Is the Giants’ 2025 schedule really that tough?

In reality, we have no idea

The NFL schedule makers did the New York Giants no favors this year, saddling them with the league’s toughest schedule:

Courtesy of NFL Operations

In fact, you can say that the NFL did the Giants dirty twice – not only do they face what appears to be a daunting set of opponents throughout this season, but Cam Ward is not their rookie quarterback because the Giants, tied with Tennessee and Cleveland for the worst NFL teams last season with 3-14 records, were relegated to the No. 3 pick in the 2025 NFL Draft because their 2024 strength of schedule (SOS) was the toughest of the three teams:

Courtesy of USA Today

I purposely used language in my first sentence that is similar what fans and the press often use, implicitly attributing bad intentions or incompetence to the NFL in setting their schedule. In fact, as we know, the NFL uses a simple formula in setting the schedule:

• Two games against each division opponent
• One game against each team in a given other NFC division, rotating by year
• One game against each team in a given other AFC division, rotating by year
• One game against the team in the other two NFC divisions and one AFC division that finished in the same place in their division standings

On the face of it, it sounds pretty fair – 14 of the 17 games in principle should have a random distribution of difficulties, and the other three ostensibly give the basement-dwelling Giants an advantage over their division rivals by matching them with other basement dwellers (Bears, 49ers, Patriots in 2025).

The problem is that, excluding the 2020 “NFC Least,” The NFC East often produces a couple of really good teams that the Giants have to play twice. Usually it’s Philadelphia and Dallas, but wouldn’t you know it, the year that Dallas sinks, Washington rises. The biggest reason the Giants’ schedule is more difficult than those of the Eagles and Commanders is that the Giants play each of them twice while each of them plays the Giants twice.

We might imagine a more egalitarian schedule for the fourth place Giants, e.g., one game each against division opponents and two games each against all seven other fourth place finishers in both conferences. I don’t think the Eagles, Chiefs, etc. would go for that, though. The best way for the Giants to improve their strength of schedule next year? Play better this year, especially in your own division.

That brings us to another question, though: How much does strength of schedule actually matter?

On the face of it, the situation does not look good. Here’s what happened to the teams facing the toughest schedule the past eight years:

Courtesy of NFL Operations

Not a single one got past the Wild Card Game, and only two made it that far. Doesn’t look good. Don’t despair, though. Here’s what happened to the teams with the easiest schedules:

Courtesy of NFL Operations

Three did make the playoffs, but four did not, and none even made the conference championship.

What this tells us is that there is quite a bit of randomness in the whole thing, regardless of the fuss made about SOS before the season starts. We should know that, though. Teams get rid of players, add other players, and the same for coaches, and so last year’s teams are not this year’s teams. Per Dan Salomone of Giants.com:

The NFL boasts a streak of 35 consecutive seasons with at least four teams qualifying for the playoffs after missing out the year before. And at least one team has won its division the season after missing the playoffs in 53 of 55 seasons since the AFL-NFL merger in 1970. The outliers were 2024 and 1976, the only years in which the division winners were all in playoffs the prior season.

That is a long way of explaining that one year matters very little to the next because rosters never stay the same.

Here are the preseason odds from 2024 (over/under win totals) along with the actual 2024 records of each NFL team, from Pro Football Reference, plotted by analyst Jason Pauley:

Plot courtesy of Jason Pauley

There’s a slight positive correlation, but overall it’s fairly random. The Giants’ were projected to win 6.5 games in 2024 and underperformed. The Giants’ projected win total for 2025 is 5.4 (Cynthia Frelund), 5.5 (PFF/Sportsbook), 5.5 (ESPN), 5.5 (BetMGM). Well, as Monty Python would say, look at the bright side of life: 5.5 is better than the 3 they actually managed last season. Or we can look at the 2024 Denver Broncos, who also had a 5.5 projected win total and instead won 10 and made the playoffs. Or the 2024 Minnesota Vikings, projected to have 6.5 just like the Giants last year but actually winning 14. When the Vikings took the field at MetLife in Game 1 last season with Sam Darnold facing off against Daniel Jones, it was considered by many to be a toss-up.

On the flip side, you never know which team is going to be devastated by injuries and which isn’t. Losing Andrew Thomas and Dexter Lawrence, arguably two of the Giants’ three best players, for parts of last season didn’t help the Giants’ cause. Losing Graham Gano directly cost the Giants a victory. Did the 49ers finish last in the NFC West last year because they were a bad team, or did it have something to with Brock Purdy, Christian McCaffrey, Brandon Aiyuk, Deebo Samuels, Trent Williams, Dre Greenlaw, Charvarius Ward, Talanoa Hufanga and others missing games due to injury?

As Carl Banks reminds us, the Giants team that takes the field in September, and beyond, is not the same one that played last year, nor the same one we’ll see in training camp, nor the same one we’ll see as the season progresses:

The bottom line is: Strength of schedule doesn’t mean much. There’s no way to know what the 2025 Giants will be until they get well into their season. In 2017 the Giants had 9.0 projected wins and won 3. In 2022 they had 7.5 projected wins and won 9.5. In July we just don’t know who the good and bad teams are going to be. With three new quarterbacks, each of them with their own question mark, we have absolutely no idea how good or bad the Giants are going to be. I’m glad Carl Banks is optimistic; he knows more than I do. For now, that’s enough.