Better Pats kicker, Vinatieri or Gostkowski?

[conace21]

Vinatieri has made some incredible clutch kicks in his career, but he has also missed some... as any kicker does.
Thinking back to 1999, he missed game winning kicks, in the final seconds, against KC and Buffalo. (He actually missed 2x vs Buffalo. Once at the end of regulation, and once in OT.) That's the difference between 10-6 (4th consecutive playoff berth) and 8-8 (and Pete Carroll getting fired.)

As far as the postseason, in the 1996 AFC Championship Game, New England was up 13-6 in the 4th quarter and could have all but clinched the win, but Vinatieri pushed a FG wide. Jacksonville drove to the Patriots 5, but Willie Clay intercepted Brunell.
Gostkowski had only missed 2 postseason FG's before this year, though there were some missed 33 yard PAT's in there as well. I think he is mentally tough enough. He's been an NFL kicker for over a decade.

[Reaser]

Same thing I said earlier. To me, Gostkowski is the better kicker and I'd rather have him for the entirety of the season. But if I had to pick one to make a GW kick in the SB, I'd take Vinatieri -- which is solely based on the fact that he's done it. That said, it doesn't make him 'better' because he made kicks that are remembered. Especially since the kicker has really no impact in deciding what situations they end up in. Gostkowski hasn't been in that snow in a divisional round game, or had SB's come down to his right leg. For example SB51, OT could have went different and if Gostkowski hits the winning FG would that have made him a better kicker? No. He would be the same kicker he is. But we'd call him 'clutch' had it played out like that.

Also, on PAT's, Vinatieri hasn't ever attempted the gimmick PAT in the playoffs. So that's not apples to apples. And considering since they moved it back, in the regular season Gostkowski is better than Vinateiri at it, I'd think if the Colts were in the playoffs and Super Bowls in any of the past 3 seasons that it's more likely than not Vinateiri would have missed multiple, too. And even pre-2015, on natural PAT's Gostkowski was better from that spot during their respective careers.

The one 'cost the Patriots a chance at a championship' kick I agree with is the AFC Championship PAT miss. But when it happened and how the game played out I personally was more annoyed at the rule change than I was at Gostkowski - though I get that many like the gimmick PAT and jump out of their seats excited for the 'play' now because it's so exciting and they love games being decided by a rule change made for mindless entertainment purposes. It should have been a classic conference championship that went to OT. Instead, it was mostly decided by a rule change to make PAT's more 'exciting'. Doesn't absolve Gostkowski of blame, it was what it was and he should have made the kick but it's a situation Vinatieri was never in and may never be in.

All of the above said, I generally defer to people who've done it, SBfan would know more about kicking than I. Though I stand by saying Gostkowski is the better kicker. While Vinateiri has made more famous kicks and due to being put in position to be 'clutch' and coming through in those situations it's pretty clear he gets the label of the more clutch kicker of the two. Which really isn't even debatable.

[Reaser]

For what it's worth. Jake Elliott had a strong rookie season and he also missed a PAT in the SB. Maybe it's just something with Memphis kickers.

[Rupert Patrick]

For what it's worth. Jake Elliott had a strong rookie season and he also missed a PAT in the SB. Maybe it's just something with Memphis kickers.

One of the announcers mentioned something during the game about that silver Super Bowl emblem they had painted at each 25-yard line, that perhaps the painted areas might be a little slick.

[Reaser]

One of the announcers mentioned something during the game about that silver Super Bowl emblem they had painted at each 25-yard line, that perhaps the painted areas might be a little slick.

Yup, I remember that, too. Wouldn't surprise me with the lack of quality/pride in their work in everything else these days if it was slick -- not to mention they forgot the hashmarks so had to paint them in a couple hours before kickoff.

[JWL]

. . .I get that many like the gimmick PAT and jump out of their seats excited for the 'play' now because it's so exciting and they love games being decided by a rule change made for mindless entertainment purposes. It should have been a classic conference championship that went to OT. Instead, it was mostly decided by a rule change to make PAT's more 'exciting'. . .

That again.

So this again-

I can only speak for myself, but I don't see the new XP distance as being any more gimmicky than the old distance. If I were to argue along those lines, I would argue the whole idea of an extra point is a gimmick. If I were reimagining football there would be no such thing as an extra point. Touchdowns would simply be worth seven points- no extra point kicks, no 2-point tries.

The new extra point distance makes for a harder conversion. I don't think an extra point kick attempt could ever be made exciting.

[rhickok1109]

. . .I get that many like the gimmick PAT and jump out of their seats excited for the 'play' now because it's so exciting and they love games being decided by a rule change made for mindless entertainment purposes. It should have been a classic conference championship that went to OT. Instead, it was mostly decided by a rule change to make PAT's more 'exciting'. . .

That again.

So this again-

I can only speak for myself, but I don't see the new XP distance as being any more gimmicky than the old distance. If I were to argue along those lines, I would argue the whole idea of an extra point is a gimmick. If I were reimagining football there would be no such thing as an extra point. Touchdowns would simply be worth seven points- no extra point kicks, no 2-point tries.

