We proved that we could run on them.. why not mix it in and create even larger passing lanes for Rodgers to attack and the receivers to hurt them in YAC?

Nothing more.

"Pack93z" wrote:

I still can't believe we're having this discussion.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

We'll never talk about the need for a balanced offense again. Thank God. Was getting sick of that.

"zombieslayer wrote:

It's about time you made that signature big enough, macbob.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

Our OL did a pretty decent job in the game. Aaron Rodgers was taking hits because we did not have a credible threat of a run game to slow down the pass rush.

One play in the 2nd half stood out. Starks was in at RB, Aaron Rodgers ran a PA fake to Starks. A LB was blitzing through the hole near where Starks was and didn't even give Starks a 2nd glance--he was making a bee-line towards Rodgers. Starks was only able to chip the LB, and Rodgers got sacked on the play.

Unless you are saying:
1) the Steelers had a better offense than the Packers
2) the Steelers had a better defense than the Packers
3) the Steelers Special Teams outperformed the Packers Special Teams
or 4) Mike Tomlin out-coached Mike McCarthy

I would like to hear your explanation on why we only won by 6 in a game where our D got 3 turnovers and scored a TD on one of them.

I don't believe any of those 4 in this Super Bowl. I'll anticipate your argument, because in my opinion it's the only possible one you could make--the receivers dropping balls.

Passing and catching in these tight areas, with DBs banging you and hanging on you is difficult. The drops were all on bang-bang, hard-thrown balls with defenders in the immediate area making life difficult for the receivers. When you throw it 39 times, you're going to have some drops. Get used to it, because no one is 100% perfect.

You can't subtract those out of your passing game. It would be like someone advocating running the ball saying take away the negative runs where an OL man missed his block--it's part of the running game, it happens.

So, with the totality of our passing game in SB XLV, we only won by 6 pts.

Aaron Rodgers had a TERRIFIC game, and we would have lost without those turnovers. The passing game by itself was not enough to win.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

Maybe it really is the 3 dropped TDs instead of the running game. Rodgers should have been 36 of 39 for over 400 yards and 6TDs but Nelson dropped 4, Jennings, Jones and Swain all dropped one. One was in the end zone when Nelson was behind the D. One was on the side line when Jones was behind the D. Another was in the same area with Nelson behind the D. Not one of them was covered well. The defenders may have broken up Swains catch. But the other ones were hit in the hands when they were open and flat out dropped the ball. The ones in tight windows were caught by Jennings.

You dismissed the argument out of hand and denied that those were easily catchable balls that went through the WRs hands. Without that, your argument falls apart. Which is why the preemptive dismissal.

Didn't Mendenhall only have 11 more yards on a 3 more attempts than Starks? 4.7 yards per carry isn't credible?

Maybe the LB say that Starks didn't have the ball and didn't need to bite on the Fake, he had an unobstructed view.

We would have won by 23 if we caught the passes is exactly as valid an argument as we would have lost without the turnovers.

"Dexter_Sinister wrote: