10
Loading video...
By Joe Kozlowski
Sports Team Lead
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
For much of the NFL offseason, running backs found themselves in the spotlight. And that attention wasn't exactly for the most positive reason.
With some notable ball carriers seeking—and failing to obtain—sizable contracts, the conversation focused on the position's value. Were running backs receiving the respect they collectively deserved?
If you felt they weren't, the Cam Akers trade probably won't sit well with you. On Wednesday, the Los Angeles Rams sent the Florida State product to the Minnesota Vikings for metaphorical peanuts.
Read More
Chicago Bears DC Alan Williams Resigns, Team Denies Police Involvement4 min read
Saquon Barkley Ruled Out: Giants RB Options for Thursday Night Football4 min read
Tom Brady’s Podcast Response Won’t Exactly Quiet NY Jets Rumors5 min read
Given the context of the summer, it's easy to home in on that deal as further proof that the NFL doesn't care about running backs. In this case, though, a bit more was at play.
...
Akers was Traded for Essentially Nothing
On paper, the Vikings were in desperate need of a running back. With Dalvin Cook now in New York and Alexander Mattison struggling to make an impact, something had to give.
That reality, however, didn't mean they had to pay a premium for help.
On Wednesday, the NFC North club landed a new option, Akers, and the ball carrier came at an affordable price. ESPN reported that Minnesota gave up a conditional sixth-round pick in the 2026 draft, while the Rams sent a conditional seventh-round pick in the same draft north alongside the running back.
And while we don't know what the prospect pool will look like two years in the future, it's safe to assume those picks don't carry much value. In essence, Akers was traded for nothing.
Akers' Trade Value Tanked Without the RB Market
When you juxtapose that trade price against Akers' stats—he's had an up-and-down career but piled up 625 rushing yards in 2020 and 786 rushing yards in 2022—it's easy to say this is further proof that the NFL simply doesn't value running backs. In this case, though, more is involved.
The ball carrier's time in Hollywood hasn't been the smoothest. Even if we set aside an Achilles tendon injury, as that's not really anyone's fault, Akers has missed time on multiple occasions because of what seemed like disagreements with the coaching staff.
During the 2022 campaign, for example, he missed several weeks for what were deemed personal reasons. As an NFL.com write-up from the time noted, though, that absence came after Ian Rapoport reported that Akers and the club had "philosophical and football-related differences."
The Rams were also expected to field trade offers, but nothing materialized. The running back would eventually return to the lineup, make it known that he never asked for a trade and posted solid numbers.
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. On social media, though, the back didn't seem to be on the same page as his boss.
And, ultimately, he was traded for pennies on the dollar.
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.
Over the past two seasons, the Rams made it clear that they didn't consider the Florida State man a key part of their plans. That reality, combined with the fact that his contract was expiring after the 2023 season, gave the Rams absolutely no leverage. The Vikings, no matter how desperate they might have been, weren't going to make a massive offer.
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.
Does the larger NFL running back market play into the trade? Sure, deals aren't made in a vacuum, and if teams felt they unequivocally needed a strong ground game to win, maybe Minnesota would have been that much more desperate. That said, the Rams weren't exactly subtle about their willingness to trade Akers.
And, ultimately, leverage is what matters. Even in a larger market, it comes down to the two teams trying to make a deal.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines