With all respect, IC--I'm going to have to disagree with several of these thoughts...
First off, I don't think it's fair to question the offensive attack/gameplan of the SB. Let's remember that there were 3 main things that went in our favor:
1. Set record for longest drive in a SB ever, which may not mean much in iteself, but allowed for one of the single greatest drives of 96-97+ yds.
2. Brady connected on 16 straight passes, another SB record. At one pt the announcers ever mentioned that Simms' 22/25 SB efficiency numbers may be in serious jeapordy.
3. The offense scored on back to back possessions to end and start the halves. I believe that the team that does this has about an 80%+ chance of winning the game when 2 TD's are scored in this scenario.
Let's keep in mind that if Welker catches the damn ball we not only win the game, but none of this talk is taking place. Instead we're all talking about one of the greatest legacies ever at HC and QB.
-----------------------
As far as the longevity of Brady, yes--I agree that a more efficient running game should be used, however the numbers are pretty close to being the same as they were in 2010 as far as play percentage. It's not the "times" that the ball is rushed, it's the effectiveness of the rushes. As many will point out, when you have TFB, WW, and the 2 TE's, you are going to throw it 60% of the time, as that is your bread and butter. 60% is about right where the play call pecentage was last yr, give or take a percentage point or two.
It should also be noted that the quick passes, and more shallow routes have indeed allowed Brady to get rid of the ball quicker, with a lessened step drop, and also enables him to find an easier target in a much more reasonable amt of time. The offense HAS been tailored to prolong Brady's legacy on some level.
To wrap it up, I think we'll see a bit of both (a couple more percentage points that equal a more 'balanced' attack, around 58-42, or something of that nature as the primary weapons will still be in the passing game. I also feel that the RBBC system will increase their productivity too, which is the bigger problem of the 2 in my opinion.
I'm going to take this post a step further and pose that a running game should no longer be considered "half" of an ideal offense. I would consider it more of a sub-package of the offense- somewhat of a changeup from the normal passing game and a situational short yardage strategy.
The NFL has changed so much since the days of Terrell Davis and even Marshall Faulk. Arguments about not running the ball enough, I believe, are becoming almost nonsensical.
1. The passing game has changed dramatically. For those blessed with a great passing offense and quarterback (like us), 4500+ passing yards and 30+ TDs per season are becoming the norm. Obviously the rule to protect quarterbacks and the limitations of defenders on WRs have changed the game to make passing more advantageous.
2. The increase in speed, size, and strength of players does not favor the running game. Because players are now much larger and cover more field, holes do not open up as much as they used to. True, offensive linemen and running backs are also bigger and faster, but it's a space issue. With the typical team having a 335 pound nose tackle and a couple more behemoths, along with insanely athletic linebackers, we don't see a lot of unstoppable running attacks any more. This has been especially true in the playoffs when the intensity is higher- as someone pointed out, a typical Super Bowl features two teams that both run for under 60 yards. I sure haven't seen a lot of "breakout" rushing attacks in the playoffs for a long time, besides maybe that one run by Marshawn Lynch.
3. Even with a successful running game, teams don't necessarily win. The most obvious examples are the Jacksonville Jaguars, boasting MJD and his rushing crown, winning 5 games. Adrian Peterson's Vikings won 3. Even in Chris Johnson's 2000 yard season, the Titans didn't even make the playoffs. Even a great running game gets you very little in terms of offensive efficiency if you can't pass the ball. Since LT won the MVP in 2006, I can't even remember a running back being in consideration for the award, and I don't remember a single instance of a running back carrying a team into the playoffs. Again, this should be evidence that the running game is not 50% of the equation to a successful offense. Teams with crappy passing games DO NOT win regardless of their running game. Teams with crappy running games still DO win if they have a good passing game. It almost makes you wonder the value of the running game in today's NFL.
4. I think the next step of the league's evolution will be a change in the type of running backs; the handoff itself will become, as I said, more of a sub-package. I think you will see Darren Sproles-type players in the role more often, guys that will either block or catch and run. We are already seeing that the most successful running backs, in terms of helping their offense score points, are those types of backs. LeSean McCoy, Ray Rice, and Sproles are three examples. I think speedy, quick running backs will eventually replace the big workhorses that are traditionally thought of as "ground and pound" type guys. The days of Jerome Bettis are over. The "running game" will be phased by a short passing game, and it is already moving in that direction. 20 years from now, we might be looking at an I-formation the same way we now look at an option-based system, as an old-school formation from the days of yonder.
