To all of you who said "you can't win a title in the nfl without a running game..."

[Incubes12]

The premise of this thread is erroneous. We DO have a running game. We simply don't use it much. Starks put up about 5 yards per carry... enough to keep the defense honest and that's all we happen to need it for. But without that running game, even though we used is sparingly, passing becomes more difficult and half of our playbook goes out the window without credible play action.

Exactly.

Our run game was solid. We just hardly used it. What did we end with? 11 runs and 38 passes? Our passing game is so good that we actually use that to keep defenses honest about the run game...lol.

 

[longtimefan]

The premise of this thread is erroneous. We DO have a running game. We simply don't use it much. Starks put up about 5 yards per carry... enough to keep the defense honest and that's all we happen to need it for. But without that running game, even though we used is sparingly, passing becomes more difficult and half of our playbook goes out the window without credible play action.

Nice!

Pitt D gave up 2.8 yards per carry in their 2 playoff games and we got 4.8? per carry

We didnt use it, why would we when Rodgers was doing what he wanted

 

[PackersRS]

The premise of this thread is erroneous. We DO have a running game. We simply don't use it much. Starks put up about 5 yards per carry... enough to keep the defense honest and that's all we happen to need it for. But without that running game, even though we used is sparingly, passing becomes more difficult and half of our playbook goes out the window without credible play action.

Exactly.

Plus, we needed a running game to beat the Eagles.

I've said this before. We don't need an elite running game to win a SB, but we need the THREAT of a running game.

We had that threat with Starks. We didn't with Jackson.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

Jenninfslongcatch you are just pissed because you were flat out wrong. We proved to the whole world a run game is not even close to necessary. What's needed is an elite qb and a good defense. Anyone who thinks you need anything else to win a title is a moron and won't look at the facts. Maybe you missed the superbowl. Calling what we have a "running game" is like saying jamarcus russel had a successful career. If you look up our running plays in the playbook, they are probably called "keep the defense honest." There's a reason that when we need points, we give the ball to rodgers. We can run because we can pass. The patriots do the same thing. Teams are so up on playing the spread, when we run, they run well. Also, James Starks isn't that good. Ya, I said it. He's okay. He'll put up numbers in this offense, but that's because of what Rodgers does in the air.

Well I guess there is no convincing you... I hope the tape of the Philly game never finds it way to you... Those 120+ yards by Starks must have been "just keeping the defense honest".

Enjoy sticking your head in the sand!

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

Yep, that 14 yard run was ABSOLUTELY GINORMOUS! It still stands out as one of the greatest moments in the game, as I knew all we needed to do at that point is run down the clock.

While we didn't rely on our running game, i'm real happy that Starks showed up when we called on him.

That run broke the Steelers. The Packers got a first down while also keeping the clock running. It was HUGE!

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

The premise of this thread is erroneous. We DO have a running game. We simply don't use it much. Starks put up about 5 yards per carry... enough to keep the defense honest and that's all we happen to need it for. But without that running game, even though we used is sparingly, passing becomes more difficult and half of our playbook goes out the window without credible play action.

Very good posting!