that Akers and the club had"philosophical and football-related differences."
If that sounds familiar, that's because a similar situation unfolded this season. Akers was a healthy scratch when the Rams faced the 49ers, and Sean McVay said that it was simply a coach's decision.I’m just as confused as everybody else. I’m blessed though 🤷🏾♂️Again, it's easy to look at the Akers trade as proof that the modern NFL doesn't value running backs. In this case, though, recent history probably swayed the market.
Add some other details to the mix—Akers has been consistently inconsistent during his brief NFL career and Mattison is signed through the 2025 season, meaning Minnesota probably expects the two backs to share the carries—and the ceiling for any potential trade was probably low from the start.