(Sports Illustrated - NFL.com)
Well it's safe to say that Boston sports has a flare for the dramatics. Capped off by an unprecedented 25-point comeback by the New England Patriots in Super Bowl 51 against Atlanta. This has led some to pose the question: Which comeback was better, The 2004 ALCS or Super Bowl 51? Due to the recency, that question has swayed more towards the Patriots...
Well really, you cannot compare the 2. Here's why:
Go back to 2004. The Red Sox were down 3-0 in the ALCS to their greatest rivals, the New York Yankees. That meant, in order to achieve the ultimate goal, going to and winning the World Series, the Red Sox had to win 4 games in a row. Now I know, baseball is a funny game. But a lot of stuff has to go the right way in order to win 4 games in a row.
Now the Patriots' insane 25-point comeback was probably more impressive in theory, because they had to put up the 25 points in a span of 20 minutes of game time JUST to force OT. But you seriously cannot compare the 2 because they are completely different. The Red Sox comeback had to last over the span of 4 games, whereas the Patriots only had 1 1/3 quarters to complete theirs. So to compare a 4 game comeback to less than a game, it seems kind of unfair.
Now say the Red Sox comeback vs. the Yankees in 2004 was a 7-0 deficit in the 8th inning of Game 7, then you can compare it. Because then they're similar. They both had to complete unprecedented comebacks in less than a half of a game.
I say we compromise because, let's face it, the 2 are the most impressive comebacks in the history of their respective sports. And there really is no debate until someone performs one equally as impressive.