+1 to Porky.

Now for you "you need a run game" people, do you really want me to expand on what Porky just said? I'll give you this warning now. I'll make you look stupid. It's probably best you just concede that Porky and I are right and you are wrong.

Note that I wrote enough on this topic to submit it as a thesis paper. I'm not exaggerating. Last warning.

---

Take away Rodgers' scrambles, and the Packers had 13 runs for 43 yards.
And take away that one 10-yd run by Kuhn, and it's 12 for 32.

13 rushing plays, 45 passing plays, 2 passing plays that Rodgers turned into yards.

I don't know what "balanced" between run and pass really means anymore, but that doesn't strike me as good.

I know you don't need equality. And I certainly know you don't need a dominant running game anymore (much as I would prefer it otherwise). But I do think you need more dependability in the running part of the game than this team has.

1. You need to be able to move the ball with 4-5 consecutive running plays once per game.

2. You need to be able to get three yards in the fourth quarter on a running play.

3. You need to be able to score on a one-yard dive.

4. You need to be able to pick up 1.1 yards on 4th and 1.

and

5. And both you and the opposing team need to believe that you can do 1, 2, 3, and 4.

WHich of 1-5 hold for the Packers right now?

---

Sorry guys but running the ball to set up the play-action pass is the keystone of McCarthy's offense. You can't compare this style of offense to that of the Colts.

---

lol if a team knew you weren't going to run, you'd get sacked a helluva lot.


You need to run the ball, doesn't need to get you 70 or more yards, but you need to run the ball to keep the defense honest.

The rules of the NFL favor the passing game, thus, passing is MORE important to winning than running the ball.

Until they change the rules back to even out the field, it's gonna stay like this. The NFL now is sad compared to 25 years ago, but yet its still the best sport, in my opinion.

---

By the way, if there were a PH award for "most politically incorrect post in a forum not titled "Back Alley," I'd give it to NSD's. 🙂

---

I would love an article by zombie or porky because I'm tired of seeing this argument week after week. EVEN WHEN WE HAD GRANT WE HAD THIS SAME ARGUMENT. Someone please end this I can't take much more

---

Grant at least got yards.

Coach said the running back by committee wasn't a good thing for the team in '07 when he declared I believe Wynn as the starter. Somehow 3 years later, its good for the team?

---

Two things I can't stand when it comes to the NFL - balance, and playing not to lose. I won't touch the latter in this thread, but the former, I'm going to argue.

Screw balance. And screw the run. You do not need a running game to win the Super Bowl. I'm about to prove it.

Remember when we won the Super Bowl last? It was 1996, and we didn't even have a Running Back that rushed for 900 yards. No, I'm not joking. Our leading rusher was Edgar Bennett and he rushed for 800-something yards. I don't even remember if he broke 4 ypc that year.

It's the Quarterback who carries a team when it comes to Offense. Times have changed. The only thing you need a running game for is to keep Defenses honest.

We have the potential to be a dominant Offense. The thing that's holding us back? Mike McCarthy thinking we need a balanced offensive attack. That line of thinking is equivalent to kicking Aaron Rodgers in the nuts.

I want to see Aaron throw the ball. We have 3 playmakers on Offense and none of them are Running Backs. Our playmakers are Greg Jennings, Donald Driver, and Aaron Rodgers. The more we put the game in their hands, the more points we score.

So why is this NFL News instead of in the Packers section? This is why....

2000 Super Bowl winners - Baltimore Ravens. Yes, they had a top tier rushing attack. They were #5. But honestly, they won the SB that year because their D was absolutely sick.

2001 Super Bowl winners - New England Patriots. 13th in Rushing. Puts them in the top half, but by no means were they a top notch rushing team.

2002 Super Bowl winners - Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Are you ready for their rushing ranking? 27th. Yes. I'm not joking. They downright sucked at running the ball. But who cares? They won the Super Bowl that year.

Even funnier is when you look at their top rushers. You had one guy rush for 718 yards with a 3.5 average, and their other guy rush for a 3.8 average. Wow.

2003 Super Bowl winners - New England Patriots. You think the '02 Bucs couldn't run the football? Well, this team was even worse. Top rusher ran for under 700 yards and had a 3.5 average and a whopping 3 TDs. 27th in the NFL in rushing.

2004 Super Bowl winners - New England Patriots. Well, surprise, surprise. Bellichick decides they need a RB and they get Corey Dillon from the Bengals. Dillon has the year of his life and gets 1600+ yards and the Patriots are 7th in Rushing. The Patriots a rushing team? Well, in '04 they were.

2005 Super Bowl winners - Pittsburgh Steelers. OK, here you have a top tier rushing attack with a speedster and a guy who runs you over. 5th in the NFL in Rushing.

2006 Super Bowl winners - Indianapolis Colts. 18th in Rushing, which puts them in the bottom half of the league. Who cares? They won the SB that year.

2007 Super Bowl winners - New York Giants. An elite rushing team. 4th in the NFL. To give credit where it's due though, the Giants won the SB that year because they were a team. The whole team was awesome once the Playoffs started.

2008 Super Bowl winners - Pittsburgh Steelers. Unlike their '05 team, this team had no running game. 23rd in the NFL. They won it on D. The one play that won them the SB was Kurt Warner throwing an INT from the one yard line and that INT got returned for a TD.

And for your bonus round, let's throw in the '99 Rams, the "Greatest Show on Turf." Remember how fun they were to watch that year? You know why they were so fun to watch? Because they didn't waste time running the football. Sure they had Marshall Faulk. But even with an elite RB, you can always throw the football to him. As they did.

So want to guess their ranking in Rushing? 25th. Yup.

Screw the run. They put the game in Kurt Warner's hands and he responded with 400+ yards in the SB and each Ram walked away with a Ring.

EDIT: Laughing This is too funny. So out of curiosity, I looked at how many rushing yards the '99 Rams had in the SB. 29. No. I'm not making this up. Here's proof:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...Bowl_XXXIV

Marshall Faulk had a whopping 17 yards on 10 carries. Further proof that you can win SBs without a running game.

For the record, SBs are always played in ideal conditions. You don't have snow. You don't have the cold. It's not going to be a grinding game where you have to run the ball to win.

This is an old article I wrote. This is before Finley's emergence. Now I want us passing even more.

---

All in all, for a thread, I think quite a few fans agree with me,
at least in principle.

dj

---

New Orleans Saints 2009.

---