Sure, the offense didn't play well, but the offensive point totals were also driven by defenses that couldn't get off the field, limiting the opportunities for the offense and giving them generally poor field position when they did get the ball.
EDIT: I'm not exonerating the offense in either game - they weren't good. But the final score suggests a good defensive performance, which wasn't the case, either. Both the offense and defense played poorly in both Super Bowl losses.
I am interested in views about the value, if any, in the game simulations, which are beginning to pile up. I'm posting here rather than the game thread because a post there about the Madden simulation, which the Patriots won, set off a counter-productive dust up. And I'm posting in response to this post because the simulations that I have seen, which go both ways, seem to forecast the same type of game that we have seen in the last two SBs the Pats have played in.
For example, this links to the results of a 50,000 game run, the bottom line of which has the Seahawks winning 57.5% of the time, by an average score of 24 to 20:
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/simulator-runs-super-bowl-matchup-50-000-times--and-winner-is-----022252004.html
I heard the guy who runs this outfit interviewed on local radio yesterday, and his main point was that teams that run the ball well and play good defense shorten the game. He added that the Seahawks fit the profile of the few teams the Pats have struggle with this year.
I think Microsoft has a product predicting a 24 to 23 Pats' win. I don't believe Silver's ELO is out with a prediction yet; I be mildly interested in what that has to say if a prediction is offered(the merits of ELO aside, it should be noted that Silver was abysmal in forecasting World Cup soccer and the last NCAA tournament). Finally, I saw something that gave the Seahawks a 52.5% chance of winning, which is pretty close to pick 'em.
I don't get too worked up one way or another over these, having learned the hard way 7 years ago that an 78% chance of victory (produced by one of these engines) still translates to losing more than 1 time in 5, which is a lot.
But I am interested in people's thoughts generally, and how comfortable they are playing a shortened relatively low scoring game. Defensively, I think the Pats are better positioned to play such a game than they have been in 10 years.