In response to ccnsd's comment:
In response to wozzy's comment:
Saying something is a straw man argument is a great way of saying "I can't argue with logic, so I'll refer to it as a straw man." The pass happy contingent, whoever they may be, have argued that a finesse offense can win with the same regularity as a smashmouth offense, which is preposterous.
You can say what you want about 2007 but the Pat's were ranked 9th out of 32 teams in rushing attempts, I know revisionists and fantasy freaks alike love to recall Brady to Moss, but the reality was Maroney (4.5 YPC) and Sammy Morris with a helping hand by Faulk (who was also the 3rd leading receiver) was a big part of that.
Controlling the clock and time of possession is easier with a run game because it's more reliable than passing, trying to convert 3rd and short is easier than converting a 3rd and long. A running game requires less variables and moving pieces than a pass game, but most importantly there are three options on offense; a run, a pass or a punt. To dismiss one as unnecessary and say you're better off, that you can create the same parity and confusion to an opposing defense is downright dumb.
Not that I'm insulting you, because you're obviously overly sensitive since nowhere have I personally insulted as you've ascribed.
This is at least my 3rd time trying to respomd to your post (god only knows where the previous attempts went). Talking about a "don't need to run it's a passing league" committee while referencing my comments is an example of a straw man argument. When have I or anyone ever stated that the Pats should not run the ball. I would be extremely happy if the Pats were a good running team as long as they have a good defense as well as a good passing attack. If they do not have a good defense it is easier (in fact a lot easier) to win with a top flight QB and a strong passing attack. Teams that can only pass good win at much higher percentages than teams that run well assuming the defenses are only average. The Pats, Colts, Packers, Saints and Giants have shown recently that you can win a lot by being a passing team with a below average defense (some of these teams have had horrible defenses). Give the 49ers or Ravens last years Packers defense and do they even get close to the playoffs let alone the AFC or NFC championship games. Anyone who claims that the 2007 Pats offensive explosion was a direct result of the Pats running game (Maroney) and not because of the passing attack clearly was not watching a lot of Patriot games very closely that year.
You think the 49ers or Ravens defense is good in spite of their offense, I contend they are that good because of their offense, special teams as well. The year before Harbaugh took over basically the same 49er team, they were the 16th ranked defense in PPG allowed and 25th in offensive rushing attempts.
Harbaugh enters and they jump to 3rd in the NFL in rushing attempts and become the best defense in the NFL.
The QB who was considered a universal "bust," leads them to the NFC championship game and if not for two muffed kicks by a rookie they would have played in the Super Bowl. A running game is a QB's best friend.
