The Eagles have taken the high road regarding the apparently suboptimal condition of the field at State Farm Stadium during Super Bowl LVII.
But ProFootballTalk lead writer Mike Florio thinks the Eagles have a legitimate grievance over the seemingly slick surface -- perhaps even more so than the Chiefs.
According to Florio, the players' inability to push off on the treacherous grass was most costly to the Eagles' previously fearsome pass rush, which was unable to register a single sack of superstar Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes.
"The playing surface balanced out what should have been an advantage for the Eagles, who ended up with zero sacks after repeatedly swarming around quarterbacks all year long," Florio explained.
The claim came as part of a larger point about the NFL's failings in assuring the playing surface would be up to par. According to Florio, such a scenario could unfortunately happen again because so much of the postgame discussion revolved around controversial calls by the officials.
"The broader problem is that we all know the field wasn’t good enough. Not even close. The other problem is that, by not making a bigger deal about it, there’s a chance it will happen again."
In any event, the Eagles, or at least general manager Howie Roseman, has declined to indulge the narrative that the slippery field hurt his team more than the Chiefs.
"Both teams played on the same field," he told reporters this week.
The Eagles led the NFL in sacks by a wide margin during the regular season, racking up 70 in 17 games for an average of 4.1 per contest. The Chiefs were next with 55 -- nearly one fewer sack per game.
Neither team had much success rushing the opposing quarterback in the Super Bowl. Mahomes was scarcely hurried, particularly in the second half, while Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts took two nominal sacks on scrambles out of bounds for a total of -2 yards.
LISTEN on the Audacy App
Sign Up and Follow Audacy Sports
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram