Week 1 DVOA Ratings
by Aaron Schatz
You love them when your team is high! You hate them when your team is low! Once again, the famous Football Outsiders DVOA and DAVE ratings return for 2018.
Most Football Outsiders readers are familiar with DVOA, which we use all year round. Not as many Football Outsiders readers are familiar with DAVE, which we only use for teams during the first two months of the season. DAVE is our rating that combines the preseason projection with the results of early games to give us a better prediction of how each team will rank at the end of the year. For those who don't know the story, this metric is called DAVE as a reaction to criticism that our stats are too much alphabet soup. I mean, who can argue with a guy named Dave? (Technically, it stands for "DVOA Adjusted for Variation Early.") In this week's DAVE ratings, the preseason projection counts for 90 percent, and the current DVOA counts for 10 percent. The value of the preseason projection changes each week until we are only using current-year data after Week 8.
Of course, though I'm calling our main metric DVOA here, it is actually VOA because there are no opponent adjustments right now. We do not apply opponent adjustments until after Week 4, so in Weeks 1-3 DVOA and VOA are the same thing. Please don't get all nitpicky about it. Most readers know what's up, and if you don't, I just told you!
The New York Jets are No. 1 in DVOA after their big Monday night win over the Detroit Lions, and Baltimore is right behind after a huge win over Buffalo on Sunday. Jets fans should enjoy their spot at No. 1 while it lasts, because No. 1 has not been a common placement for the Jets in the DVOA ratings. This is only the third time since 1989 that the Jets have been No. 1 in DVOA at any time. The last time was after Week 9 of 2011, when the Jets snuck into the top spot for a week as part of a year without any particularly dominant teams. The other time the Jets were ranked No. 1 was after Week 4 of 1993, coming off a 45-7 pounding of the Patriots and rookie quarterback Drew Bledsoe. Both of those Jets teams finished 8-8, and I think that New York fans would happily take that result for the 2018 Jets. The Jets are still only 17th in DAVE, because we aren't writing off our preseason projections quite yet. Still, that huge win was enough to move the Jets up 13 spots from 30th in our preseason DVOA projections.
On the other hand, the Bills had an even worse preseason projection than the Jets and oh boy, do things look bad now after losing to the Ravens 47-3. Buffalo had a VOA of -130.6% for this loss, which is the worst Week 1 VOA of any team since the expansion Browns got shut out 43-0 by the Pittsburgh Steelers in the first week of 1999. What's remarkable is that if the Bills had not lost so badly to the Ravens, it's the Detroit Lions who would have set a record for the worst Week 1 VOA since the expansion Browns. Here's a look at the ten worst Week 1 games since 1986, and again, these are without any kind of opponent adjustment:
| Worst Week 1 VOA Ratings, 1986-2018 | ||||
| Year | Team | VOA | Opponent | Score |
| 1989 | PIT | -163.3% | CLE1 | 51-0 |
| 1999 | CLE | -151.6% | PIT | 43-0 |
| 1991 | DET | -149.6% | WAS | 45-0 |
| 2018 | BUF | -130.6% | BAL | 47-3 |
| 1998 | PHI | -126.0% | SEA | 38-0 |
| 1997 | SEA | -124.4% | NYJ | 41-3 |
| 2018 | DET | -123.4% | NYJ | 48-17 |
| 2005 | TEN | -123.0% | PIT | 34-7 |
| 2017 | IND | -119.2% | LAR | 46-9 |
| 2008 | STL | -119.0% | PHI | 38-3 |
The good news for Buffalo and Detroit is that a horrific Week 1 is not a guarantee of a disastrous season. The 1989 Steelers finished 9-7 despite having the worst Week 1 in DVOA history. The 1997 Seahawks were 8-8. The 1991 Lions went 12-4, although I don't think the Jets or Ravens will be challenging the 1991 Redskins for the all-time DVOA title.
