What the hell happened to Todd Gurley in the Super Bowl?

Todd Gurley was one of the biggest reason the Rams made Super Bowl LIII, but when it came time for the game it was like he wasn’t even there. The result is one of the biggest questions behind the game, and one we don’t really have an answer to.

“I don’t know, man,” he said about not getting into a rhythm. “Definitely, we’ve still got to watch the film and stuff like that, but, honestly, we were playing against a great team and you’ve got to give credit where credit is due. Their guys did the job, and we just didn’t.”

Gurley was on the team’s injury report for the weeks leading up to the Super Bowl, and by all accounts before the game it was expected that he was going to split carries with C.J. Anderson, who was a late signing by the Rams and quickly became a critical part of the offense. The problem is that Gurley said after the game that he was healthy.

Gurley played in the game, carrying the ball 10 times for 35 yards. Not a good performance for sure, but he amassed more yards-per-carry than Anderson, who carried the ball 7 times — and more importantly this was a game where Jared Goff was actively struggling. If the Rams’ passing game was performing it would be understandable, but even in a close one-score game (for much of it) the offense passed 38 times and carried the ball 17 times on designed runs.

“I actually think it is more of a result of the kind of opportunities he had,” McVay said of Gurley’s impact. “I don’t want to be a broken record, but the reality is that we didn’t get a lot of plays off in general until you kind of get into some of those known passing situations toward the end and it seems like we did end up having success. I thought the holding call was a really tough one for us. We had a good drive going, Todd makes a nice cutback run on a tight zone, and then it puts us at first-and-20. Those kinds of plays seem like they continuously presented themselves throughout the night and it never really enabled us to get in a rhythm. That was really tough.”

Not giving Gurley the ball changed the Rams’ offensive identity, and keep in mind they were playing a Patriots team that struggled to stop the run for the entire season, giving up 4.9 yards-per-carry and over 1,800 yards on the ground. His work rate was available, as Gurley played 40 of the Rams’ 60 offensive snaps, and he led the team in total touches — but at a time where the team needed a spark they failed to lean on their best offensive weapon.

“No, it’s cool, man,” Gurley said about his number of touches. “Like I said, it’s a team sport. There’s 11 people on the field. Everyone can’t touch the ball. Still a great season by us. I’m blessed either way it goes. I’m just grateful for the opportunity to be able to play in the Super Bowl.”

This all makes sense if Gurley was injured like we were led to believe in the lead up to the game, but now by his own admission he was fine to play. It isn’t a case of him covering for his team, because if anything saying he was healthy casts a negative light on the team — but his answer wasn’t with any animosity or anger, it was just a matter-of-fact response.

We’re left with one of the biggest questions of the Super Bowl, and one that will go down in recent memory of confusing decisions. Time will tell if we ever get an adequate answer, but maybe it was as simple as Sean McVay.