That's awfully absurd to say. Running the ball is irrelevant? Really? So you want defensive linemen able to just tee off on your OL and QB all day long?!!!!!!

;)

But seriously, you have to run the ball, it's not irrelevant. Do you need to run to win? I think not, but as I've said before 10 rushes for 30 yards is more of an asset to your offense than 5 rushes for 30 yards. They don't have to FEAR your rush, but respect that it COULD happen. There's a reason why play action passes work so well for the Packers in the post season, and its because of James Starks.

I do think having a strong passing offense is more effective than a strong running offense and I've felt that for years, even when Barry Sanders was playing for the Lions. I felt, sure, you got the greatest runner back there, but they load the box because they know you can't pass. If they had the greatest passer, they'd have won a lot more games, in my opinion.

---

You may not "have" to run, but it sure helps to be ABLE to do so. Esp if your RB is a threat to catch the ball.

---

Thank you. That was my first thought when reading this. I said aloud "It's enough when you have a solid defense."
The author of this article conveniently avoided defensive stats.

---

I agree here. I don't think running is completely irrelevant but I think having a good rushing attack is irrelevant. If you get enough attempts in a game to draw the coverage in on a play-action you're doing your job. I also think that a consistent short-yardage running game is the best type of run game.

Seven of the top 10 Rushing Offenses missed the playoffs including the top three.

All I know is every year when you get to the playoffs the field is full of top rated QB's and as the playoffs move along the teams with the hot QB advance.

The other thing is once in the Playoffs most teams you will face can stop the run pretty good. Out of the bottom 14 teams against the run only the Colts and Seattle made it in and Seattle was a joke to get in anyhow.

The Packers got it right.

Throw Ball well + run ball well enough to throw ball well = wins.

---

Yeah, but who has our caliber of quarterback. That theory has some holes Warhawk, and you know I respect the hell out of your opinions.

---

It's not so much theory as it is looking at the options and what options should a team strive to achieve. There are two other options.

Run the ball well + throw the ball well enough to run the ball well. We see teams try this but it doesn't seem to prove to be a winning formula. Not when teams that do this go up against teams that own option 1.

The 3rd option is the ultimate option.

Pass the ball well + run the ball well = wins. Problem is it's hard enough to achieve option 1 or option 2 let alone #3 and seldom do you find teams that do it. Most times top ten Passing teams have run games in the middle teens or higher and visa versa with good run teams.

I agree not many teams are blessed with an A. Rodgers. Especially when he gets hot in the playoffs. BUT, you see almost every year a hot QB who is playing AT THAT TIME as good as Rodgers. We saw this up front with the Giants a few years ago with Manning. The problem for them is he hasn't played at that level since.

A year ago Bree's was unstoppable in the playoffs. This year it was Rodgers.

So I guess what I am saying is I DISPUTE the article in this thread and believe a team does have to be a very good PASSING team to win the SB and that the better passing teams with the hot QB win it more often than any other way it's won.

Of course this is the offensive side of the ball discussion. We haven't even talked about the most important side of the ball when it comes to winning in the playoffs.

---

Yes, picking the stats that support the argument you want to make and ignoring the ones that don't.

You don't want to use passing yardage as an indicator of passing because 4 of 7 teams with over 4000 yds passing last year did not make the playoffs, but hey, rushing yardage is definitely the stat to use for the running game...

Yeah, we've had these discussions before, and YOU keep trotting them out, starting these discussions, and then acting surprised when those who disagree respond to your provocative comments, Mr Irrelevant. ::razz:

On our first TD of the SB, Starks ran for 7 yds on 1st down, putting us in 2nd & 3. Rodgers dumped off a pass to Hall for 2 yds, which set up 3rd & 1. Because of the threat of the run, Jordy was able to get 1-on--1 coverage on the outside, which resulted in the TD throw. Without the threat of the run, then the Safety could have been back helping on that play.

Irrelevant? Hardly. Unless you define irrelevant as something that makes your passing game better--which the credible threat of a running game does.

Based on what criteria? Rushing yardage? edit: Then 6 of 10 top passing teams did not make the playoffs, either, using passing yardage as the criteria. That's not much better than the top 10 rushing teams by rushing yardage.