Your 2004 Super Bowl Goat: John Kasay!

[JeffNights]

Basically he is the single biggest reason the Panthers lost.

Now usually, i give the Kickers slack when they miss a FIELD GOAL to lose the game....but cripes man....He muffed the kickoff!

The pats ended up driving 35 yards to win the Super Bowl.

[Ksyrup]

When that kick went out of bounds, I turned to my wife and said, "It's over. If the Cowboys can get a field goal with 11 seconds left in this same situation, I think the Patriots will handle this pretty easily."

[Sun Tzu]

Owen Pochman.

[Vegas Vic]

Kasey deserves his share of the blame, but the Panther defense is equally to blame. After both 4th quarter Panther TD's, the defense responded by letting the Patriots march down the field unmolested. Julius Peppers was manhandled the entire game.

In the end, yes Kasey's mistake was the most visible, but ultimately the defense failed to hold up their end of the deal in the 4th quarter. 29 points should have been good enough to win the game.

[Travis]

Meh, Kasay was nearly off the hook with that push off penalty, the blame really lies with the defense. Was a nice catch to nearly get the first down right after, but some pretty soft coverage let them get within field goal range.

[yabanci]

Kasey deserves his share of the blame, but the Panther defense is equally to blame. After both 4th quarter Panther TD's, the defense responded by letting the Patriots march down the field unmolested. Julius Peppers was manhandled the entire game.

In the end, yes Kasey's mistake was the most visible, but ultimately the defense failed to hold up their end of the deal in the 4th quarter. 29 points should have been good enough to win the game.

I hear what you're saying, but kicking a kickoff inbounds is about the easiest thing to do in football.

[Draft Dodger]

Basically he is the single biggest reason the Panthers lost.


well, that and the fact that they allowed 32 points.

[thetrilogy]

since no one ever remembers the 2nd best team in the NFL each year, why not list the 3rd best team:

The St. Louis Rams. A team that knows what offense is and doesn't lie about it. I hate all of the defense crap in the NFL and look what happened tonight. It turned into an offensive game. A breath of fresh air.

[cthomer5000]

I would say the Colts were the 3rd best team in the league this year.

[Desnudo]

Basically he is the single biggest reason the Panthers lost.

Now usually, i give the Kickers slack when they miss a FIELD GOAL to lose the game....but cripes man....He muffed the kickoff!

The pats ended up driving 35 yards to win the Super Bowl.

I think the single biggest reason the Panthers lost is that they got whipped by the Patriots' O-line and had nothing left in the 4th quarter. The time of possesion told the story. If not for several, or more, bad gaffs on offense (as usual), the game isn't that close.

[dan_garlick]

Titans 2nd best! :D

[Vinatieri for Prez]

since no one ever remembers the 2nd best team in the NFL each year, why not list the 3rd best team:

The St. Louis Rams. A team that knows what offense is and doesn't lie about it. I hate all of the defense crap in the NFL and look what happened tonight. It turned into an offensive game. A breath of fresh air.

You're joking right. I give the Panthers props - definitely the second best team in the league. But the NFC was weak this year. Titans or Indy were third best. Whether you like it or not, football is about defense, and the Rams won't win again until they improve their defense.

Frankly, I think Ricky Proehl should have won the MVP. Two years ago he predicted in the tunnel before the Supervowl game that a dynasty would be born that day, and he was right -- the Pats. It was fitting that twice he would catch the game tying pass within the final two minutes and lose to Vinatieri's kick.

With two 1st round picks (and more total picks than any other team) next year, a host of rookies and 2nd year players bringing it, the return of Roosevelt Colvin at LB, Brady only 26 years old, things are looking way up.
I am NOT guaranteeing things, but the Pats will be there for a few years to come.

P.S. Can you believe the Pats O-line manhandled the Panthers' supposed best D-line while missing two starters (Woody and Compton). They won the Superbowl. Sapp, if your talent was as bad as your analysis of other players (i.e. the Pats o-line sucked), you should retire now! They gave up no sacks in the playoffs. Brady dropped back 48 times today and Julius Peppers spent most of them on his butt.

[SFL Cat]

It was a hard fought game...a good one...one of those where both teams left it on the field. Both the Pats and CAts special teams were having major problems all night tonight - penalties, missed FG, poor punts and kicks. Truth be told, the defense of the Panthers cost them the game, allowing Brady to complete that last pass that put the Pats in FG range.

[Craptacular]

Both the Pats and CAts special teams were having major problems all night tonight - penalties, missed FG, poor punts and kicks.

Yeah, the special teams were pretty horrible all game long.

