Here's what really happened. 1. The Patriots' offense had a much better night vs. the Eagles' defense than the Eagles' offense had vs. the Patriots' defense. 2. Special teams almost made up the difference. Depending on how one counts, the Patriots' offense lost out on 2-4 possessions (Asante score, onside kick, missed FG after offensive PI, clock-centric playcalling at game's end). Yet they still scored 24 points and gave up no TOs, while receiving little in the way of field position gifts. (With one of the INTs being a score for the defense and another sealing the game, taken together TOs didn't do much for field position). That's a much better result than scoring 28 points, giving up 7, and having two other TOs, on a full slate of possessions. In essence, there's nothing there in the way of a blueprint for slowing the Pats' offense, other than taking the ball out of their hands altogether by good plays (the onside kick) or bad (the INT for a TD). But the ST disparity was huge. The successful onside kick and the missed FG turned a 10 or so point game into a 3-pointer. The one phase of the game where the prevailing analysis is generally right is when the Pats were on defense. The rushers didn't get to Feeley and the DBs didn't get to his thrown balls (the INTs obviously excepted). The rush defense was pretty effective, but overall it was a mediocre showing.