Superbowl LII: a recap from my mind

"Look Stallion, when you won that last fight, you won by one second. You beat me by one second. That's very hard for a man of my intelligence to handle."

~~ Apollo Creed

It's annoying how mythical Brady becomes if the defense just makes that stop at 33-32.

He'd end the game with 450-500 yards passing, and yet another comeback victory. Three titles in four years once again, with the aura of being unbeatable and the option to ride off on that note.

Instead it's an ugly feather.

---

Going for it on 4th down on that drive (down 33-32) was a great decision by Philadelphia. First I was happy the Patriots stopped them and would be getting the ball back, then it dawned on me "oh... they should go for it here", and traditionally coaches often don't make the correct aggressive decision, so I was hopeful they wouldn't, but they did.

The Nick Foles trick play, when they went for a touchdown rather than field goal at the end of the first half, was a really interesting and probably good decision too.

The big thing is, if they didn't score, the Patriots are pinned deep and they aren't scoring either. (Some chance they'll even take a safety.) Whereas if you kick the FG, there's some chance the Patriots will use the 20 or 30 seconds or whatever to score themselves. So kicking the FG has some implied points lost. I think it was the right move, but very close.

The press talks about it being "daring" and "courageous" and stuff like that, but in reality Philadelphia is just trying to make the decision that gives them the best chance to win and I doubt it's guided by an emotional impulse.

Historically, coaches are often unwilling to do the right thing when it would be perceived as "risky". Because they'll take the blame if it doesn't work, whereas no one would second guess them for doing what was perceived as the textbook, traditional thing to do.

So emotion and impulse is often the reason for doing the wrong thing, but probably not for doing the right thing.

Today there's enough attention on analytics where I'd imagine the teams' power structures have come to understand what's actually correct in certain situations, and Pederson knows he's allowed or even actively groomed to err this way in these spots.

But how 'bout that Nick Foles?

As the game went on, it started to dawn on me that Foles just wasn't gonna make a mistake. It felt like trying to nail jello to a wall.

Ironically I think the Patriots would have been better off if Wentz was playing. I mean, as it turned out, of course that's true. Foles played near perfect, so if you could do it over again of course you'd take Wentz and try your luck with that.

But even in theory it might be true.

I warned before their post-season run began to not underestimate Nick Foles, and I speculated that he may have some rare ability to "dig deep and zone in". And he certainly did a lot to live up to that billing.

Belichick, being a master of finding a player's flaw and taking away what they're good at, may have done just fine against Wentz. But there's really no technical, Xs and Os response to someone who is unconscious and zoned in.

It's almost like trying to beat magic with science. If you're a great scientist, you'd probably rather be up against another scientist than the guy who once in a while will be magic.

So for that reason I almost feel like the Patriots should have preferred Wentz (at least over the zoned in version of Nick Foles who showed up), where even tho he's better than Foles on paper, there's a decent chance they would have found a counter-measure to him.

remember that the INT was actually a great throw that the receiver bobbled and accidentally batted over to the defense

Close calls

There were a few close calls that didn't go the Patriots' way.

Basically, three of Philadelphia's touchdowns were borderline and could have reasonably been called against them. (And they weren't "2nd down & 3 to the goal" and would most likely end up scoring anyways type of situations. They were pivotal calls.)

That stuff happens, but it's annoying if the refs had like a "reverse bias" thing going on where they know people are complaining about the Patriots being favored and err towards Philly so as to not be perceived as biased.

It was 3-for-3 rather borderline calls, and to me it does feel like "reverse bias" likely was at play.

I think the Zach Ertz call actually was a solid call. It did kind of feel like he did just enough to become a runner. I sort of suspect that if that one had come first, one of the other two calls may have gone the Patriots' way. (But even knowing the Patriots sort of deserved the next borderline call, this one wasn't quite borderline enough.)

Brady

The GOAT was wonderful. He was about as GOATy as you can ask for.

And it's wild how much of a perception swing it is, like how epic his game goes down as if they win. But losing takes a lot of air out of it. I guess it removes the "magic" of feeling like maybe he'd come up with absolutely anything you need. It puts a finite ceiling on it.

It's pretty unlucky if you're Tom Brady.

First, that Nick Foles would play that well and your defense would be so unable to stop them.

The three close Philadelphia touchdown calls (which doesn't have to mean they were wronged at all, but even still they're super high leverage situations that were decided by a hair and all went the other way).

Missed field goal.

And even a couple things that Brady was involved with are "unlucky" in a sense. The trick play where he became a receiver almost worked and was a high leverage spot, and the strip sack is a freakishly high leverage spot even if he's partly responsible for it.

Basically, it's hard to never punt and throw for 500 yards and somehow lose.

Belichick

It would be funny if Belichick was secretly sabotaging the Brady's and the Kraft's and was deliberately trying to play Swiss cheese defense. Like he's an evil genius getting a kick out of making Brady earn it, and would have been okay with either outcome.

A Superbowl win right now, with Brady's documentary coming out and the hand injury and how they won in Jacksonville and whatnot, seems like it would do plenty more for Brady's legacy relative to Belichick. In general reaching a Superbowl and losing is worse for the perception of the athlete than the coach, since we want our athletes to "come through in the clutch" and "win on the biggest stage", whereas the coach is more judged linearly for sustained success and putting his team in positions to win and whatnot.

Which doesn't mean it would be bad for Belichick's legacy in gross terms, but if he's caught up in the power struggle with Brady, there are some redeeming aspects to losing.

The Malcolm Butler benching is odd, but I'm not necessarily that serious about suspecting he was managing to lose. But it's odd.

I'm also skeptical of not kicking the FG on the 35-yard line on 4th&5, trailing 9-3 at the time (after the trick play where Brady missed the reception).

Sure it's a safe spot on the field to go for it on 4th, but 5 is a lot. And a 52-yard field goal in a dome is one you expect to make.

If it were 3 yards to go at the 38, I think that tilts it towards going for it. So it's close and not beyond the scope of having any idea what he was thinking or whatever. But 5 yards at the 35 feels kind of clearly like FG to me, and I think it was a mistake.

They had issues with the other kick earlier, and maybe that was floating around Belichick's head, but it would be kind of dumb and result-oriented to base future situations off the idea of that happening again.

So one way or another, Belichick's stock goes down in my eyes.

Conclusion

I think Brady played like a champion, and the coaching (mixed in with a healthy dose of bad luck) did a lot to lose it for them.

#GOATlife, try again next year