Not all 3-4 records, many New England Patriots coaches and players will readily acknowledge these days, are created equal.

Just a year ago the Patriots spurted to 3-4. The overcame an 0-2 start and the loss of starting quarterback Drew Bledsoe to prevail in three of the first five outings by untested backup Tom Brady to claw back to respectability.

But this year, the 3-4 mark after seven games has come as the result of a perilous spiral, with the defending Super Bowl champions in the throes of an ugly and certainly unexpected four-game losing skein.

	Bill Belichick and the Patriots have lost four straight games.

So when a few Patriots players have attempted to trivialize the current state of affairs, and reminded the critics that the franchise is no worse off than it was at the same juncture of the glorious 2001 campaign, it's no wonder that such rationalizations are largely regarded as hollow.

"If they're saying it's the same, well, that's a reach, for sure," said Seattle defensive tackle and former Patriots starter Brandon Mitchell. "When we were 3-4 last year, the team was just starting to get confident in (Brady), and things were on the upswing. This time, they started off hot, and now seem to have problems. From what I see and hear, it's not the same team, man."

During a nosedive extended by last weekend's home defeat to Denver, a game that came after a bye week some players felt would offer a cure-all to the team's myriad shortcomings, New England experienced the same kind of inconsistencies it had exhibited in three previous losses. After the game, Brady strongly hinted some teammates weren't expending the same level of energy they did in 2001, and coach Bill Belichick allowed finger-pointing could soon become an unwelcome by-product of his club's slide.

Likely, there are some things going on with the Patriots to which only some insiders are privy. But it doesn't take 20/20 vision to conclude that this isn't the same team on the field as the one that upset the St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI less than nine months ago.

The names haven't changed dramatically -- there are only three starters different from those who opened for the Patriots in the championship game and Belichick suffered no losses from his staff -- but the results have. What is most puzzling is that the current losing streak followed an opening three games in which New England certainly looked like the NFL's best team, an outfit poised to defend its title.

At 3-0, the Pats were the envy of virtually every team in the league. Even with a revamped offensive attack, one that seemed to transform Brady from a young quarterback who simply managed games to a guy counted on to win them with his right arm, there seemed to be no storm warnings as the Pats vanquished three opponents by an aggregate 115-59 count.

"It was almost as if we were on automatic pilot," said offensive left tackle Matt Light. "And then something went wrong."

Whether Belichick and Brady can now pilot the Patriots out of this ongoing nosedive remains to be seen. The flight pattern back to the top is filled with turbulence, including a Sunday matchup with the surging Buffalo Bills and Bledsoe. A long anticipated division game, the contest begins a stretch in which the Pats must play five games in 26 days. Four of the games are away from Gillette Stadium; this weekend's matchup at Orchard Park commences a three-game road trip.

Said one veteran New England defender early this week: "We've got to get back on track right now. But part of the problem is, I don't think anyone is 100 percent sure how we got derailed, you know? A month ago, we were the toast of the league, it seemed. Now we're getting burned. If I knew how the thing came unraveled, well, I'd be a genius."

There is an undeniable element of the inexplicable, for sure, attached to the 180-degree turnaround from Pats to Patsies. This is, after all, a consummate Belichick team, one that played with great discipline in 2001, one on which every player not only had a role but accepted it as well. Last season was a watershed event for Belichick, who went from being regarded as one of the great defensive minds of this era to a complete head coach.

Along with vice president of personnel Scott Pioli, who understands exactly the kind of player Belichick wants and seems to be joined in some sort of a Vulcan mind meld with the head coach, virtually everything that the Patriots touched turned to gold. New England imported modestly-priced free agents and almost all of them contributed to the Super Bowl victory.

Certainly the two men didn't just lose their Midas Touch overnight, yet the offseason moves they made have produced far more mixed results. A few (like the acquisition of former Carolina wide receiver Donald Hayes) have been markedly disappointing.

There is also a suspicion that the chemistry of the 2002 Patriots simply isn't the same as it was a year ago. Unexpected success will do that sometimes, especially to lesser-talented players who suddenly overestimate their skills level, and who fall into a false sense of accomplishment. The quick start to this season, with Brady playing like a grizzled veteran instead of a passer who entered the year with only 14 regular-season starts, may have created an aura of invincibility and masked some deficiencies.

	“	We aren't a team that can get by with athleticism. We have to be coordinated in what we do and that hasn't been the case. And when you start losing, well, everyone seems to try to do too much, you know. ”
		— LB Mike Vrabel

Brady sounded a cautionary note after Sunday's defeat, when he suggested there are "some guys who aren't playing like this is their livelihood," and his remarks raised a few eyebrows among longer-tenured veterans. Despite his new four-year, $30 million contract extension, and the leadership role such a deal entails, two veterans told ESPN.com this week that Brady may not have been the player best suited to offer such an assessment.

Both players said that, while mistakes and breakdowns are widespread at this point and that Brady can't be singled out for his uneven play, he needs to look in the mirror like everyone else right now. And the need for more accountability, one player emphasized, has to extend to the coaching staff as well. It is a staff that somehow deviated from the formula so successful just a year ago.

In 2001, the Patriots ran the ball well, stopped the run, played great special teams, played within themselves during their run to the title. This season, the running attack has been sporadic, too often abandoned early in games, and perhaps set back by a revolving door at the interior line positions. The run defense, for the most part, has been miserable.

Although Light and right tackle Kenyatta Jones have started every game, there has been just one occasion when New England started the same three players in the same spots in consecutive outings. In seven games, there have been four different starting right guards, a whirling dervish that perhaps has stunted the progress of Jones in his first season with the No. 1 offense. The center position has had three different starters.

The most notable offensive alteration, though, was the sudden emphasis this year on the passing game. Last season, Brady attempted an average of 29.4 passes in his 17 starts, including the playoffs. By contrast, he has thrown 25 or more passes in the first half alone in five of seven games in 2002. A year ago, in the games Brady started, the Pats were the model of balance, with 505 pass plays and 506 runs. This season, New England has 307 pass plays and only 159 runs, a nearly 2-1 ratio.

Offensive coordinator Charlie Weis, upon whom Belichick leans heavily, must restore balance before order can be restored.

The offense, though, hasn't been the lone area of concern. Teams have been able to run with consistent results at the New England front seven and even the high-profile performers in the secondary haven't played well. This was never a unit that featured great players, but it was a group that demonstrated superb discipline in '02, and that key component has been lacking.

"Little things, stuff like 'gap control' and stuff like that ... we haven't been taking as good a care on the little things," said linebacker Mike Vrabel after a loss to Green Bay three weeks ago. "We aren't a team that can get by with athleticism. We have to be coordinated in what we do and that hasn't been the case. And when you start losing, well, everyone seems to try to do too much, you know? Everybody wants to be the guy who makes the play and, invariably, you make mistakes instead. You dig the hole a little deeper."

For the Pats, being one game below .500 with more than half their season still to be played shouldn't be such an insurmountable hole from which to emerge. But crawling out of the deficit situation is something that has to be enacted quickly, with a positive turnaround tantamount to the plummet that has taken place over the past month of dreary Sundays.

"The thing is," said one player, "we have to get back to the same work ethic that earned us these (Super Bowl) rings some guys like to flash around. We have some players who bought too much into the press clippings from early in the season. Some people feel like they can just flip a switch and make all the bad stuff go away. If that's the case, they better find the switch soon."

Len Pasquarelli is a senior writer for ESPN.com.