[Peregrine]

I have to give props to the Patriots offensive line. They kept the Panthers off of Brady as much as possible (he still got hit a lot) and really opened up some holes in the running game. The Panthers didn't counter the run well all night long.

On another note, something that's been noticeable throughout the playoffs is that if the Panthers keep their personnel together, they're going to be respectable as a passing team very soon if Delhomme keeps improving. Every time the Patriots let their guard down in the secondary they got burned, and they have a lot of talent there.

[GoldenEagle]

I would say Ricky Manning, Jr. He got burnt all over the field, all day.

[sabotai]

Whenever I hear people mention that since the Patriots are young, they could become a dynasty, I just remember that in 1985, the Bears had the youngest team in the league...

The Patriots did great this year, they did bad last year. So goes it in today's NFL.

[sabotai]

I would say Ricky Manning, Jr. He got burnt all over the field, all day.
No, the safety that was supposed to give him help over top missed his assignments.

[Peregrine]

Super Bowl Goat: That Reliant Stadium turf. What was up with everyone falling down? Seemed like every other play someone was going down hard, it made a difference on several plays I felt.

[sabotai]

Super Bowl Goat: That Reliant Stadium turf. What was up with everyone falling down? Seemed like every other play someone was going down hard, it made a difference on several plays I felt.^^^^^

I was saying the same thing during the game. I think this was one of the main reasons it became a shoot-out.

[Travis]

If the Pats can get their hands on a dominant RB (still a shame about how Robert Edwards career went down the crapper), they're going to be a very scary team for a long time.

Then again, if my Seahawks can get a DT, a SS, maybe a RG, better MLB and overall D, we'll be right there too!

sigh.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yeah, except the Bears only won the SB once. And McMahon is no Brady. I am not guaranteeing a dynasty, but we are getting pretty close. 15 wins in a row (10-0 against winning teams; beat the 3rd and 4th place teams twice each). And still missing a number of starters through the playoffs.

Peregrine, your're right. I saw every Pats game, and except maybe the first game against Indy, the Panthers did the best against the Pats secondary. I mean they burned them over and over again. I was shocked! I thought if the game was in Delhomme's hands they had no chance. I was wrong.

However, the game was won in the trenches like it usually is. The Pats O-Line manhandled the "vaunted" Panthers D-Line beyond anyone's expectations. The Pats D-line did well against the run and there you have it. It was darn close though. Kudos to the Panthers.

[SFL Cat]

Frankly, in today's environment, I think NFL dynasties are a thing of the past. The Pats weren't very good the year between their Super Bowl seasons, and this year they won a lot of games they could just as easily have lost. I give them their props for winning 2-of-3, but saying they are on the verge of a dynasty is just a little premature IMO.

[robbgmaier]

yeah, that kick-off sucked, but I'm going to continue my trend of coach bashing.

the panthers got 1st and 10 at the 14 with about 1:30 on the clock, and 3 time outs. Instead of just huddling up and running a play, or even letting the clock run down and calling time out, they call the TO right away. Will coaches never learn? How many times do we have to see a team leave too much time on the clock and then get scored on before someone will realize they have to do a better job of time management both in getting a score AND not giving the other team a chance?

But, yeah, that kick sucked.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I agree Robb. As a Pats fan, I was disappointed in what was happening, but at the same time "overjoyed" when Delhomme called the timeout. I realized then that we were maybe going to get the ball back if they scored (with visions of SB 36 running in my head). By simply letting the clock run down there before calling another play, the game probably goes into OT.

[Darkiller]

Just a HUGE game.
I loved it. The first 25 minutes were Defense all over the place, before the offenive explosion. AWESOME.
I absolutely LOVE what Jake Delhomme has done this post-season. Wether were talking against the Cowboys, the Rams, the Eagles or the Patiots : he's been there making the huge plays when his team needed him. This is the great stuff.

His 1st half was awful (except that last two drives) but his 2nd one was fantastic, one of the best in SB history.

How often does a QB, in a losing effort, and after starting the biggest game of his career 1/9 for -22 yards !! ends up throwing for 323 yards, 3 TDs and 0 INTs (rating 1113 !!! outplayed Brady there...) and ALMOST WON THE GAME...

I give a lot of credit to what Jake Delhomme has accomplished all year long, in the playoffs, and in the SuperBowl. The guy deserves a long term contract.

[Darkiller]

dola

not mentionning that he set some SuperBowl records along the way :
- longest TD pass (longest offensive play ever).
- 2nd longest drive for TD.
- 2nd best passing effort for a QB on the losing end.

His TD throws were all spectacular. I was impressed.

