I would say it. Having Logan Mankins for those first 4 games would NOT have made a difference. If you believe it you are simply being myopic.
Would the OL have been marginally better? Probably. But would he have made the difference between winning and losing those game, NO WAY. The problems that plagued the OL during that 4 game period went far beyond who was playing LG. A lot of people weren't playing well, including Brady, and the 2014 version of Logan Mankins wasn't going to make that much of a difference. Have you forgotten so soon the specter of Ordrick having his way with Mankins in 2013. Why would that have changed in 2014.
What you are doing is taking a small truth and exaggerating its importance beyond credibility. It is fair to say that in the first 4 games having Mankins on the team would have improved the OL play. But not enough to change the outcomes of the 2 losses. What you fail to mention was that AFTER those 4 games, the impact that adding Logan Mankins to the lineup would have been even less impactful.
You've been trying to justify your antipathy to the Mankins deal since the day it happened. And here we are a Superhowl later and you are STILL taking any opportunity to justify the same FAILED arguments to one of the best trades of the BB era. Have you even considered not only the contribution of Tim Wright and his 6 TD's, but the likelihood there would have been no money to sign Ayers, Branch, and Castillo.
DI, a good general knows when its time to pull back and regroup to get ready to fight the next battle. You are only wasting your resources trying to still fight this losing one.