Bills Among Familiar Faces Atop Week 1 DVOA

Bills WR Isaiah McKenzie
Bills WR Isaiah McKenzie
Photo: USA Today Sports Images

NFL Week 1 - The Buffalo Bills opened the 2022 NFL season with a convincing 31-10 opening night victory over the Los Angeles Rams, and they also open the season on top of the Football Outsiders DVOA ratings.

The most notable thing about the top of our ratings after one week is how much they resemble our projections from the preseason. The Rams are obviously a big exception, but otherwise most of the top teams in our projections had a strong Week 1. No. 2 Baltimore? Second in the preseason projections. No. 3 Los Angeles Chargers? Fourth in the preseason projections. Tampa Bay and Kansas City fill out the top five in DVOA, and they were both in the top seven of the preseason projections.

(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.)

The similarity between Week 1 and our preseason forecast means there are not a lot of moves in our DAVE ratings. These are the ratings that combine our 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 these week's DAVE, the preseason forecast still counts for 93% of the rating.

Still, Week 1 did do some shifting to DAVE. Note that I've made a couple of changes in the projection part of DAVE, which for Dallas and Pittsburgh now reflect that Dak Prescott and T.J. Watt will be out half the season. There are no major climbers, although Minnesota and Cleveland each went up three spots. The big drops are the Rams, the Cowboys, and the Cardinals. The Rams went from third in the preseason projections to 10th in DAVE. The Cowboys, in part because we're now expecting Cooper Rush to start for half the season, drop from 12th in the preseason to 19th in DAVE. The Cardinals went from 21st in the preseason projections to 29th in DAVE. Oof!

There's not a lot to talk about with DVOA after just one game, so last year I used the Week 1 DVOA commentary to introduce a new formula called Post-Game Win Expectancy (PGWE). This year, I'm going to introduce a new and improved PGWE formula.

Here's the basic idea behind PGWE: How often should we expect each team to win an NFL game given how the two teams played overall? We all know there are close games where the "wrong team wins," or at least it seems like the wrong team wins. This is a measurement of that. It's an idea stolen from Bill Connelly, who does something similar for college football, although our PGWE works a bit differently from his.

The original PGWE accounted solely for VOA splits (DVOA without the opponent adjustments). The new PGWE adds in two new variables:

1) Which team ran more plays, and how many more? Efficiency stats (such as DVOA) are more predictive than volume, but volume plays an important role in who wins a particular game.

2) Which team had more penalties, and how many more? Penalties aren't as predictive as the yardage from passes and runs, but of course they play a role in wins and losses. Our penalty count includes both declined and offsetting penalties.

For a good example of the difference between the new PGWE and the old PGWE, let's look at one of last year's strangest games: Tennessee's 33-30 overtime win over Seattle back in Week 2. This is the 2021 game with the biggest difference between the new formula and the old one. The two teams had similar days on the ground but Seattle was much more efficient through the air, with 68.8% pass offense VOA compared to 39.2% for Tennessee. Overall, the Seahawks outgained the Titans per play, 7.6 to 6.4. So the old formula gave the Seahawks a PGWE of 79%.

However, this game was a really good example of last year's wacky Seattle offense that consisted of almost nothing but deep bombs and three-and-outs. So Seattle was more efficient on a per-play basis but ran only 52 plays compared to 82 plays for the Titans! The Seahawks also committed 12 penalties compared to just five for the Titans. Add in those stats with the new PGWE formula, and now we're listing Seattle with a PGWE of only 20%. If the VOA difference isn't too large, the team with more plays and fewer penalties is more likely to win. Makes sense, right?

In general, the new system of PGWE does a better job of correlation with actual winners and losers. The old system had a correlation of .79 with wins during the 2020-2021 seasons. The new system has a correlation of .82, so a little bit better. For the seven games from 2021 with the biggest gap between old and new PGWE, the new PGWE shifts things in the correct direction. But as you're about to see, switching from the old system to the new one doesn't always make things more accurate.

