I like this premise, Psycho. And I agree with it for the most part. But, at the same time, the passing game certainly could have helped setup the running game.
This might be unpopular, but I think the idea that the offense (outside of Brady) gets shut down- for example, by the Jets or Steelers) is somewhat of a myth. Brady sometimes is too cautious and gunshy. Guys weren't open last year against Pittsburgh, but he threw to them anyway because of their matchups. Gronkowski's touchdowns last year were mostly great passes that only Gronk could get to, but he wasn't wide open on them. It seems like when the offense struggles, Brady is slow to read defenses and hesitant to pull the trigger, looking too often for the safe play. In the long run, the results are excellent because it reduces turnovers, but in a game where the defense struggles, it can also be detrimental.
I saw several plays yesterday where Brady threw to his first read, which was not a good matchup, while his second and third reads were wide open. Example: the first series of the game going to Branch on the quick slant, double coverage, while both Hernandez and Welker were beating their guys easily.
Back to the running game, though, I think the point is well made that we need to run the ball. Particularly when things aren't working, and you have a wild card like Ridley sitting on the bench, why not try him out? His quickness seems to make him ideal to run against that defensive line. I completely agree about Faulk, what the heck was he doing in there? It isn't 2005 anymore, and while I respect Faulk tremendously, this did not seem like a good time to play the seniority game on the depth chart.