LOL, seriously? You do realize McFadden didn't play half a season and Peterson 3/4th of one?
Williams played a healthy 16 games in 2011 - 35% of teams rushing yards
McFadden played in 7 games in 2011 - 29% of teams rushing yards
Peterson played in 12 games in 2011 - 42% of the teams rushing yards
McFadden almost generated the same amout of production for his team in half the games on the ground.
McFadden is on his rookie deal....they will not give him a new deal like Williams got and expect 2011 Williams type production. You pay guys Williams type money to BE the workhorse on a team. Come on man. If you pay a RB like Williams they are expected to account for most of your production on the ground.....both those RBs you named were expected to do such and injury is the only reason why they didn't.
That wasn't the point, the issue was whether there were other backs who cost more who didn't produce aany more than Williams did.
You could make the point though that both McFadden and Peterson are coming off injuries which usually take time to heal. Would you be paying Peterson 14 million after cooming off ACL surgery.
As for McFadden he is still signed through 2012 and 2013. So he will making big bucks for an uncertain future.
You pay guys like Williams to be productive. He is at the top of the league with 5.4 yards a carry and 8.2 yards a reception. Are there guys cheaper who are more productive, yes. Could we have gone a different direction, yes.
But again why are we beating the same dead horse a year after the deal??
The point was that we could Stewart if we want to. I showed you how we could. You think it iss a bad idea, I think it no worse an iidea next year tehn it was last year or will be this year. Lets stick to Stewart and stop the endless Williams debate. You obviously aren't going to change your mind so what is the point??