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: :lol: 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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_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.

---

we had Dorsey Levens who ran for 566 yards combine the 2 that would have been 1466

As a team we were 5th in yards and 11th in average

Actually, in 1996 the Packers were 12th in rushing average,   and 11th in rushing yards.  

Thats what I get for looking at stats before I even take my morning pee

although to be technical they were 12th but since other teams were tied for 3rd, 4th and 6th, the Packers actually had the 7th best average

NERDS!!


=)

Just to add to what Zombieslayer said, last year's Arizona Cardinals were ranked dead last in rushing, yet they took that game down to the final seconds.

---

Maybe I am too old school, but there is nothing more disheartening to a defense than watching an offense line up all game long and ram that freaking pigskin down your throat.. sometimes turning it sideways for extra measure.

Listen, you can win in this game without a running game.. you can win in the league without an effective passing game.. but a team that can be versatile enough to do both is even more deadly. Nonstop brings up the Cards, think they make that run in the playoffs last season without effective running and a better defensive play.. hell no.

It is all a game of chess in playcalling, and effective offensive mind can accomplish enough with one or the other... but it makes it easier and more consistent if you have more pieces on the table.. relying solely on the passing game puts all the pressure on your QB and receivers to bet the defense.. it reduces your odds considerably and will let to untimely mistakes and turnovers.

Having a balance on offense with an effective running game equals the fight back out for the offense verses the defense.. being pass heavy tips the advantage to the defense.. eliminates alot of worries on each snap..

Balance is key to consistently winning over the long haul.. look at teams that didn't have balance.. they didn't string many winning seasons together.. one horse ponies get figured out in a hurry.

---

Pack - In the WCO, which we run, a short passing attack can substitute for a running game.

You know why the WCO is so effective? Because a short pass will get you 7 yards. A rush gets you 4 yards.

Let's say one team gets a lot of 2nd and 6s. The other team gets a lot of 2nd and 3s. Who controls the ball better?

That's not me saying this. This is something I heard Bill Walsh say.

So once again, screw the run. Unless you have an elite RB, but we don't. If we had AP, Barry Sanders, LT (in his prime, not the shell of the man he is now), Wallie Payton, etc., I'd be more for the run. But we have Ryan Grant.

Don't mean to be a jerk, but the less I see of Ryan Grant and the more I see of Gregorious and Driver, the better.

---

You quote Bill Walsh.. but yet he praised Roger Craig and Tom Rathman time and time again.

Ding and dunk short slants are effective, not going to disagree, however I will say this when that is all you have, a defense can start to sit on those short routes and turn the pass rush loose.. because they don't have to respect the run.

Rewind to the Giants beating us in the NFC Championship.. they came up protected the line and turned the dogs loose.. we only made one play with Driver.. other than that even the passing game was somewhat ineffective..

Put me in a DC's shoes and I will play a team that has a top 5 passing game and little running over a balanced effective attack any day of the freaking week... you can start to take things away from a one dimensional team.. care less if it was the 49ers.. you can take it away.

But I will agree here... with the rules stacked against the defense.. you bet your ass that their is an advantage to the offense.. so maybe sliding the balance towards the pass is smart.. but the NFL is a league of cycles.. hence why you are seeing the 3-4 start to explode again.. this isn't a new concept, but it give a DC a lot more flexibility in defending the pass and hiding the coverages..

So as the defenses catch up again in defending the pass you will see the cycle of run oriented offenses gain more and more success.. because teams with start to exploit the natural weakness of the 3-4.. that is between the tackles with power running and rooting the lighter backers out of the lanes..

Again.. I will take balance with an average back over a one dimensional passing attack.. you will have more consistent offensive production long term and the flexibility to attack any given defense.. "sick" with talent or not..

---

Pack - Don't get me wrong. I see what you're saying. But I think I proved my point that in the last 10 years, of the SB winners, nobody had above a #4 rushing attack, while we had 2 27ths, a 23rd, and a 25th.

Plus we had an extreme case of 29 total rushing yards by the SB winner.

This is the thing - all I want is for us to win SBs. Unless AP says he's sick of being a Viking and wants to become a Packer, I'd rather we ran a lot less and passed a lot more. Gregorious, Driver, Jones, and Jordy are going to win us a lot more games than Ryan Grant is. In other words, I trust the ball in Aaron's hands over Ryan's.

---