Here's are PGWE numbers for Week 1 of the 2022 season. Houston-Indianapolis was a tie, of course, but Houston had the slightly higher PGWE as shown below. There are some surprising results here:

Post-Game Win Expectancy, Week 1 2022
Win Pts Loss Pts PGWE
BUF 31 LAR 10 99.9%
KC 44 ARI 21 99.7%
TB 19 DAL 3 99.2%
LAC 24 LV 19 98.9%
BAL 24 NYJ 9 98%
CLE 26 CAR 24 98%
MIN 23 GB 7 95%
MIA 20 NE 7 81%
WAS 28 JAX 22 73%
PHI 38 DET 35 70%
CHI 19 SF 10 60%
HOU 20 IND 20 56%
SEA 17 DEN 16 45%
PIT 23 CIN 20 39%
NO 27 ATL 26 15%
NYG 21 TEN 20 7%

As you can see, not all close games are created equal when it comes to PGWE. There are some surprises on the bottom here, certainly, but let me start by looking at the surprise at the top: the Chargers ended up with a 99% PGWE despite only beating the Raiders by five points. It's kind of remarkable that the Raiders stayed in this game despite the Chargers having a massive advantage in the passing game. The Chargers had 60.6% VOA passing compared to -36.5% for the Raiders. The Chargers were getting 8.1 net yards per pass with the Raiders at 6.0 net yards per pass, plus the Raiders had three interceptions and three fumbles on passing plays: two on sacks, one on a reception. The Raiders got a bit lucky by recovering all three of those fumbles. The Chargers also ran a few more plays than the Raiders, although they had one additional penalty. On this one, VOA is the main reason why PGWE loves the Chargers and felt they beat the Raiders by a lot more than the final score indicates.

On the other hand, we've got the Giants' last-second win over the Titans. This was also a close game, but in this one PGWE feels that the losing team outplayed the winning team. Again, plays and penalties were similar between the two teams so VOA ratings are causing this result. The total gap between the teams is not very large. The Titans had 12.5% offensive VOA and the Giants had 4.6% offensive VOA. The Giants were slightly better on special teams, as well. However, historically when building the PGWE system I found that pass VOA tends to be about three times as important as run VOA when it comes to predicting who won a game. It wasn't in this game, certainly, but that's the reason why PGWE says we would be much more likely to expect the Titans to win this game based on how the teams played. Tennessee had 78.9% pass VOA and -44.5% run VOA. The Giants, on the other hand, had -12.9% pass VOA and 32.6% run VOA. Yeah, that's some difference there! It was a big comeback week for Saquon Barkley.

The Giants ended up with the lowest VOA rating of any of the winning teams in Week 1. We controversially projected the Giants as the worst team in the league, and their Week 1 win certainly makes it a lot less likely that the Giants will be picking No. 1 overall. Still, the Giants were not particularly good in Week 1, and there's no reason to believe that they're suddenly an above-average team based on their Week 1 performance.

I said that switching from the old system to the new one is not always more accurate, and a good example of that comes in the Pittsburgh upset of Cincinnati (also covered here in Any Given Sunday). Pittsburgh had -17.0% offensive VOA while Cincinnati had -33.0% offensive VOA. The Steelers also had better special teams, even though both teams lose value for those missed field goals in overtime. Put those two things together, and the old system predicted a Pittsburgh win 86% of the time. However, the new system actually says the Bengals were the more likely team to win this game with a 61% PGWE. Why? The Bengals ran 94 plays to just 59 plays for the Steelers, and the Steelers had nine penalties with just five for the Bengals! Given those two stats, the eventual Pittsburgh victory was a bit of a surprise.

We look forward to bringing you more PGWE numbers in this column and other places throughout the season; if you bought Football Outsiders Almanac 2022, you know these numbers were also added to the table in each chapter that looked back at each team's 2021 performance on a week-by-week basis.

