Cordarrelle Patterson

[Mothman]

I get the feeling Musgrave's offense is easier to comprehend as well ...



Do you dumb the entire offense down because one player can't grasp it? Let's say you just dumb it down on a couple plays for him ... you're telegraphing your intention at that point.

Not necessarily. Teams use personnel sub-packages all the time without telegraphing intent. They could have a package of plays that enable Patterson to get more involved and it wouldn't require dumbing down the offense at all. As long as they didn't use that package of plays too predictably, and still spread the ball around, it wouldn't telegraph intent.

Anyway, I'm mainly responding about the play card photos. I know you may have been joking but since a lot of people really did/do think that smaller play card was an indication that Musgrave's offense was simple, I thought I'd re-post this link:

Tiny play card is big enough for Vikings offensive coordinator

The laminated card has become a punch line and even has a Twitter account dedicated to it. Mostly, Vikings fans want to know why offensive coordinator Bill Musgrave’s play card is so darn small compared to those of other NFL coaches.

“It’s a normal game plan sheet,” he said. “It’s just reduced [in size].”

Musgrave showed a before-and-after look at the play card he uses on the sidelines during games. Musgrave’s game plan is printed on a play card similar in size to what other offensive coordinators use. But he shrinks his card around 50 percent so that he is able to communicate hand signals more conveniently. Even put it in his pocket, if needed.

“At times our offense requires me to do some signals and sometimes those signals require two hands,” he said. “If I was up in the box, [the normal-size card] is what I would use. But on the sideline I just want to have my hands free at times.”

“There’s plenty [of plays],” he said. “There’s probably too many.”

How many in general in a typical game?

“Well, close to 20 runs and close to 60 to 70 passes,” he said.

Musgrave said he actually switched to his regular-sized play card in the second half of the Chicago Bears game this season because rain ruined the laminate on his smaller card.

Musgrave’s card draws so much attention because most coaches have larger cards — some the size of a restaurant menu — that they also use to cover their faces to prevent opponents from lip-reading. Former Vikings coach Brad Childress’ play card inspired its share of parody.

Musgrave stressed that his card holds a normal amount of plays, just written in smaller type. That’s a minor trade-off, he said.

“It would be easier to read,” he joked.

It's not the size of a play card, it's the measure of it's content!

[Cliff]

The play card thing was a little to tongue-in-cheek. I do think Turner's offense is more complicated. The link I posted with the quote from Gregg Jennings - a very experienced and technically sound player - was having issues getting it all down.

Sent using tapatalk. Typos should be expected.

[Mothman]

The play card thing was a little to tongue-in-cheek.

I figured as much. I posted that more for the benefit of fans who may actually think that smaller play card was indicative of a a very limited playbook.

I do think Turner's offense is more complicated. The link I posted with the quote from Gregg Jennings - a very experienced and technically sound player - was having issues getting it all down.

As I understand it, it requires receivers to make a lot of route adjustments based on what the defense is doing. That probably increases the possibility of miscommunication between QB and WR because if they read the defense differently, one won't be where the other expects him to be. Since the offense also requires a fair amount of timing and anticipation from the QB, everything needs to coordinate correctly.

[losperros]

I get the feeling Musgrave's offense is easier to comprehend as well ...

Do you dumb the entire offense down because one player can't grasp it? Let's say you just dumb it down on a couple plays for him ... you're telegraphing your intention at that point.

I'd like to see Patterson on the field more ... but because he earned it. It doesn't sound like he has yet. If he comes into camp next season and has corrected that stuff, I expect he'll get significantly more playing time. With so many problems with his game though, it seems unlikely he could fix it all in one offseason. I hope he can though.

Since the Musgrave's valid reasons for shrinking his play card was explained and re-explained years ago, I imagine you're joking or reaching.

Anyway, I don't know, Cliff. Your arguments are valid but I guess we look at this differently. I really don't care how intricate Norv's offense supposedly is, especially since it was definitely telegraphic and had a lot of tells in the formations last year. That's not to mention that it was predictable as well. What's worse, the passing game was oftentimes abysmal. You agree, right?

Both Patterson and Johnson have demonstrated talent and the ability to make big plays. Patterson even reminded us of that with his kickoff returns just last season. Say what you want, my friend, but the team's passing game needed more horsepower. The Vikings coaches knew it. The team's opponents knew it. So I just can't understand why Patterson and Johnson weren't utilized more. Getting potential playmakers on the field is not dumbing down an offense, at least not to me.

Neither Patterson nor Johnson have to start. But drawing up some plays for them shouldn't be a big issue for an offensive coordinator getting paid what Norv does. That's his job! That's why I bring up Musgrave. The guy found a way to get the same Cordarrelle Patterson involved in the offense - and it worked big time. That was Musgrave's job. And he did it by giving CP some touches.

