Pretty well sums it up. Old Bill threw together a great plan, but LA's failures were fueled by Goff's nerves as well as the defense. I thought Brady showed some signs of decline too at times. 14 punts, 9 by LA.For me, this was middle-of-the-pack in terms of great Super Bowls. I'm sure it is in the eye of the beholder, but for a one-score game, it didn't have that tenseness that comes with a game dominated by defenses. There weren't many turnovers, the sacks weren't a product of schemes more than it was squeamishness on the part of Goff, particularly. It was one of the few games where the punters were compelling factors. That's sad.
It's also the only Super Bowl I can think of that was contested by the third and fourth best teams in the NFL.
You're entitled to your opinion. I think Kansas City showed, in one half, they were a better team than New England, Hunt or no Hunt. They were a stupid neutral zone penalty away from being there.I don't think that KC is one of the two best teams in the NFL without Kareem Hunt. NO should have been there.
Maybe just a coin flip away from being there. Not sure I would bet against Mahomes guiding them to a game ending TD if they won that toss.You're entitled to your opinion. I think Kansas City showed, in one half, they were a better team than New England, Hunt or no Hunt. They were a stupid neutral zone penalty away from being there.
I thought it was very intriguing. Course, I have always preferred defensive battles in any sport. Knew once they intercepted it was likely game over.Most boring Super Bowl I can remember.
Weirdo being hardcore weird again.So, with an extra week to prepare and learn the opposition, why do you think that is ?
Despite your assessment of Goff pre-game, I just don't think we'll ever see "steely resolve" on this face - ever - even if in a few years he has a couple MVP trophies....
....but, wait...... Doesn't he look kind of familiar........?
I know. Maybe he has a Weeden-genomic link!?
Good God...........the horror....the horror.......
The Rams love to use tight bunch formations and jet sweeps to give pass catchers plenty of running room and to pull defenders in different directions. But they also came into the game having used “11” personnel (one running back, one tight end, three wide receivers) nearly all the time. The Patriots of late had been pretty good at stopping “11” personnel.
The way the Rams thrive is to frequently show teams the same look, then to attack them based on what McVay and Goff see at the line of scrimmage pre-snap. Their preferred method for doing this is to line up quickly, and for McVay to help Goff with diagnosing the defense before his in-helmet headset shuts off with 15 seconds remaining on the play clock. But, as Sports Illustrated’s Albert Breer reported, the Patriots countered this by basically having two play calls sent in—one each for before and after the snap. The intent was to confuse Goff, and it worked.
The key for NFL defenses has always been to show one look and then change to another but doing so in a way the offense hasn't seen you do. QBs know defenses will change their initial look.Surprisingly solid article from Deadspin on how the Pats shut down the Rams: https://deadspin.com/how-the-patriots-defense-put-the-rams-in-a-trash-can-1832326941