Cam Akers Official Thread

[Dynasty DeLorean]

I thought his best area was in the passing game. I think that entire team was a complete mess last year. I believe he’ll be fine and a plus in the passing game

[SoftwoodGrampian]

Akers be’s beast. #1 ff RB from the ‘20 class next season.

[Sriracha]

I thought his best area was in the passing game. I think that entire team was a complete mess last year. I believe he’ll be fine and a plus in the passing game

x2

He has very nimble feet for his size and was a very good receiver in college. I believe his lack of use in that area his rookie year is the result of McVay's tendency to bring along his running backs slowly. Henderson amassed a grand total of 6 targets as rookie, for instance; and Malcolm Brown handled passing down duties for most of the year (probably because he was trusted more in pass protection).

When he was given the opportunity, Akers delivered; Lead the RB class in YPR at 11.2 and had a very respectable 79% catch percentage while showcasing elusiveness after the catch despite the low sample size.

[hankmurphy]

I’m not making any moves until after the NFL draft, but right now I’m seriously considering offering the 1.01 for Akers.

I’m not sold on Etienne or Harris, and I’ve really liked Akers’ film from his rookie season.

[mild]

I’m not making any moves until after the NFL draft, but right now I’m seriously considering offering the 1.01 for Akers.

I’m not sold on Etienne or Harris, and I’ve really liked Akers’ film from his rookie season.

I love me some Harris, personally - and I'd definitely give up the 1.02 for him at this point. Akers is everything you want in a modern back, with perhaps a top 3 run game designer in McVay.

Najee would have to land somewhere pretty exceptional to be in a better spot. So now that you've got me thinking about it, I think you're well within your rights to make that trade. And, unbelievably - Akers is a year younger than Najee.

Fire that trade off, amigo - I think it's savvy af.

[CGW]

Well, I've come around on Akers quite a bit. In unusual fashion for me I bought him in the offseason, which goes against my rule of paying for RBs in the offseason.

He was my 5th RB in the draft process, and I passed on him with all my 1sts going with Taylor, Dobbins, and Swift. I probably still would draft in the same order...but I should have looked to buy more then rather than now. I was convinced the Rams would be below average between Goffs limitations and the awful offensive line. I didn't think Akers was the difference maker required to succeed in a situation like this.

I still have reservations in the near term with opportunity share %, but I'm much more comfortable in the long term prospects of Akers being "the guy" in LA. Pair that with a line that played better than expected, the massive upgrade from Goff to Stafford, and the lack of draft capital moving forward.

The last few weeks of the season sold me. I dont buy the early season injury story, I just think he needed to build the coach's trust in protection schemes and playbook. Once he did, he was seeing RB1 workloads even with Brown/Henderson healthy. Akers faced 8 man boxes 38% of the time in 2020, which is 4th highest rate in the league. Defenses will have to adjust and respect Stafford.

Also it was pretty cheap for a potential top 10 RB, even in SF.
Darnold, Gaskin, Ahmed, G Davis, 2022 1st.

[AussieMate]

Well, I've come around on Akers quite a bit. In unusual fashion for me I bought him in the offseason, which goes against my rule of paying for RBs in the offseason.

He was my 5th RB in the draft process, and I passed on him with all my 1sts going with Taylor, Dobbins, and Swift. I probably still would draft in the same order...but I should have looked to buy more then rather than now. I was convinced the Rams would be below average between Goffs limitations and the awful offensive line. I didn't think Akers was the difference maker required to succeed in a situation like this.

I still have reservations in the near term with opportunity share %, but I'm much more comfortable in the long term prospects of Akers being "the guy" in LA. Pair that with a line that played better than expected, the massive upgrade from Goff to Stafford, and the lack of draft capital moving forward.

The last few weeks of the season sold me. I dont buy the early season injury story, I just think he needed to build the coach's trust in protection schemes and playbook. Once he did, he was seeing RB1 workloads even with Brown/Henderson healthy. Akers faced 8 man boxes 38% of the time in 2020, which is 4th highest rate in the league. Defenses will have to adjust and respect Stafford.

Also it was pretty cheap for a potential top 10 RB, even in SF.
Darnold, Gaskin, Ahmed, G Davis, 2022 1st.

Add to this I do expect him to be involved much more in the passing game this season, I know it didn't happen in his rookie year but I just think he needed time to gain the trust of McVay and develop his pass protection, I just can't see how a guy who I thought was one of the best pass catches to come out of the draft last year (and a lot of experts said the same) doesn't get involved more. Although I've said the same about Mixon every year and I'm still waiting so who knows.

