Type to search

Packers’ Running Backs Are The Worst*

There will definitely be a lot of questions for the Green Bay Packers running backs entering the 2017 season. There’s starter Ty Montgomery — not even a running back for a full year yet — and a bunch of rookies.

That lineup probably has a lot of people doubting the Packers’ rushing attack. One of those people is Doug Farrar, who rated all of the running back groups in the NFL. The Packers’ group is dead last.

The Packers are essentially rebuilding their running game on speculative talent, which is a lot easier to do when Aaron Rodgers is your quarterback.

The first thing I’ll say here is, who cares?

Even when the Packers have running backs performing well, they rarely hand them the ball. As long as Mike McCarthy is the Packers’ coach, that’s not going to change.

McCarthy will say “we need to run the football” and then have a 70/30 pass-to-run ratio the next game.

Second, maybe I’m a little biased, but is this group really worse than say the Giants (Paul Perkins) or Jets (Matt Forte)?

Lastly, as we’ve seen time and again, just because you’re not a high draft pick as a running back, doesn’t mean you can’t have success. Only one of the NFL’s top 10 rushers in 2016 was a first-round pick (Ezekiel Elliott).

We’re not suggesting any of the Packers’ backs are going to be in the top 10 in the NFL in rushing — they’d actually have to get carries for that to happen.

However, we fully expect whatever McCarthy wants to do with the running game with the guys at his disposal will work just fine.

Joseph Bonham

Joseph is a fiction writer when he isn't doing this. In his spare time he likes to do manly things like drink beer and procreate.



  1. KILLER May 23, 2017

    I noticed the * in the title of the article but then… there was no asterisk explanation. Normally you would have a * in the content and put in what you thought needed to be added.

    I do see that you did at least name two teams you thought should be ranked behind the Packers in quality of running backs. Honestly, I did not expect that level of accountability so I give you kudos for that.

    That said, I disagree. Jets and Giants should be ranked above the Packers stable. Forte had 813 yards and Powell had 722 yards with no QB support. Compare that to Montgomery and… no one else… for the Packers who had 457 yards. It is just no comparison. Not even close. Wanna look over the course of time/career? Heck, Montgomery should have to pay for the right to hold Forte’s jock strap. The Giants top rusher had one yard less than Montgomery. However, they also bring back Darkwa, Draughns, and Vereen who added another 465 yards as well as depth, injury protection, varying skill sets.

    If you want to bring in rookies as a + credit (which is totally logical though a bit of a wildcard) then Wayne Gallman for the Giants and Elijah McGuire of the Jets both surpass Jamaal Williams, a 7th rounder taken in the 4th round.

    Seriously, what GM would take the Packers stable of low quality rookies and a converted 3rd round WR over that of any other team? Would you if you were a GM? If so, it does not speak well to your armchair GM skills.

    You note the run to pass ratio. However, this one directional logic. You do not and will not in the future just say hey, the Packers pass a bunch so Aaron Rodgers’ and Jordy Nelson’s stats are padded and they are not as good as one might think. But, in the reverse case with the running game you are quite eager to point out the run/pass ratio. Gotta be fair, gotta be consistent. Avoid hypocrisy and you can do well in life.

    Yes, it is really hard to support with logic that the Packers running backs* belong anywhere but 32nd out of 32.

    * If you REALLY consider Montgomery a running back. (You see how to use the asterisk now?)

    1. PF4L May 23, 2017

      lol…You gonna let her talk to you like that Joseph?

  2. Cheese May 23, 2017

    “Even when the Packers have running backs performing well, they rarely hand them the ball.”

    Unless the running backs aren’t performing well, and all McCarthy has to do is get a first down and his team makes it to the Super Bowl. What do you do then? Why you predictably call the same exact play three times in a row running the fattest RB in the league right up the middle of a stuffed offensive line. Forget giving the ball to the best QB in the league. Lets run for a loss just as long as we take can some time off the clock! I bet that’s why they got rid of Lacey, be he reminded McGlurpy of what an idiot he is.

    On paper the Packers RB’s don’t look like much. A converted back up wide receiver who had one flash in the pan game against the Bears, and a bunch of late round rookies who haven’t done anything.

  3. Howard May 23, 2017

    It is awful early to be rating running back groups. No group has even had contact yet. Not sure how anyone can tell how a running back group is going to perform before any real contact has commenced. No way to see how the new backs perform in pass pro, protect the ball, or catch the ball against NFL competition. That does not even speak for the ability of the offensive line to run block.

    No way does anyone try to rate a running back group this early without seeing the offensive line and running backs in at least live preseason action? Well last year there was at least a couple of early rankings. It was Interesting that the Vikings were rated 5th and 7th best in the NFL, and it was completely wrong. I think the Vikings running back group ended up ranking 32nd in the league. On par with the Packer pass defense. So much for OTA rankings.

    1. KILLER May 23, 2017

      C’mon, Howard. Just… c’mon man….

      Saying it is too early to rate… well, this America man. Free world. What, wait until the year is over? You do your mock drafts a few days AFTER the actual draft, don’t you? And of course there are many examples of these educated guesses being wrong. You think if Mike Mayock (for instance) gets a pick in his mock draft wrong he ought to hang it up and never do another?

      The worst part of your post though is that running backs cannot be judged until you see and know the offensive line. That is as bad as saying you can’t judge how good an offensive line is until you know how good the running back is. Or the QB. Or the Punter!

      They are rating the running back groups, the running backs themselves, not the situation they are in.

      Your whole post seems to be an attack-the-messenger kind of thing. You don’t like the Packers being 32nd and you sure can’t argue persuasively they should rank higher so… you attack the messenger as being too early and wrong in the past and that they did not let the offensive line skill help determine the RB ability…..

      Attack the “Fake News” so no one picks up on it being real news. Sounds like someone I know.

      1. Savage57 May 24, 2017

        Vikings fans love polls and rankings. And we all know why.