2008 super bowl teams rushing
Pittsburgh 23rd, Arizona 32nd (both teams combined had less than 100 yards rushing in the super bowl)

2009 super bowl teams rushing
New Orleans 6th, Indianapolis 32nd (Indy ran much more effectively in the superbowl and lost)

I don't think running the ball is really all that important anymore maybe I'm wrong but I don't think the Packers season will come down to whether they have a 1000 yard rusher or not.

---

Running the ball consistently which provides a stat that so many are clamoring over ... no its not necessary or needed.


Running the ball effectively enough to make the defense hesitate is obviously important.


If you're only getting a max of 6-8 yards from your RB as the longest run out of 15 tries where the rest of them are 1-3 yards, it will impact your offenses effectiveness in passing and protecting the passer.

---

Defense.

Somebody talk about defense real quick.

You can go ahead and post those last ten Super Bowls again. The ones that didn't have a running back had a defense.

Tom Brady is good but his defense was good.

The Super Bowl teams with shit QB's had great defenses.

Yes, Green Bay's defense is good, but they haven't done anything against a real QB.

---

That's the obvious factor in all of this.

And it isn't about run defense, either, but pass defense, mainly. No team can beat you on the ground alone anymore. Not consistently, at least. The Texans and Foster did it, but the Colts defense is all about the pass rush with some mediocre players behind it. Especially against the run.

Get some edge rushers on defense and your rankings will shoot up. Of course you'll need some DBs, but do you honestly remember who the CBs were of the last couple of SB teams? Only the Saints had some impact players at that position. Teams like the Giants, the Cardinals and the Colts have servicable, but not gamechanging players at those positions. With the exception maybe of one safety or corner per team.

Like I said, Brandon Jackson won't step in and be Grant. I feel like Jackson can be a good back, but he needs some vision and some help from the O-line. Something he hasn't been getting. Getting some better tackles who can hold blocks and who can move a bit better would be vital.

I'd like for us to just experiment a bit and come out with Lang at RT and Bulaga at LT. I mean, what's there to lose? Van Den Bosch, Williams and Suh have been ripping it up. I think Bulaga has the physical power to stop a guy like Van Den Bosch, who's lost a step but is still a great bullrusher. The interior line should take care of Williams and Suh (And Hill, who's quite the DT). I have full confidence in Sitton containing his guy most of the time. Wells and Colledge should do a half-decent job against Williams. That leaves Lang on their LDE, someone he should be able to take, while he gives you run blocking that you don't really get from Tauscher.

But in reality, we'll just come out with Clifton at LT and Tauscher at RT. And we'll keep doing that untill one of them gets hurt.

Technically, it was 78% pass, 22% rush.

Regards,
Wade
:)

p.s. Those penalties are symptom of why the offense isn't fine. If the offense doesn't try to "beat the clock" (false starts) and line up deep ("not on line of scrimmage" could be called a lot more often) and hold (also could have been called more often), Rodgers is running for his life more and getting hit more.

Fran Tarkenton was the greatest scrambling quarterback I ever saw, and he never saw a Super Bowl until the Vikings got a good line. Rodgers IMO is better than Tarkenton (also major league cooler), but he isn't going to get there either until the line shapes up.

---