Whatever it was, it was obviously something Marvin Lewis never said to them.
I’m serious though. I’d like to read an analysis of what went so differently in the second half, and why.
WHO DEY alllllll the way Baybee!!
The Rams went all-in this season and their bet paid off.
I know some people hate Les Snead, but he’s done a remarkable job on the front office end.
They’re going to be in some trouble down the road, but just getting this far and having a real shot at winning it all is probably going to be considered worth it in the end.
They started dropping 8 back in coverage and the Chiefs didn’t adjust adequately.
They switched to a 3 man rush and that worked? Interesting. The prevailing wisdom these days is to go heavy on pressure up front, and then it doesn’t matter what your secondary does because the QB is running for his life. But then again, Mahomes isn’t just any QB, and the Chiefs aren’t just any offense. Good on the Bengals for that. 
This has generally been the way to limit Mahomes. But you need a defense willing to be patient and have a spy who can time it out and make the tackle when needed.
Bengals defense did a hell of a job playing as a disciplined unit in the second half. They clearly bought into and believed what the coaches had planned.
Their final offensive play of regulation was a great example of that. They rush three, Mahomes has loads of time but nowhere to throw, and finally the spy comes in and makes a strip-sack. The announcer is busy saying “too much time, you can’t do that” while the Bengals are showing exactly why you can do that. Mahomes can escape pressure, but he’s stuck if no one is open.
The link below should be cued up to 11:55.
Dude, this is bullshit. Stafford is an adequate NFL QB, but there is no way in fucking hell Stafford is as good as Brady. By any metric, Brady is a far better QB. Yes, having a chance to learn from Bledsoe, having a top 10 defense every year you’ve won it all, having an offense tailored to your skillset, and not being stuck with the Lions, were a huge advantage for Brady, but saying Stafford would have been as good as Brady is just fucking silly.
And, no, Stafford didn’t “take”, the Rams to the Super Bowl. He just "didn’t fuck up as much as Jimmy Garopollo"ed and "Hey, everyone in the world, I"M THROWING THE BALL TO COOPER KUPP"ed his way to the Super Bowl.
I tire of the inflation of a QB’s perceived talent because his team (Note: TEAM) wins.
To be fair to solost, I started to reply the same way as you, then re-read what solost said. There was no claim that Stafford was as good as Brady, just that if Stafford was in New England instead of Brady, that by this point he’d have won the Super Bowl multiple times. And… Maybe that’s true? Belichick is certainly a great HC, many say the GOAT. The Patriots had a lot of great things going for them aside from Brady over the years. So it’s possible. Maybe 3-4 rings instead of 7?
And I think it’s hard to argue that Brady stuck in Detroit wouldn’t have been a disaster. Nobody will succeed in Detroit unless they change more than the QB.
I agree that the “Stafford is as good as Brady” is BS, because nobody is as good as Brady. I think Brady going to the Bucs and bringing them a championship toward the end of his career is a testament that he, himself, is the best to play the position, when you consider all of the previous years of success. I don’t think that’s what solost was saying, though. Maybe @solost can clarify.
Just as an aside, seriously, Kupp should be the MVP this year.
Dude, relax. As @Atamasama said, no I am not saying Stafford is as good as Brady, just that he would have had a much better, more Brady-like career if he would have been with an organization like the Patriots instead of wasting 12 seasons with the Lions. And conversely, if Brady had wasted his career with the Lions he’d be more “who’s Tom Brady, again?” All’s I was trying to say was, I’m happy for Stafford now that he’s finally having some success.
And I thought it was a bit ironic that you go on about how great Brady is (which he is, for sure) and then say “I tire of the inflation of a QB’s perceived talent because his team (Note: TEAM) wins.” If you look at my statement a little differently I’m saying “if the Lions and Pats QBs had been switched 12 years ago, the teams’ outcomes would still have been similar”. which, really, fits with your statement.
Nah. This narrative that the Lions were holding Stafford back is just lazy sports talk trash. QB is the most important position in football, it’s repeated ad nauseum every time we talk about MVP, the Draft or pretty much anything relating to team failure and success. Stafford does not get insulated from all that Lions losing…he was a big part of the reason why those teams were so futile. If Rodgers or Brady were on the Lions they would have been a winning franchise. Maybe not to the degree that the Patriots were, but elite QBs find a way. Jared Goff went to a Super Bowl with a less talented Rams team…let’s not pretend that this ridiculously loaded team that traded away a decade worth of 1st rounders for a 2 year window was carried to the Super Bowl by Stafford. In fact, they might have gotten there in spite of him. Brady on the Lions still probably wins the NFC North 10 times and and ends up in the hall.
You seem to be undercutting your own argument here. On one hand, you’re saying when Stafford was on the Lions he was a big part of the reason they were so bad, because the position of QB is so important, and therefore he shares the blame. BUT, the Rams going to the Super Bowl is happening despite Stafford, not because of him. Is the QB important to the team’s overall success or not?
And your comment about Jared Goff going to a Super Bowl with a less talented Rams team-- are you trying to say that Goff is better than Stafford? I’ve watched him play this season, and that is definitely not the case. He certainly hasn’t elevated the Lions at all.
I watched Stafford play on the Lions for 12 seasons, so I think I have some idea of what he’s capable of. I saw how quickly he always had to get the ball away, or get sacked because the Lions’ front line was as strong as wet tissue paper. I saw him have to pass way more often than a QB should because the Lions did have some great receivers in those days, but they haven’t had a good running back basically since Barry Sanders quit. I’ve seen him pull off amazing comebacks and do a great job managing the clock in the final seconds to make the comeback win possible.
Goff is bad. Read this article for some details.
Hell, if Drew Bledsoe hadn’t gone down, Brady might never have become a starter, much less a GOAT. Yeah, he worked really hard to get where he is, but he did need at least one totally random thing to go his way.
I am too. I hope he’s a good person and I would root for him if he wasn’t playing for one of my most reviled people in the NFL in Stan Kroenke.
You would be hard pressed to find a bigger critic on this message board of the idea that the best way you can judge QB play is by wins and loses or championships won. Brady isn’t better than Rodgers because he has 6 more championships. Eli Manning is a far worse QB than Dan Marino despite having 2 more Super Bowl wins. And don’t get me started on Joe Flacco, Brad Johnson, or Nick Foles.
Maybe. You put Stafford on the Pats, and Bledsoe is playing hobbled and Bellicheck is drafting a new QB after 2 years of Staffords play. And the Lions would trade Brady for some piano playing mediocre QB and a fish sandwich. But the Pats don’t win as much, and the Lions certainly lose as much, without Brady and Stafford.
New thread: NFL 2021: The Super Bowl