* * * * *

Football Outsiders playoff odds are updated through Week 1. The annual stats pages are now updated with 2022 data, although some of that data can be kind of sketchy after just one week (in particular the offensive line and defensive line pages). Snap counts and the FO+ DVOA database are also now fully updated through Week 1.

A reminder that all our free stats pages, including DVOA and player position stats, require registration to view. This is not a paywall! You only need to register (for free) and then log in to the site to view these pages. While you're at it, you can get a seven-day trial of FO+ and check out the FO+ features like a deeper DVOA database, weekly fantasy projections, fantasy football research tools, Derrik Klassen's new All-32 game preview column, and picks against the spread.

* * * * *

These is the Football Outsiders Top 16 through one week of 2022, 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.) Please note that there are no opponent adjustments in DVOA until after Week 4, which is why it is listed here as VOA.

OFFENSE and DEFENSE VOA are adjusted for performance indoors and 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.

DAVE is a formula which combines our preseason forecast with current DVOA to get a more accurate projection of how a team will play the rest of the season. DAVE is currently 93% preseason forecast and 7% actual performance. DAVE ratings for Dallas and Cleveland are based on projections for the entire rest of the season, including games with both starting and backup quarterbacks. DAVE for Pittsburgh is based on a projection that has T.J. Watt returning at midseason.

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>

RK TEAM TOTAL
DVOA
TOTAL
DAVE
RANK W-L OFFENSE
VOA
OFF.
RANK
DEFENSE
VOA
DEF.
RANK
S.T.
DVOA
S.T.
RANK
1 BUF 69.7% 19.9% 1 1-0 20.0% 6 -45.9% 1 3.8% 7
2 BAL 45.9% 13.5% 2 1-0 28.6% 3 -16.9% 8 0.4% 13
3 LAC 42.1% 12.2% 3 1-0 11.8% 11 -33.7% 3 -3.4% 22
4 KC 38.7% 11.1% 5 1-0 44.5% 1 0.5% 16 -5.3% 24
5 TB 37.8% 11.5% 4 1-0 -0.3% 17 -40.8% 2 -2.7% 21
6 MIN 33.1% 7.5% 7 1-0 31.9% 2 2.9% 18 4.2% 5
7 CLE 27.5% 2.4% 12 1-0 13.9% 9 -8.7% 10 4.9% 4
8 PIT 18.7% -0.9% 18 1-0 -17.0% 26 -31.9% 4 3.8% 6
9 MIA 17.3% 0.6% 16 1-0 0.0% 16 -14.3% 9 3.0% 9
10 ATL 14.0% -6.6% 25 0-1 20.3% 5 15.0% 25 8.7% 3
11 HOU 7.9% -6.0% 23 0-0-1 -2.0% 19 -0.4% 14 9.5% 2
12 PHI 4.4% 8.7% 6 1-0 19.4% 7 11.2% 21 -3.8% 23
13 JAX 3.6% -7.5% 26 0-1 10.6% 12 0.6% 17 -6.3% 28
14 TEN 2.8% -7.6% 27 0-1 12.5% 10 3.5% 19 -6.2% 27
15 DEN -0.7% 1.5% 14 0-1 -0.7% 18 -6.0% 11 -6.0% 26
16 WAS -0.9% -9.2% 30 1-0 10.0% 13 11.6% 22 0.7% 12

Comments

54 comments, Last at 15 Sep 2022, 10:00am

#1 by serutan // Sep 13, 2022 - 3:13pm

 reminder that all our free stats pages, including DVOA and player position stats, require registration to view. This is not a paywall! You only need to register (for free) and then log in to the site to view these pages. 

Did I miss an announcement?  Even logged in I am only seeing 1-16.

Points: 0

#3 by Aaron Schatz // Sep 13, 2022 - 3:15pm

Go to the actual DVOA page and you'll see all 32!

