We agree that Green has been the ONLY one for 40+ years. That's hardly having "a consistent hall of fame caliber RB year after year for generations". I find it concerning.
Really? You find that concerning? Please list the teams that have had a consistent HOF running back year after year for generations.
While we are on this subject. Why does it even matter to you? Why do the Packers need a "stud" running back? Let's look at the numbers from our previous championship seasons shall we:
2010 Leading Rusher: Brandon Jackson 703 yards
1996 Leading Rusher: Edgar Bennett 899 yards
1967 Leading Rusher: Jim Grabowski 466 yards
1966 Leading Rusher: Jim Taylor 705 yards
1965 Leading Rusher: Jim Taylor 734 yards
1962 Leading Rusher: Jim Taylor 1,474 yards
1961 Leading Rusher: Jim Taylor 1,307 yards
So what does a stud RB have to do with winning championships in the modern era of football for the Packers? Nothing.
I can list off the number of seasons that we've had 1,000 yard rushers, but we didn't win the championship. Grant was a 1,000 yard rusher for his main 3-year span of 2007-2009. Ahman Green was consistently above 1,000 yards. Dorsey Levens in his two healthy seasons as a starter rushed for over 1,000 yards and Edgar Bennett once in 1995.
I'm not sure where your line of argument is going and how it relates to the Packers today.
So let's now talk about the "modern era" of Green Bay Packers football, essentially 1992-today. Over that span of time, the Packers have averaged 1,700 rushing yards per season. Under Aaron Rodger's leadership we've beaten that average. More importantly, our two best seasons of 2010 (championship) and 2011 (15-1) we were slightly under the average at 1,606 and 1,558 yards respectively. If you want to talk scoring production, the Packers average 31 passing TDs and 11 rushing TDs in our modern era (1992-2012). Over the past three seasons we've scored 11 TDs, 12 TDs, and 9 TDs which is right around that average.
I'm not saying that our running game can't improve, but the fact is that we've done best without having a "stud" running back. More so our rushing statistics as a team have been right around historical averages, but we've had committees of RBs carrying the load more than one guy doing all of the work.
In 2013, I'd say that we've had a good running attack in two of our three games. We've had back-to-back 100yard RBs and despite not achieving that against SF, we had a 3.3 yard average per attempt. Our record based on our improved rushing attack.....1-2.
So I ask you, has a "stud" RB this season helped?