....while I was think about the Samuel situation, that the Pats, WITHOUT SAMUEL could line up 6 quality CBs this season (Hobbs, Gay, Scott, James, Wilson, Merriweather). Not outstanding, but very competent, veteran, smart guys, and pretty good 1 through 6. It could be as good as any CB group the Pats had during their superbowl runs, when only Ty Law was an elite CB, but the rest of the group were always very ordinary, especially in 2004. In 2006 the Colts CBs were so mediocre that they watched BOTH of them leave and didn't blink an eye, thinking they upgraded with their back ups. In 2005, everyone knew that the Steelers CBs were their weak link, yet they were superbowl champs. (I'm not sure how great the TB CB's were, so they either support my contention, or they are the exception that proves the rule. ) BOTTOM LINE: Going back to 2001 just about EVERY team that has won the superbowl have had decent, but not spectacular CB play. So here is a question, do you really NEED to have 2 OUTSTANDING CBs to win a superbowl, or having 5 competent ones enough? History is showing that the latter is the answer, but what do you think????