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/team-efficiency/2022/regular

Points: 0

#28 by ChrisLong // Sep 14, 2022 - 2:24am

The position DVOA pages are very bad right now, running backs for example only shows like 6 players because of a 20 carry minimum. Similar things are happening for QBs and WRs.

Points: 0

#54 by d3s3rtf0x // Sep 15, 2022 - 10:00am

Don’t know where to put this and I know the ‘comment format’ is supposed to be funny but if you think your ranking system is ‘completely objective’ as compared to the other ranking systems that are ‘subjective’ you are decieving yourself. You do talk about how your beliefs influence your model building.  Certainly there are numerous cognitive biases at work here.

It’s just very snarky.

Points: 0

#4 by Robopunter // Sep 13, 2022 - 3:16pm

Go up to 'DVOA & Statistics' in the top menu bar, click on Overall DVOA -> Team and the chart is there.

Points: 0

#2 by theslothook // Sep 13, 2022 - 3:13pm

This will probably be true until they are officially eliminated, but its performances like these that I am going to start defaulting to "Kansas City should be favored". Even as their offense was blowing a gasket or two last year, you just knew they were capable of dropping 30 + in a matter of minutes. 

I know the Cardinals defense is meh and they went into the game with an asanine gameplan, but still, KC remains terrifying on offense. Bills really need to hope they wrap up the 1 seed this year and then hope the weather is terrible in January. Because as talented as Buffalo is, they keep losing these track meets against KC. 

Points: 0

#17 by Tutenkharnage // Sep 13, 2022 - 5:29pm

The Bills are terrifying on both sides of the ball, plus special teams. They certainly didn't lose a track meet last October. We'll see how it goes this time around. Each side has some edges.

Points: 0

#38 by IlluminatusUIUC // Sep 14, 2022 - 11:24am

Buffalo has had three big problems with KC:

1) We couldn't actually sack Mahomes, in all our games he has turned a couple busted blocks into major scrambling gains. Our DEs were pretty old and couldn't take him down in 1v1 situations.

2) We had no answer for Hill coming across the middle. (We didn't really have an answer for anyone across the middle)

3) Chris Jones ate our interior OL.

Hopefully the addition of Miller and Saffold and the subtraction of Hill have balanced those scales somewhat. We shall see.

Points: 0

#5 by Topas // Sep 13, 2022 - 3:17pm

11 out of the top 16 Teams are AFC, incl top 4

Points: 0

#6 by Topas // Sep 13, 2022 - 3:17pm

Double Post 

Points: 0

#7 by Robopunter // Sep 13, 2022 - 3:18pm

Week 1 of GB not being #32 in special teams? Be still my heart.

Points: 0

#19 by Ben // Sep 13, 2022 - 5:43pm

In reply to by Robopunter

The Colts had two KOs out of bounds, a missed  FG and a fumble on punt return (which they recovered, but I don’t think VOA cares about that). 

They earned their 32 place and, in related news, released their kicker today. 

Points: 0

#8 by cstoos // Sep 13, 2022 - 3:45pm

Did Reid's missed xp count a standard amount towards KC ST VOA? Or is goofy stuff like that just ignored in general?

 

Points: 0

#9 by af16 // Sep 13, 2022 - 3:46pm

Surprised DVOA liked Baltimore’s offense so much after spending most of the first half getting absolutely stuffed of the ground and punting. Does DVOA take weather into account? There were a handful of drops that seemed to me slick ball-related.

Points: 0

#25 by mehllageman56 // Sep 13, 2022 - 7:31pm

One of the issues with DVOA is that it can be enamored with offensive teams with explosive plays and then a lot of nothing.  It also includes pass interference calls, including ones where the opposing defense is just stupid, like what Joyner did to set up the Ravens' first touchdown.

Overall, I was impressed with Jackson but not much else of the Ravens' offense.

Points: 0

#32 by Mike B. In Va // Sep 14, 2022 - 8:06am

Yeah, Jackson really seemed to be carrying them. Is it possible he sees that his future is limited that way, and not signing is using all his leverage to the max?

