I still say that scoring 24 points against the best defense in the league, which had given up an average of 15 per game during the season, is a very nice day's work for an offense.
Pack93z and macbob have mentioned the three turnovers by our defense as a reason that we should've won by more. That kind of misses the point, because this discussion is about offensive production, not margin of victory. Perhaps there needs to be a discussion about why our defense gave up 25 points in spite of the fact that it forced three turnovers. But that's not going to happen, because everybody loves our defense. And we ought to. Our defense got the job done--as did our offense.
Anyway, when I put the emphasis on the 24 points scored by our offense, I am throwing out one of the turnovers, which was a pick six. That one had nothing to do with the offense's performance. The other two turnovers both happened near midfield. The Packers got good field position off those turnovers, but there was still a lot of work to do. And yes, they got the job done.
I'm not on board with Zombie's "in your face!" tone throughout this thread, but I do think that basically he is right. The pass-happy attack worked. And I don't think it matters that Rodgers had run-pass options on a lot of plays. A pass is a pass. McCarthy would not have allowed those options for Rodgers if he thought the Packers absolutely needed to run the ball more.
I am fully in agreement with Pack93z, macbob, and others that an improved running game would be a big help for this team. I would like to see that next season. But the Packers are further proof that you can, in fact, win a championship with a very pass-oriented attack. The Patriots and Colts have done it too.
McCarthy did what was best with the players he had to work with: phenomenal QB, excellent receiving corps, so-so pass blocking O-line, pretty good RB, and lousy run-blocking O-line. I'm sure the Steelers are still having nightmares about what Rodgers, Nelson, Jennings, et al. did to them, and I'm guessing they would've been more than happy if the Packers had run the ball more than they did. With all due respect to James Starks, I don't think they were scared of him.
Late in the season, McCarthy was smart to do what Pack93z was suggesting and put more emphasis on the running game, but the running game had probably taken them about as far as it was going to take them. Against the #1 run defense in the league and a shaky secondary, I think McCarthy's play-calling mix was just about perfect, and Starks' 4.7 yards per carry is evidence of that. That's a very good average against that defense. Had they run the ball more, I think the average was more likely to go down than up.