Henry, I used to follow Football Outsiders for a period of time. Until I noticed their self-admitted flaws.
The methodology they use is why you'll see their grades vary so wildly from the consensus. An example being how poorly they have ranked Dallas over the last two seasons--a line that most agree is the best in the NFL.
From their site:
Among other reasons, they don't include quarterbacks or fumbles, long runs are truncated, and a different set of adjustments is used, attempting to isolate line play rather than total team offense.
However, it is important to understand that these ratings only somewhat separate the offensive line from the running backs. A team with a very good running back will appear higher no matter how bad their line, and a team with a great line with appear lower if the running back is terrible.
FO looks more at the total offense. They look at the result of a play, and grade accordingly without separation or respect given to the talent level of a particular group.
An O-line will look much worse on their rankings if Tony Romo isn't playing. They will also grade an O-line much higher if they have a great RB playing.
 }})
