With All The Attention on RoyW

[2much2soon]

and frequent comparisons to Ed Reed, I had to go check the stats on these guys.
Adam's post about RW having at least 2 sacks and 2 ints in 3 of his first 4 seasons also got me thinking about this.
After all the Ed Reed hype I expected his stats to overwhelm RWs.
Not the case.
While Reed has twice as many ints (22-11), RW has twice as many fumbles forced (8-4) and over twice as many fumbles recovered (5-2).
RW has 6.5 career sacks compared to Reeds 4.
RW has scored 3 TDs to Reeds 2.
RW has played in 4 more games than Reed but has 46 more tackles (256-210).
And the a real eye opener for the "Ed Reed is way better in coverage crowd" is that Reed has only 2 more passes defenced that RW (25-23).
I'd also like to throw in the fact that Reed has played behind a much better front 7 for most of his career than RW.

 

[dal0789]

Nice post.

 

[Zman5]

Good stuff. The pass defended stat is a big surprise.

 

[AsthmaField]

Very nice post. I didn't realize his stats were as close to Reed's as they are.

Of course, stats don't tell the whole story... Reed is much better in coverage... but Roy is a nightmare for WR's over the middle and reed isn't.

They're both very good players. I'll take ours.

 

[jbsg02]

Reed is a ballhawk safety and Roy is a in the box guy

 

[SkinsandTerps]

Passes defensed is a crappy stat.

Take a look at Deions passed defensed career numbers.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Passes defensed is a crappy stat.

Take a look at Deions passed defensed career numbers.

Its not the most telling, but it is relavent in some scenarios

Newman has only a handful, but he is probably the NFC best corner

 

[SkinsandTerps]

Which scenarios ?

TO gone, Owens gone, Holt injured...

Its a BS stat.

Passes defensed means that they were challenging you.

0 passes defensed is better than X passes defensed. Simply means they werent throwing your way, because coverage was good.

 

[AdamJT13]

0 passes defensed is better than X passes defensed. Simply means they werent throwing your way, because coverage was good.

Not necessarily. You could have zero passes defended in a game by allowing 10 completions on 10 attempts. Or you could have zero passes defended by covering so well the opponent never throws your way.

Passes defended isn't a telling stat either way. Unless you know the rest of the stats (times targeted, passes completed, etc.), there's no way to tell what it means. And even then, it's not really useful.

 

[SkinsandTerps]

Not necessarily. You could have zero passes defended in a game by allowing 10 completions on 10 attempts. Or you could have zero passes defended by covering so well the opponent never throws your way.

Passes defended isn't a telling stat either way. Unless you know the rest of the stats (times targeted, passes completed, etc.), there's no way to tell what it means. And even then, it's not really useful.

haha.

Yeah that too.

Nice addition.

Thanks.

 

[Billy Bullocks]

Statistically Roy may be "as good" in coverage, but the fact is, he's not. Reed, as stated above, is a ballhawk, Roy is much more of a SS. He is far superior in run support. And also, like said, much more intimidating.

BTW, with the overhyped Ravens this year, Reed has 0 picks in 5 games.

Reed is definately good, but the fact is, he's a bit overrated based on the players around him. Everyone said, put Williams, hell, I'll even say Sean Taylor out there with teh Ravens front 7 last year, they look just as good. Bottom line. Id add Dawkins and Harrison, but they already had that.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

hell, I'll even say Sean Taylor out there

Thats pushing it.

Id take Polamalu, a healthy Harrison, Reed, Roy, Al Wilson, Dawkins ect. over him right now.

Lot of physical potential, but thats all right now potential.

Randal Williams had potential too