So many ways to open this column, which to choose. Greatest Super Bowl Ever? I don't think so. The Choke that Broke the Internet? Too harsh. Life is Full of Disappointment? Seems fitting. Why didn't I start James White? Too personal. Maybe best to just get into it.
I think Greatest Super Bowl Ever only works if you're a Patriots fan, and even on that basis I'd still give the edge to the win over the Rams -- just because it was so incredible and unlikely -- and probably even the win over Seattle, because of the incredible, dramatic emotional swings in the final minute or two. I personally still have a soft spot for Packers-Broncos, despite how dismayed I was by the outcome at the time, and maybe the first Giants-Patriots game, just because of 19-0 being at stake.
Yes this particular game had the comeback from 28-3 and the first-ever overtime, but I see it as more the collapse of one team than the excellence of another. I dislike the Patriots so maybe I've got a bias there, I mean, I do have a bias. But to me a great Super Bowl is two teams trading punches, not trading halves of quality play. So I'll give credit to the Patriots for winning, obviously, but as far as excellence, I saw way more of it in their win over a seemingly unstoppable Rams team and a very tough Seattle defense than a Falcons team that screwed up repeatedly in the final period and was obviously gassed defensively.
Some things I want to make sure aren't forgotten:
Julio Jones' incredible fourth-quarter catch. The room I was watching the game in was filled with adults and kids, and that catch was the only thing (well except for maybe the opening moments of the Scarlett Johanssen movie trailer) that made everyone look away from their friends, phones and appetizers and take notice. A huge catch in a huge moment, and yes basically the only play the Falcons made the entire second half. Should have basically won the game, in which case we'd all be talking about it forever, but instead the Falcons lost 23 yards on the next three plays and had to punt instead of kicking the game-clinching field goals. Sorry Matt Ryan and Julio. I thought that was the game.
James White. White has been a pretty ordinary, actually below-average, running back in his three-year career. Just 3.7 yards per carry, and quickly pushed out of a role by other backs in the preseason and the regular-season. But I put up a factoid last week showing he just might be a key weapon in this Super Bowl, then forgot about it when it came time to set various lineups, leaving him out of the picture. He to me is another example of how the Patriots win with a system, not stars; it could just as easily have been Dion Lewis making those plays, or Danny Woodhead, or somebody else. It's been true for the entire run of this dynasty, which is why (I think) Tom Brady, 5 Super Bowl rings and all, is a great quarterback but not the best ever -- he's just in the best situation of any quarterback since Terry Bradshaw. But nobody wants to hear me knock Brady and it's a lot more difficult now than it's ever been anyway. So he's great, but he's also damn lucky.
Atlanta miscues. You could see Atlanta starting to blow things but couldn't do anything about it. The pass plays that had no upside even if they were completed. The play calls that squandered field goal opportunities. The penalties that kept Patriots drives alive. The key turnover (itself a product of a lousy play call). Bottom line: it's not possible to make up a 25-point deficit, to have enough scoring drives to force overtime, without a lot of help. And the Falcons did just that. Boo. Oh but yeah, congrats to Brady and whatever.
The NFL's overtime rules. When the Patriots easily marched down and scored against an exhausted, deflated (too soon?) Falcons defense, there was much discussion about the NFL's overtime rules, which don't guarantee both teams possess the ball in the extra period. I have mixed feelings about this.
First and foremost, though, both teams probably should possess the ball in overtime. The NFL itself essentially said this by modifying the rule in the first place, saying that if the first team to possess it kicks a field goal, the second team gets a chance to receive. If you're going to say the team that wins the toss can't win on "just" a field goal, why say that team can win at all without the other team touching it?
The reason my feelings are mixed is that I don't want teams to be relaxed about overtime -- I want it to be seen as a chance-y, ugly possibility that can result in a sudden death loss. I absolutely hate when team are tied up in the final minute and they get conservative, settling for overtime, because it is a risky, unfair proposition that quite often can and will get you sent home with a cold, sudden finality. (Which brings up the point that if Atlanta hadn't squandered its timeouts prior to the last minute maybe it could have won in regulation.) Regardless, I'm sure changing overtime rules will be discussed this offseason and no one will be surprised if that happens. Not that it would likely have mattered; Atlanta had a whole half of football to score more points and didn't, so one overtime possession wouldn't have mattered.
So. Season's over. It was a great game, more so if you actually wanted New England to win or perhaps didn't care who won. And the Patriots dance their way into history while the Falcons shuffle off into the oblivion that all Super Bowl losers since the Bills go to for at least one year.
Thanks for reading. Next season will be here before we know it. Don't forget to take in the rest of the world between now and then.