I think this is a great, if simple quesiton the OP asks.
IMO, 2010 is about CHANGE.
IMO, starting at about 2005, the Patriots were forced to change the way they built, retained and managed their roster. It doesnt take a brain surgeon to recognize that when the value of your roster exceeds what it is being paid in a capped system by at least 50% you cannot stay the course, it is impossible.
Under the radar, BB had to shift from a deep, middle to back of the roster heavy team whose success was driven by not being bad at anything to a team that had to be excellent at some things to cover the cracks in the armor tat were inevitable. All told, I think BB did as good of a job keeping us in contention, against the odds in a capped system, as he did building the dynsasty to begin with. The fact that there is no hardware to support that is because by 2005 we were in a position where it was much harder to maintain the talent level than it was to assemble it in the first place.
I think the reality struck in 2009. I think that there were many reasons to believe we could keep rolling in the altered plan whenwe stayed close, but ultimately fell short because of the severe weakness being exposed in the 2006 AFCC, 2007 SB, then 2008 'didnt count' because Brady was out.
2009 was the true litmus test of whether a top heavy roster could get the job done, and we showed more cracks than ever.
The CHANGE I see, IMO, is not the one fan clamor for. I not only don't care about signing 7mill, 10mill, 12mill players who are big names, I pray we do not. I want BB to return to his roots, because I think he finally can.
We build it up cost effectively, with players in their rookie contracts contributing, with smart FA acquisitions of players who fit out system and can do just what we need (not what we need and more that we dont so they cost twice as much, see Bolden)
We have the following players on the roster who will contribute a lot next year still in their rookie deal:
Butler
Wilhite
Chung
Meriwether
Mayo
Guyton
Pryor
Edelmen
Vollmer
Maroney
Ingram
and these that could
Ornberger
Hoyer
Tate
McKenzie
Brace
Wheately
plus a plethora of picks.
If we add 9 rookies, which seems reasonable, that is over half the team that is in its rookie contract with at least half of them playing a huge role.
We can be cost effective.
We COULD afford to blow the money that comes from that cost effectiveness to get great in one area (i.e, sign Peppers--even though that wouldnt do nearly what people think, or add Bolden to Moss and Welker, already the best 1-2 in the NFL) or
We could chose to use that cost effectiveness to plug every area of weakness and once again become a team that does nothing badly, most things pretty damn well, and a few things at a special level (see Brady, Tom, situational football, defensive strategy)
I have been as supportive of BB as anyone on this board (although 99% of the real fans are totally behind him) but it is mostly because when I analyze what he does, it makes sense to me; when I look at the decisions and consider the circumstances and alternatives, I see a sound overall philosophy that he is entirely committed to, and more than anything when I can understand the logic I cannot argue with the moves. When BB is faced with 2 choices, one a 6 and one a 4 on a scale of 1 to 10 I commend him for consistently choosing the 6 while other fans condemn him for not making a 10 out of it.
I see this as one of the cases where my insight into the methods and circumstances of the NEP is accurate, and that means change is afoot. Again, not the kind of change some clamor for, but change to where the reliance shifts back from the best 10 overcoming the flaws of the other 43 to the entire 53 contributing. That will come out in Free Agency, in the draft, in gameplanning, in play calling, in strategy and cut downs at camp.
I expect to see a lot of new players make the team, at the 18-40 level on the roster, not at the 1-10, I expect to see a return to a more conservative offense and a more aggessive defense, by which I mean we will be more fundamentally sound on 1st and 2nd down, and less able to be exposed on 3rd down so we can be aggressive---because the worst 2-3 players on the field will be better than they have been in the last 3-4 years......
So, in answer to the OP, I have to say its going to be drastically one or the other. The last thing I see is staying about the same.
I hold out a lot of confidence that if change is in the air, that the quality of decision making being done over the next 6 months will answer your question, and that I feel pretty good that will mean we improve.
