Clamping down on the 2 top receivers - 2003 defense stats

[TruBlueCowboy]

Found this on accident but thought it was an interesting stat graph. It shows which teams were the best at shutting down their opponents' two top receivers last year. (Everyone who thinks Roy Williams and Darren Woodson aren't any good at coverage needs to take a look at this. :mad: )

Dallas' defense is first with completion %.

1st with yards allowed.

Tied for 6th with touchdowns allowed.

It's 3rd in their overall ratings but that's because of the few interceptions which probably go into the overall total rating. I know Dallas' secondary is better than Minnesota which is ranked second.

http://www.twominutewarning.com/cb1.htm

[TheHustler]

Found this on accident but thought it was an interesting stat graph. It shows which teams were the best at shutting down their opponents' two top receivers last year. (Everyone who thinks Roy Williams and Darren Woodson aren't any good at coverage needs to take a look at this. :mad: )

Dallas' defense is first with completion %.

1st with yards allowed.

Tied for 6th with touchdowns allowed.

It's 3rd in their overall ratings but that's because of the few interceptions which probably go into the overall total rating. I know Dallas' secondary is better than Minnesota which is ranked second.

http://www.twominutewarning.com/cb1.htm

the fact that minn is ranked #2 alone tells you the ranking is skewed. if we're better than #2, then others are better than #3. you can't have it both ways.

[TruBlueCowboy]

the fact that minn is ranked #2 alone tells you the ranking is skewed. if we're better than #2, then others are better than #3. you can't have it both ways.

The overall rating might be skewed but the yards allowed and completion % don't lie. These are for only the two top receivers on each team, not their entire offense. It's difficult to find stats like this. It's an interesting site. I guess it's a gambler's site, but they've done a ton of stat analysis. I found one that ranked the lines but it was 2002.

[AdamJT13]

Minnesota ranked slightly ahead of us for defensive passer rating when the ball was thrown to the opponent's top two receivers (only because they had three times as many interceptions -- we were better in the other three factors). But when you take the opponents' overall passing stats, we were better (66.0 to 66.8) even though we had less than half as many interceptions.

[TruBlueCowboy]

Check out this moving the ball stat. It doesn't include total first downs and 3rd down % but instead just measures how often a 1st down is obtained on each down. Dallas is 5th place in the NFL when you consider the net difference between offense/defense.
Doh! Nevermind, that's the net difference after defense is

This really shows how impressive the defense was. Their total 1st down stoppage is about 3 points higher than the next ranked defense in the NFL. The offense was pretty bad though.

http://www.twominutewarning.com/mb1.htm

[joseephuss]

Found this on accident but thought it was an interesting stat graph. It shows which teams were the best at shutting down their opponents' two top receivers last year. (Everyone who thinks Roy Williams and Darren Woodson aren't any good at coverage needs to take a look at this. :mad: )

Dallas' defense is first with completion %.

1st with yards allowed.

Tied for 6th with touchdowns allowed.

It's 3rd in their overall ratings but that's because of the few interceptions which probably go into the overall total rating. I know Dallas' secondary is better than Minnesota which is ranked second.

http://www.twominutewarning.com/cb1.htm

It is the same rating as used for QBs. They just plug in the stats generated by the top two receivers of each opponent. That is kind of subjective because it does not include when the top two guys are covered and the QB makes the read and does not go their direction.

Dallas had a very good defense last year no matter how you break it down. It could be a great defense if they generated more of a pass rush. Hopefully, that happens.

I am surpised that Minnesota's defense had such a low rating number, but figures and stats aren't always accurate. It is easy to see that they had an average to below average defense.