I do agree that teams have to control the clock.  That is a different argument altogether.  One I wholeheartedly endorse and agree with.  But I think that many coaches call plays hoping not to lose rather than to win.  And teams like New Orleans and Indianapolis tend to try to "run the clock out" rather than "continue scoring".  Once teams get up 10 points or so, they start calling conservatively and run the ball to keep the clock going.  I think too many of these teams get away from what they do best (pass the ball) just to ensure that the clock continues to roll. 

The Patriots havent lost because they couldnt run out the clock.  They were losing by 14 to the Jets the whole 2nd half and were behind due to the Jets outplaying the Patriots last year.  The Patriots were not beaten in the 2008 Super Bowl because they couldn't run out the clock.  They were losing a good portion of the game, took the lead late, and the defense couldnt stop Eli Manning.  They were blown out by Baltimore at home in their other loss.  None of those losses had anything to do with being able to run to control the clock.

New Orleans was losing the majority of the game this season to SF, and also to Seattle last year and won the Super Bowl the year before. 

I will agree that teams like Pittsburgh who are able to run when you KNOW they are going to run have a distinct advantage that they can shorten games by grabbing the lead by 10 points with 10 minutes to go, and limiting your possessions.  But I still feel that too many teams clam up and stop trying to score once up 10 points for fear of a pick six or a sack/fumble, when if they just kept doing what they were doing all game, the clock would continue to roll.

If NO or Indy could effectively run the ball, being up by 10 and changing the gameplan wouldn't matter.   It would be effective because they'd run clock and move the ball.   But they couldn't.    If NO didn't think they had a problem, why would they "waste" a first round pick on a RB?   Nobody does that these days.   I'll assume Sean Payton knows more football than either of us.  And he certainly knows NO offense better than we do.

As for the Patriots, leaving less time on the clock and being a threat to actually run the ball are game changers.   Would that have changed any of the games you mentioned?   Beats me, I haven't watched game tape today.  But I know one of the shortcomings of the Patriots is there lack of a running game.   When analysts say "They use the bubble screen as their running game", they have problems.

Well, bubble screens are rarely used in the NFL to replace running games.  They are used in spread offenses in the NCAA, with Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Baylor, etc...    as running games.  Very few NFL teams use the bubble screen more than 3-4 times a game.  Oklahoma State will throw the bubble screen 15-20 times a game.  If an NFL team threw 20 bubble screens, I would agree with you that it would be a major cause for concern.

That being said...  the Patriots use intermediate passes to Welker, Hernandez & Gronkowski to partially replace the running game that they lack.  But the sure handed nature of those 3 receivers combined with the accuracy of Brady makes it work in New England.  There isnt another team in the NFL that can say they have those elements.

I don't know why New Orleans drafted a RB with their 1st round pick.  I wasn't privy to their discussions prior to taking Mark Ingram.  Maybe they thought he was the best player available regardless of position?  I dont know.  Maybe they thought they had a huge problem.  Again...  I dont know.

You said that if New Orleans and Indy could effectively run the ball, being up by 10 and then running the ball wouldn't hurt them like it does now.  I agree 100%  That is a no-brainer.  However if they didn't utilize the strength of their passing game and take advantage of having Drew Brees and Peyton Manning like they have done, I would think that they would be up by 10 points late in the 4th quarter much less often.

I suppose you can call it what you like.   Bubble screen, rub play, illegal pick, whatever.   It's the short pass to a receiver who is within a yard or two of the line of scrimmage with another receiver "blocking".   Nonetheless, it's a different variation of the same play.

As far as NO, I'm just going by what I heard/read.   NO felt they needed to get a legit RB(not a hybrid like Bush) in order to add another dimension to the offense.  Ingram is a grinder.   I just took it from there.

I still don't know if you see my point.  One dimensional teams, the ones that have to pass to move the ball, have more "off" games than teams that can actually move the ball on the ground.   Therefore, they're more likely to get beat by another good team in the playoffs simply because one or two components of their passing game isn't making the plays they normally make.   Running is grunt football.  My fat guys block your fat guys.   Not a lot of people are handling the ball and it's not in the air for someone in another jersey to catch.

DE Mike Neal has been suspended for four games, presumably for PEDs.

Luckily, they will get the same production out of him those games as they were expecting to, anyway.

He'll be gone?

No big surprise, but the Packers are on the hunt for a new center after Scott Wells, the starter for the last seven years, signed a deal with St. Louis.

No doubt Ted will wait until the seventh round of the draft to get serious about a replacement.

Surprise!!! Ted signed a free agent. Center Jeff Saturday (who will be 37 when training camp starts) agreed to terms with the Packers today. The general feeling in the local media was that Saturday's discussions with the Packers were merely leverage to get more money from Denver, where he desired to be reunited with Peyton Manning. However, Saturday's team said that he felt Green Bay gave him the best chance to win a championship.

YES!

Packers sign another free agent... DE Anthony Hargrove (who may be facing suspension for his participation in New Orleans' bounty program during his time with the Saints).

Long-time LT Chad Clifton has been released by the team. There were reports that Clifton, recovering from off-season surgery, had failed a physical, but there has been no confirmation from the Packers. Marshall Newhouse or Derek Sherrod are the top contenders on the current roster to take over that spot.

Today the Packers informed three-time Pro Bowler S Nick Collins that he will be released. Collins suffered a neck injury in Game 3 last season and the Packers have made it clear that they do not think he should take the risk of resuming his career.

That ****** me off.

Seems like a lot of mock drafts have the Packers taking Shea McClellin from Boise State, the "poor man's Clay Matthews".

Bears grab McClellin at 19, Packers end up with USC product Nick Perry at 28. In theory he will play the other LB slot across from Clay Matthews. Assuming he's not a bust. The majority of scouts don't seem to think he'll work out in a 3-4 defense.

 Judy Cutler is sh!tting her  light days with wings ...Mathews and Perry are gonna bring on premature bleeding for the c#nt Judy Cuntler