Yup. And our "lucky" play was the result of incredible preparation and even better onfield execution. End of the day, people will be looking to discredit any Patriots win as best they can whether it be in the form of cheating accusations, luck, etc. Just comes with the territory and all we can do is just smile and laugh.
Yeah, we could go through the list of postseason losses where we were literally one ordinary-level-of-execution play from victory or extending the game, like that 2PC vs Denver or a half-dozen plays in the 2006 AFCCG, to say nothing of the 2011 SB loss. We've lost comprehensively a few times (2009 Ravens, 2010 Jets, 2005 Broncos, etc) but the coinflip moments in games that are on a knife-edge have gone against us as often as they've gone for us.
Exactly. Seattle had the end of the half TD, a few bombs that got completed, but other than that Pats were dominant. Never should have come down to the final minutes.
I agree. The Samuel drop, the helmet catch, the Welker drop, the Manningham catch, the circus catch + Butler int, and the 25 pt comeback. 2-2 in those 4 games seems what the result should be. You could argue that it could have been a bunch of different results, but 2-2 seems fair. I'm good with it.
This is where I am. The Kearse Circus Catch never even happens if the Patriots don't start that drive on D by giving up a 31 yard wheel route to Lynch and put the Seahawks on the 50 with plenty of time (1:55).
Singular rather than plural? I think there is wide agreement here that Pete did not handle the end game well, BB did, and the Pats prepared meticulously for the game changing play.
They were on the 38, it was only first down, they had two time outs and 1:10 left, and they were picking up yards in chunks. They had just converted a third and 11 with relative ease. Saying they don't win without the Kearse catch is like saying the Patriots don't win without the Edelman catch this year. It was great but it was first down.