However, put that horrible Week 1 performance together with the worst preseason projection in the league and the Bills are way, way behind the rest of the league in the DAVE ratings. Almost 20 percentage points separate the Bills from the Lions and Giants (who are effectively tied at No. 30). The Bills ended up with a winless 0-16 record in 1.3 percent of this week's playoff odds simulations. That may not seem like a lot, but that's extremely high after just one game. Flip it around, and no team has a better than 0.2 percent chance of going 16-0.
Look at the DVOA ratings below, and you'll find that some of the games came out a lot closer in the final score than in the final DVOA ratings. Let's take a quick look at three of them that you might have questions about:
- How did Philadelphia end up so much higher than Atlanta when the Falcons gained more yards per play (4.6) than the Eagles (a miserable 3.6). The answer appears to be "third downs." The Eagles went 8-for-16 on third downs, and converted another with a DPI penalty. The Falcons, on the other hand, converted just 4 of 15 third downs and failed to convert on their one fourth-down opportunity as well. In addition, while the Eagles weren't moving forward as much as they wanted, they also weren't moving backwards. Not including penalties -- so many penalties, sigh -- Philadelphia had only three plays all game that lost yardage. Atlanta had nine plays that lost yardage.
- Pittsburgh and Cleveland tied, so why are the Steelers so much higher in DVOA after one week? This game was all about turnovers, and the Steelers did not have very good luck there. Pittsburgh averaged 5.9 yards per play on offense compared to 3.8 yards for Cleveland. But all four fumbles in the game were recovered by the Browns, three Steelers fumbles and one of their own.
- Minnesota only beat San Francisco 24-16, yet the Vikings are far ahead of the 49ers in DVOA. This one is particularly confusing because the 49ers actually gained more yards per play in this game, with 5.4 yards per play compared to 4.8 for the Vikings. It looks like the big DVOA difference here comes down to two things. First, the interceptions: three of them for the 49ers and none for the Vikings. Obviously, that's a big difference. Second, the 49ers constantly got bogged down in the red zone. So while the Vikings weren't getting many more yards on red zone plays, they were having more success. Minnesota had -18.2% offensive DVOA in the red zone, but San Francisco was at just -93.6% offensive DVOA in the red zone.
* * * * *
We're running a bit late getting all the stats pages working with 2018 data, but we'll keep this space current with information about what's getting updated when. The annual stats pages are now updated with 2018 data except for OFFENSIVE LINE and DEFENSIVE LINE, which are always first updated after Week 2. However, you'll notice the "default pages" are still pointing to 2017 rather than 2018. Until we get this fixed, you can go to the 2018 pages by putting 2018 in the URL or by using the dropdown menus that appear on all the stats pages. We're also working on getting Week 1 into the premium database and updating the snap counts database and we'll let you know when we've got that done.
UPDATE 9/12 1:00 p.m.: Week 1 snap counts and Loser League scores are now updated. Both can be found in the dropdown menus on the top of the site. (On mobile, that's via the green menu button in the top right.) Week 1 has also been added to the premium database, although we need to do a little fixing to make our new abbreviations for the Jaguars, Rams, and Chargers line up with our old abbreviations.
UPDATE 9/14 1:00 p.m.: OK, all the default stats pages now point to the proper 2018 numbers, and the premium game charting is now updated for Week 1.
* * * * *
These are the Football Outsiders team efficiency ratings through one week of 2018, measured by our proprietary Defense-adjusted Value Over Average (DVOA) system that breaks down every single play and compares a team's performance to the league average based on situation in order to determine value over average. (Explained further here.)
OFFENSE and DEFENSE DVOA are adjusted to consider all fumbles, kept or lost, as equal value. SPECIAL TEAMS DVOA is adjusted for type of stadium (warm, cold, dome, Denver) and week of season. As always, positive numbers represent more points so DEFENSE is better when it is NEGATIVE.
Please note that there are no opponent adjustments in DVOA until after Week 4. (It's still listed as DVOA instead of VOA because I don't feel like going through and changing all the tables manually.) In addition, our second weekly table which includes schedule strength, variation, and Estimated Wins will appear beginning after Week 4.
