I have a lot of issues with the "if only" line of thinking, especially when it comes to individual, concrete events. But by far the biggest hole in this thought process is the implication of luck. That is, it was a bit of bad luck that we are 0-2 and that with better luck we'd be 2-0.
Unfortunately, relying on luck never ever made any team a consistent competitor for post season wins.
These events (questionable fumble, missed high percentage kicks) don't and can't happen in a vacuum. Bill Parcells skipped the probability discussion when he said "you are what your record says you are", but he was dead right. If you are good enough as an organization, you win those games. If you are not, you don't.
You simply can't say "yeah of course we'll keep the low percentage 52 yard field goal we made while saying we should have also made the higher percentage 37 yarder". If you want to play probabilities, it's far more likely we would have missed the 52 and made the 37. What outcome would that have produced?
It's the Barry Sanders analysis in reverse - "yeah he had 140 yards rushing but take away the 94 yarder and he didn't do that well". But you can't simply "take away" the 94 yarder without changing all kinds of other probabilities in the game.