Adrian Peterson's Updated 2013 Fantasy Outlook and Trade Value After Week 4
After a relatively slow start to the season for Adrian Peterson, the reigning MVP proved that he is as good as ever with an impressive game against the Pittsburgh Steelers.
The running back broke out for his second-longest run of the season in the second quarter when he rushed for a 60-yard touchdown. He added another score in the third quarter, finishing the game with 140 yards and two touchdowns.
ESPN Stats and Info provided this impressive statistic that shows the running back's dominance in his career:
Adrian Peterson now has 12 rushing TDs of 60 yards. That's the most since 1940 (Hall of Famer Jim Brown is 2nd with 9)— ESPN Stats & Info (@ESPNStatsInfo) September 29, 2013
Peterson has been solid this year, averaging 93.7 rushing yards per game with three total touchdowns. However, he raised himself to an incredibly high standard after his incredible performance in 2012.
Will Adrian Peterson finish the season as the No. 1 fantasy running back?
Considering the running back managed to rush for 131.1 yards per game a year ago, fantasy owners who drafted him No. 1 overall will continue to be disappointed until he replicates those statistics.
The good news is that he appears to be back on track to playing like his dominant self. The big play against the Steelers was his second-longest run of the year, but only the third of at least 20 yards. He had more than double anyone else in the league last season with 25.
If he can continue to make these big plays, Peterson will once again be able to carry fantasy teams to victory.
As a result, his trade value remains as high as ever. It might take a king's ransom to get him on your squad, but it would be worth it, even if it costs two or three quality players.
On the other side, it would be a massive mistake to trade him just as he starts to warm up.
Follow Rob Goldberg on Twitter for the latest breaking news and analysis.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?