49ers outgained Ravens 182-93 (6.3-2.7 ypc) on the ground

[Salvo]

Out of the 12 teams in the playoffs, 8 of them had top 16 rushing attacks. 4 of the top 5 rushing teams during the regular season made it to the playoffs. Baltimore was 11th in rushing during the season and was 5th in yds per game during the playoffs. Just because they didn't run it more than the 9ners in the Super Bowl doesn't mean they were slouches.

We don't need anymore overpaid running backs...correct. But to say it isn't vital for success is thinking one dimensionally I'm glad some of you don't have Gettleman's ear.

[Mother Grabber]

9ers have a strong run D, but had some really pooty play from their DBs. You take what the defense gives you. If their D was the opposite, then I'm sure the Ravens gameplan and stats would have reflected that as well.

You have to be able to do both, and take advantage of the weakness of the D. Being one dimensional either way won't get you very far.

[Chimera]

What I'm getting from this thread is that San Fran is a known running team, and lost to a team that had 6 MORE rushing attempts; somehow this means the Panthers should run less.

Mister Love: Intelligence :: Drew Brees' mole : cute things that make you say Awww

[Frizzy350]

MisterLove, we get it, Hurney overspent like crazy on our backfield, nobody disagrees with that point. The way you are wording your post is essentially saying that having a good running is actually detrimental to a team's ability to win - this is not the case, you just need to have a balance between production and price. just because Ray Rice wasn't the key factor in winning this game doesn't mean he isn't an integral part of their offense. judging by the carries Rice and Pierce got, even while being ineffective, the Ravens must have felt that a balanced offense is a winning formula.

[X-Clown]

I like you Mister Love, but not sure I'm seeing your point. If the Ravens ran the ball better, they don't even have to worry about that tense ending.

[frash.exe]

mr belding is a simpering retard and didn't realize i didn't say anything about attempts

[frash.exe]

I like you Mister Love, but not sure I'm seeing your point. If the Ravens ran the ball better, they don't even have to worry about that tense ending.

the myth that running the ball well makes you win

[frash.exe]

one day you guys will get it, until then the point flies over your mental midget heads entirely

[X-Clown]

the myth that running the ball well makes you win

No you don't HAVE to do it well to win. It does help though, and just looking at each superbowl winner's statistical ranking as proof that you can't win that way (which I don't think you're implying, but could come off that way). Assuming that a few plays break either way, the headline writers would say that the ground game dominance helped the 49ers win the game. The same way they did for the Niners-Packers game two weeks ago.

[frash.exe]

the packers defense didn't even bother showing up to that game.

when your defense is so incompetent as to not be able to do anything against the run then run all you want. You'll meet those teams in the regular season and sometimes in the playoffs as well. But against a conference champion just producing yards on the ground isn't going to cut it.

if colin was about 50 starts into his nfl career and not like about 15, he'd have been throwing more, completing more, running less, and san fran would've done better

[frash.exe]

also if you're saying you don't have to run well to win, well you're not the a part of the posters i'm addressing

[Davidson Deac II]

You don't have to run to win, but it helps a lot if you can. The one and only thing you have to do to win is score more points than the other team. Fwiw though, SF's offense actually scored more points than the Baltimore offense did.

Now if the other team turns it over more than your team does, has a couple of critical penalties early in the game, and you score a td on a kick return, then you don't have to run to win the game. That is a lot of if's though.

[frash.exe]

SF lost this game because of bonehead mistakes and turnovers in the first half.....not because they have a good running game.

They lost despite a good running game, not because of it

Don't misquote me

[Chimera]

mr belding is a simpering retard and didn't realize i didn't say anything about attempts

I don't think "simpering" is the word you were looking for

So what exactly are you saying - run a lot, but not well?

I still like my way better - run well, pass well, stop the run, put pressure on the QB, cover receivers, cover kicks well, return kicks well. Usually you will win.

But your argument is that we need to run not so well to win? Or what is it?

You're right that the modern NFL doesn't rely on a dominant run game as in years past. That's a revelation to exactly no one. If Baltimore had been able to run well, Do you think the Niners would have made such a ferocious comeback?