I can't count how many times I've seen experts overreact to short-term results, it is even worse following prime time games. Cardinals started 2008 7-3, I think then stumbled to a 9-7 finish. One of those games was a blowout in Foxboro where it all started with an early mistake (which ends up counting as 3 in Foxboro). The season was noted for the match-ups against the NFC & AFC East.
Side story to that, what wasn't mentioned was on the flight back home from Foxboro they went back to pads and training camp mode. They went back to Edgerrin James as the feature back and started handing it off more.
Now with Flacco among the ranks of Montana & Warner for highest single postseason yards per pass attempt -- the peak of Flacco's career. So peaking at the right time was certainly at play here, especially against the #1 & #2 pass defenses in back-to-back weeks from that year. But there was nothing at the end of the season to suggest otherwise.
The 2011 Giants played poorly in November & December. The year before that the Packers did the same but were blessed facing Atlanta in the following round who at the time was average or below average in every area besides the run game. Their toughest opponent in pass & rush defense was Philadelphia in the Wild Card round. Packers had below average rushing but in that game they used a 3 back formation which was very effective.
On the subject of the Patriots, no other team finishes regular seasons like they do in recent memory and it doesn't mean much success.
--------
The problem with overreacting to short-term results, though you pointing to some offensive line troubles (St. Louis front 7 can make lines look bad though) like Kansas City in 2011 which spelled trouble for the Packers offensive line.
Also the sample sizes in the NFL are too small and few games favors true underdogs, the NFL balances this with the bye week which stacks the odds heavily in their favor, including 1 game at the home team's location. There are several teams capable of beating the Cardinals as they are capable of beating anyone (Peyton Manning, Brees, Rodgers--would scare the hell out of me) but FGs instead of TDs, turnovers, bad bouncers or a high variance strategy which gives true underdogs a better chance of winning games (it also increases their chances of getting blown out).
My point is, especially if Denver is afforded home games -- they can easily right the ship and based on regression to the mean, things drift to the beginning or overall form.
= new reply since forum marked as read