DAVE is a formula which combines our preseason projection with current DVOA to get a more accurate forecast of how a team will play the rest of the season. Right now, the preseason projection makes up 90 percent of DAVE.
You'll notice something fun we're experimenting with this week: a sortable table! If everything works well with this over the next couple weeks, we'll start using sortable tables for a lot of our stats pages.
To save people some time, please use the following format for all complaints:
<team> is clearly ranked <too high/too low> because <reason unrelated to DVOA>. <subjective ranking system> is way better than this. <unrelated team-supporting or -denigrating comment, preferably with poor spelling and/or chat-acceptable spelling>
| # | TEAM | TOTAL DVOA |
TOTAL DAVE |
RANK | W-L | OFFENSE DVOA |
OFF. RANK |
DEFENSE DVOA |
DEF. RANK |
S.T. DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
| 1 | NYJ | 90.1% | -1.3% | 17 | 1-0 | 15.9% | 8 | -40.3% | 4 | 33.9% | 2 |
| 2 | BAL | 79.9% | 11.6% | 7 | 1-0 | 21.6% | 6 | -65.9% | 1 | -7.6% | 23 |
| 3 | LAR | 54.9% | 17.6% | 2 | 1-0 | 52.9% | 2 | -3.6% | 17 | -1.6% | 18 |
| 4 | PHI | 46.9% | 14.7% | 4 | 1-0 | 5.0% | 14 | -41.9% | 2 | -0.1% | 14 |
| 5 | MIN | 43.3% | 14.6% | 5 | 1-0 | 0.1% | 16 | -40.6% | 3 | 2.6% | 9 |
| 6 | KC | 37.2% | 1.5% | 10 | 1-0 | 43.4% | 5 | 44.5% | 30 | 38.2% | 1 |
| 7 | DEN | 36.4% | -3.4% | 20 | 1-0 | 15.9% | 7 | -21.2% | 7 | -0.8% | 15 |
| 8 | CIN | 28.1% | 0.3% | 15 | 1-0 | 15.0% | 9 | -8.7% | 12 | 4.3% | 8 |
| 9 | MIA | 24.2% | -4.1% | 23 | 1-0 | 6.7% | 13 | -30.5% | 5 | -13.0% | 28 |
| 10 | CAR | 23.7% | 0.7% | 12 | 1-0 | 12.9% | 10 | -6.1% | 15 | 4.7% | 7 |
| 11 | JAX | 14.0% | -3.6% | 22 | 1-0 | -2.7% | 18 | -14.4% | 9 | 2.3% | 10 |
| 12 | PIT | 12.4% | 18.1% | 1 | 0-0-1 | -9.0% | 23 | -23.4% | 6 | -2.0% | 19 |
| 13 | CHI | 10.4% | -9.1% | 28 | 0-1 | -3.5% | 19 | -7.4% | 13 | 6.4% | 6 |
| 14 | NE | 8.2% | 17.0% | 3 | 1-0 | 9.7% | 11 | -6.0% | 16 | -7.5% | 23 |
| 15 | WAS | 7.7% | 0.9% | 11 | 1-0 | 8.1% | 12 | -11.7% | 10 | -12.2% | 27 |
| 16 | GB | 6.9% | 10.0% | 8 | 1-0 | -2.2% | 17 | -10.3% | 11 | -1.3% | 16 |
| 17 | HOU | -0.9% | 0.7% | 13 | 0-1 | -12.9% | 24 | 3.0% | 19 | 15.0% | 3 |
| 18 | NO | -9.6% | 13.2% | 6 | 0-1 | 49.0% | 4 | 55.3% | 31 | -3.2% | 20 |
| 19 | NYG | -10.3% | -14.1% | 31 | 0-1 | -7.3% | 22 | -1.8% | 18 | -4.8% | 22 |
| 20 | TEN | -15.6% | -1.8% | 18 | 0-1 | -23.9% | 25 | 4.3% | 20 | 12.5% | 4 |
| 21 | TB | -16.0% | -6.8% | 25 | 1-0 | 51.1% | 3 | 59.0% | 32 | -8.1% | 25 |
| 22 | LAC | -16.6% | -2.9% | 19 | 0-1 | 57.8% | 1 | 32.1% | 27 | -42.3% | 31 |
| 23 | IND | -18.6% | -3.4% | 21 | 0-1 | -4.1% | 21 | 10.8% | 24 | -3.8% | 21 |
| 24 | DAL | -21.8% | 4.6% | 9 | 0-1 | 1.1% | 15 | 7.3% | 22 | -15.5% | 29 |
