It was a popular topic, as the Super Bowl unfolded Sunday, that those teams searching for the next Sean McVay or an offensive guru like him -- and, of course, the Cardinals fit in that description with Kliff Kingsbury -- had to be a little nervous after the Patriots made the Rams look impotent in the lowest-scoring Super Bowl ever. That seemed a little too hot-take for me.

Look, this isn't to guarantee anything Kingsbury will or won't do with the Cardinals. That's TBD. But it just seems strange to me that such a sweeping generalization would be made on one game, Super Bowl or not. I get that's what done every year, with the constant analysis, but a year ago, after the Patriots and Eagles turned the Super Bowl into Madden on "Pro" difficulty, no one was going to be thinking an offensive team had no chance. Heck, even two weeks ago, the Chiefs were shut out by the Patriots for a half before lighting up the scoreboard.

As for the Rams' offense disappearing, it wasn't like we hadn't see that, even this season. The Rams' Super Bowl performance, offensively, looked a lot like the one they had in Chicago late in the season. That offense had already proven to be a less bulletproof than their oft-comparison in Kansas City. As poorly as Jared Goff looked Sunday, it was his offensive line -- which had been pretty good most of the season and definitely healthy -- that looked porous. Todd Gurley, arguably the best back in the league, all but disappointing in the postseason was a factor too.

Bill Belichick was great, again. He is the best coach ever. But the Patriots could've lost that game, too, as poorly as the Rams' offense looked. I agree with McVay, that he was outcoached that game. I just keep coming back to the fact that, for all the warts that were shown from the Rams, they still were in the Super Bowl, with the ball midway through the fourth quarter with the chance to tie or take a lead. I'm guessing the Cardinals -- or any other team not named the Patriots -- would've taken that scenario Sunday.