Wondering if this is why you asked the Kelce question. I do think there's a big difference as RB's can't play at an older age like receivers can, and generally teams have drafted their replacement already and are eager to get said replacement getting reps.Riding Henry until the wheels fall off. Guy isn't even 30. Dude could lose speed and still be an effective 4.0 YPC grinder with upside of 10+ TDs.
I think he's a hall of fame talent with at least 2-3 years of RB1 production in him. His size is what makes me comfortable. Even if he loses some burst, he's still going to be trucking through people and throwing defensive backs around with his nasty stiff arm.
Other aging RBs don't have his brute size and strength to compensate. I think he can adjust and stay productive as he ages for that reason. He's built from a different mold. Hard to compare other backs and typical regression to him because he is an outlier.
Right? It does seem like I am talking out both sides of my mouth. I think both guys are HOF talents.
One guy is 4 years older than the other and in football terms, that might as well be dog years. I think it comes down to ADP. Kelce requires an early first round investment and Henry can be had in the mid to late 2nd.
If Henry was going in the first round, I'd balk at that. Similarly, if Kelce was going mid to late 2nd I would draft him everytime.