Eagles vs. Cowboys: Dallas’ Pass Defense Could Shape the Week 7 Matchup

Passing defenses are where the extremes show

The scatter plot’s clearest story is how unevenly teams defend the pass and the run. Dallas allowed 0.37 EPA per pass play, worst among the 32 teams shown, while Arizona was close behind at 0.28 and Buffalo at 0.24. Those figures point to a real weakness against passing offenses; they don’t tell us, on their own, what caused it. Some defenses look far more balanced. Minnesota allowed negative EPA per play against both the pass (-0.19) and run (-0.15). Seattle (-0.13 passing, -0.17 rushing) and Tampa Bay (-0.02, -0.18) also held up particularly well against the run. The contrast matters: a defense can be difficult to attack on the ground and still give up efficient passing plays.

One number can hide the split

Look at Miami: its run defense allowed -0.13 EPA per play, but its pass defense allowed 0.32. The New York Jets show a milder version of the same split, at 0.03 against the pass and -0.18 against the run. If you’re comparing defenses, a single overall label will miss these matchup differences. The Philadelphia Eagles allowed 0.13 EPA per pass play and 0.01 per run play; the New Orleans Saints were at 0.10 and 0.07. Both numbers are positive for both teams, though the chart alone doesn’t explain whether schedule, injuries or other circumstances shaped those results. The New England Patriots sit near even at -0.03 for both. The same teams and metrics can be sorted on the Team Stats tab. The chart is sourced from [Premium Stats Pro](https://www.pff.com/premium/nfl/positions).

Pass defense separates the contenders

The clearest signal in this group is Minnesota’s balance: the Vikings rank first in EPA allowed per pass play at -0.19 and fourth against the run at -0.15. Kansas City is strong on both fronts too, ranking third against the pass (-0.12) and 11th against the run (-0.09). Green Bay presents a sharper split: its pass defense is fourth at -0.11, while its run defense ranks 30th, allowing 0.01 EPA per play. That gap matters. A defense can make life difficult for quarterbacks and still give opponents a dependable route on the ground. Green Bay’s numbers suggest exactly that vulnerability, though this data alone doesn’t explain its cause.

Uneven defenses, and one clear weakness

Houston and Jacksonville both suppress the run well: the Texans rank eighth at -0.10 EPA per run play, while the Jaguars rank fifth at -0.14. Their pass defenses tell a different story. Houston ranks 21st, allowing 0.09 EPA per pass play; Jacksonville sits in the middle at 16th, with 0.00. Miami’s profile is more lopsided still. It ranks sixth against the run (-0.13), but 31st against the pass, allowing 0.32 EPA per play. The obvious read is that opponents should attack through the air. What the figures don’t tell us is whether that weakness reflects coverage, pass rush, or both.

The middle of the pack

The Los Angeles Chargers are close to average in both categories: 17th against the pass at 0.01 and 15th against the run at -0.06. The Rams are similarly balanced, ranking 14th against the pass (-0.00) and 17th against the run (-0.06). Indianapolis is less reassuring: 23rd against the pass at 0.12 and 29th against the run at -0.00. Kansas City’s divisional rivals show the opposite kind of imbalance. Las Vegas ranks 13th against the run (-0.08), but 27th against the pass, allowing 0.18 EPA per play. If you’re evaluating these defenses, that split is a more useful starting point than a single overall label. The available figures also show one team with a pass defense ranked 28th at 0.24 EPA allowed per play and a run defense ranked 26th at -0.01. Its name and division aren’t visible in this fragment, so there’s no sound basis for identifying it. Among the teams shown, Minnesota stands out as the strongest all-around unit. Green Bay’s pass numbers are impressive, but its run ranking is a warning; Miami’s is the reverse. These are useful clues about where each defense gives ground, though EPA rankings alone can’t explain how those weaknesses developed.