Let's look at the opponents in the three cases in which the Patriots had two weeks to prepare rather than one week:
11-win Seattle
The Seahawks started out slow due to major issues with their offensive line, and faltered at the end in large part due to numerous injuries (Earl Thomas, Richard Sherman, Thomas Rawls, Kam Chancellor, Michael Bennett, Tyler Lockett). Seattle played the Patriots in mid-season when they were their healthiest (one loss in eight games) and many were predicting they would represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.
10-win Houston
The Texans only loss down the stretch was a meaningless week 17 game, and they finished the year ranked number one in defensive yards allowed. Let's not overstate the offensive struggles: the Pats had 17 points on the scoreboard at halftime and finished with 34 points.
13-win Atlanta
I was not the only one to downplay the Falcons' defense coming into this game, but they were much faster and more effective than I thought they would be. One play that was a 14-point swing (21-3 at halftime vs 14-10) changes this narrative.
tl;dr version: these were three very good teams (including the second best team in 2016, and a team that was considered at the time they played to be the best in the NFL). Why the presumption that the Patriots should have blown all three of them out?
Perhaps the problem is that some are comparing how the Pats fare against the entire league, versus how they perform against teams in the upper percentile. It should stand to reason a club will have a tougher time against playoff teams.