[Karim]

So does Belichek get any love out of this or is he just a spare part?

[Samdari]

I hate all of the defense crap in the NFL .

Ahh, a true fan.

They should just play the game with 11 guys from each team playing the game vs air.

[Subby]

Hating defense in football is like cheering for Kid Rock during the Superbowl halftime show ;)

[Ramzavail]

I hated Kasay for making that FG at the end of the half

I had the box NE 4, CAL 7

[wheels]

yeah, that kick-off sucked, but I'm going to continue my trend of coach bashing.

the panthers got 1st and 10 at the 14 with about 1:30 on the clock, and 3 time outs. Instead of just huddling up and running a play, or even letting the clock run down and calling time out, they call the TO right away. Will coaches never learn? How many times do we have to see a team leave too much time on the clock and then get scored on before someone will realize they have to do a better job of time management both in getting a score AND not giving the other team a chance?

But, yeah, that kick sucked.
ill-advised timeout, poor kickoff, porous defense. but you have to credit brady just as much. i'm no pats fan, but this guy just keeps it going, even after a potentially costly interception in the endzone. i won't call the pats a dynasty, but i'll call brady a terrific leader. he made the difference once again. it's a shame that brady essentially erased delhomme's effort, though.

great game.

[cthomer5000]

Frankly, in today's environment, I think NFL dynasties are a thing of the past. The Pats weren't very good the year between their Super Bowl seasons, and this year they won a lot of games they could just as easily have lost. I give them their props for winning 2-of-3, but saying they are on the verge of a dynasty is just a little premature IMO.

If they win it next year, I'd say you can break out the word dynasty. Of course, not even making the playoffs in-between the titles hurts the image for sure.

There's no obvious reason they won't be deep in the playoffs next year.

[Radii]

So does Belichek get any love out of this or is he just a spare part?


I don't know what to think about this... the Panthers had more than their share of screw ups, but, if the Panthers had won the game, we'd be talking about that horrible squib kick(IMO a bad call to begin with) and coverage to allow Carolina to kick a FG at the end of the first half. If Carolina had pulled off the miracle kickoff return on the final play, we'd be talking about poor clock management, the Pats called a TO w/ 8 seconds left instead of letting the clock run down a few more seconds to guarentee that the FG attempt would be the last play of the game...

The short passing game of the Pats does deserve a ton of credit and that probably is due to Belichek's preparation, every time the Panthers blitzed, it seemed like Brady was ready w/ a 3 step drop and quick 5-10 yard completion. Carolina got in a few hits on Brady but overall they were unsuccessful at getting to Brady and preventing completions. Only a very few times did Brady actually look like he was rushed into a throw.

The main thing the Pats deserve credit for is the way their O-line manhandled the Panthers... how much of that is really the coaching vs the O-line just playing simply inspired football?

[The_herd]

I think the goat of the game is whoever is responsible for coming up with a plan to stop a simple deep out. The Pats ran this every time they needed yardage on 3rd down.

[Bubba Wheels]

since no one ever remembers the 2nd best team in the NFL each year, why not list the 3rd best team:

The St. Louis Rams. A team that knows what offense is and doesn't lie about it. I hate all of the defense crap in the NFL and look what happened tonight. It turned into an offensive game. A breath of fresh air.

Years ago, the NFL used to have a 'consolation' bowl with the two runner-ups that didn't make it to the championship. Can't remember weather this was before or after the NFL/AFL merger though.

[Desnudo]

The main thing the Pats deserve credit for is the way their O-line manhandled the Panthers... how much of that is really the coaching vs the O-line just playing simply inspired football?

I think Warren Sapp deserves most of the credit for that.

[The_herd]

Years ago, the NFL used to have a 'consolation' bowl with the two runner-ups that didn't make it to the championship. Can't remember weather this was before or after the NFL/AFL merger though.

I think they only did this for the 1st 2 super bowls. It died out quickly because there was no interest in the game.

[Huckleberry]

Has anybody mentioned going for two early in the 4th when down 21-16 after a TD?

I was slapping my head at that point. As it turns out, and as usual, they're better off at the end if they take the point. 31-31, first ever overtime Super Bowl if everything else played out the same.

[robbgmaier]

Has anybody mentioned going for two early in the 4th when down 21-16 after a TD?

I was slapping my head at that point. As it turns out, and as usual, they're better off at the end if they take the point. 31-31, first ever overtime Super Bowl if everything else played out the same.

