Data says New York Giants consistently dealt tough schedule

New York Giants, Daniel Jones

Now that the NFL schedule is one of the main points of conversation, it seems like a good time to bring up some recent data analysis by NBC Sports’ Warren Sharp. The data is relevant to the New York Giants in specific, because it shines some light on their scheduling over a long period of time and how they’ve consistently gotten dealt a tough hand – even if it might not seem that way from just a surface level glance.

The article alleges that the NFL has done a poor job of keeping the schedule equitable across years. Some teams consistently benefit from the schedule, while others consistently suffer because of it. Some of the relevant factors include how much rest a team gets on average as well as how much rest their opponents get before playing them.

The most difficult scheduling spots teams to deal with as it relates to player health, rest and preparation are:

• Rest disadvantage
• Short week road games
• Negated bye weeks
• Games after playing on Sunday or Monday night on the road
• Four games in 17 days

It may or may not surprise you that when the league was ranked using these variables, the Giants came in dead last. Their division rival, the Eagles, came in second to last, so this seems to be something that runs in the NFC East.

Over the last 10 years, the Giants notably had 42 games where their opponent had over 7 days to prepare for them compared to only 18 where their opponent had under 7. This ranks them as the worst in the league in that metric, and they were the second worst team in three other categories.

Obviously a lot of things have contributed to the Giants not winning much following their last Super Bowl win. It’s impossible to blame the schedule for this, rather than teambuilding decisions and a rebuild that has taken too long, but the schedule has likely played a role in one way or another, even if minor. After all, according to this data, there’s no team in the league that has it worst when it comes to this.

Mentioned in this article:

More about: