Packers didn't run and didn't care

[perrykemp]

Has there been any Superbowl winner who ran it less than the Packers? I know the Packers set the record for fewest carries in the Superbowl, however, they were awful as well gaining yards in the regular season.

Makes me wonder if they are the model of what we'll see in the future in the NFL for offenses... ie an overwhelming majority of 4 and 5 receiver sets.

If you buy into that theory then you can take that idea to it's logical conclusion and say that Cowboy fans should stop self-flagellating about our RB situation.. Felix Jones backed up by Choice (or some mid-round rookie) is probably plenty good enough considering where the strengths of this team are -- WR with Austin, Dez, and hopefully an improved set of #3, #4, and #5 WRs.

[Illini88228]

Has there been any Superbowl winner who ran it less than the Packers? I know the Packers set the record for fewest carries in the Superbowl, however, they were awful as well gaining yards in the regular season.

Makes me wonder if they are the model of what we'll see in the future in the NFL for offenses... ie an overwhelming majority of 4 and 5 receiver sets.

If you buy into that theory then you can take that idea to it's logical conclusion and say that Cowboy fans should stop self-flagellating about our RB situation.. Felix Jones backed up by Choice (or some mid-round rookie) is probably plenty good enough considering where the strengths of this team are -- WR with Austin, Dez, and hopefully an improved set of #3, #4, and #5 WRs.

It looked to me like they barely won while not being able to burn clock which would have been a lot easier with a running game.

I would hate to see Dallas move further in that direction. Dallas got much better in the second half of the season when they started running the ball more consistently. That is the direction this team should be going.

[AdamJT13]

How well you run the ball (or stop the run) has very little to do with winning in the NFL, no matter whether you run it a little or run it a lot. In the NFL, the key to winning is how well you throw the ball (no matter how often you throw it) and how well you stop the opponent from throwing it.

[followthestar]

Its all good, as long as you can score. Sometimes you want to be able to strike quickly, other times you want to burn up some clock and pound the rock. The league wants to see excitment and the passing game is more fun to watch, but for the purists like me, I appreciate a team that can shove the ball down the opponent's throat and physically beat them.

[perrykemp]

How well you run the ball (or stop the run) has very little to do with winning in the NFL, no matter whether you run it a little or run it a lot. In the NFL, the key to winning is how well you throw the ball (no matter how often you throw it) and how well you stop the opponent from throwing it.

Agreed.

I felt like the Packers basically were content letting the Steelers run the ball -- even if it was in 4-6 yard chunks because they knew EVENTUALLY it woulds be a 3rd down passing situation.... and that's where Green Bay's secondary full of Pro-Bowlers would decide the game. The Packers have what, something like $140m invested in that secondary. If you take anything from the way they have built their team, they consider pass defense to the most critical component that deserves the biggest bulk of their salary expenditures.

[CanuckCowboysFan]

How well you run the ball (or stop the run) has very little to do with winning in the NFL, no matter whether you run it a little or run it a lot. In the NFL, the key to winning is how well you throw the ball (no matter how often you throw it) and how well you stop the opponent from throwing it.

I'll take a good pash rush over a mediocre secondary all day.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

How well you run the ball (or stop the run) has very little to do with winning in the NFL, no matter whether you run it a little or run it a lot. In the NFL, the key to winning is how well you throw the ball (no matter how often you throw it) and how well you stop the opponent from throwing it.

true, there are many who still think this is the Big 10 in the 1960s, 3 yards and a cloud of dust.

You win with passing now

[ninja]

Play to your strength. If you can throw it well, throw it. If you can run it well, run it. Pretty simple, yet effective.

[Hostile]

How well you run the ball (or stop the run) has very little to do with winning in the NFL, no matter whether you run it a little or run it a lot. In the NFL, the key to winning is how well you throw the ball (no matter how often you throw it) and how well you stop the opponent from throwing it.True, but you know as well as I do, if we had won yesterday with that rushing total our fans would be up in arms about the play calling, how it was going to doom us, we got lucky, etc.

[Hostile]

I'll take a good pash rush over a mediocre secondary all day.Would you take a mediocre pass rush over a good secondary?

[DallasEast]

This thread is custom made for a T-RO post or two (or 20).

