I just... can't buy the premise of the article, which seems to be trying to draw a contrast between the flukes of the Ole Miss game and what happened in the Georgia game. If you want to compare the two, the real comparison is that both could have easily been blowouts for Alabama.
He's basically just taking every big play, and some potentially big plays and saying what if. Ok fine, but you can do that with any missed pass. I mean how many just missed long TDs has Coker had? Are we going to just start counting those all as should have been touchdowns?
Really, you can do this kind of breakdown for any game. You can take a handful of plays and go oh look if you change the outcome on those we'd have a different outcome. The problem with that is when you are looking at plays in which people did their job on a fundamental level. This is so very different from a true "fluke" in which something that ordinarily wouldn't happen does.
For instance, if we look at the Ole Miss game and pick 6 plays, what are we going to pick? We're going to pick a missed penalty, that would have created a long yardage situation and instead was an Ole Miss TD. Then we'll go with that fluke pass, that should have been an interception, or in the very least a forced punt, but instead was a TD. Then, we can grab a couple fumbles on kickoffs for good measure. We don't even need 6, those 4 will do. Change those and you likely have an Alabama blow out, and mind you none of those plays really should have happened.
With the Georgia game, we can pick out a couple extraordinary things, but Georgia got a couple breaks to. They managed to recover a couple of their own fumbles and a couple Alabama fumbles. A a lot of their offense came on a single play when the game was already over (a big chunk of those offensive yards he cited and 70% of their scoring). The fact is Alabama dominated Georgia, utterly dominated then and you can't change the outcome by just changing a couple plays. You have to get Alabama to just not play like Alabama to change that outcome.