If I seem contradictory in my explanation of this one, that's a reflection of my thought process. I've gone back and forth on this one, trying to decide whether or not Adrian Peterson is a good play against the Chicago Bears. I've landed on yes, but only if you're willing to inherit an unattractive floor.

Let's start with the bad. Peterson's metrics have not been kind this year, and that's being generous. He is currently 28th in the league in Rushing NEP per carry out of 42 running backs with at least 50 carries. That's not something I generally want to expose myself to at Peterson's price.

Even worse, though, is that Peterson is 34th among that group in Rushing Success Rate. Only 35.8 percent of his carries this year have resulted in positive NEP. Basically, he's dependent on the home run to provide any form of production. Why would you want exposure to that? It turns out, kiddos, that the Bears are truly bad at rush defense and could very well allow multiple long scampers on Sunday.

While they're not quite as bad as the Browns, the Bears' defense does sit 31st in Adjusted Defensive Rushing NEP per play. They are also 31st against the pass, but the Vikings' offense is 23rd in Adjusted Passing NEP per play. You should probably have exposure to FantasyData.com. That doesn't sound like the source of great optimism. However, this lack of points is explainable.

First, the team has only faced three top-tier backs this year. Eddie Lacy (rest in peace) rushed 19 times for 85 yards and a touchdown. Marshawn Lynch was hurt, so Thomas Rawls busted out for 16 carries and 104 yards. Jamaal Charles was cooking with 12 carries for 58 yards, but then he went down with a torn ACL. When quality backs have been given an opportunity, they have largely taken advantage.

That's why I value numberFire's metrics over fantasy points allowed by position. I may have overlooked this matchup if I just looked at the points allowed. It's possible that this could all back-fire and make me look really stupid, but that's okay. While there is some serious admitted risk, the upside is considerable enough where having ownership in Peterson is most definitely warranted.