I cringe when people critique an argument's flawed logic while using the same flawed logic in their counter-argument. In this case, he’s basing his entire argument on his foolishness for believing one game was the future of the NFL (Chiefs/Rams). He then counters that argument by presenting an argument based on one game, the Super Bowl.
He follows this up with an even dumber example to prove his point using college football which has even less transfer across the NFL than the Superbowl.
All of this culminating in the proposition that the future of football is a 'talking point'; which only counters the narrative of his talking points.
Here's the thing, there is more evidence to support the NFL becoming more like the Rams/Chiefs game. Also, Bill Belichick didn't use some wacky unseen tactic from yesteryear to stop the Rams offense; he literally used the same tactics the Vikings used in 2017 against the Rams. Now you may consider him a genius for doing that, however, he's also one of the only coaches who had more than a week to prepare for the Rams.
The only thing the Superbowl is evidence of is that a coach cannot hide an average QB for an entire season and win a Superbowl while relying on his offense. Is it indicative of a trend that offense will not continue to dominate? No. The Chiefs scored 31 points in a half, with a first-year starter at QB, using a similar system as the Rams against Patriots.
The QB continues to be the key to the NFL, that's the only cyclical reoccurrence worthy of note this season.
He follows this up with an even dumber example to prove his point using college football which has even less transfer across the NFL than the Superbowl.
All of this culminating in the proposition that the future of football is a 'talking point'; which only counters the narrative of his talking points.
Here's the thing, there is more evidence to support the NFL becoming more like the Rams/Chiefs game. Also, Bill Belichick didn't use some wacky unseen tactic from yesteryear to stop the Rams offense; he literally used the same tactics the Vikings used in 2017 against the Rams. Now you may consider him a genius for doing that, however, he's also one of the only coaches who had more than a week to prepare for the Rams.
The only thing the Superbowl is evidence of is that a coach cannot hide an average QB for an entire season and win a Superbowl while relying on his offense. Is it indicative of a trend that offense will not continue to dominate? No. The Chiefs scored 31 points in a half, with a first-year starter at QB, using a similar system as the Rams against Patriots.
The QB continues to be the key to the NFL, that's the only cyclical reoccurrence worthy of note this season.