Adrian Peterson: Should the Minnesota Vikings Trade Their Star RB?

Fantasy football owners love Adrian Peterson. Minnesota Vikings fans, coaches and teammates love Adrian Peterson. Pretty much anyone who loves football, loves Adrian Peterson.

What's not to love? Peterson is a good person, a great teammate, perhaps the hardest worker on the team and he's a fantastic football player. He's a big, fast, elusive running back who's had more than one commentator recall Walter Payton when looking for a comparison.

As the Vikings head into this Sunday's game against the Atlanta Falcons, Peterson is listed as doubtful with a high ankle sprain and of all the entities listed above, the only ones who really seem to care are the fantasy football owners. Back in the real world, we're forced to wonder: How much do running backs really matter? In the pass-happy NFL world of 2011, has the position been marginalized?

And considering those two questions, did the Minnesota Vikings overpay Peterson when they rewarded him with a seven-year, $100 million deal in September?

Sabermetricians haven't yet overtaken the football world like they have in baseball, but I'm guessing it would take Billy Beane and his ilk about five seconds to scream an unequivocal "yes" when asked if the Vikings overpaid.

As the Vikings suffer through a dismal and disappointing 2011 season, much of the talk among fans and pundits in Minnesota has been whether or not the team erred in signing Peterson to such a huge deal and there have even been those suggesting the team should try to trade Peterson for a boat-load of draft picks that could plug the numerous holes on the roster.

No one who watches the Vikings and the NFL in general questions the talent of Peterson, who's been the best running back in the league almost from the day the Vikings selected him with the seventh pick in the 2007 draft. He's made the Pro Bowl every year he's been in the league and is on the cusp of becoming the Vikings' all-time leading rusher. He already has four of the five best rushing games in team history (including an NFL-record 296-yard game) and his 54 touchdowns over the past four years are the most in the league.

Having said all that, if you look around the NFL these days, you see that having a great running back certainly isn't a prerequisite to having a great football team. And throughout the history of the league, having a great running back has never guaranteed a great team. From Gayle Sayers and O.J. Simpson to Barry Sanders and Walter Payton (minus the Super Bowl Shuffle team), many of the league's greatest running backs have been stuck on mediocre teams.

Of the top 10 rushers currently in the NFL, just one (Frank Gore of the 49ers) is on a first-place team. Minnesota doesn't need to look beyond its own division to see how the importance of running the football has waned even further: The undefeated Packers' top rusher is 21st in the league and the 7-4 Lions top ball-carrier ranks just 33rd in the league.

The combined record of the 10 top-rated passers in the NFL is a robust 71-34; the top 10 receivers is 60-43. Running backs? The teams of the top 10 rushers are a middling 52-50. Even more alarming is the record of the five top-paid running backs in the league: 17-33.

So was it wise for the Vikings to lock up Peterson to a long-term deal for so much money, when it really guarantees them nothing as far as wins and losses go? There is certainly no question they are a better team when Peterson is on the field, but many in Vikings-land have become frustrated that Peterson tends to leave the game on third down and that the organization hasn't done a better job of utilizing him as a safety-valve option over the years. 

Heading into this weekend's games, the Bears' Matt Forte and Peterson have the exact same number of carries, with Forte having gained just over 50 more yards. The comparison ends there however, as Peterson's 16 catches for 125 yards pales next to Forte's 46 receptions and 465 yards.

Another question with regards to Peterson will be durability. He's been an absolute beast for four-and-a-half seasons, always fighting for extra yards and often taking on hits when he shouldn't (many that led to fumbles during his first three years). Peterson is an incredible physical specimen, so it wouldn't surprise anyone if he kept up his productive pace for 10 years, but history shows that runners with his bruising style don't tend to last that long.

Is it insane for the Vikings to entertain the thought of trading Peterson? In the short-term it sure seems like it, but taking a wider perspective of what has worked in the NFL and especially what is working now, it might not be crazy at all.

Vikings fans don't like to be reminded of the infamous Herschel Walker trade of 1989 when the Vikings acquired the "franchise" running back for players and draft picks that ended up including Emmitt Smith, Alvin Harper, Dixon Edwards and Darren Woodson and helped stock a Cowboys team that won three Super Bowls.

It might be time for the Vikings to flip the script.