True but most of them could run it when it counts
I don't think that's necessarily true. Below are the recent champs and their ranks in rushing yards per game. I've also put in brackets our rank each year if we didn't win.
2014 Patriots: 18
2013 Seahawks: 4 (9)
2012 Ravens: 11 (7)
2011 Giants: 32 (20). Note they outrushed us in the Super Bowl, but we averaged 4.4 YPC that game. Hardly a terrible day at the office.
2010 Packers: 24 (9)
2009 Saints: 8 (12)
2008 Steelers: 23 (6)
2007 Giants: 4 (13)
2006 Colts: 18 (12)
2005 Steelers: 5 (24)
2004 Patriots: 7
2003 Patriots: 27
2002 Bucs: 27 (28)
2001 Patriots: 13
2000 Ravens: 5 (24)
In the past 15 years, only 6 Super Bowl winners have ranked in the top 10 in rushing yards per game. In the past 5 years, only 1.
The Patriots have won 4 Super Bowls, and only 1 time were we in the top 10 in rushing. Meanwhile, we've had a top 10 run game 4 times, and only won 1 Super Bowl. Clock killin' Corey Dillon was great in 2004, but we've found a way to win 3 other Super Bowls without a top-notch run game, as have the majority of Super Bowl champions.
I would like to have a top 10 run game if we could. I am not saying it is a bad thing. But to suggest it is a prerequisite for winning a Super Bowl is false.
While it's hard to argue against you due to the fact that they pulled off THREE double digit deficits in the postseason without any semblance of a running game, I'd equate their chances of pulling it off again to trying to catch lightning in a bottle...twice. The odds aren't in our favor at all.
They don't necessarily "need" to run the ball to make a postseason run, but their chances improve dramatically if they're able to find balance. There are many reasons for that, such as controlling the clock, keeping the opposing team's offense off of the field (PIT, CIN), masking your inferior pass protection, and obviously keeping your chances alive by protecting your franchise QB. To take it one step further, it also wears the opposing defense down and instills confidence in your guys who are playing well physically.
I don't know if balance is the right word. I agree that the more you can do, the more flexible your offense becomes, the more dangerous it can be.
But there are times you're forced to go unbalanced, and there are times you CHOOSE to go unbalanced. Sometimes the game plan calls for it, and don't forget this gem courtesy of Rich Hill (sorry Rich, not sure how to embed Tweets here so will link below):
Rich Hill on Twitter - One of These Things Is Not Like The Other
So I don't think balance is really what we're striving for. We want flexibility. But if the situation calls for continuous passing because that's the most effective way of attacking a defense, so be it. If the situation calls for running, and we can't, that's a problem. But just looking at the ratio doesn't mean anything.