[Everlastingxxx]

Had the Packers had some form of a running attack, the game would have been over much earlier. The Packers did a great job of converting 3rd downs. That was the key. Oh and costly turnovers.

[CanuckCowboysFan]

Would you take a mediocre pass rush over a good secondary?

Depends. What's mediocre to you? Two Anthony Spencers?

If you can't get to the QB, it doesn't matter if you have 4 Revis' lined up back there, you're going to get beat.

My point was to stop the pass your best best is to have a dominant pass rush over a dominant secondary. JMO.

[Temo]

Pittsburgh run defense is crazy good, and the Packers run offense isn't great. Makes sense to take it to the air. Also McCarthy noted that on most regular plays, they have a run and pass option available and Rodgers can choose.

We do the same with Romo. And yet people get on Garrett for the run/pass option.

[Stautner]

How well you run the ball (or stop the run) has very little to do with winning in the NFL, no matter whether you run it a little or run it a lot. In the NFL, the key to winning is how well you throw the ball (no matter how often you throw it) and how well you stop the opponent from throwing it.

A lot of Super Bowls have been won by the team that could control the ball with a running game.

The key on offense is to control the ball in some way, whether through the air or ground, and preferebly with a mix that hel[s keep the opposing team off balance, adn the key on defense it to not allow the opposing offense to control the ball.

There is no question that a strong ground game can have a major impact on winning, and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. A strong runnin game helps set up the pass as well.

Obviously teams can score more quickly and eat up bigger chunks of yardage through the air, so obviously passing is a big component, but it's plain wrong to act as if a running game is of no consequence.

[Cowboys&LakersFan]

It's a passing league now. The days of winning titles with average to below average quarterbacks like Trent Dilfer are over. If you don't have an elite quarterback forget about winning.

[thechosen1n2]

Has there been any Superbowl winner who ran it less than the Packers? I know the Packers set the record for fewest carries in the Superbowl, however, they were awful as well gaining yards in the regular season.

Makes me wonder if they are the model of what we'll see in the future in the NFL for offenses... ie an overwhelming majority of 4 and 5 receiver sets.

If you buy into that theory then you can take that idea to it's logical conclusion and say that Cowboy fans should stop self-flagellating about our RB situation.. Felix Jones backed up by Choice (or some mid-round rookie) is probably plenty good enough considering where the strengths of this team are -- WR with Austin, Dez, and hopefully an improved set of #3, #4, and #5 WRs.

Before coming to this conclusion a few things can not be forgotten:

People CAN NOT run against the steelers. Running the ball puts Polamalu at the line where he causes damage instead of in coverage. Running Polamalu is a defensive player of the year, and in coverage he is ROY Williams 31 with long hair.

The second thing is the steelers are not some offensive juggernaut tht made them pay. Packers had 3 take aways, and there was still a question to the last drive who was going to win that game.

[Hostile]

Depends. What's mediocre to you? Two Anthony Spencers?

If you can't get to the QB, it doesn't matter if you have 4 Revis' lined up back there, you're going to get beat.

My point was to stop the pass your best best is to have a dominant pass rush over a dominant secondary. JMO.It wasn't my criteria. I just think the comment was weird man.

I will take a "good" anything over a "mediocre" anything. To me the idea is to be "good."

[Stautner]

It's a passing league now. The days of winning titles with average to below average quarterbacks like Trent Dilfer are over. If you don't have an elite quarterback forget about winning.

Sorry, I disagree. It has always been that having a top QB helps a teams chances greatly - that's not a new thing. Super Bowl winners typically had top QB's in Dilfer's day too. But it has also always been that the better running game and better defense a team has the more able a team is to win without an elite QB.

Frankly I don't call Roethlesburger, Eli, Brad Johnson elite QB's, yet between them they have won 4 of the last 10. Rex Grossman and Jake Delhomme have also made it to the big game fairly recently.

[Idgit]

A lot of Super Bowls have been won by the team that could control the ball with a running game.

The key on offense is to control the ball in some way, whether through the air or ground, and preferebly with a mix that hel[s keep the opposing team off balance, adn the key on defense it to not allow the opposing offense to control the ball.

There is no question that a strong ground game can have a major impact on winning, and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. A strong runnin game helps set up the pass as well.

Obviously teams can score more quickly and eat up bigger chunks of yardage through the air, so obviously passing is a big component, but it's plain wrong to act as if a running game is of no consequence.