| 25 | CLE | -25.5% | -5.4% | 24 | 0-0-1 | -24.9% | 26 | -16.0% | 8 | -16.6% | 30 |
| 26 | SEA | -31.5% | -0.5% | 16 | 0-1 | -25.4% | 27 | 7.6% | 23 | 1.6% | 12 |
| 27 | ATL | -35.6% | 0.3% | 14 | 0-1 | -43.9% | 29 | -6.5% | 14 | 1.9% | 11 |
| 28 | ARI | -38.4% | -8.4% | 26 | 0-1 | -33.3% | 28 | 16.0% | 25 | 10.9% | 5 |
| 29 | OAK | -43.3% | -8.5% | 27 | 0-1 | -3.9% | 20 | 40.3% | 29 | 0.9% | 13 |
| 30 | SF | -56.9% | -10.1% | 29 | 0-1 | -48.0% | 30 | 7.3% | 21 | -1.6% | 17 |
| 31 | DET | -123.4% | -14.1% | 30 | 0-1 | -53.9% | 31 | 23.5% | 26 | -45.9% | 32 |
| 32 | BUF | -130.6% | -34.0% | 32 | 0-1 | -85.2% | 32 | 34.0% | 28 | -11.4% | 26 |
Comments
73 comments, Last at 06 Sep 2019, 8:13am
#45 by InTheBoilerRoom // Sep 12, 2018 - 12:15pm
It looks like the Carolina rush defense came out looking poor at 14.4%, ranked 29th for the week. Subjectively, that seems strange considering how little Elliot was able to do on the ground.
Elliot had:
- one rush for 17 yards
- one rush for 16 yards
- two rushes for 7 yards (on 2nd and 17 and 1st and 10)
- three rushes for 4 yards (on 3rd and 26, 1st and 10, and TD on 2nd and 3)
Some of those runs above were not even very helpful. About five of his 15 rush attempts were successful. The rest of his runs were 3 yards or less, and not considered successful runs by FO criteria.
Prescott had two successful scrambles, plus the 2 point conversion.
None of that appears particularly outstanding for Dallas or particularly terrible for the Carolina Defense. I would have expected both the Dallas rush offense and Carolina rush defense to both be closer to 0% than they ended up.
#58 by yayFootball // Sep 12, 2018 - 7:10pm
Most of the teams with better defensive DVOAs than the Panthers forced multiple turnovers, and some of them also gave up fewer yards/play, so that makes sense. But when comparing the Eagles to the Panthers, it's hard to see why their DVOAs are so different. The Eagles surrendered more yards/play and a higher third down conversion rate. Both teams forced 1 turnover. Yet the Eagles have a defensive DVOA of -40 while the Panthers are at -6. Would be interested to know what the cause of that difference is.
#12 by Alternator // Sep 11, 2018 - 10:21pm
I've long tried to keep adblockers off here on FO, but that sidebar overlay (and general slowness loading the page - I'm not sure what from) forced me to turn it back on.
I'll give it a week and try again without the adblock.
#6 by Led // Sep 11, 2018 - 7:52pm
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but since the numbers are based on only one game and there are no opponent adjustments, how can Buffalo have the lowest DVOA and Baltimore NOT have the highest? I must be missing something fundamental about how the numbers work.