Points: 0

#36 by mehllageman56 // Sep 14, 2022 - 10:53am

The answer is that it was one game, so we don't really know right now.  Their running game got stuffed, and I doubt that's going to be the case all year.  They also didn't have much success against the Jets top two corners, but Duvernay made the most of his targets.  Getting Ronnie Stanley back would probably help.

Points: 0

#37 by Pat // Sep 14, 2022 - 11:13am

This is literally the opposite of what people used to say about DVOA. It used to be enamored with teams that had lots of short passes and hate teams with a whole lot of nothing plus explosive plays.

Points: 0

#39 by mehllageman56 // Sep 14, 2022 - 11:35am

You are probably right, I just remember the Eagles doing great in it when they were basically two to three unsuccessful plays and then a 69 yard touchdown.  It probably helps that the Ravens only had 59 plays, and at least 4 of those were explosive ones, plus a long pass interference penalty.  Mainly, Baltimore being ranked 3rd on offense fails the eye test.

Points: 0

#40 by Pat // Sep 14, 2022 - 12:31pm

I just remember the Eagles doing great in it when they were basically two to three unsuccessful plays and then a 69 yard touchdown.

That's the Eagles in the late 2000s. In the early 2000s it was the exact opposite (no wide receivers). The "DVOA loves the Eagles" bit stuck around but the explanation flipped the script because the only thing that stayed consistent was that the Eagles kept being good but not winning the Super Bowl.

The part that gets missed is that Philly's issues were never about their offense. The 2008 team (which is the ultimate 'DVOA loves the Eagles' team, at 9-6-1 and #1 overall) was not led by their offense. They were far and away a defensive team. So the "DVOA loves the Eagles boom and bust offense" argument didn't hold because DVOA didn't love their offense. And defense is crazy variable, so Philly being heavy defense and ending up 9-6-1 isn't surprising. It wasn't the defense's fault they tied the 1-8 Bengals!

The 2006 team had shades of that (which is about when the turnaround happened) but that also was a defensive thing. Philly wasn't the only team that was super-high with too many losses: Jacksonville's right there too (and was right with them all year). And early on, Philly's high rating was primarily defense.

Points: 0

#45 by Led // Sep 14, 2022 - 3:24pm

Yeah, that is pretty weird.  The three explosive TDs were obviously very valuable, but there were also a lot unsuccessful plays.  On a per play basis they were not particularly efficient:  5.2 yards per play, 7.1 YPA with an INT (with a 57% completion percentage), and 5/13 on third downs.  I wouldn't expect a bad DVOA, necessarily, just not a great one.  

Points: 0

#49 by jheidelberg // Sep 14, 2022 - 5:17pm

This seemed to be a very poor week for a week one slate for the offenses, thus my theory is that the A in VOA or average is well below what we usually expect.  There were 27 INT's this week and 80 sacks.  Having 2 sacks for a total of -2 yards was excellent.  Normally we would not think of a 1 INT game being "average" but when you add in QB fumbles, this was a high turnover week.  VOA properly trashed the Raven's running game.  

If Stanley and Nick Boyle do not return quickly and to top form, and the Ravens do not feature Lamar as a regular running threat, Dobbins and Edwards, upon their return, may find out that they many not be able to perform much better than that dreaded 2016 fantasy trio of RB's that the team had last year.  

Points: 0

#10 by pm // Sep 13, 2022 - 4:10pm

Washington's offense is off to a good start. 300+ Yards passing and 4 TD's from Carson Wentz. A team with a solid trio of WR's in Terry McLaurin, Curtis Samuel, and Jahan Dotson alongside the return of TE Logan Thomas.

I don't see how Washington ever ends up close to the 32nd ranked offensive projection that FO gave them in the preseason. I bet they end up in the top 20. Too much talent on the team to be worse offensively than the Jets, Bears, Panthers, Lions, Browns, etc.