[stoneghost28]

Don’t lose a wink of sleep if you made the right choice between Akers and Lamb. They were both fine picks.

Instead, he happy you didn’t take Keyshawn Vaughn.

My greatest bummer is that I'd settled on the right take on Vaughn after the only draft where I had a pick where he kinda made sense (mid 2nd), and so I only had the one share, but still, I could've had Claypool instead. I feel better looking at that draft because I had the 2.04, 2.06, and 2.07, and grabbed Higgins and Shenault, but also Vaughn w/the 2.04. Grrr. Brutal. Did benefit from people inexplicably taking Vaughn in round 1 in other leagues (gave me Dobbins at the 1.05 in one league, and Lamb at the 1.10 in a superflex. I liked/like Vaughn a little bit, but saw him as a mid 2nd round guy, did not understand all the valuations w/mid to late 1st talk w/a few. I do think he could give people some value going forward, but he wasn't worth drafting ahead of any of the big 5 RB's, or the top 7 or 8 WR's (and am super mad at myself for doing that once, in my first draft).

Still like my haul though, got Swift, got Higgins, got Shenault, and parlayed a trade into multiple picks, which gave me DK Metcalf via an inseason trade of two future firsts (the 1.04 this year, and something in '22).

[stoneghost28]

No no, I was told he wasn't worth spending a 2020 2nd round pick on.

You were being fed bad advice my friend.

The world is full of bad advice

It's sarcasm directed at Mike and his RB report in which he said he wouldn't take Akers until the 3rd

I was, and remain baffled at the proliferation of horrible Akers takes last year. There were some prominent Akers boosters in the Dynasty Media community but a lot that loathed him. Almost all tape people if memory serves.

It reminded me an absolute ton of how much stick Cook got three years earlier, always behind Fournette, McCaffrey (understandable), Mixon and sometimes others, although w/Cook a bit of it related to injury risk (which has kinda held up), and some character red flags (which haven't seemed too). When you are stuck with a horrible offense, and a terrible OL, like worst in college level, and do what those guys did, the evaluations, especially with Akers, were just baffling to me.

The problem i ran into in drafts was that my picks were almost always either 1.01-1.04 zone, or 1.06-1.10 zone, so I almost never had the 1.05 to get Akers. Post draft I think I had: Dobbins-8, Swift-7, Taylor-5, CEH-4, Akers-3. Would've been slightly different if I hadn't semi-bought the CEH hype (i moved him to 1.02 from behind Taylor, Swift, Dobbins, and Akers).

[OhCruelestRanter]

You were being fed bad advice my friend.

The world is full of bad advice

It's sarcasm directed at Mike and his RB report in which he said he wouldn't take Akers until the 3rd

I was, and remain baffled at the proliferation of horrible Akers takes last year. There were some prominent Akers boosters in the Dynasty Media community but a lot that loathed him. Almost all tape people if memory serves.

It reminded me an absolute ton of how much stick Cook got three years earlier, always behind Fournette, McCaffrey (understandable), Mixon and sometimes others, although w/Cook a bit of it related to injury risk (which has kinda held up), and some character red flags (which haven't seemed too). When you are stuck with a horrible offense, and a terrible OL, like worst in college level, and do what those guys did, the evaluations, especially with Akers, were just baffling to me.

The problem i ran into in drafts was that my picks were almost always either 1.01-1.04 zone, or 1.06-1.10 zone, so I almost never had the 1.05 to get Akers. Post draft I think I had: Dobbins-8, Swift-7, Taylor-5, CEH-4, Akers-3. Would've been slightly different if I hadn't semi-bought the CEH hype (i moved him to 1.02 from behind Taylor, Swift, Dobbins, and Akers).

It’s a combination of not knowing what to look for, and not understanding the significance of what they’re seeing.

Akers dominated touches at a big 5 program and he had good size-adjusted athleticism, and then he got drafted in the second round. That’s a good prospect, because those things all correlate with varying types of NFL and FF success. That part was not knowing what to look for.

Then there was a ton of focus on some tape-grinder nonsense. Those people weren’t necessarily wrong with regard to what they were seeing, but there’s no significance to it. There’s absolutely no data- zero, nothing- to suggest that players who “sink their hips” or whatever have more fantasy football success. That part was not understanding the insignificance of what they were seeing.