#8 by Vincent Verhei // Sep 11, 2018 - 8:06pm
Biggest reason for this kind of thing is usually penalties. Offenses are penalized for things like false starts and delay of game because they committed them, but the Ravens don't get extra credit just because the Bills are too incompetent to even function.
#48 by mehllageman56 // Sep 12, 2018 - 1:38pm
I would think the ST score puts the Jets ahead, with a 40 percentage point lead for the Jets there. Also, the Ravens/Bills
game had a more plays; Ravens with 74, Bills with 61. The Jets/ Lions game had 126, compared to 135 for the other game.
That probably means the special teams plays, not counted in those totals, count more in the Jets' totals than the Ravens'.
#18 by Drunken5yearold // Sep 12, 2018 - 12:12am
I only got to watch the Chargers/Chiefs game this weekend and I can't stress this enough: the Chiefs defense is AWFUL. I'm not sure if Berry coming back will be enough to pull them back up to respectability. Even with the two huge special teams plays and Mahomes to Hill embarrassing the Chargers defense, the Chiefs still could have easily lost that game if the Chargers receivers had managed to hold onto all of those deep balls. We're talking receivers running deep with no Chiefs defensive back within 5-10 yards of them, over and over and over ... and the Chargers receivers just could not hold onto passes that were hitting their hands. Okay, a couple of them were difficult catches, but at least 3 that would have gone for 30+ yards were just straight up drops.
The Chargers defense desperately needs Bosa to get healthy soon. They looked pretty ordinary out there without him. I don't think they were that bad though. Reid is great at game planning early on in the season and then other teams adapt once they get tape on what he's cooked it up. And obviously Hill going God Mode didn't help matters, but that guy makes everyone look slow.
#10 by MarkV // Sep 11, 2018 - 8:50pm
I find the breakdown of the special teams strange. Mostly that from Den v Sea, Den punt returns are not awful. It seems like if the returner doesn't touch the ball returns don't take any fault - which didn't seem right watching the game.
#13 by sean58 // Sep 11, 2018 - 10:49pm
For DEN-SEA, it looks like that's completely due to Michael Dickson adding a ton of value with his punts. The special teams page has SEA's punt unit adding 3.8 points. KC is at 3.2, then the next highest is HOU at 1.2.
#11 by merlinofchaos // Sep 11, 2018 - 10:21pm
You'll notice something fun we're experimenting with this week: a sortable table! If everything works well with this over the next couple weeks, we'll start using sortable tables for a lot of our stats pages.
Now all you need are cool things like highlight the row you're hovering on. (This is easy in CSS. It's something like tr:hover { background-color: yellow; })
#14 by Moridin // Sep 11, 2018 - 10:54pm
This is true. Also often a good idea, alternating row colors. Easy to do and adds a lot of easy readability to tables (last product that had UI tables, I used soft white and beige/sepia alternating).
Enjoying the new site :)
#44 by deus01 // Sep 12, 2018 - 12:15pm
I guess the table could also just be scrollable with fixed headers but sometimes that can be annoying on mobile because you can get yourself into a situation where you can't touch outside of the table to scroll the page itself.
#16 by Mr.Morden // Sep 11, 2018 - 11:25pm
In the "Special Super Bowl Matchups" section of the playoff odds, you guys should include rematches of games from the pre-Super Bowl era. E.g., a Browns-Rams Super Bowl (which I think would have about 0.3% odds) would be a rematch of the '50 and '51 NFL championship games.
Also, it's interesting how you have Philly as being a little more likely to win the NFC than Minnesota, and yet Min-Pitt is listed as a slightly more likely SB matchup than Phil-Pitt. Maybe since Minnesota plays the AFC East this year, a season where Minnesota plays really well is one in which it potentially knocks New England out of homefield advantage, thus improving Pittsburgh's chances?
#55 by Richie // Sep 12, 2018 - 3:53pm
I think there might be an error. I think the Super Bowl odds are calculated by multiplying the Conf Win percentage of the two teams, which gives me 2.7 for Pit-Phi, and 2.6 for Pit- Min. Or I could be mistaken on how they calculate those.