A running game is of consequence if it helps you pass better. Or if it helps you defend against the pass better because it lets you control the clock or put the other guys in situations where you know they have to pass. He's not saying it's of no consequence. He's saying that it doesn't correlate directly to winning.

[CanuckCowboysFan]

It wasn't my criteria. I just think the comment was weird man.

I will take a "good" anything over a "mediocre" anything. To me the idea is to be "good."

I said mediocre because when Adam said you need to stop the pass, I thought he was referring to the secondary.


I'll re-word what I said to, I'll take a good pass rush over a good secondary.

[sbark]

Green Bay did what they do best, with a as good as All-Pro QB doing what he does best.........they played to their strength

The Coaches put them in a position to win with their strength-passing game

To do otherwise played into the Stealers' strength---stopping the run

why would they do otherwise

If the G.Bay receivers could catch----they win by 17

[Stautner]

A running game is of consequence if it helps you pass better. Or if it helps you defend against the pass better because it lets you control the clock or put the other guys in situations where you know they have to pass. He's not saying it's of no consequence. He's saying that it doesn't correlate directly to winning.

If it helps you pass better then it doesn correlate directly to winning.

I'm sure the Colts would tell you that their 191 yards rushing in the 2007 Super Bowl directlly correlated to winning, and I'm sure the Steelers would say the same of their 181 yares rushing in the 2006 Super Bowl.

I'm sure the Steelers and the Giants would both tell you that their running games palyed a hug part in them even getting to the playoffs, much less the Super Bowl in recent years.

I'm not saying a top running game is always necessary, but it's just plain wrong to act as if the running game can no longer be a key element in ultimate success.

[Hostile]

I said mediocre because when Adam said you need to stop the pass, I thought he was referring to the secondary.


I'll re-word what I said to, I'll take a good pass rush over a good secondary.No problem. Just thought it was strange.

[Yakuza Rich]

I called 'Moving the Chains' on Sirius about this a few months ago. Pat Kirwan said he talked to Rodgers, Matt Ryan and I think Tom Brady and a few other QB's. All of them said they prefer to have only 5 men in protection *particularly* against the blitz. Gives them more options and if you have more protect, then you have less of a chance of finding an open receiver.




YR

[casmith07]

Defense wins championships. Green Bay's defense stepped up when it mattered most.

[cowboyed]

True, but you know as well as I do, if we had won yesterday with that rushing total our fans would be up in arms about the play calling, how it was going to doom us, we got lucky, etc.

And if I may add Garrett undermining himself as the head coach a la Wade with the loony tuners positing that Garrett couldn't handle the meddling.

[The Realist]

It's a passing league now. The days of winning titles with average to below average quarterbacks like Trent Dilfer are over. If you don't have an elite quarterback forget about winning.

Was Ben Elite in his first Super Bowl?

[burmafrd]

being able to run the ball when it matters can be very important as we have found out to our cost in the last few years- not being able to punch it in from the one on multiple occasions has cost us. You need to be able to run the ball; maybe does not matter some of the time; and some of the time it could be critical. You still need that ability.

[UnoDallas]

you need a running game to even get to the SB

I mean what if we gotta play in NY or GB in late Jan

so its mute point IMO

[Cowboys&LakersFan]

Was Ben Elite in his first Super Bowl?

No, but the game has changed since then.

[Stautner]

No, but the game has changed since then.

You must be very young if you think there has been a dramatic, unprecendentedf shift in what it takes to win in the last 5 years. Your perspective has to be very limited.

[ThreeSportStar80]

The successful formula throughout the years has been to have a good running game and play tough defense. I think Dallas should get back to it's roots.

[percyhoward]

In the NFL, the key to winning is how well you throw the ball (no matter how often you throw it) and how well you stop the opponent from throwing it.
And the world champions were the only team that ranked in the top 3 in both offensive and defensive passer rating. The Cowboys need to improve the pass defense in a hurry.

I don't agree with the "no matter how often you throw it" part, though. You win more when you throw less, even if you're having success throwing it.