The new extra point distance makes for a harder conversion. I don't think an extra point kick attempt could ever be made exciting.

Way back in 1933, Wellington Mara proposed getting rid of the extra point. Bert Bell agreed with him and campaigned, year after year, first as the owner of the Eagles and then as NFL commissioner, for getting rid of it. IIRC, many influential sportswriters agreed with him. But, for some reason, it never got done.

I agree that it's basically a meaningless gimmick. But now that the 2-point conversion, which is an even worse gimmick, has been adopted, I think the PAT will be with us forever.

[Reaser]

I can only speak for myself, but I don't see the new XP distance as being any more gimmicky than the old distance. If I were to argue along those lines, I would argue the whole idea of an extra point is a gimmick.

I agree that it's basically a meaningless gimmick. But now that the 2-point conversion, which is an even worse gimmick, has been adopted, I think the PAT will be with us forever.

Meaningless? A valid argument to say it became that way.

Gimmick? Originally, I'd say no. In it's forms it was a major part of the sport during the formative years of the sport. Obviously, eventually it became less important over time but it wasn't created to keep spectators in their seats after a TD or TV (ha) viewers glued to their couch after a TD instead of changing the channel. It wasn't a gimmick, it was sport. As time went on only in it's rarity of being missed was it ever game-changing or 'interesting' and that itself became more rare each era. Up to the modern era when it's certainly a valid argument to make to say it was meaningless or a waste of time and so on. Though the rare miss occasionally still happened. Personally, I was fine with that and it existing as it was, but I get saying it was meaningless.

The change of moving it back was/is most certainly and indisputably a gimmick. By definition. As was the 2-point conversion and as is the defensive 2-point now. Gimmicks.

As I said, I "get" that people like the change. It doesn't make it any less of a gimmick. Calling it a gimmick is merely and truly defining the change.

It's more about the topic and comparing Gostkowski and Vinatieri. One gets dinged for post-season PAT misses the past 3 seasons while I was pointing out that the latter has yet to attempt those [gimmick] PAT's in the post-season.

[rhickok1109]

I can only speak for myself, but I don't see the new XP distance as being any more gimmicky than the old distance. If I were to argue along those lines, I would argue the whole idea of an extra point is a gimmick.

I agree that it's basically a meaningless gimmick. But now that the 2-point conversion, which is an even worse gimmick, has been adopted, I think the PAT will be with us forever.

Meaningless? A valid argument to say it became that way.

Gimmick? Originally, I'd say no. In it's forms it was a major part of the sport during the formative years of the sport. Obviously, eventually it became less important over time but it wasn't created to keep spectators in their seats after a TD or TV (ha) viewers glued to their couch after a TD instead of changing the channel. It wasn't a gimmick, it was sport. As time went on only in it's rarity of being missed was it ever game-changing or 'interesting' and that itself became more rare each era. Up to the modern era when it's certainly a valid argument to make to say it was meaningless or a waste of time and so on. Though the rare miss occasionally still happened. Personally, I was fine with that and it existing as it was, but I get saying it was meaningless.

The change of moving it back was/is most certainly and indisputably a gimmick. By definition. As was the 2-point conversion and as is the defensive 2-point now. Gimmicks.

As I said, I "get" that people like the change. It doesn't make it any less of a gimmick. Calling it a gimmick is merely and truly defining the change.

It's more about the topic and comparing Gostkowski and Vinatieri. One gets dinged for post-season PAT misses the past 3 seasons while I was pointing out that the latter has yet to attempt those [gimmick] PAT's in the post-season.

Well, there was a time when it was very meaningful, as it still is in Rugby...but that's because it was worth more than 1 point.

In fact, once upon a time, a touchdown didn't count at all. It simply gave the team a chance at a free kick for points. The reason it's called a "conversion" is that it was a way of converting a TD into points.

When American football's point system was originally established, in 1883, a TD was worth only 2 points and the conversion was worth 4 points. The conversion required much more skill then because the kick had to be made at a point straight out from where the TD was score (that rule is still in effect in Rugby, which is why you see kicks taken from such difficult angles).

As time went on, the value of a TD increased and the value of the kick decreased until they were fixed at 6 and 1, respectively, in 1912.

[Reaser]

Well, there was a time when it was very meaningful, as it still is in Rugby...but that's because it was worth more than 1 point.

In fact, once upon a time, a touchdown didn't count at all. It simply gave the team a chance at a free kick for points. The reason it's called a "conversion" is that it was a way of converting a TD into points.

When American football's point system was originally established, in 1883, a TD was worth only 2 points and the conversion was worth 4 points. The conversion required much more skill then because the kick had to be made at a point straight out from where the TD was score (that rule is still in effect in Rugby, which is why you see kicks taken from such difficult angles).

As time went on, the value of a TD increased and the value of the kick decreased until they were fixed at 6 and 1, respectively, in 1912.

Exactly what I meant, Ralph.

Though again, the entire point was noting the difference between the PAT's Gostkowski has been attempting in the post-season the past 3 years that Vinatieri has not been attempting in the playoffs/SB.