[stoneghost28]

Definitely appreciate the thoughts some have provided here. I'm going to try and pick up some more Akers in the offseason if possible for '22 and '21 picks and maybe a player. Gotta figure out what looks like a Godfather offer but isn't probably to get it done.

Also just happy I managed to acquire an additional 2 shares in RSO via trades. 1 during a draft (wanted a RB, but Tua fell to me at 1.05, so I traded my 1st/2nd/3rd in '21 for Akers at the 1.06 (picks turned out to be 1.08/2.08/3.08 in a 10 team league), and one via a tanking trade where he was one of the pieces I could get back.

What's a reasonable offer for him that can get the dialogue going....

[Hottoddies]

I was, and remain baffled at the proliferation of horrible Akers takes last year. There were some prominent Akers boosters in the Dynasty Media community but a lot that loathed him. Almost all tape people if memory serves.

It reminded me an absolute ton of how much stick Cook got three years earlier, always behind Fournette, McCaffrey (understandable), Mixon and sometimes others, although w/Cook a bit of it related to injury risk (which has kinda held up), and some character red flags (which haven't seemed too). When you are stuck with a horrible offense, and a terrible OL, like worst in college level, and do what those guys did, the evaluations, especially with Akers, were just baffling to me.

The problem i ran into in drafts was that my picks were almost always either 1.01-1.04 zone, or 1.06-1.10 zone, so I almost never had the 1.05 to get Akers. Post draft I think I had: Dobbins-8, Swift-7, Taylor-5, CEH-4, Akers-3. Would've been slightly different if I hadn't semi-bought the CEH hype (i moved him to 1.02 from behind Taylor, Swift, Dobbins, and Akers).

As I remember it, it was the numbers crowd that was knocking Akers for his lack of production and below average YPC. Where it was some astute film grinders who understood the context of his situation and saw his potential despite the lack of an offensive line.

[OhCruelestRanter]

I was, and remain baffled at the proliferation of horrible Akers takes last year. There were some prominent Akers boosters in the Dynasty Media community but a lot that loathed him. Almost all tape people if memory serves.

It reminded me an absolute ton of how much stick Cook got three years earlier, always behind Fournette, McCaffrey (understandable), Mixon and sometimes others, although w/Cook a bit of it related to injury risk (which has kinda held up), and some character red flags (which haven't seemed too). When you are stuck with a horrible offense, and a terrible OL, like worst in college level, and do what those guys did, the evaluations, especially with Akers, were just baffling to me.

The problem i ran into in drafts was that my picks were almost always either 1.01-1.04 zone, or 1.06-1.10 zone, so I almost never had the 1.05 to get Akers. Post draft I think I had: Dobbins-8, Swift-7, Taylor-5, CEH-4, Akers-3. Would've been slightly different if I hadn't semi-bought the CEH hype (i moved him to 1.02 from behind Taylor, Swift, Dobbins, and Akers).

As I remember it, it was the numbers crowd that was knocking Akers for his lack of production and below average YPC. Where it was some astute film grinders who understood the context of his situation and saw his potential despite the lack of an offensive line.

I distinctly remember explaining that the sample size for early round RBs with low YPC was too small to be meaningful. That’s the only analytical take I recall being made regarding Akers YPC. Do you have examples that contradict this?

Because there’s definitely some prominent scout-cosplay talk about why his tape means we shouldn’t have drafted him until the third.

[Dynasty DeLorean]

Hmm it was definitely a film grinder narrative that he was “raw”, so it wouldn’t really make sense that film grinders would be the ones to tout him. My model is 100% numbers based (so “analytical”) and it loved Akers. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter, I’m sure there were people on “both sides” that liked or disliked him. I just don’t agree that film grinders loved him and analytical people didn’t, that doesn’t align with the stuff I was seeing written about him going into and during the season. Film grinders were lining up to trash him after week 1.

[AussieMate]

This is very interesting because generally the arguments I remember reading were from film grinders saying "did you watch his games" to people complaining about his production. So it may not have been either side arguing fully against him but the middle ground of people who box score watch, the "film grinders" were saying that his o-line was terrible and thats why his box score looked bad which is a defence not a knock. The raw argument I thought was legitimate but wasn't seen as a knock on him more that he had higher potential then shown if you were willing to wait half a season for him to adjust etc.

I know people on here love the whole analytics vs film grinder debate and enjoy vilifying either side as much as they can but this just seems like people picking one or two statements by individuals and equating them to the whole forum.