These are the W-L records only for games in which the QB's had a 100+ rating:

Rodgers
35 attempts or more: 5-5
30-34 attempts: 6-1
less than 30 attempts: 8-1

Romo
35 attempts or more: 5-3
30-34 attempts: 11-2
less than 30 attempts: 11-0

Brady
35 attempts or more: 17-1
30-34 attempts: 16-1
less than 30 attempts: 27-1

Manning
35 attempts or more: 27-4
30-34 attempts: 18-2
less than 30 attempts: 34-3

Brees
35 attempts or more: 17-6
30-34 attempts: 11-1
less than 30 attempts: 15-1

Rivers
35 attempts or more: 4-4
30-34 attempts: 2-2
less than 30 attempts: 23-2

Roethlisberger
35 attempts or more: 3-2
30-34 attempts: 3-0
less than 30 attempts: 32-2

Schaub
35 attempts or more: 8-4
30-34 attempts: 5-2
less than 30 attempts: 4-0

Ryan
35 attempts or more: 3-0
30-34 attempts: 6-0
less than 30 attempts: 7-0
(Atlanta is 16-0 when Ryan goes over a 100 rating)

TOTALS for all games with 100+ rating
35 attempts or more: 89-29 (.754)
30-34 attempts: 78-11 (.876)
less than 30 attempts: 161-10 (.942)

[jobberone]

How well you run the ball (or stop the run) has very little to do with winning in the NFL, no matter whether you run it a little or run it a lot. In the NFL, the key to winning is how well you throw the ball (no matter how often you throw it) and how well you stop the opponent from throwing it.


I agree but you must run the ball enough to keep the defense honest.

[tyke1doe]

Has there been any Superbowl winner who ran it less than the Packers? I know the Packers set the record for fewest carries in the Superbowl, however, they were awful as well gaining yards in the regular season.

Makes me wonder if they are the model of what we'll see in the future in the NFL for offenses... ie an overwhelming majority of 4 and 5 receiver sets.

If you buy into that theory then you can take that idea to it's logical conclusion and say that Cowboy fans should stop self-flagellating about our RB situation.. Felix Jones backed up by Choice (or some mid-round rookie) is probably plenty good enough considering where the strengths of this team are -- WR with Austin, Dez, and hopefully an improved set of #3, #4, and #5 WRs.

Well, that doesn't speak too highly of Garrett as offensive coordinator and Romo as quarterback.

[AdamJT13]

I'll take a good pash rush over a mediocre secondary all day.

Rushing the passer is part of stopping the opponent from passing well.

[AdamJT13]

I agree but you must run the ball enough to keep the defense honest.

Some teams might, but not every team. And running it more doesn't necessarily help you pass it more. Either way, how well you run it doesn't mean much.

[AdamJT13]

If it helps you pass better then it doesn correlate directly to winning.

I'm sure the Colts would tell you that their 191 yards rushing in the 2007 Super Bowl directlly correlated to winning, and I'm sure the Steelers would say the same of their 181 yares rushing in the 2006 Super Bowl.

I'm sure the Steelers and the Giants would both tell you that their running games palyed a hug part in them even getting to the playoffs, much less the Super Bowl in recent years.

I'm not saying a top running game is always necessary, but it's just plain wrong to act as if the running game can no longer be a key element in ultimate success.

It's not wrong to state a fact. How well you run the ball or stop the run has been shown to have a very low correlation to winning in the NFL. How well you pass and stop the pass has been shown to have a very high correlation to winning. That doesn't mean that it's ALWAYS true, it just means that it is true the vast majority of the time.

[NextGenBoys]

Had the Packers had some form of a running attack, the game would have been over much earlier. The Packers did a great job of converting 3rd downs. That was the key. Oh and costly turnovers.

Bingo.

Winning the turnover battle ALWAYS has the highest correlation to winning.

[Hoofbite]

Hasn't that been the Packer way all year?

I mean, they don't have a RB worth a crap and they have a top flight QB.

Throw in a few turnovers and you can pretty much do whatever you want.

[rash]

When you have Mr. Rodgers at helm, you don't need much of a rushing attack my friend...

[Sam I Am]

How well you run the ball (or stop the run) has very little to do with winning in the NFL, no matter whether you run it a little or run it a lot. In the NFL, the key to winning is how well you throw the ball (no matter how often you throw it) and how well you stop the opponent from throwing it.

No, it's how well you score vs your opponent scoring. :rolleyes:

You could easily never throw a pass if their defense can't stop your run, and your defense stop them once.

