SecondGM
Loading your leagues…
27 Sept, 21:25 BST
Maracana Stadium
Newer statistics are in the Lab. The published game review is unchanged. Explore latest stats →
The Ravens paired Lamar Jackson’s clean efficiency with Derrick Henry’s volume, while Dallas generated premium opportunity for its passing game but could not erase the decisive turnover gap.
This game · verified box score
Explore the game dataLamar Jackson kept the Ravens controlled and mistake-free, while Derrick Henry supplied the touchdown equity and workload that anchored the offense. Zay Flowers was the explosive receiving centerpiece in a compact route role, giving Baltimore an efficient rather than high-volume passing profile.
Dak Prescott created a high-volume pocket game, and CeeDee Lamb and George Pickens both produced useful PPR lines. Ryan Flournoy’s route and target involvement was also meaningful, but the final output lagged well behind the opportunity.
Tyler Loop converted every field-goal attempt and every extra-point attempt, including the game-winning field goal. Dallas had a blocked field-goal attempt, a pivotal distinction in a game decided by a narrow final margin.
Baltimore did not need Jackson to chase volume. He completed a highly efficient share of his attempts, threw touchdown passes without an interception, and added rushing production on a full offensive workload. His catchable-throw rate reinforces the quality of the passing game on its eligible charted throws, rather than merely the favorable box score. For fantasy managers, the result was another well-rounded quarterback outcome built on both passing efficiency and designed or improvised rushing value. Henry handled the game’s clearest backfield lead role. His rushing average was modest, but the carry count and touchdowns made that secondary. Justice Hill remained a change-of-pace contributor, producing well on limited carries but without a receiving target. Baltimore’s distribution therefore still points decisively toward Henry for workload and scoring access, with Hill operating as a complementary runner rather than a direct volume threat.
27 Sept, 21:25 BST
Maracana Stadium
Newer statistics are in the Lab. The published game review is unchanged. Explore latest stats →
The Ravens paired Lamar Jackson’s clean efficiency with Derrick Henry’s volume, while Dallas generated premium opportunity for its passing game but could not erase the decisive turnover gap.
This game · verified box score
Explore the game dataLamar Jackson kept the Ravens controlled and mistake-free, while Derrick Henry supplied the touchdown equity and workload that anchored the offense. Zay Flowers was the explosive receiving centerpiece in a compact route role, giving Baltimore an efficient rather than high-volume passing profile.
Dak Prescott created a high-volume pocket game, and CeeDee Lamb and George Pickens both produced useful PPR lines. Ryan Flournoy’s route and target involvement was also meaningful, but the final output lagged well behind the opportunity.
Tyler Loop converted every field-goal attempt and every extra-point attempt, including the game-winning field goal. Dallas had a blocked field-goal attempt, a pivotal distinction in a game decided by a narrow final margin.
Baltimore did not need Jackson to chase volume. He completed a highly efficient share of his attempts, threw touchdown passes without an interception, and added rushing production on a full offensive workload. His catchable-throw rate reinforces the quality of the passing game on its eligible charted throws, rather than merely the favorable box score. For fantasy managers, the result was another well-rounded quarterback outcome built on both passing efficiency and designed or improvised rushing value. Henry handled the game’s clearest backfield lead role. His rushing average was modest, but the carry count and touchdowns made that secondary. Justice Hill remained a change-of-pace contributor, producing well on limited carries but without a receiving target. Baltimore’s distribution therefore still points decisively toward Henry for workload and scoring access, with Hill operating as a complementary runner rather than a direct volume threat.
Expected points describe the value of the opportunities received. Both figures use full-PPR scoring.
Flowers was Baltimore’s clear receiving driver, turning a team-leading target share into repeated chain-moving production and adding a productive rushing touch. The striking qualification is route volume: his output arrived on a limited route total, an excellent game-level efficiency signal but a reason not to assume this exact pace is automatically bankable every week. Rashod Bateman played a much larger portion of the offensive snaps and ran more routes, yet his target total remained modest. At tight end, Mark Andrews commanded meaningful opportunity but left points on the field relative to his expected PPR total. Matthew Hibner delivered the touchdown and strong per-route production on a small role, while Josh Cuevas made a useful single-play contribution. Those ancillary results matter to the game story, but Andrews remains the tight end whose target share supplied the most stable involvement.
Verified route counts. Route volume alone does not establish a future role.
