We had over 1800 yards rushing that year as a team.
So we had a pretty good rushing attack, total.
Just because we didn't have ONE guy with 1500 yards doesn't mean rushing wasn't important.

---

My problem with the pass attack game is one has to consider the elements in which we play. If you don't have the diversity than you are easy pickens for a quality Dcoordinator on windy cold day, ie the 2007 Packers against the Giants. If we muster any kind of running attack on that day we may have been in the Super Bowl.

---

you forget one thing with all this talk, go thru and figure out what these teams had for a defense. What is always said Defense wins championships.

1996 - Packers defense #1
2000 - Ravens #2
2001 - Pats #21
2002 - Bucs #1
2003 - Pats #7
2004 - Pats #9
2005 - Steelers #4
2006 - Colts #21
2007 - Giants #7
2008 - Steelers #1



Passing offenses
1996 - Packers #5
2000 - Ravens #22
2001 - Pats #22
2002 - Bucs #15
2003 - Pats #9
2004 - Pats #11
2005 - Steelers #24
2006 - Colts #2
2007 - Giants #21
2008 - Steelers #17


So i guess by these numbers i would be more worried about having a top defense than top passing game.


edit- also you mentioned that the Super Bowl is always played in perfect conditions, well i guess you missed th pouring rain during Colts and Bears.

---

The SB between the Bears and Colts is the only one where they had that problem, though.

Anyway, I prefer an amazing defense over an amazing offense as well. I firmly believe that in most cases, that will get you further.

As for giving up on the run. I don't think that you should totally give up on it, of course. You should, however, play according to your team's strength. In our case, that's obviously hte pass. Just look at the Eagles. Andy Reed is a big pass first guy and he has quite some success. If we had a Westbrook type of player who can catch as our starter, we could have a great Eagles-like offense.

We keep trying to establish the run so the passing gets easier. Why not do it the other way around? Why no start throwing it, especially in our division, and then when the coverage starts to back off a little start running it. That looks like a better strategy for us.

That's why the Vikings added Jared Allen, cause we tore them a new ass with that strategy. But they did have the #1 rush defense cause every one could throw all day on them.

---

Well yeah. I'm exaggerating to make a point.

You still have to run the ball to keep Defenses honest. Plus, you catch them asleep at the wheel. When they start giving you 5, 6 guys in the box, then run.

The pass opens up the run. That's how it is nowadays. It's only vice versa when you got a guy like AP, which we don't have.

---

ya there was one game where we ran the ball much more then we threw it (dont remember the game).
Mike McCarthy seems to be the gyu that likes to have 50% run 50% throw.

I really like this thread btw interesting stats +1 to the thread maker

Huh? :-k

We weren't even in the top 10 in rushing that year. However, we had the best player in the NFL (for 3 straight years) in our QB.

Holmgren understood to work with what he had. That's why he put the game in Brett's arm.

We have the same situation now. We have a talented QB and an average RB. Except this time around, we have better WRs. You'd think it's only logical to throw the ball more.

---

Zombie... in 1996 we were only fifth in total yards in passing as well.. as DH mentioned... more times than not the only very common stat for all SB champs.. high rankings in defense.. in 1996 were #1 in Def Pts, Yards and 1st downs allowed.. not to mention 2nd in Turnover given and 3rd in taken..

---