I always find this such a weird stat. Mainly because you usually keep running because you can, not because you want to get over a 100 yards to get a gauranteed win. It usually tells more about the defense for me than the offense. Just look at Rodgers' numbers in those same games.
He went over 100 yards 4 times this year. Like Cheeseheads said, we went 3-1 in those games. The 1st 100 yarder was against Indy. Indy without Bob Sanders. Everyone knows that you should run on them like crazy. And Rodgers had a very good game as well. Maybe he was supported by the run a little, because they had to get more in the box, but Grant wasn't all that effective. 105 yards on 31 attempts for a 3.4 yard average.
The Chicago slaughtering. I don't know what happend here. They just sucked that day. Jackson was running wild, Grant was running wild, Rodgers was passing all over the place and the defense actually got sacks. I think that this one has somethign to do with the run, but from what I've heared, the Bears where dropping into more cover 3s etc. because they didn't fear our run game at all. Just a busted gameplan to me.
The Houston game. Our whole offense performed pretty well. The last Lions game, well, we had to do well, really.
So we obviously play good when he's over 100 yards. But I don't think that our success is tied up to Grant that much. I mean, we usually win if the defense gets 3 interceptions. We tend to win when Rodgers goes over 300 yards (Asuming we're not playing catch-up and just are pass happy).
And like said before, you just run a lot more when you're winning. It's more the other way around really. When the Packers are winning, Grant rushes for more yards.
Looking back at my post, I forgot what I wanted to say with those game summarys. But you get my point on the last paragraphs.