After the Eagles blew a double-digit lead in the second half of Super Bowl LVII, defensive coordinator Jonathan Gannon did not face reporters.
Nearly seven months later, Gannon delved into the details of the two key plays that turned a Super Bowl ring into a consolation trinket.
In an interview with Zak Keefer of TheAthletic.com, Gannon initially mocked critics who have tried to blame him for the loss, before offering up a defense for the team’s inability to defend the two fateful plays, both of which happened when the Eagles failed to properly react to a player in motion.
As to the first one, a touchdown pass to receiver Kadarius Toney that with the extra point gave the Chiefs a 28-27 lead, Gannon said that the play “should be dead.” In other words (as Keefer points out), the play should have been covered.
“We should’ve been fine,” Gannon said. “Defended that play all year.”
But did they? In the days before the Super Bowl, Chris Simms pointed out on PFT Live that the Eagles consistently struggled when receivers went in motion. The Chiefs, presumably aware of that fact, twisted the Eagles up when Toney went in motion and then broke the other way at the snap.
It happened again on the next drive, with receiver Skyy Moore using the same move to get wide open on the other side of the field.
“The second one is on the call, truthfully,” Gannon said, initially taking the blame for calling a Cover-0 blitz. “That’s a tough pass. Like, if I was the [defensive backs] coach, we probably would’ve busted that, too. That’s how I always kinda think, you know? If I was coaching it, would we be OK? Probably not.”
That last part makes no sense. How could Gannon have made the difference as the defensive backs coach of the coordinator had called a Cover-0 blitz? Would Gannon the defensive backs coach have told his players to ignore the play that was called and freelance?
The one issue hovering over the Eagles’ inability to handle two instances of motion that abruptly pivoted at the snap continues to be the Cardinals’ blatant tampering with Gannon after the NFC Championship. The sketchy way the league handled the controversy, announcing the situation nonchalantly just as the draft was preparing to begin, invites speculation as to what happened and how it might have impacted the Super Bowl.
My effort in May to press Eagles G.M. Howie Roseman on the subject prompted an ad hominem attack, with Howie playing the “conspiracy theorist” card. But it’s really not a conspiracy theory. It’s an effort to understand what happened, and how it happened.
The Cardinals told Gannon he would be interviewed for the head-coaching job after the Super Bowl, at a time when the Cardinals should not have been talking to him, by rule. What did Gannon do over the ensuing two weeks to prepare for the interview, to line up a staff, to compile a binder of materials to present to the Cardinals one day after the game?
Every second Gannon spent thinking about, talking about, and/or working on the interview with the Cardinals became one less second that was available for his work on behalf of the Eagles defense. The Chiefs, whose coordinators were able to fully focus on the Philly defense, decided that putting players in motion going one way and having them spin around and go the other way at the snap would result in them being wide-ass open.
So while Gannon might have sarcastically taken blame for the Super Bowl loss, there’s a non-zero chance that a dotted line exists between any time he spent getting ready for his next job and the collapse that characterized his last day at his old job.