Pretty much. We certainly have no problem running fewer than 20 times, despite the comically low percentage of victory that attaches. Today we trailed for a very small percentage of the game yet found a way to be out rushed 29 attempts to 17. That's special. I've charted games along those lines since 1987, once I read about the importance of rushing attempts and yards per pass attempt in a Dick Vermeil article in the old Inside Sports magazine. It's remarkable how the bottom line finds a way to mirror the way the key stats are going. We were doing great in yards per attempt but when you don't run the ball it's a nullifier. If we had run the ball 6 or 7 more times I can almost guarantee we would have won, even if those rushes had gained nothing or lost yardage. But Philbin has no clue along those lines, similar to many posters here who were scoffing at the importance of the running game during the offseason, or during recent years.
When we got rid of Reggie Bush I posted that if we had kept him it would have all but guaranteed rushing numbers in the mid 20s in every game, since Reggie would have commanded his share of carries and the coaching staff was certain to expand Lamar Miller's role. But dumping Reggie allowed us to be be lazy and fragile on offense, all but ignoring the run unless it works early and consistently. Sometimes even that hasn't been enough.