This was an interesting discussion on NFL today which was excerpted in Jsonline.

High: "The NFL Today" analyst Bill Cowher made a surprising observation about the NFL, surprising because Cowher coached the Pittsburgh Steelers to a Super Bowl championship behind the running of Jerome Bettis.

"The game has changed," Cowher said. "The rules have changed. I think right now, I hate to say this, but the running game is a complement. It's not the foundation that it once was. You look at the last three AFC teams that were in the Super Bowl, that's Pittsburgh, New England and Indianapolis. They're all passing teams. The running game is a complement."

Colleague Dan Marino, who passed his way into the Hall of Fame, disagreed with Cowher.

"Coach, do you have a fever?" Marino said. "Listen, I can't believe it. You're the purist, run guy always. The Giants a couple years ago were a running football team; they won the Super Bowl. And I think if you look around the league, I have to disagree with you

I'm also going to have to disagree. While a passing team can win football games and a speedy one is particuarly dangerous. . . the top teams in the league can run the ball. Even the Saints have a great ground game. Without it I don't think that they'd be as successful as they've been. Also, it's September/October. Let's revisit who the top teams are again in December/January. I'm willing to bet that the strongest teams in the playoffs are the ones that run the ball and stop the run. Sometimes you get a team that wins without that, but it's been pretty consistent over the past 50 years. All things considered. . . I'd love to have Cowher's mentality in Green Bay right now. Run. Run. Run. Pound the ball. Punish your opponent and dictate the game on both sides of the ball. That would be really nice right about now.

I think that the pass if effective can set up the run, just as the opposite has been said for ages. Also the short passing game if executed well can essentially fill the same role as a traditional running game. Still this seems to me like air filler for the talking heads. Might as well be debating the chicken or the egg....

I agree that the passing game can effectively set up the running game, but it's the running game that represents a team's toughness and grit. Those are elements that can't be faked when playoff time rolls around. You can still lose games by not being a good passing team, but I really think that the running game is still as important as it's always been. A good, fast defense can take away the short passing game making your team very one dimensional. Much like the Packers have been this year. Either they make big plays in the passing game, extending drives and eventually getting into scoring range. . . or they don't and make games they should win easily turn into close contests or losses. I think that you can be a passing based offense and have it lead to success running the ball. . . but you still have to have a successful running game to win football games. It's not feasible to rely on the passing game to solely win at the NFL level. Even shotgun-based, spread option passing teams can be successful running the ball. I know this from personal experience. In today's football, they need to if they want to consistently win games.

I think it is the credible run threat that teams need. You don't necessarily need to be a running team, but you need to have the other team be concerned enough to commit some resources to covering it. One dimensional teams don't go far, be it pass only or run only.

Agree completely!