#60 by RickD // Sep 13, 2018 - 12:14am
No, they're calculated by simulating the entire season x times and looking at the results. As mentioned, a win by Minnesota over New England would help both the Vikings and the Steelers. So there are many interconference correlations.
Super Bowl odds become the product of the respective conference championship odds once the playoffs start. But this early in the season we shouldn't be surprised to see small correlations appearing here and there.
#17 by Grendel13G // Sep 11, 2018 - 11:57pm
I was surprised by the Broncos' high offensive VOA. They looked decent, but their performance didn't really stand out as I was watching it.
Then I remembered: ROBO-PUNTER.
That's a lot of hidden yards to have to make up.
#21 by ammek // Sep 12, 2018 - 3:30am
Am I seeing correctly that Buffalo, after one week, has a 30% chance of securing the top pick in the draft? Thirty percent!
It's hard not to jump to conclusions when the bottom five of VOA includes the Bills, Lions, Raiders and Cardinals. Imagine the NFL without parity. Oh, and the Chargers special teams...
Any thoughts as to why Arizona gets -38.4% for its defeat, but the Breadbins only 7.7% for their victory? Is that all about penalties too?
PS In the playoff odds section, MIN vs KC should be listed as the rematch of superbowl IV; PHI-OAK was XV; and WAS-OAK as XVIII.
#26 by ammek // Sep 12, 2018 - 8:35am
Well, I don't think signing Bradford and Rosen is a sign of ineptitude as such, at least not in the way that Buffalo is managing the QB position. But their drafting from 2015-17 seems to have been spotty, to say the least, and they desperately need one of the young receivers to emerge. Steve Wilks was a low-key coaching hire. I think it's too early to write them off; they're not making obviously foolish errors in the way that Oakland and Buffalo are, nor does the roster look as thin as Detroit's. But the line has been a problem for a while, and the offense is going to have to open up eventually, rather than settle for lots of doomed runs and terrible ALEX. It's too early to say whether that's a coaching issue, a Sam Bradford issue, or a week-1-with-revamped-offense issue. But it certainly was ugly.
#28 by Will Allen // Sep 12, 2018 - 8:53am
The problem lies in making an off season decision to rely on a guy in his age 31 season who has a knee with pronounced degeneration, and I say that as a guy who was hugely impressed with Bradford's 2016 performance with the Vikings. Now, you may roll those dice if you have an otherwise extremely good roster, and Bradford's the best option. That's what the Vikings did last year, albeit with Keenum as a backstop. When you aren't a contender anyways, taking up money and time with Bradford makes no sense.
I'm likely overreacting to a shockingly bad home opener, and the D.C. team is likely better than I expected, but man, that was grim.
(edit) To clarify, I just think they should have used Bradford money to improve blocking, and get a cheap veteran qb to sacrifice for a few weeks.
#29 by ammek // Sep 12, 2018 - 9:27am
See, I think the Bradford contract is canny, and with the defense they (might) have there's a chance the Cardinals could reach the fringes of the playoff race. But, yes, the opener was unsightly, and if the quarterbacking/passing offense doesn't improve, then Bradford will not be considered a worthwhile investment.
#30 by BJR // Sep 12, 2018 - 9:27am
The Cardinals also signed Mike Glennon this offseason ($8 million, 2 years according to reports). He could have played the role of sacrificial lamb pre-Rosen, although I'm not convinced there are any circumstances under which a team should enter a season with Mike Glennon as its starting QB.
More to the point, why are the Cardinals doing committing that much money to a 3rd string QB? If Bradford is deemed that much of an injury risk he should not have been signed for anything approaching the money they handed to him. They appear to have been desperately insuring against having to throw the rookie in straight away, but have only ended up with a variety of bad options, whilst spending a ton of resources. A mess.
