Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”
posted at 3/24/2012 3:22 PM EDT
In Response to Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,”
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: “The Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since they had a viable running game,” : did you read my post? what is your point? what are you even talking about? i already said the colts were the last team to win with a solid running game. that was in 2007 since then it's been all passing. again, what are you even talking about?
Posted by ricky12684[/QUOTE]
You posted a photo of Gomer, which led one to believe that you don't need a run game to win a SB.
Indy is noted for not really using much of a run game and they won the SB that year BECAUSE they woke up,.They ran the ball and then their D looked better to boot. It appeared your were saying Indy didn't need one when you posted a pciture of Gomer holding the trophy. If that was not your intent, I am not sure what you're intent was.
Every single team, even if it's more lethal in the passing game HAD to have a viable rushing attack. Every SB winner and loser, for that matter, since we've seen our struggles in the postseason with our pass first/finesse offense, has had a run game.
We've ben the lone team to steer away from it with our lead back. Even the Arizona Cardinals used a lead back in their offensive scheme more so than we did.
When GB won their SB, rookie Starks was a great option for them, as was their use of Kuhn and Brandon Jackson, with Rodgers not in the shotgun as much as we see Brady here.
NOs had it with Pierre Thomas/Mike Bell and strategic use of Reggie Bush as a scatback.
We use Woodhead as a lead back and then sub BJGE to predictably run.