Henderson was in his 2nd year and even given that had 7 subpar games out of 15 (though injuries account for some of that).

Akers was a rookie who had no training camp and had to learn NFL level pass pro. But then when Akers did settle in did well.

And you have to watch these 2 guys not just do stats. Henderson is good but Akers does things that DH can't--they aren't in his skill set.

This is something I always get a bit skeptical about. An article that looks at only numbers and not a word in it actually sounds like the writer watched the player play and can discuss what he does and how he looks on the field.

And this makes no sense: While many fans and analysts believe Henderson may be a step down from Akers, Head Coach Sean McVay and General Manger Les Snead are showing their faith in him and the rest of the running backs on the team by allowing the current roster to pick up the slack.

Logic. It's simple. Henderson can be a step down from Akers and still be good. So showing faith in him does not mean that he ISN'T a step down from Akers. There are more than 2 rungs on the ladder. It's not "good, then awful." It's elite, very good, good, better than average, average etc. (you get the point).

Having said all that I know Henderson is good. But I see him as a rotation back, not a primary. Nothing wrong with that, many teams use that kind of rotation. .



....