Oh, no. Do not even go there. Phil Simms is as big a moron here as Al Michaels usually is about two pointers. Going for two is only wrong here if you miss both that one AND the next one, assuming there even is a next one. Meanwhile you come out ahead if you make the first one, there's no second one to worry about. Any team that makes the two pointer more than 40% of the time is better off going for two in that situation. Anyone can say "well gee, they missed them both, they shouldn't have done it," but it's not a valid argument. As I criticize Fox for his time management at the end of the game, I will give him credit for making the correct decision here, although I doubt he understood it anymore deeply than 5-2=3.

[Desnudo]

It absolutely made sense to me. I don't understand Simms reaction either. That "don't go until you need it" argument doesn't hold water here. When do you need it more than trying to cut the lead to a field goal with 12 minutes left in the game?

[Huckleberry]

robb -

Going for two only makes sense if you don't think either of the following will happen for the remainder of the game:

You score another touchdown
New England scores

I disagree vehemently that "any team that makes it better than 40% of the time is better off" going for it. You only have to try the second time if you didn't get it the first time. In the end, the entire game came down to that decision.

As for the "they missed them both, it was dumb" argument, nobody did that. Simms called them out before the first attempt. I did the same at home, even before Simms. And have you ever noticed how often Simms, Michaels, and everyone else that understands the situation is right? Take the point.

[Huckleberry]

It absolutely made sense to me. I don't understand Simms reaction either. That "don't go until you need it" argument doesn't hold water here. When do you need it more than trying to cut the lead to a field goal with 12 minutes left in the game?


Exactly. 12 minutes. Obviously you go for 2 at the end of the game. There were 12 freaking minutes left.

[cthomer5000]

Exactly. 12 minutes. Obviously you go for 2 at the end of the game. There were 12 freaking minutes left.

Yeah, I didn't like it at the time. And it arguably did come back to bite them in the ass. Assuming everything played out in the same manner, they would have been kicking to the Patriots up 31-28.

I think the Patriots might have played that final drive even more aggressively if they were down 3 though, trying a bit more for the outright win instead of playing for OT.

[Bubba Wheels]

I think they only did this for the 1st 2 super bowls. It died out quickly because there was no interest in the game.

The one I'd like to see brought back is the College All-Star Game, where the previous year's Super Bowl winner started out the exhibition season against a team of all the top drafted rookies. No blitzing was allowed, but in this day and age no team is going to risk losing its top picks to injury anymore. Too bad, the contrast of raw-skill vs. grizzled veteran was always alot of fun.

[robbgmaier]

robb -

Going for two only makes sense if you don't think either of the following will happen for the remainder of the game:

You score another touchdown
New England scores

I disagree vehemently that "any team that makes it better than 40% of the time is better off" going for it. You only have to try the second time if you didn't get it the first time. In the end, the entire game came down to that decision.

As for the "they missed them both, it was dumb" argument, nobody did that. Simms called them out before the first attempt. I did the same at home, even before Simms. And have you ever noticed how often Simms, Michaels, and everyone else that understands the situation is right? Take the point.

You want to break it down, let's break it down right.

If there are no more scores, it doesn't matter.

If there is only one more score, it only matters if Car can kick a FG to tie the game, other wise the decision is meaningless.

If there are two more scores, it only matters if the pats kick a FG, and Car gets a TD. In that case, if the first 2 pointer is good, Car wins, and if they miss them both, Car loses. If they miss the first and make the second, they go OT, same as before. So if they are more likely to make the first than they are to miss two, they should go for two. That's where the 40% number comes from, and it's actually 37 or 38, whatever (3-sqrt(5))/2 is.

You want to go into 3 score scenarios? I mean you have to, if you want to argue that it's wrong to go for two, since it's EASY to see that going for two is correct in 0,1 and 2 score scenarios. You think 3 score scenarios are likely enough to outweigh the risk/reward for the lower scoring scenarios, even if you could show that on average it was wrong to go for 2 in those higher scoring outcomes (you can't show it, because it isn't true, but you're welcome to try).

If I misspoke by implying your comments were results oriented, I apologize. The are wrong in foresight, as well as hindsight.

[Desnudo]

Exactly. 12 minutes. Obviously you go for 2 at the end of the game. There were 12 freaking minutes left.

Do you think John Fox was sitting there with twelve minutes left, having watched the Patriots dominate time of possession, thinking that odds were good his team would score another touchdown? The difference between trying to score a touchdown and trying to get in field goal range is enormous. Big enough were you take a shot at the end zone, miss, and you still win with a touchdown.

Sure it didn't turn out that way, but hindsite is 20/20. You can play out the scenarios all you want, but it basically came down to this decision, which had to be based on the current, not what might happen: Miss and you still only need a touchdown to win, like before. Hit and you only need to kick a field goal to stay in the game. Those are the only two factors worth considering at that point if you don't know the future.

