The NFL as a whole doesn’t value the fullback position at all. The Green Bay Packers do, however.
They are one of the few organizations to still employ the fullback. And if you thought maybe they’d only be carrying one of those guys on the roster this year, you might be wrong.
The Packers finished 2016 with two fullbacks — Aaron Ripkowski, a former draft pick, and Joe Kerridge, a former undrafted free agent.
If you ask quarterback Aaron Rodgers, both guys are going to be part of the offense again in 2017.
“I think there’s opportunities behind Ty [Montgomery] for those guys to jump up and take that over,” Rodgers said. “I still think 22 [Ripkowski] is going to be in the mix when it comes to running the football. He showed a lot last year late in the season, running the football really well, and did some great things for us in the playoffs. He’s very reliable back there.”
Ripkowski, when he isn’t fumbling, has been a fairly reliable fixture in the Packers’ offense. Kerridge, who was a late-season addition to the roster in 2016, has just been a bit player. Still, Rodgers had praise for him too.
“I think Joe has had a fantastic camp,” Rodgers said. “So we have the luxury we haven’t had since John [Kuhn] left, with two really solid fullbacks. I think they’re both having great camps.”
It almost beckons back to the days when the Packers kept three fullbacks. Remember the triumvirate of John Kuhn, Korey Hall and Quinn Johnson?
You might think that’s two too many fullbacks, but it appears the Packers will keep two guys again this year. And that almost limits their ability to keep the three running backs they drafted, who sit behind Ty Montgomery on the depth chart.
Ugh. Look, I still think fullback can be a legit position in the NFL, especially if they are versatile, can catch the ball out of the backfield, and be solid on special teams. But really there should be only one fullback on a potential championship roster.
Using a bottom third roster spot on a guy that might get 30 snaps at most on offense when he can be stashed on the PS is irresponsible. There are other young players at higher impact positions that should take those spots
Last time we had 3 FB on the roster we won the SB.
That was a different team. That team relied more on the run game than this version. It was also deeper on the defensive side of the ball. Why draft 3 running backs with “a starter” already on the roster if two fullbacks are going to be on the roster. Would it not have been better to draft a body at tackle, defensive line, linebacker? If they carry 5 or more backs on their roster i am not watching a game
Right on, why would anyone want to watch with that many backs you KNOW they aren’t going to use?