I posted earlier about my Seattle -4.5 pick because elite defenses typically overperform the spread in Super Bowls.
I documented a bunch of them in the post: #1426273 but I never really articulated a plausible reason why that should be the case.
IOW, if you notice elite defenses tend to cover in Super Bowls, and you have no mechanism to explain it, maybe it's just dumb luck things turned out that way.
But here's a plausible explanation IMO:
The Super Bowl is arguably the most scrutinized sporting event in the world. Teams get two full weeks off, and tons of hype builds. Players are always more nervous in the biggest games, and performance tends to suffer somewhat -- think it was Tom Brady who said that, but maybe it was someone else. But whoever it was said the clutch players are those who can maintain closer to their usual calm when everyone else is feeling the pressure in these huge games.
Offense is about timing. The QB has to time the ball to meet the receiver. Defense is about disrupting timing. Get heat on the QB, he throws to early. Jam the WR, his route is thrown off. If you're facing a top defense that throws off your timing, it's very hard to adjust and be poised under pressure. Basically, the higher the stakes, the higher the nerves and that favors the disruptors over the timers.
Especially in the first quarter, games tend to be scoreless early
The other reason is that defensive game planning is easier than offensive game planning. Both Joe Gibbs and Bill Walsh said this after they retired from coaching.
On the other hand, how often does a career choke artist win a championship?
I have the same base case as you, but I also won't be at all surprised if Darnold has 5 turnovers and takes 8 sacks.
Darnold definitely choked last year in his two big games against the Lions and in the playoffs, but he didn't choke against the Rams this year. And the Pats defense is way worse than the Rams.
I don't agree that the Pats defense is way worse than the Rams. The Rams had maybe the best defense in league in the first half of the season but the second half and playoffs they were not close to elite. Their secondary got exposed and they have no sacks in the last two games. They gave up an average of 26 points in the playoffs, which would have been more if they didn't play a snow game in Chicago.
The Rams defense might be better overall but down the stretch and in the playoffs the Patriots defense has played better. Doesn't mean they will win. I don't think they can score on Seattle like the Rams did which means their D will probably spend a lot of time on the field and wear down in the second half. We saw that when the Panthers played the Seahawks. Panthers played them very close in the first half and then got their doors blown off in the second half.
I just don't know if the Patriots will move the ball enough to stay on the field and give their defense a chance to perform well. Pretty much the only weakness in Seattle's D is you can attack them vertically downfield. That's what opened up the run game for the Rams. I don't think the Pats have the WRs for that and Maye is great but he is a 2nd year QB.
True, but your thesis here is that the pressure of the Super Bowl is qualitatively different.
What outcome would surprise you the most?
More pressure, but it doesn't seem like it benefits average defenses -- not like we haven't had a lot of overs come in. It's only when the defense can make you rush more than usual that it seems to have an outsized effect. And maybe that's not even the explanation, just that elite defenses have really been the difference almost every time one is in a Super Bowl. There are a couple exceptions: 2008 Steelers over the Cardinals (defense got lit up even though it was elite by most metrics) and the 49ers defense that lost to Mahomes, but it was dominating for 3.5 quarters.
He choked but the Vikings pass protection was horrible
I agree. I think there is always a bit of nerves especially early and a feeling out period similar to a big title fight in boxing that doesn't get going until after the first few rounds. That definitely favours the defense.
I also think coaches/play callers become a little less aggressive in the Super Bowl (especially early). They feel like they need to slow the game down and possess the ball for long stretches. Every possession is so valuable and it is unlikely you will win if you have a bunch of turnover or are giving the other team great field position. I think a lot of coaches/play callers try not to lose instead of going all out to win.
+1000
Defence wins but provides the most boring worst game outcome hence the most boring form of entertainment hence a waste of my time and money and since I don’t make anything from either team winning I am in only for the entertainment hence I want all teams to play as aggressive as possible.
Thats why games in Roman times were great and exciting for citizens because there was no room for defence.
Another factor is that defenses thrive on adaptability. When an offense comes in with a carefully scripted plan the defense needs only a handful of disruptive plays early to force changes and create hesitation.