Just watched an NFL films retrospective of the Carolina Superbowl, and I found it very interesting. In that game it was an upstart Carolina team that was the heavy underdog to the Pats. Lots of similarities to the dynamics of this game in that one. 2 great D's, similar roster comparisons, and lots of things that had to go right to keep Carolina in the game. Also, lots of things I forgot about in that VERY exciting game.
Not exactly Adam's best kicking game missing one FG attempt and having another one blocked (looked like it came out low). Ironic that it's being shown right after he's elected to the HOF. Even more so when it's ALSO another game where he kicks the game winner with no time on the clock. Brady had perhaps one of the worst redzone picks of his career to take away another score, and then watching our secondary go down with multiple injuries in the 2nd half and lead to 2 big TD passes in a 4th quarter that saw the immortal Jake Delhomme throw for 240+ yds. All those things which led to a 4th quarter shoot out in a game that started out as a defensive slugfest.
Hard not to see similar dynamics to this game. Maybe that's why they showed it.
BTW- I have also seem a couple of articles talking about the Butler pick in relation to this game and a "rematch" between the Pats and Seahawks. I took great umbrage when they described the play as "the most IMFAMOUS call in NFL Superbowl history". I have shown clearly over the years good, logical reasons for Seattle to make that call. Question the call sure, but "most infamous" is WAY over the top and demeans the accomplishment and simply isn't the truth.
That Carolina team was so frustrating to deal with. They were a Cinderella story due to how flukey they were throughout the season. I wouldn't call them upstart. They won most of their games by grinding things out and slowly wearing down their opponents through 4 quarters or taking them to OT. The majority of their wins were close. They played smart, situational football by avoiding turnovers and tiring teams out.
Of their 11 regular season wins, 9 of them were close games decided by a single score. They lost 2 close games, so they were 9-2 in one score games going into the playoffs.
The team's stats were deceptive, especially Delhomme's passing numbers. I remember all the debates Saints fans had of Delhomme vs Aaron Brooks. When looking at the numbers, Brooks overall stats looked better, but Delhomme won more games and was better in the clutch. This is one of many examples with that Carolina team where the stats do not tell you the entire story. You would have to watch them, and see how they wore down most of their opponents.
The Rams were the NFC team of 2003 that everyone thought was going to be in the SB. It was the revival of the GSOT with Marc Bulger at QB. The Panthers made everyone forget that, and yet that game still went into OT and lasted a full OT quarter.
I've always believed the Pats got so lucky with that kickoff going out of bounds at the end of the SB. If it goes to OT, knowing how flukey that Panthers team was, they probably pull it off. Go through their games that season. They weren't a team that you wanted to deal with in overtime.
I see more similarities right now with this SB and the 1997 matchup of Green Bay vs Denver. The Packers were heavy favorites. At one point, they were double digit favorites on the spread. An argument can be made that the Packers should've won that SB. Favre played a good game, but it wasn't enough in the end.
No one was giving the Broncos a chance, much like how most people are picking Seattle right now. Another similarity is how the Packers got a divisional foe (Tampa Bay, yes, they used to play in the old NFC Central) in the playoffs, then went on the road to face a banged up 49ers team, whom they had familiarity with (3rd consecutive year of facing SF in the post season).