[Huckleberry]

robb -

Here's what I don't get. The NFL success rate is 45% I think. If you're losing 14-0 in the fourth quarter and score a touchdown, you would go for 2? Your logic states that you're more likely to win than lose based on that decision. Is that honestly the decision you'd make?

Or would you guarantee your team that they could at least get to overtime with another touchdown?

At some point you have to have a feel for what's happening. Did you guys honestly feel like there would be only 1 more score in that game? Just wondering.

[ISiddiqui]

Do you think John Fox was sitting there with twelve minutes left, having watched the Patriots dominate time of possession, thinking that odds were good his team would score another touchdown?

EXACTLY! Up to that point what had shown that the Panthers would even score again? How would Fox know the 4th Q was about to erupt like that?

[Anthony]

not to sound like a Monday Morning QB, but i would always go for the easy extra point, unless in a blowout situation. always get the guaranteed point, because the only thing worse than missing a 2 point conversion is missing 2 point conversion that comes back to haunt you.

[Huckleberry]

EXACTLY! Up to that point what had shown that the Panthers would even score again? How would Fox know the 4th Q was about to erupt like that?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe by paying attention to the 2nd quarter? ;)

[Desnudo]

Oh, I don't know. Maybe by paying attention to the 2nd quarter? ;)

I would have doubled bagged that. ;)

It's easy in retrospect to look back and think that, with all the points that were scored afterwards, why bother going for two? But his view, and I believe it was the correct one, is that you fail, you still need a touchdown, exactly like you did before. If you make it you only need a field goal. The Patriots could have easily marched a ten minute drive down the field and killed the clock given the way they were running the ball.

You can play what-ifs all you want. I think very far down the list was both teams marching back and forth to score repeatedly. To me it was a simple decision and I think the Patriots would have gone for 2 in the same situation.

[robbgmaier]

robb -

Here's what I don't get. The NFL success rate is 45% I think. If you're losing 14-0 in the fourth quarter and score a touchdown, you would go for 2? Your logic states that you're more likely to win than lose based on that decision. Is that honestly the decision you'd make?

yes, I would. I'm going to win more often by going for two than by going for one. Isn't that the idea, to win more often, to maximize the chances of winning a particular game?

Or would you guarantee your team that they could at least get to overtime with another touchdown?

My team is going to understand that they will win more often if we go for two. They aren't going to worry about Phil Simms and the dozen other reporters I heard rail against the decision. "I wouldn't go for two unless it were absolutely neccesary" is not a useful argument for making a decision.

At some point you have to have a feel for what's happening. Did you guys honestly feel like there would be only 1 more score in that game? Just wondering.

Let me try this one more time, I'll add the 3 score scenarios.

Go for 1 (down 4)
NE doesn’t score, Car needs a touchdown (win) {1 score}
NE scores FG, Car needs TD/PAT (OT) {2 scores}
NE scores TD, Car needs FG+TD+2 (OT) or 2TD (win) {3 scores}

Go for 2 and make (down 3)
NE doesn’t score, Car needs FG (OT) or TD (win) {1 score}
NE scores FG, Car needs TD (win) {2 score}
NE scores TD, Car needs TD/PAT + FG (OT) or 2 TD (win) {3 score}

Go for 2 and miss (down 5)
NE doesn’t score, Car needs TD (win) {1 score}
NE scores FG, Car needs TD+2 (OT) {2 scores}
NE scores TD, Car needs 2TD (win) {3 scores}

If NE doesn’t score, a CAR TD always wins, but a FG also gets them to overtime if they went for and made a two point conversion. No penalty for going for two and missing.

If NE scores a FG, CAR needs a touchdown. Two PATs or one made and one missed 2 pointer get them to overtime, a first made 2 point conversion wins, and two missed two pointers lose. Going for two is more likely to lead to a win, as long as you believe your team is 38% or better to make a two point conversion.

If NE scores a TD, any two CAR touchdowns will win. CAR can also get to overtime by getting a FG and another touchdown, as long as they make 1 PAT and 1 2 pointer. In this case there is no penalty for missing the 2 point conversion, because you would have had to make the 2 pointer next time anyway. In fact, at least now you know that the FG will not do you any good, and can adjust later strategy according.

Looking at the above scenarios, isn’t it clear that going for two is better? If the analysis is flawed I’d be glad to hear how. Where is my error?

[tucker342]

As I said in the other thead, Kasay was not the reason the Panthers lost. Was he on defense when the Patriots drove down the field?

Kasay didn't lose the game, the defense did.