But that's really the point of ground game vs air game isnt it? A good ground game can run out the clock after your offense has built the lead. Antowain Smith and Dillon were gamechangers in that respect. They could end the game if you had possession with the lead and 3-4 minutes to kill in the 4th quarter.
Dude, read what you're saying. You're trying to claim that Antowain Smith was a game changer. Sit back and think on how far you have to stretch an argument to be making that claim.
This 2011 Pats team had the ball with 4 minutes to go and were up 17-15. They couldn't do anything on the ground. Were forced to pass to try to get a 1st down and couldn't get that either. So it left too much time on the clock for the Giants to drive and come back to win.
I shouldn't have to go over this again, but I guess some people just want to refuse to face the facts:
1.) The Patriots' opponents could squeeze all their players low because the Patriots don't have a legitimate middle-deep threat at the WR position.
2.) If Welker catches the ball, this isn't a point of discussion. You're trying to argue an unusual circumstance (Welker drop) is somehow proof of failure of the overall system. Don't be that guy.
If you get 1st downs on the ground with the lead in the 4th quarter of a Superbowl. You WIN. Period, end of story.
If you get 1st downs through the air with the lead in the 4th quarter of a Superbowl. You WIN. Period, end of story.
Now does the defense need upgrades too? Of course. But overall 21 points given up is not horrible considering that 2 of those came on a safety given up by the offense. We've got to look at the entire picture.
Of all the people on this board, I doubt anyone's been more of a 'look at the entire picture' poster than I've been. I've been talking about BJGE for years, noting that he wasn't RB1 material, and getting pounded on for it because I'd defended Maroney starting over him pre-injury/collaps. I've been talking about the WR1 spot since Moss was cut loose, and the WR3 spot since Gaffney was allowed to walk. I pounded BB for the Seymour trade that put a hole in the DL that still hasn't been filled. I've taken crap from the homers for years because I was looking at the entire picture while they were sticking their heads in the sand, and I've taken crap from the Chicken Littles since I first started on the board, because nothing's ever good enough for them.
RB is way down on the 'need' list. That's just the way it is. This team's gone 37-11 (Best record in the AFC) since Brady's returned from his injury and Maroney became damaged goods (3.9 ypc in 15 games), and it's gone to the playoffs each year, gone to the Super Bowl once, and will be the AFC favorite to repeat that next season. They've done that with this running game, because they've had a great passing game.
I'm not averse to improving the running game. I love smash mouth football. I'm just looking at the team and seeing what it is. Getting a middle-deep threat will force the corners and safeties to back off, which will give the run game more room, as well as giving the underneath passers more space. Bringing in the runner without the middle-deep guy will just lead to an even more compressed defense.
...Love the fact that BJGE doesn't fumble, but he doesn't produce enough on the ground to relieve any pressure off Brady and he was ineffective in the 4th when we needed to kill the clock the most.
Either Ridley has a bust out year next season, or RB is still an issue for the postseason.
Green Bay won the Super Bowl with a bad run game.
Pittsburgh won the Super Bowl with a weak run game.
Indianapolis won the Super Bowl with a weak run game.
The Saints won the Super Bowl with Pierre Thomas, not with Foster.
The running game is not how you win the Super Bowl anymore.
