I've seen many NFL analysts and writers use PFF in their writings/comments. They aren't perfect and they admit that themselves, but there's also this: I don't dispute any of that. I mainly find the article interesting because of the Landry pickup by the Jets. I think he may physically be able to do a good enough job to emulate what the Raiders did against Gronk - though admittedly probably not as good a job. Add that with the fact that the Jets have very good cover corners and a great defensive mind at HC and they may be able to do a better job overall than the Raiders did.
I give PFF credit for trying to do new things and bring different types of analysis to the table, but I seriously question that 90% accuracy number. Maybe now that the all-22 is available they can achieve that, but otherwise I don't really see how that's possible. I've also heard players (Chad Greenway comes to mind, but it might have been someone else on the Minnesota defense) dispute their accuracy, it's tough when you don't know what everyone's assignments are on any given play. I don't mean to come on here and bash PFF, but I think it's important to take what they say with a grain of salt. As for Landry, even if he's healthy (a huge question at this point) I don't think he has the kind of coverage ability that Branch has. He's got the size and strength to disrupt Gronk's routes, but if the pressure doesn't get to Brady, I think he'd get abused. It's kind of a shame really, there just aren't a lot of quality coverage safeties in the NFL today.
No - he's definitely not as good in coverage as Branch. But if the key to covering Gronk is being physical enough to disrupt him at the LOS and for 5 yards after it gives Landry an advantage that I don't think a lot of safeties have.
IF healthy, I agree with you. But, and this could just be me being a homer, I think it takes more then just disrupting Gronk within the first 5 yards of the LOS to stop him.
I haven't ever really watched Tyvon Branch closely, so I am kind of speculating here, but I have never gotten the impression that his physicality by itself is anything spectacular. I imagine that, like Revis, it is his ability to play physical at the LOS without opening up vulnerabilities coverage-wise that makes him so good in man-to-man coverage. With Landry, you've got a Safety who is somewhat vulnerable in coverage to begin with. I think that he would win some of those battles, but occasionally he would also get beat, and when that happens (unlike Branch who ran a 4.26 second 40-yd dash) he would have no prayer of recovering in time to break up the play. Since you guys have a more talented secondary in general, and thus more flexibility in devising schemes, it might be something that could be incorporated to some extent with some success. I don't think that Landry could perfectly replicate what Branch did with the same results, though.
Just because Welker was burning corners all day does not mean that Gronkowski wasn't shut down. Its not like they put 2 safeties and a LB on him and PFF is claiming that the raiders came up with the formula to stopping Gronkowski. 1 guy for the most part shut him down but the rest of the Raiders defense was exploited.
But it doesn't mean he was shut down either, It's possible he was just not needed. If you have your top guy open all day, you don't need to throw to anyone else, and at that point in the season Welker was still Brady's top guy. Unless they do an analysis on how many pass plays Brady was looking for Gronk first and checked off to Welker we don't know. If Welker was the first read, and open all day, then Gronk just wasn't needed.
Sorry, you don't need to know what read in the QB's progression a receiver was to see them being shut down. It's not very difficult for a trained eye to watch the coverage and see that the receiver is not open. This is what PFF does. They grade individual performances on every play for every player in every NFL game. They are not basing this article on just stats. They used their own eyes and WATCHED what they are reporting. Your guess is based on just stats and it's a joke that you're trying call out someone who actually watched and graded the individual performance for every play. If you want to watch the game focusing on Gronk vs. Branch and then you object, feel free to bring some type of evidence to the table. Otherwise you just sound silly.
PFF isn't the bible, but if you're going to challenge what they wrote based on breaking down the play by play of the matchup you had better do the same yourself instead of pointing at stats and saying they could be wrong.
Landry ran a 4.35 many years and many injuries ago, and has bulked up since then. Also, I wasn't trying to simplify to the point of saying that recovery speed is Branch's only asset. Body control and position are really the more important factors in being able to play physical near the LOS without getting burned. Bottom line is that there is reason that Branch is considered an elite man coverage safety, while coaches typically choose to play Landry in the box.
