The mythology of the New England Patriots in the 2007 almost-perfect season is that fatigue, loss of intensity, injuries, bad luck, and a NYG team that peaked at the right time spoiled a perfect season with a miraculous throw and catch in the Superbowl. Otherwise, the 2007 Patriots would have best claim on the all-time greatest team.
But subsequent events and the passage of time allow us to see it all more clearly. With the acquisition of Randy Moss, the Pats changed its offense to a more wide-open style, and for the first half of the season, were indeed the greatest team ever to take the field. But other teams slowly adjusted, and the close games and narrower victories as the season progressed were not the result of the Patriots losing focus, but of other teams finding answers. By season's end New England was not the greatest team of all time, merely a very good team among other very good teams. And they played a style which does not meet all situations: devastating short-and-long passing with just enough running to keep the defense from coming full strength pass rush at you. This scores points. This builds leads. However, a team needs the ability to switch to run just a bit more than they did, to rest a defense and chew up time on the clock when needed.
They didn't quite have it then and they don't quite have it now. Leads slowly erode unless you can get about one-third of your yardage on the ground. The 2010 Patriots have 4 almost good enough runners - which may in fact be enough because it reduces tiredness and gives you insurance against injuries. But come playoff time, you encounter other teams that have escaped injuries just enough to overmatch your "almosts."
Update: in a game that was essentially tied as far as the offense was concerned - New England got touchdowns from an interception and a kick return - the Patriots had just enough running in close on their final drive to put the game away. I call that a mixed answer, but generally supporting my premise.