Matt Bowen knows a whole lot more about football than I'll ever know. His latest is on the value of RB Cedric Benson to the Bengals. I'd have to say Cedric Benson has little value, but Bowen mentions the Packers during the article. From the National Football Post:

I understand this is a passing league with the amount of multiple looks we see in Green Bay, New England, New Orleans, etc. But I will always believe that running the ball is the one mark of physical football team.

So are the Packers hurt by being a pass heavy team without a signature running back?

After RB Ryan Grant was lost for the season, and RB Brandon Jackson turned out to be inept at running the football, I was initially worried that it could hurt the offense. Forcing the defense to worry about the run is supposed to open up opportunities down the field for the passing game.

Just looking at the offense's rankings at NFL.com for the regular season, during which RB James Starks rarely played, the Packers dropped in the official rankings from No. 6 in 2009 (379.1 yards/game) to No. 9 in 2010 (358.1 yards/game). For comparison, they were in a similar situation back in 1998, after RB Dorsey Levens was injured, and the offense dropped from No. 4 in 1997 (350.9 yards/game) to No. 5 in 1998 (352.2 yards/game). Not really a drop at all by yardage, but the Packers turnover margin decreased as they relied more on the pass. Favre's INTs increased from 16 in 1997 to 23 in 1998.

That's a really simple analysis, but I didn't notice a specific problem with the absence of a signature running back to draw the defense's attention.

But I will always believe that running the ball is the one mark of physical football team.

Physical football team? Whatever.

I proved over and over and over again that you don't need to run the ball well to win. I kind of stopped reading after this.

How about we play chess? You try to beat me by using physical moves. And I slaughter you with my brains. Belichick is the best coach in the NFL because he understands football is a chess game. Weird thing is he got beaten at his own game in 2007. Physical is soooo 1960s.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

70s, too. (cue up Village People) o/~ "Macho, macho, macho mannnn." o/~

Originally Posted by: Wade 

How about we play chess? You try to beat me by using physical moves. And I slaughter you with my brains. Belichick is the best coach in the NFL because he understands football is a chess game. Weird thing is he got beaten at his own game in 2007. Physical is soooo 1960s.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

Or we can sing Olivia's "Let's Get Physical," although I think that came out in the early 80s. Olivia must not have been very good at predicting football trends.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

The sad thing is I'm old enough to have watched both those videos. And thanks to both of you two for those awesome visuals.[-x

If only the stellar anouncers the networks keep throwing out there would quit using the cliches you have to run the ball and stop the run to win in this league.

We are living in the great quarterback era and I'm very happy to have been here to watch it. In our division - the Packers have been the only participant in this era.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

I think Bjack is on par with Grant. It's just that 1: Grant never had to split carries with Kuhn and 2: Part of Bjack's repetoire is catching the ball out of the backfield. If you add that on, I think they're about par.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

How about we play chess? You try to beat me by using physical moves. And I slaughter you with my brains. Belichick is the best coach in the NFL because he understands football is a chess game. Weird thing is he got beaten at his own game in 2007. Physical is soooo 1960s.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer