Yikes! I surely didn't mean to inspire such venom; it's just a game, after all.

I don't believe that the best-of-seven format has ever been applied to American football, a game that is played no more often than once a week for good reason.

Rightly or wrongly, and despite the well-known "any given Sunday" platitiude, each individual football game is generally seen as providing a definitive decision as to which team shall be considered the winner.

Would the Patriots win if the teams played again? Maybe so ~ after all, the game could hardly have been closer.

If it had been three minutes shorter, in fact, the Patriots would have won. (Those who bet on the Patriots plus the points would not have won, however ~ whole other discussion...)

When a contest is that close, and the winner is simply the last team to have the ball, it's easy to dismiss the winning play, the single play that makes a difference, as a "fluke." Had the Patriots' four-point lead held up, their final score could just as easily be dismissed as a "fluke."

The New England O-line's inability to protect Brady was certainly unexpected. It's hard to provide any explanation other than that the Giants defensive front was just that much better than their opponents that day.

Belichek's decision to call for a pass on 4th-and-13 was pretty unexpected, too. If you prefer to remember the game as a contest the the Pats lost (as opposed to one that the Giants won), you probably have to consider that coaching decision as the boneheaded turning point where the game was given away.