Your missing the benefit of wearing the front seven down physically and almost as important mentally by stuffing the run down their throat... basically killing two birds with one stone.

Also... a incomplete causes the clock to stop, the defense to rest a bit more... a run up the gut for 3 doesn't... lol.

Color me old school.. but while I agree the protecting the QB is important.. we have to be able to function consistently in all facets of the game.. until then... we are vulnerable to being attacked on one front and not being able to play the chess game to counter it in some way.

We torn the Cards up through the air.. shredded them... yet couldn't keep our liability in that game off the field.

BTW.. sparing with the ZS is quite fun..

---

Heh. I'm probably quite predictable. That's why.

No, I see what you're saying. We do not have an elite back but frankly, I wouldn't trade Grant right now as he doesn't fumble, and I'd take a very good RB who doesn't fumble over an elite RB who fumbles. Turnovers change games. Had we gotten just more stinking turnover against the Cards, we would have gone to round 2.

Don't throw incompletions then. Then it's not an issue. A quick 5-7 yard route should be completed most of the time.

You're thinking too old school. There's more than one way to win ball games, and considering the rules have changed to the point where the NFL wants you to pass, then pass. Just make sure you throw completions.

Now, do I really need to whip out the old stat book and show to you how recent SB winners often don't have a good running game?

---

LOL... for the record.. I am not saying we shouldn't or can't win with a short passing game.

My point is we have to be able to win with more than just it.

Grant, IMO, is a very capable back.. with Jackson and Green/another.. I have really no issue with them. In fact.. I am probably higher on Grant than most.. dependable with the ball.. runs with conviction.. only issue I have with him is his balance or more accurately his carrying his body weight to far out front of his hips... leading to lack of breaking tackles and extending the runs.

My issues is the offensive line... and their lack of consistency.. this has to be one of the most inconsistent groups I have ever seen. They get rolling here or there for a game or a couple.. then they revert back and look like a Division II college group. Seriously.

Hence why I beat the drums on the coaching side... and this stubborn approach to not addressing it. Doing the same thing over and over with the same variables in place.. expecting different results is disheartening..

Okay.. back to the original point.. it isn't that running the ball should be our staple set in the offense or be the highlight... no... we should be able to count on it if during a game we need to counter the opposition.. I use the Saints as my example here.

They are a passing team.. but when they needed to, they could run the damn ball and keep the ball in their possession..

To be a dominate truly championship team, we need to be able to function in all facets of the game on offense when we dictate the pace... I called the offensive line our Acheilles heal last season before it begun.. hell that was an easy call it has been that way since 04.. until we decide to fix it from the position coaches down.. it will continue to be a liability.

Not just individual players are causing that issue.. communication breakdowns, basic fundamentals of the game and scheme, IMO, are causing that.. and until you right the core issue with that.. we will continue to have problems.

Sooner or later, someone inside 1265 is going to have to call a spade a spade, watch the tape from 06, 07, 08 and 09 and see the common themes in the offensive lines play... regardless of whom is on the roster.

---

Well there ya have it folks. Just don't throw incompletions. While you're at it, just don't get sacked or fumble either because it's just that simple. ;)


The league is a far more pass oriented league now than it was a decade or two ago, no question. Even with that said the game still needs a at least adequate running game so opposing defenses don't tee off on the OL. Also, pass protecting is harder than run blocking. Why? Run block the OL does the attacking, in Pass protection, the DL does the attacking.


As QB is my most talented position, I of course would prefer to throw every down, but I also am not naive to the imporantance of a running game to a successful offense.

---

Urgh. Don't make me do it. I can produce statistical proof that SB winners recently don't really need a running game. Running games nowadays are "nice to have" but not necessary.

It's not being naive. It's looking at recent history. Balance is nice on paper. Communism is nice on paper too. In reality, it all comes down to a superior D is the most effective way at winning a SB and we're not going to win games when our D lets the opponent score 51 points, no matter how good our running game is.

Our O is fine, other than that pathetic joke of an OL. Our problem is our D. It is currently heading in the right direction. It is making improvements. I'm much happier with the 3-4 D of '09 than the 4-3 D of '08. No argument. One more year and we might see a high level D in '10. I really hope so.

I'd actually rather not argue about whether or not we need a running game because I like ours. I like Grant. I don't want to see changes. My biggest concerns coming into '10 are 1 - being able to pound the opposing QB, 2 - protecting ours.

---

Ive seen the stats posted here before about not needing a running game to win the SB. Didnt the niners of the past do this? ...

I really dont like Grant as our main RB - but he doesnt fumble much and this is really nice. I mean take a look what ap did in the game vs the game vs the saints ...

Call it creative differences.. I really just wanted to rile you up a little.. a spirited Zombie rant has been absent for a little bit. ;)



I think if we had the ability to pound the rock against the Cards.. we turn that game around in our favor.. but that is just me.

---

I would rather have a quarterback who throws no interceptions than a quarterback who throws a lot of touchdowns. Similarly, I'd rather have a runningback who never fumbles than one who runs for a lot of yards or touchdowns.

The stats are on my side.

---

Non - I won't get into the QB part of it but I would agree with you on RBs.

Pack - If we got to Warner, the game would have been different.

Dulak - Yes. If I told you the winning RBs for the Niners, you'd be like "who?" Of course there was Roger Craig. I'm saying before Craig. Same thing with the Pats. They won without a good RB. Heck, our running game in '96 wasn't that impressive.

I do like Grant though. He's effective. I'd take 1200+ yards, 11 TDs, a 4.4 average, and 1 fumble a year any day of the week. Nothing flashy, but effective.

---

I think we could have had LT and Greene in their prime and we would have struggled to get there... guys were getting open that fast.

With our secondary depleted by injury and breakdowns on every snap it seemed... we were the proverbial one legged man in an ass kicking contest on defense... with a HOFer throwing darts all day.

Our best defense would have been to keep the ball away from them... we could score at will on them for the most part... with Rodgers throwing darts on 3rd downs... keep Warners ass planted on the sideline.. that is why the Onsides was just a huge play...

---