Agree. It's better for a team's running game if it has viable downfield passing threats. Keeps the safeties from cheating down into the box. Means more chances for explosive running plays once a RB gets to the second level. There is a big upside, and simply no downside whatsoever, to having and utilizing smartly a competent passing game that complements a very competent (or dominant) running game. In athletic competition, you always perform better if you can use both arms rather than having one tied behind your back.
In the new B1G, which will have more teams that can score in bunches quickly, the Gophers can win 5-6 games a year (including non-conf wins) by running the ball most of the time (often into +1 boxes). But in that scenario we'd better have 4-5 RBs ready to play, because of over-work and stress injuries. If we remain an extemely run-heavy team, and can also find a way to field an Iowa-level, ball-hawking defense (one of the top in the nation), maybe we get to 7-8 wins. And a lot of those wins will be fun and rewarding ... old style, grind it out, slugfest football. But that's the effective ceiling, I believe, if the Goph's choose to, or are forced to, run a throwback 1950s-60s style offense. We just won't be able to compete against the high-octane offenses that, quite rationally, exploit the plentiful rule advantages favoring the passing game. (And we will continue PJ's seven-year streak of being unable to win once we are down by more than 10 points at any time in the game.)
But, if the Gophers can continue to play tough defense ... and can combine their solid, dependable running game with a decent, complementary passing game ... one that produces yardage, contributes TDs, and "stresses" defense (forcing them to cover the whole field ... then I think the Gophers can bust through the 7-8 win plateau in any given season, even in the new B1G.
I'm good with all that. Go Gophers.