#35 by Will Allen // Sep 12, 2018 - 11:03am
That's just it. They have 10.625 mil in cap space devoted to a 31 year old guy with very pronounced injury concerns, and 2 million in cap space devoted to a 28 year old guy who they don't want to play under any circumstances. With a roster with other notable holes. With a rookie qb they presumably want to ease into starting under favorable conditions. Hell, just sign Brock Osweiler for less than a million, put your resources into better blocking, and plan on the rookie starting by October. If you don't think he'll be ready by then, you likely should not have drafted him that high.
#64 by Mike B. In Va // Sep 13, 2018 - 7:24am
The running theory is that they decided to save money by trading AJ, because he wasn't going to make this offense any better. They're certainly saving money for the fans - why watch this live? - though I'll bet InBev's stock is really up due to the amount of Labatt's being sold.
#63 by Mike B. In Va // Sep 13, 2018 - 7:20am
As someone who watched the game (in the pouring rain, no less), I think 30% might be giving Buffalo too much credit. That first half was the worst offensive (or maybe MOST offensive) performance I've seen in 35+ years of watching football.
The defense has some promise, and maybe they'll be better at moving the ball with Allen (it's a pretty low floor), but that O-line makes last years' Seattle line look All-Pro.
#23 by sbond101 // Sep 12, 2018 - 7:46am
Really interesting that TB beat NO with -6.8% DAVE vs. +13.2% DAVE. I didn't get to see that game but I had a look at the box and saw three fumbles all went TB's way, does that account for almost all of the 19% DAVE difference or is there something else I'm missing here. Can someone who saw the game give me an idea of how this could be the case?
#33 by peterplaysbass // Sep 12, 2018 - 10:50am
Minnesota's VOA scores fit my expectations after that game. DAVE agrees. It was kind of a funky game against the 49ers, so a big change would have come with questions. Given Aaron Rodgers' current health, we may not have much clarity on the Vikings after week 2, either.
I still have no idea what to expect from Cousins this year.
#41 by Will Allen // Sep 12, 2018 - 12:02pm
I'm obviously observing him a lot more closely this year, and much like I was with Bradford, I'm coming away more impressed than I expected to be. When I started watching Bradford closely, I began to see why so much money had been sent his way; his throwing ability is terrific, and he'll stand in the pocket, even under pressure, and deliver. His bugaboo was health, of course, and it got him last year, after playing extremely well under terrible blocking conditions in 2016.
Cousins doesn't throw as well as Bradford (few do), but he is just a preparation freak, even by the standards of NFL starting qbs. If the blocking doesn't collapse (and it very well may), having Diggs, Thelien, Rudolph and Cook as targets will mean that Cousins will really be able to exploit weaknesses in any defense, especially going no huddle. There are worse ways to spend 14% of the salary cap, and it has been done more than a few times.
#61 by killwer // Sep 13, 2018 - 1:54am
So what you are saying is if everything is perfect cousins will be good enough but he might struggle outside perfect blocking? You pay that much money for a qb like Rodgers who or wilson who can work outside perfect blocking but the vikings would have been better of with teddy bridgewater at a fraction of the cost
#47 by ChrisS // Sep 12, 2018 - 1:00pm
The historical worst VOA performances is the kind of table this Lions fan expects the Lions to dominate with twice as many appearances as any other team. Is their one game special teams performance of -46% anywhere near historically bad?
#57 by Mountain Time … // Sep 12, 2018 - 4:03pm
I was asking myself the exact question just the other day when using the template. I think there's another Lions fan oldie that disappeared for a few years and reappeared recently, can't remember who exactly ATM.
#70 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Sep 13, 2018 - 12:48pm
I actually appreciate the fact that the Lions emphatically demonstrated right away that they stink. I now know that I can spend my Sundays doing something more productive...like actually watching competently coached teams play football.
#67 by dank067 // Sep 13, 2018 - 9:38am
Oh my, I remember opening quick reads earlier this week and wondering what Kizer's numbers looked like. He didn't qualify for the table there but it's up on the position stat pages now. He posted -74 DYAR with -189.2% DVOA on 9 dropbacks...