Stopping the run is about forcing a team into being a one-dimensional team. A one-dimensional team is easier to defend when you know they are going to pass.

[NextGenBoys]

And the world champions were the only team that ranked in the top 3 in both offensive and defensive passer rating. The Cowboys need to improve the pass defense in a hurry.

I don't agree with the "no matter how often you throw it" part, though. You win more when you throw less, even if you're having success throwing it.

These are the W-L records only for games in which the QB's had a 100+ rating:

Rodgers
35 attempts or more: 5-5
30-34 attempts: 6-1
less than 30 attempts: 8-1

Romo
35 attempts or more: 5-3
30-34 attempts: 11-2
less than 30 attempts: 11-0

Brady
35 attempts or more: 17-1
30-34 attempts: 16-1
less than 30 attempts: 27-1

Manning
35 attempts or more: 27-4
30-34 attempts: 18-2
less than 30 attempts: 34-3

Brees
35 attempts or more: 17-6
30-34 attempts: 11-1
less than 30 attempts: 15-1

Rivers
35 attempts or more: 4-4
30-34 attempts: 2-2
less than 30 attempts: 23-2

Roethlisberger
35 attempts or more: 3-2
30-34 attempts: 3-0
less than 30 attempts: 32-2

Schaub
35 attempts or more: 8-4
30-34 attempts: 5-2
less than 30 attempts: 4-0

Ryan
35 attempts or more: 3-0
30-34 attempts: 6-0
less than 30 attempts: 7-0
(Atlanta is 16-0 when Ryan goes over a 100 rating)

TOTALS for all games with 100+ rating
35 attempts or more: 89-29 (.754)
30-34 attempts: 78-11 (.876)
less than 30 attempts: 161-10 (.942)

Nice research, but it might be a bit misleading.

Teams are obviously going to run when they're ahead, thus reducing pass attempts, and teams behind will obviously pass, increasing the attempts.

Not sure the numbers really mean all too much.

[jobberone]

Some teams might, but not every team. And running it more doesn't necessarily help you pass it more. Either way, how well you run it doesn't mean much.

If it didn't matter about running then teams just wouldn't run. You can't say it doesn't make any difference about winning by running the ball. You must run enough to make the defense honor it. What you are saying is you advance the ball more efficiently and score more often by passing than you do by running. You cannot make the argument that you don't have to run the ball at all.

[T-RO]

I've been the #1 Preacher of this message for several seasons. Throw the ball, dammit!

People got hung up on the Jets, but just like all the Buddy Ryan teams of old--that style will never win a title. The Ryans don't understand offense.

Whether it's the Pats, the Colts, the Pack...or yes...even Pittsburg..the champs in recent years have had high pass ratios.

[T-RO]

The successful formula throughout the years has been to have a good running game and play tough defense. I think Dallas should get back to it's roots.

Do you even watch the NFL?

Here is tough-nosed Bill Cowher two years ago:


"The game has changed, the rules have changed," he said. "I think right now, I hate to say this, but the running game is a complement. It's not the foundation that it once was. You look at the last three AFC teams that were in the Super Bowl, that's Pittsburgh, New England and Indianapolis. They're all passing teams. The running game is a complement."

[T-RO]

If it didn't matter about running then teams just wouldn't run. You can't say it doesn't make any difference about winning by running the ball. You must run enough to make the defense honor it. What you are saying is you advance the ball more efficiently and score more often by passing than you do by running. You cannot make the argument that you don't have to run the ball at all.

That's not what Adam said. He said that statistics indicate that successful or unsuccessful rushing does not correlate much to winning games.

Having an elite quarterback and a top pass defense is how you win today's games. There isn't even an argument if you know what you are talking about. The statistics are overwhelming...and the top minds in the game generally share consensus on this.

Just look at the teams that are making the playoffs and winning Super Bowls. They inevitably have a top QB and on defense either an elite pass rush or top DBs (or both).

[Clove]

How well you run the ball (or stop the run) has very little to do with winning in the NFL, no matter whether you run it a little or run it a lot. In the NFL, the key to winning is how well you throw the ball (no matter how often you throw it) and how well you stop the opponent from throwing it.This means, fire your running backs, we don't need them.

[Clove]

Well, without a great defense, your offense doesn't matter.