Prescott kept Dallas competitive with passing volume, a touchdown pass, no interception, and an added passing conversion. The fantasy result undershot his expected PPR figure, reflecting that the Cowboys’ offensive yardage did not fully become scoring output. Still, a full-snap quarterback role and this level of attempts leave the weekly passing environment intact. Lamb was productive and efficient on catchable targets, with substantial yardage and a receiving conversion. Pickens actually led the team in targets and paired that role with a strong catch total, though his expected PPR total suggests further upside was available. Flournoy’s usage deserves a more cautious reading: the routes and targets were starter-level, but his catchable-target rate and realized yardage were poor. That profile identifies opportunity, not a finished fantasy breakout.
Javonte Williams was Dallas’s featured runner, combining a heavy carry workload with strong rushing yardage and a touchdown. His route participation also made him the clearest backfield receiving option, even though the receiving production was limited. Tyler Goodson was the secondary ball carrier, and his smaller role did not materially challenge Williams’s control of the backfield. Jake Ferguson supplied a receiving touchdown but also lost a fumble, an especially costly contrast in a one-score game. His route total remained robust, preserving the more important process signal even with the volatile result. Brevyn Spann-Ford and Luke Schoonmaker were low-volume complementary tight ends. KaVontae Turpin’s rushing touchdown created a useful spike play, but his offensive role remained too limited to treat as a conventional receiving workload. The Dallas defense generated no sacks or interceptions and allowed Baltimore’s high total, while Baltimore’s defense recorded a sack and recovered an opponent fumble despite allowing Dallas to move the ball.
Game-only statistics. Receiving PPR per route uses receiving production only. Week 1 observations are not established season trends. Missing data is kept separate from zero.
Statistics checked 29/09/2026. Reports and the Lab use the same published evidence edition.
Expected points describe the value of the opportunities received. Both figures use full-PPR scoring.
Flowers was Baltimore’s clear receiving driver, turning a team-leading target share into repeated chain-moving production and adding a productive rushing touch. The striking qualification is route volume: his output arrived on a limited route total, an excellent game-level efficiency signal but a reason not to assume this exact pace is automatically bankable every week. Rashod Bateman played a much larger portion of the offensive snaps and ran more routes, yet his target total remained modest. At tight end, Mark Andrews commanded meaningful opportunity but left points on the field relative to his expected PPR total. Matthew Hibner delivered the touchdown and strong per-route production on a small role, while Josh Cuevas made a useful single-play contribution. Those ancillary results matter to the game story, but Andrews remains the tight end whose target share supplied the most stable involvement.
Verified route counts. Route volume alone does not establish a future role.
Prescott kept Dallas competitive with passing volume, a touchdown pass, no interception, and an added passing conversion. The fantasy result undershot his expected PPR figure, reflecting that the Cowboys’ offensive yardage did not fully become scoring output. Still, a full-snap quarterback role and this level of attempts leave the weekly passing environment intact. Lamb was productive and efficient on catchable targets, with substantial yardage and a receiving conversion. Pickens actually led the team in targets and paired that role with a strong catch total, though his expected PPR total suggests further upside was available. Flournoy’s usage deserves a more cautious reading: the routes and targets were starter-level, but his catchable-target rate and realized yardage were poor. That profile identifies opportunity, not a finished fantasy breakout.
Javonte Williams was Dallas’s featured runner, combining a heavy carry workload with strong rushing yardage and a touchdown. His route participation also made him the clearest backfield receiving option, even though the receiving production was limited. Tyler Goodson was the secondary ball carrier, and his smaller role did not materially challenge Williams’s control of the backfield. Jake Ferguson supplied a receiving touchdown but also lost a fumble, an especially costly contrast in a one-score game. His route total remained robust, preserving the more important process signal even with the volatile result. Brevyn Spann-Ford and Luke Schoonmaker were low-volume complementary tight ends. KaVontae Turpin’s rushing touchdown created a useful spike play, but his offensive role remained too limited to treat as a conventional receiving workload. The Dallas defense generated no sacks or interceptions and allowed Baltimore’s high total, while Baltimore’s defense recorded a sack and recovered an opponent fumble despite allowing Dallas to move the ball.
Game-only statistics. Receiving PPR per route uses receiving production only. Week 1 observations are not established season trends. Missing data is kept separate from zero.
Statistics checked 29/09/2026. Reports and the Lab use the same published evidence edition.