"The secondary of the Patriots is still superior to that of the Giants". You mean the secondary that couldn't make a big play in the final Giants drive and is now minus the best part, Samuel? Get real.
"But it is more likely that a 16-0 team will take a step back than a 10-6 one, eh?" They were a 16-0 team that stumbled and bumbled their way down the stretch, should have lost at least two games in that time frame and had their hands full with a depleted Chargers team. How would the Patriots have faired in San Diego with Brady playing on one leg, Maroney out and Moss playing on one leg as well, you tell me because that is what the Chargers did and they played the Patriots tough.
"The Giants played terribly against the Packers" But they made the plays they had to make on the road in sub zero temperatures and won the game, that's all that matters.
"and were a miracle catch away from being "well, at least they made it a game." But the guy made the catch, see above.
"Theymade it a game because of Tuck, Umenyiora, and Strahan. Without one of those three they will be severely weakened and simply don't have the rest of the talent on defense to make up for a quarterback prone to terrible play on an inconsistent offense." I guess you could say they be like the 2000 Patriots, ie, win a Super Bowl they had no business winning and go on to dominate for several years, or be like Tampa, Baltimore and the Rams; one and one................
Ross has talent but is untested, they have Sammy Knight penciled in as a starter, Kenny Philips will have to beat Butler to start at FS, and Sam Madison is not the Sam Madison of three years ago. They don't have a good secondary. I'll take Hobbs, Rodney (or Sanders) and Meriweather over their counterparts on the Giants.
"They were a 16-0 team that stumbled and bumbled their way down the stretch, should have lost at least two games in that time frame," but they actually did win them! The Giants should have lost to either the Cowboys, Packers or Patriots - but they didn't. They played ugly in some of those games, but they won. When the Patriots played ugly in the final weeks of the season and won they "stumbled" and it's a precursor to a fall off in 2008. Hypocrisy, thy name is Double G.
Beyond Brady playing on a bad leg (not as bad as Rivers's, of course, but he wasn't healthy either) the Patriots had the ball for the final nine minutes of a game they won 21-12. What defensive stars for the Chargers were out, and were they going to get the ball back for their offense with under nine minutes to go if they were playing?
(And see my post above on just how ridiculous it is that you are pointing to a game the Patriots won handily as a reason they are going to fall off, but the Giants "making the plays they needed to make" and beating the Packers by three points in overtime of a game that Brett Favre absolutely did not want to win does not signify anything in their quest to repeat in '08.)
I am saying they are going to be like the 2001 Patriots, in that they made a great run to the Super Bowl and will fall off the next year because of a weakened defense and an offense that can't pick up the slack. It doesn't matter what they do after that, we (or at least myself) are talking about the following year, not decade.
And I'd certainly argue that the '01 Patriots, who were 11-5 and the second seed in the conference, were a stronger team than the Giants of '07.
I think they have a lot of question marks as well. I don't like their running game, I think their O-Line is on the decline, I don't think their secondary is as good as they think, and the WR core is in trouble. On the plus side though do have a solid group of linebackers, Hasselbeck is a solid QB, and they do have the playoff experience in their favor if they can get back there. I do think St. Louis has enough talent to give them a challenge if they can stay healthy. Bulger being out, and the lack of OL depth really hurt them last year. 
