One team made a few mistakes in both halves, finished their game at the same level as the eventual Super Bowl champions and lost by four points in a game that could easily been won in the final seconds of the game. Based upon the actual game, it could be argued that team could have advanced toward a Super Bowl berth by a single game at minimum. Not win or reach the Super Bowl necessarily but compete for the opportunity.
On the other hand, another team makes a handful of mistakes during the first 15 minutes, well-before accumulating notably more gaffes over the next 45 minutes, and lose against a seventh seed, one quarter into the postseason. Based upon the actual game, it could be argued that team should not have reached the postseason and was dead-on-arrival, just like every other team that did not qualify for the playoffs.
Yet, both teams demonstrated they did not compete a.k.a. were both equally non-contenders. It is like the word 'contender' has been altered to encompass only those athletes (in single player sports) or teams that actually reach a championship round.
Yeah. No. Everyone have fun tumbling further down into this rabbit hole. Alice will say hello when you hit bottom. I'm out.