The Falcons being gassed was one of the "common wisdoms" that came out of the Superbowl as an explanation of why the Pats were able to come back from such a deep deficiet. It certainly makes a lot of sense, of course. Having a defense that plays over 90 plays in one game would obviously be tired. BUT that doesn't explain why 3 of the Falcon's 5 sacks came in the 4th quarter.
It doesn't explain the consistent tight coverage that wound up being Pats completions anyways. And not just the Edelman catch either. The Pats WR's weren't suddenly running free in the secondary. The OL wasn't ripping gaping holes open for the Pats RB's to run rampant through. There were no 50 yd big gains or 2 minute TD drives.
In the Superbowl game I saw, the Atlanta defense was playing as hard in the 4th quarter as it was in the first. The reason the Pats won that game was because the Pats FINALLY started to execute their offense, not drop passes, win the 50-50 balls, and not miss open receivers.
It's not like the Pats could get to 90+ offensive plays if they hadn't been moving the ball fairly well in the first quarter. They just didn't manage to get many points for all that effort, because they didn't execute consistently to complete drives in the first half, like they did in the 2nd
Now I'm sure the fact that the Falcon defense was on the field for over 90 plays WAS a factor, but not the major cause that Quinn and the mediots would like you to believe it was.
In the superbowl game I saw, the Pats were making play after play where the execution had to be perfect for the completion to be made. Look at the Mitchell catches. All were closely contested. Look at the Hogan catch in overtime. It was so closely contested it could have been call PI. The same goes for Amendola's 20 yd catch. The exection on ALL those plays and more had to be PERFECT. Ergo, it was the Pats playing well, and NOT the Falcons D being gassed and playing poorly that won that game.
The other myth I think that came out of the game (and was pointed out earlier in this thread so well by Ice) was the criticism of the Falcons for not running more. As a coach its hard to call a run when the 2nd half run results were so bad. It is similar to the criticim of Carrol for not running Lynch on the one, when over the course of the season Lynch was something like 1-7 in that situation and the Pats were in a defense that outmanned Seattle if they ran inside.
Too often coaches get criticized for things that upon closer examination are not so obvious.