Points: 0

#11 by KnotMe // Sep 13, 2022 - 4:29pm

Honestly, the difference between 32 and 31 or 30 isn't that big. Top 20 would be surprising. top 30 or top 25 maybe.  Depends how much Good King Wentzislaus  they get vs the Indy version. 

Points: 0

#14 by theslothook // Sep 13, 2022 - 4:59pm

Wentz is a tier 3 qb. He's on the volatile side of tier 3 - meaning he runs hot and cold in season and in game. Hell probably even within drives. But for some reason, his reputation is somewhere between Fitzpatrick and Geno Smith.

 

Points: 0

#12 by Raiderfan // Sep 13, 2022 - 4:48pm

I am surprised that their pass defense VOA was not better, given Rodgers played the whole game and had a VOA of -34%.

Points: 0

#15 by TheAnonymousCo… // Sep 13, 2022 - 5:07pm

I don't think this accounts for the full difference, but Jordan Love did come in the for the last drive and pass for a few first downs against the Prevent.

Points: 0

#13 by tjb // Sep 13, 2022 - 4:58pm

In the full table, why does Unadjusted VOA differ from DVOA if there are no opponent adjustments?

Points: 0

#24 by MJK // Sep 13, 2022 - 7:09pm

Wow.  So the NE-MIA game dominated by fumble luck.  New England had something like a -5% DVOA, but a -30% unadjusted VOA.  Miami had a +17% DVOA but a +47% VOA.  The fact that New England happened to lose both of its fumbles represented a 30-point swing in DVOA!

 

Points: 0

#30 by fyo // Sep 14, 2022 - 6:33am

No, DVOA doesn't care about fumble recovery - and there is no *D*VOA right now as Aaron notes in the article, so DVOA and VOA should be identical. The full table is showing all zeroes for me in the Unadjusted Total VOA column, so I would wager the numbers you saw were due to an error of some kind.

Points: 0

#48 by RickD // Sep 14, 2022 - 5:09pm

Lost fumbles are counted in both DVOA and unadjusted total VOA.  The Patriots lost both their fumbles.  

The Dolphins, however, recovered both of their fumbles.  So those would be counted by DVOA but not by unadjusted DVOA.  (For the Pats' defense.)  

We must be missing something, because two fumbles should not make a 25-30% swing in DVOA. 

From the "What is DVOA?" page:

A fumble is worth anywhere from -1.7 to -4.0 points depending on how often a fumble in that situation is lost to the defense -- no matter who actually recovers the fumble.

 

Points: 0

#47 by RickD // Sep 14, 2022 - 5:00pm

 

  • UNADJUSTED TOTAL VOA does not include the adjustments for opponent strength or the adjustments for weather and altitude in special teams, and only penalizes offenses for lost fumbles rather than all fumbles.

Points: 0

#16 by Aaron Brooks G… // Sep 13, 2022 - 5:13pm

but let me start by looking at the surprise at the top: the Chargers ended up with a 99% PGWE despite only beating the Raiders by five points.

Oh, underperforming an expected win percentage is completely on-brand for the Chargers.

Points: 0

#21 by Paul R // Sep 13, 2022 - 6:17pm

Am I the only one who pronounces it "pug-wee?" 

"Pittsburgh's victory had 39% pug wee." 

I don't have a pug.

Points: 0

#26 by Aaron Brooks G… // Sep 13, 2022 - 7:46pm

Neighbors had one.

Pugs do wee a lot.

Points: 0

#42 by RickD // Sep 14, 2022 - 2:14pm

with a Scottish accent

Points: 0

#22 by jheidelberg // Sep 13, 2022 - 6:27pm

Pittsburgh had 39% PGWE with a +5 turnover margin?  The only game that I can recall in which a +5 turnover margin team lost was the 2007 MNF game between Dallas and Buffalo.  I am sure that there are others but the overall record of teams with a +5 turnover margin is absurdly high.

Your statement:  Which team ran more plays, and how many more? Efficiency stats (such as DVOA) are more predictive than volume, but volume plays an important role in who wins a particular game.