But if you have a great defense, and you're a passing team, chances are you'll win a Super Bowl.

However, if you have a great defense, and a balanced attack, you will become a dynasty.

[burmafrd]

Mark Twain said this "There are lies, there are damn lies, then there are statistics."

Look at how much trouble we have had on short yardage runs; how much better we could be if the opposing defense had to respect our running game.

[hipfake08]

How well you run the ball (or stop the run) has very little to do with winning in the NFL, no matter whether you run it a little or run it a lot. In the NFL, the key to winning is how well you throw the ball (no matter how often you throw it) and how well you stop the opponent from throwing it.

Has that been a recent shift in the winning of games?

[perrykemp]

I think there are multiple ways to field a SB calibre team --- the 99 Rams, the 3 Patriots teams that won the SB, and the Packers make at least 5 in the past decade or so that have won with very pass heavy offenses.

[jobberone]

That's not what Adam said. He said that statistics indicate that successful or unsuccessful rushing does not correlate much to winning games.

Having an elite quarterback and a top pass defense is how you win today's games. There isn't even an argument if you know what you are talking about. The statistics are overwhelming...and the top minds in the game generally share consensus on this.

Just look at the teams that are making the playoffs and winning Super Bowls. They inevitably have a top QB and on defense either an elite pass rush or top DBs (or both).

If you had bothered to read my comments in this thread you would see that I agree you have to pass to win. But you must run the ball enough to keep the defense honest.

[notherbob]

Do you even watch the NFL?

Here is tough-nosed Bill Cowher two years ago:


"The game has changed, the rules have changed," he said. "I think right now, I hate to say this, but the running game is a complement. It's not the foundation that it once was. You look at the last three AFC teams that were in the Super Bowl, that's Pittsburgh, New England and Indianapolis. They're all passing teams. The running game is a complement."

I agree; thus the rise of the 34 defense, to protect against the pass.

[burmafrd]

actually the 3-4 was originally designed to stop the run.

[FootballFan1]

There are certain ways to beat certain teams.

With Pittsburgh, the answer is to throw the ball. Of course, you have to have the QB and WR's to take advantage of that. But run against them, why waste your time??

Green Bay came out aggressive throwing, and were on the right track. If there were not so many dropped balls, Pittsburgh would not have even been in the game.

Some good coaching by Green Bay, not the best execution, but the right strategy. But Rodgers was straight on -- good game for him. Could you hold onto the ball already???

I am sure GB does not use this strategy with all teams -- you go after a team's weakness -- not into their strength. Nice job.

[Idgit]

If it didn't matter about running then teams just wouldn't run. You can't say it doesn't make any difference about winning by running the ball. You must run enough to make the defense honor it. What you are saying is you advance the ball more efficiently and score more often by passing than you do by running. You cannot make the argument that you don't have to run the ball at all.

The point isn't a commentary on running the football. It's that teams that run it effectively don't win significantly more often than teams that don't. Teams that pass the ball more effectively than their opponents and stop the passing game more effectively *do* win more.

If your running game helps you pass better, or sets up situations where you're in the field more and essentially stopping the other team from passing more effectively by default, then it's effective. If it doesn't do those things, then it doesn't matter how well you run it.

That doesn't mean there isn't a role for the running game in today's NFL.

[FootballFan1]

The point isn't a commentary on running the football. It's that teams that run it effectively don't win significantly more often than teams that don't. Teams that pass the ball more effectively than their opponents and stop the passing game more effectively *do* win more.

If your running game helps you pass better, or sets up situations where you're in the field more and essentially stopping the other team from passing more effectively by default, then it's effective. If it doesn't do those things, then it doesn't matter how well you run it.

That doesn't mean there isn't a role for the running game in today's NFL.

Excellent post -- and right on.

[Doomsday101]

Has there been any Superbowl winner who ran it less than the Packers? I know the Packers set the record for fewest carries in the Superbowl, however, they were awful as well gaining yards in the regular season.

Makes me wonder if they are the model of what we'll see in the future in the NFL for offenses... ie an overwhelming majority of 4 and 5 receiver sets.

If you buy into that theory then you can take that idea to it's logical conclusion and say that Cowboy fans should stop self-flagellating about our RB situation.. Felix Jones backed up by Choice (or some mid-round rookie) is probably plenty good enough considering where the strengths of this team are -- WR with Austin, Dez, and hopefully an improved set of #3, #4, and #5 WRs.

