It's not like having to play 96 odd plays on defense didn't have an effect. I'm sure it did. But the way it's being portrayed, I get the feeling that it is being made to seem that that was the ONLY reason the Pats moved the ball at the end of the game, and I feel that patently wasn't true. Atlanta was still coming hard at the end, and the Pats simply made plays at key times that they weren't making in the first half.
The game was more complex than simply a matter of the wearing out of the Atlanta defense. It's like the mediots don't think we can handle more more nuanced explaination. And its NEVER what one team does right. It always has to be what the 'other' team did wrong. God forbid we actually focus on the positives of the game.
If you review this game, what made it great beyond the drama was how well it was played on both sides. Even on the so called negative plays. Brady's pick was the result of Atlanta's fooling Brady that play. LGB's fumble was more a good play by them than a sloppy play buy Blunt. DA's TD was the result of a subtle adjustment to his position pre-snap. The RB missed Hightower's blitz mostly because of a line stunt that he was worried about coming up the middle. On Jones' super catch, the decision to throw that ball was much worse than any execution by the defense.
In the end what I was impressed with was how well executed the game was in general on BOTH sides. When you come down to it. Atlanta's being crucified for what amount to one bad call that resulted in a sack, and without that hold, might have never been mentioned. You don't think we can find some bad calls the Pats made?
At any rate. It was a great game, that ended in a very satisfying manner. It was a game the Pats won despite playing rather poorly in the first half, but they WON it. Atlanta didn't lose it. To portray it like that is to demean Atlanta's great effort and the Pats outstanding acheivement. JMHO