I am sure that this is true, but this statement must be revised for games in which there is either a pick 6, kickoff return TD or punt return TD.  This leads the team that allowed these awful plays to have two consecutive possessions, thus sometimes leading to running a large volume of plays to the opponents zero plays, in which they can at best answer with a 7-7 tie during that timeframe.

EDIT:  You also have Joe Burrow as the worst QB by DYAR.  I had gone back last year or the year before and only 1 team had ever won a game over a number of years in which they had the worst QB by DYAR in a week.  Thus, your own stats clearly predict a PIT victory.

 

 

Points: 0

#53 by DraftMan // Sep 15, 2022 - 9:14am

The Bears may be who we thought they were, but they were only -4 in the turnover differential in that game.

 

Former FO alum Bill Barnwell had this snippet back in week 1 of 2018: "Since the Browns returned to the NFL, teams with a turnover margin of +5 or better in a game are 132-4-1. The Browns are responsible for two of those losses and the tie."

Points: 0

#29 by fyo // Sep 14, 2022 - 6:20am

Aaron, any chance you could fix the DNS for footballoutsiders.com? It's been pointing at the wrong IP for months now. I realize some browsers (Chrome) automatically add www sometimes, but bookmarks, links, other browsers, and even Chrome's autocomplete from history are an issue (so if you used to use it without the www subdomain, Chrome won't add the www and you have to manually type it in every time). I tried sending a message to FO using the contact form, but received no reply.

If you prefer to handle the DNS for just a single of the domains (perfectly reasonable), set up a CNAME or referrer to point/refer footballoutsiders.com to www.footballoutsiders.com.

Oh, and I'm still getting logged out of FO on all my devices / browsers on a weekly-ish basis (desktop, laptop, phone), but that's apparently just me for some unknown reason.

Points: 0

#34 by DavidL // Sep 14, 2022 - 10:36am

Not just you! It feels like every time I come here I have to log in afresh.

Points: 0

#46 by Richie // Sep 14, 2022 - 4:23pm

Same for me.  It's one of many annoying technical aspects of the most recent site re-design.

Points: 0

#41 by RickD // Sep 14, 2022 - 2:12pm

You have Washington in top half.

That can't possibly be right.

Points: 0

#44 by KnotMe // Sep 14, 2022 - 2:23pm

Well, the Jets held the number 1 spot after week 1 in 2018. Gotta love single game samples. 

Points: 0

#43 by RickD // Sep 14, 2022 - 2:17pm

I see the Rams are 32nd in DVOA (really VOA) after Week One.  Has any reigning Super Bowl champ face-planted that excellently in Week One before?

Points: 0

#50 by Aaron Brooks G… // Sep 14, 2022 - 5:57pm

2014 Ravens?

Points: 0

#51 by jheidelberg // Sep 14, 2022 - 6:50pm

Despite allowing 7 TD passes to Peyton Manning after winning the championship in 2012, the Ravens were only 30th in DVOA (VOA), as nothing comes anywhere near Jacksonville's -116 DVOA (VOA) in their 28-2 drubbing by the Chiefs (Damn that first quarter safety, to avoid the shutout).  

The Ravens fell just short of the -50 VOA mark.  If you are wondering what could possibly be leaps and bounds worse than losing 49-27 (credit that Ravens offense) here you go:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/boxscore/_/gameId/330908030

Points: 0

#52 by theslothook // Sep 14, 2022 - 7:34pm

I'm sorry to say, but that game was one of my fondest Manning memories. I had class running late that night, so I had my phone off and ran excitedly to watch the game ignorant of what had happened. Of course, As soon as I logged on to my computer, I got a notification about the final score. 

It was still enjoyable nonetheless.

Points: 0

Save 10%
& Support Aaron
Support Football Outsiders' independent media and . Use promo code SCHATZ to save 10% on any FO+ membership and give half the cost of your membership to tip Aaron.