I think they adjusted based on the team they were playing. They knew that to run on Pitt would be difficult so they looked at where they could attack and have success. However in the playoffs GB still avg 27 attempts per game running the ball.

[FootballFan1]

I think they adjusted based on the team they were playing. They knew that to run on Pitt would be difficult so they looked at where they could attack and have success. However in the playoffs GB still avg 27 attempts per game running the ball.

That's it in a nutshell. But if you have a QB like Rodgers, why NOT take advantage of it??? In any game. Still need the balance to set up the passing game as the prior poster stated.

When you have a really good QB, use him. You would be crazy if you didn't.

[Doomsday101]

That's it in a nutshell. But if you have a QB like Rodgers, why NOT take advantage of it??? In any game. Still need the balance to set up the passing game as the prior poster stated.

When you have a really good QB, use him. You would be crazy if you didn't.

I think any team is crazy if they don't use the talent they have. When Starks was having a big day for GB vs Philly they continued to hand him the ball. GB knew going into the game vs Pitt that it would be very hard to run allot at Pitt they just don't give up much in terms of rushing yards so the game plan saw less running than GB did on avg for the season.

[WV Cowboy]

Maybe the game has changed some offensively, .. where teams throw more now than run.

And Green Bay proved you don't have to run a lot to win. But like others have said, the Stillers run defense is real good so why play to their strength?

New England did the same thing to them a couple of years ago.

So maybe being able to run the ball is not as important to winning as it used to be.

But if you can't stop the run, it will be a long day, and you will lose a lot of games.

That has not changed.

[perrykemp]

But if you can't stop the run, it will be a long day, and you will lose a lot of games.

That has not changed.

Great point and very true. I will say this however, the Packers had a very very mediocre run defense -- the stats bear that out. What made them unique was that their pass defense was so incredibly good that the Packers didn't seem to care a whole lot when people ran on them. They knew EVENTUALLY it would come down to a 3rd down passing situation and they would have an incredible advantage with their three Pro-Bowl Defensive Backs + Sam Shields.

[percyhoward]

Nice research, but it might be a bit misleading.

Teams are obviously going to run when they're ahead, thus reducing pass attempts, and teams behind will obviously pass, increasing the attempts.

Not sure the numbers really mean all too much.
I think these numbers say a lot about the teams, their quarterbacks, and their offensive philosophies.

In the case of most teams, you win more games when you win the passer rating battle, and you have a lower number of attempts. In the case of most quarterbacks, your passer rating is more likely to be higher when your number of attempts is lower. Whether it's a cause or an effect of winning (and it could be either one to varying degrees, depending on the game) "how often you throw it" generally does matter.

What's interesting to me is to see which teams are the exceptions. Looking more closely at Brady's and Manning's numbers, most of Brady's high-attempt 100+ rating games were from 2007. Most of Manning's are from this past season. The 2007 Pats and 2010 Colts were teams that kept throwing it, even with a lead. The Colts because they had no running game, the Pats because nobody could stop it. But it's really only those two seasons (and in the case of Brady, his defenses) that make those quarterbacks the exceptions.

Personally, I don't think balance is as important as sticking with what's working in a particular game--pass or run.

Other interesting tidbits, since this is now posted in the NFL Zone:
* Philip Rivers has never thrown more than 2 interceptions in a game.

* Michael Vick has gone over 35 attempts just 9 times in 80 games. His teams won just two of those games, and he didn't have a 100 rating in any of the nine.

* Tony Romo had as many 30+attempt 100+rating games in his last two full seasons as Ben Roethlisberger has had in his 7-year career.

* Including playoffs, Manning and Brees have had 45+ attempts in a game a combined 58 times. In those games, they've had a rating of 100 or better just 6 times.

* I found this very interesting...

Many Attempts with High Rating
30+ attempt games that resulted in 100+ rating:
Rodgers: 54% (20 of 37)
Romo: 50% (22 of 44)
Schaub: 43% (19 of 44)
Brady: 38% (38 of 100)
Brees: 36% (39 of 108)
Manning 32% (54 of 167)
Ryan: 30% (9 of 30)
Rivers: 28% (13 of 46)
Roethlisberger: 19% (9 of 48)