I agree. And the eyeball test says Akers is the better all-around back. Absolutely. I just thought it was notable because it was two analytics sources both rating Henderson highly. And by highly I think it's more accurately "efficient" in that when he's on the field with the ball in his hands he's produced.

Akers was going to be more of a "bell cow" RB, though I still think there was going to be a roughly 75/25 load share regardless. Now with Henderson I look at him and think, "could he play, say, 14 games and average 14+ carries/game?" That would be about 200 carries. I think that's reasonable. So the question then becomes who else can give them 100 or so carries. And then a 3rd RB that gives them maybe 40.