday night games starting in Week 14). The higher the grade, the tougher the schedule.
If your team is ranked No. 1, your team's specific skill position has the easiest Fantasy Strength of Schedule. If your team is ranked No. 32, your team's specific skill position has the hardest Fantasy Strength of Schedule.
You now know how I come up with a Fantasy Strength of Schedule for every position on every team. If you're reading this and feeling exhausted, I don't blame you. Imagine doing the research for it!
The grades!
Here are my defensive grades for each defense by category as of the start of 2025 training camp. If you're looking for offensive Fantasy Strength of Schedule grades then check here for QB, RB, WR and TE.
Defensive ratings: Pass rush
| PIT | 10 | LV | 7.5 |
| HOU | 9.5 | SF | 7.5 |
| BAL | 9 | ARI | 7 |
| CLE | 9 | IND | 7 |
| NYG | 9 | JAC | 7 |
| PHI | 9 | SEA | 7 |
| DAL | 8.5 | CHI | 6.5 |
| DEN | 8.5 | CIN | 6.5 |
| MIN | 8.5 | LAC | 6.5 |
| TB | 8.5 | NYJ | 6.5 |
| BUF | 8 | NE | 6 |
| GB | 8 | WAS | 6 |
| KC | 8 | ATL | 5.5 |
| MIA | 8 | TEN | 5.5 |
| DET | 7.5 | CAR | 5 |
| LAR | 7.5 | NO | 4.5 |
Defensive ratings: Pass coverage
| BAL | 9.5 | GB | 6.5 |
| DET | 9 | MIN | 6.5 |
| PIT | 9 | SF | 6.5 |
| DEN | 8.5 | TB | 6.5 |
| NE | 8.5 | DAL | 6 |
| PHI | 8.5 | LAC | 6 |
| CHI | 8 | LAR | 6 |
| HOU | 8 | NYG | 6 |
| KC | 8 | CAR | 5.5 |
| BUF | 7.5 | CIN | 5.5 |
| NYJ | 7.5 | JAC | 5.5 |
| SEA | 7.5 | TEN | 5.5 |
| CLE | 7 | ARI | 5 |
| IND | 7 | NO | 5 |
| WAS | 7 | MIA | 4.5 |
| ATL | 6.5 | LV | 3.5 |
Defensive ratings: Pass coverage vs. TEs
| DET | 8.5 | CHI | 5 |
| BAL | 7.5 | KC | 5 |
| PHI | 7.5 | LAR | 5 |
| DEN | 7 | CIN | 4.5 |
| LAC | 7 | HOU | 4.5 |
| PIT | 7 | NYG | 4.5 |
| MIN | 6.5 | TB | 4.5 |
| NE | 6.5 | CLE | 4 |
| SF | 6.5 | DAL | 4 |
| BUF | 6 | WAS | 4 |
| NYJ | 6 | ARI | 3.5 |
| ATL | 5.5 | MIA | 3.5 |
| GB | 5.5 | TEN | 3.5 |
| JAC | 5.5 | CAR | 3 |
| NO | 5.5 | LV | 3 |
| SEA | 5.5 | IND | 2 |
Defensive ratings: Pass coverage vs. RBs
| BAL | 7 | SEA | 5 |
| DET | 7 | TB | 5 |
| CHI | 6.5 | CLE | 4.5 |
| GB | 6.5 | LAC | 4.5 |
| MIA | 6.5 | LAR | 4.5 |
| SF | 6.5 | NE | 4.5 |
| BUF | 6 | NYJ | 4.5 |
| JAC | 6 | DEN | 4 |
| NO | 6 | HOU | 4 |
| PHI | 6 | WAS | 4 |
| ATL | 5.5 | ARI | 3.5 |
| KC | 5.5 | CAR | 3.5 |
| MIN | 5.5 | DAL | 3 |
| PIT | 5.5 | LV | 3 |
| CIN | 5 | IND | 2.5 |
| NYG | 5 | TEN | 2.5 |
Defensive ratings: Run defense
| KC | 9 | MIN | 6.5 |
| BAL | 8.5 | NYG | 6.5 |
| PHI | 8.5 | TB | 6.5 |
| PIT | 8 | CAR | 6 |
| BUF | 7.5 | DEN | 6 |
| CLE | 7.5 | LAR | 6 |
| DET | 7.5 | LV | 6 |
| SEA | 7.5 | ATL | 5.5 |
| SF | 7.5 | CHI | 5.5 |
| GB | 7 | LAC | 5.5 |
| HOU | 7 | NO | 5.5 |
| IND | 7 | TEN | 5.5 |
| NE | 7 | CIN | 5 |
| NYJ | 7 | DAL | 5 |
| ARI | 6.5 | WAS | 5 |
| JAC | 6.5 | MIA | 4 |
