When I think about what the Patriots have to do to get to the Super Bowl this year, I cringe. If we beat SD (that's a BIF If), then it's out of the frying pan and into the fire. We either would have to travel to Baltimore or Indy, which again, would be quite a daunting challenge. Precedence has shown that it could be done, the Pats beat the #1 Offense and #1 Defense in consecutive weeks on the way to their last world title. But this is not the 2004 Patriots, in some ways they are better, in some ways worse. Offensively, Though with a different WR cast (slightly worse) and a different running game (slightly better with the Dillon/Maroney/Faulk trifecta), they are hitting their stride at the right time. I would dare to say that the TE situation is better than in 2004, and the line might be slightly better as well. Defensively, once again we are missing 2 starters in the secondary, in 2004 it was our starting CB's (Law and Poole) and now it's our starting safeties (Wilson & Harrison). I would say that our starting CB's are better now, but safety is a slight weakness, and there is no way Hawkins and Sanders can compete with the Wilson/Harrison tandem. I would say that our D-Line is way better than in 2004, in that the 2006 version of Wilfork & Warren are much improved. Our LB's might be slightly weaker, in that McGinest was always a playoff hero, and so were Bruschi & Vrabel, but Bruschi & Vrabel are 2 years older, and probably not as good as they were in 2004. TBC was awesome in his first playoff start, but has a way to go to be McGinest's equal. The situations have changed, you can't really compare teams, winning a Super Bowl has a lot to do with team chemistry, and you need luck as well. It should be interesting, it might not happen, but it isn't impossible. I'm hoping it's a repeat of the 2004 Pats instead of the 2005 Pats (great opening playoff win, then very disappointing loss to Denver).