This is only because I don't know if we have an NFL back on the roster like we did every year, before last year, since the '90s. Hill should be a good one and I'm excited for him to get here, but I see people say all the time that he's the better overall back compared to Akers. And by people, I mean MSU message board fans. The people who gets paid to evaluate the talent don't seem to agree. Akers is the composite #2 back, top 10 overall compared to Hills composite #15 (ESPN doesn't seem to think highly of him) and top 200 overall. They're also the same height and practically the same weight. What am I missing here? How is Hill the better back?