I put this post in another thread to keep the number of open threads down. No one has responded to it and I don't know if that is because no one cares or if it is because no one has looked at it. Anyway, I will post it again here. Another thing that I thought might fit here is Peter King's take on the game. I will highlight the part that I think is completely off base. And that is why you are a terrible analyst, Peter. NE isn't even remotely the same team that they were at this point last year, and mentioning that the games were on almost the same date doesn't change this. Doing a little breakdown: First off, the best performance in last year's secondary, Samuel's, would presently be the worst, by a wide margin. The Colt game was Bruschi's second game back and Vrabel's second game as a starting ILB, so that was still obviously unsettled. Even the #5 LB slot has been upgraded. Then the DL, Seymour was out and Green was playing with a back injury. Having both of them healthier and adding better depth with Wright changes things dramatically. Probably the biggest difference on the DL, though, is the astounding improvement of Wilfork. For those that don't remember, that game was the last game prior to the bye where the coaches decided to move him a yard back. Before then, he was pretty easy to move with one blocker and was actually a liability on most running plays. Since then, it is arguable whether he is the best NT in the game. I don't think he is yet, but a liability he is certainly not. Then on offense, NE's running game is so much better that it is almost indescribable how incomparable they really are. Even excluding the addition of Maroney, every single member of the players needed for a running game are healthier and/or playing better, sans Graham. And I have the feeling that he was held back for just this game. If he was not, NE is still so much better at running the ball now, that it is laughable to use last year as a baseline. NE's passing game could have been considered a minor liability prior to this past week, but the performance that the had against a good Minny D shows that, while they may not be at last year's level yet, they are certainly an asset. Looking at Indy, their best year on D during their run was last year. By comparison, this year's D has their best point of comparison to the dreadful 2001 version that was one of the worst of all time. I don't think they are that bad, but they are far closer to 2001 defensively, than 2005. Offensively, they are pretty much what they were last year. Frankly, Manning might even be playing a litte better, but that is partially offset by the loss of Stokely. I thought they would have a poor running game, but Addai has proven to be a decent representation of James. This is the one and only area that could be considered even close to how they were last year. How anyone could be ignorant enough to say that last year is the best point of reference, particularly someone who follows football for a living, is beyond me.