Re: Not so sure on that.....

I think cutting Herderson could have had a LOT to do with Akers wanting center stage - and quitting on the team in the middle of a crisis if he didn't get it. My guess at the time was that McVay gave it to him with the onus: You've got it, and you've got my backing and support - NOW, it's on you to produce.

In that scenario McVay may have seen Henderson as a player who could do well elswhere and who represented a lockerroom squabble with Akers, and was also a replaceable piece. Akers finishes out the season well. Rivers does spot duty, Williams is hurt.

Akers comes to work with a new adopted persona; tough guy with a smile, but then underperforms when given a chance in competition, gives up, is let go, and claims to be dismayed by it.

Henderson meanwhile, like Van, leaves on good terms.

It's not like McVay to bring former players back. Henderson is an exception and is back; we don't know if he's kept himself in football shape - and there are other questions.

The plot is layered and nuanced. Whatever decisions go into the game plan aren't simple regarding the RB situation - and we need a running game.

I wish this game were televised in Montana. Y'all get your popcorn; tell me what you saw when it's over.