The only thing you need a running game for is to keep Defenses honest
zombieslayer wrote:
I wouldn't go as far as saying it's the only thing you need a running game for (you need it to be able to make a 3rd & short, etc), but I agree with the general philosophy of the statement that the primary purpose of a running game is to keep defenses honest and help make your passing game better.
We need to be able to keep a defense from stacking completely against the pass, be able to suck their safetys in to stop the run while play-actioning deep to Greg Jennings.
I am also concerned with developing a one-dimensional offense, without a credible running game, that we're putting ALL of our eggs in AR's basket--I want the Packers to still have chances if Aaron Rodgers gets injured.
That said, we're in basic agreement on passing > running. Also, we both appear to like McCarthy's playcalling mix this year.
So, what's the issue? The issue is you continue to advocate for a John Madden offense when you refer to running as a waste of a play, where when you talk about McCarthy abandoning the run until we have a sizable lead you're essentially advocating for that approach.
And yes, we won the SB. We've had previous discussions, which I won't go into details on, they're in earlier threads, on how we wouldn't have won without the 3 turnovers (Collin's INT directly resulted in 7 pts in a game we won by 6). We also had discussions on the playcalling in the first half, when we built our lead and the second half, when we held on to win.
Frankly, I was very concerned by the second half of that SB: the Steelers were showing a blueprint on how to beat us. Our D was having trouble getting off the field in the second half, which limits our O's opportunities. And when our O got on the field, it put a lot of pressure on to not have a 3 and out, otherwise the O was going to be back on the sideline for a while.
The Steelers had driven down and scored a touchdown, with every play a running play. They were in the midst of another drive until Mendenhall's fumble. I thought they were going to score on that drive--our D was showing little sign of stopping them prior to that fumble.
It was the same type of gameplan we used against New England when we played them in the regular season. We kept Brady sitting on his butt for large parts of that game, running up a large time-of-possession advantage. We would have won that game except for a 70 yd kick-off return by an Olineman or the INT by Flynn.
So, if you're counting that SB win as a vindication of the no-running-game philosophy, I'm counting it as an indictment of it. I don't feel confident in 'abandoning the run until we have a sizable lead.' I like our play mix this year (60/40) just fine.