As I've posted before, it's no skin off my nose what the Vikings do with Patterson. They can play or bench the guy. I hope they at least retain him as a returner because he's the best in the business at that. If they want to trade or cut Patterson, then so be it. But as a fan, I don't want to see another anemic passing game from the Vikings next year. And I expect more big play potential than what they're getting from just Adrian Peterson, who will not be able to keep carrying the offense on his back. Father Time will make certain of that.

My bottom line, Cliff, is if Patterson is talented (and he is) and he's explosive with the ball in his hands (and he is), then get him involved in an offense that needs skill players who can do those things. Unless Bridgewater can suddenly complete 50-70 yard passes downfield with consistency, then the Vikings will need catch and run help from their WRs. Patterson and Johnson have proven they can do that. I think Patterson does it better than any other skill player on the team.

This might be my last post on in this thread because I'm just repeating myself. Sorry about that, Cliff, but I do feel strongly about what I saw from the Vikings passing game last season.

[Mothman]

The quote Cliff quoted earlier got me thinking about this subject more. The situation sure frustrates me…

The aforementioned quote is from October 2014, 6 games into the season, during a period when Patterson was playing with a hip injury. Zimmer commented about Patterson's route-running and commented about the need for him to get open.

AnNFL.com article in which that quote appeared also pointed out:

Through six games, Patterson has just 17 catches for 204 yards and zero touchdowns. He had three rushes for 102 yards and a touchdown in theseason opener, but has carried the ball just two times -- total -- in the five games that followed.

It went on to say:

We don't doubt Zimmer's assessment that Patterson must improve as a route-runner -- that part of his game was a question mark before the season started. But the Vikings have also fallen short in finding creative ways to get Patterson the ball while he learns the nuances of being a wide receiver at this level.

That last line is the bottom line for me and it still holds true. All of the above was 27 games ago so my question remains: what have the Vikings done about this since then?

I think it's a given that a player has a responsibility to work hard and commit to developing his game. That said, when the organization drafts a player based on natural playmaking ability, not skill, and it's clear that player will need significant development for the draft investment to pay off, I also think there's a responsibility for the coaching staff to see that through, to cultivate that talent and help the player develop and refine the skills he lacked when drafted. I can't help wondering if that's happening with Patterson. It doesn't seem like it. He's been relegated to the bottom of the depth chart, which likely means he gets fewer reps and almost certainly means he gets few, if any, reps with the starters. He's all but disappeared from the offense. He can't learn the nuances of the WR position from a playbook alone. That requires practice and repetition and I question whether he's getting enough of that.

This coaching staff was willing to put Clemmings on the field all season and let him take his lumps after making mistake after mistake. There are other examples of this willingness to let a young player learn on the field too so where's the commitment to developing Patterson?

His 2014 production, in limited time (he started 7 games, played injured for part of the season, and his role was greatly reduced over the last 7 games of that year), suggests he could produce at or above the level Wallace actually had for the Vikes in 2015 yet one was relegated to the bottom of the depth chart while the other was a very well-paid starter who never relinquished that job.

Again, I wish we had more information. It seems to me there's a potential double standard at work but without knowing more, it's impossible to say…

[mondry]

That last line is the bottom line for me and it still holds true. All of the above was 27 games ago so my question remains: what have the Vikings done about this since then?

I think it's a given that a player has a responsibility to work hard and commit to developing his game. That said, when the organization drafts a player based on natural playmaking ability, not skill, and it's clear that player will need significant development for the draft investment to pay off, I also think there's a responsibility for the coaching staff to see that through, to cultivate that talent and help the player develop and refine the skills he lacked when drafted. I can't help wondering if that's happening with Patterson. It doesn't seem like it. He's been relegated to the bottom of the depth chart, which likely means he gets fewer reps and almost certainly means he gets few, if any, reps with the starters. He's all but disappeared from the offense. He can't learn the nuances of the WR position from a playbook alone. That requires practice and repetition and I question whether he's getting enough of that.

This coaching staff was willing to put Clemmings on the field all season and let him take his lumps after making mistake after mistake. There are other examples of this willingness to let a young player learn on the field too so where's the commitment to developing Patterson?

His 2014 production, in limited time (he started 7 games, played injured for part of the season, and his role was greatly reduced over the last 7 games of that year), suggests he could produce at or above the level Wallace actually had for the Vikes in 2015 yet one was relegated to the bottom of the depth chart while the other was a very well-paid starter who never relinquished that job.

Again, I wish we had more information. It seems to me there's a potential double standard at work but without knowing more, it's impossible to say…

yeah, i think this kind of thing can happen when a new coaching staff inherits that kind of player.

[Mothman]

yeah, i think this kind of thing can happen when a new coaching staff inherits that kind of player.

I do too. I get the impression, they inherited him, gave him a brief shot and decided to wash their hands of this particular project and move on.

[Cliff]

I do too. I get the impression, they inherited him, gave him a brief shot and decided to wash their hands of this particular project and move on.

I'm still not 100% it doesn't have to do with Zimmer's coaching style. Whoever gets the job done better gets to start. No special treatment (or at least make it seem that way).

They're definitely making it clear they're not particularly interested in a 'specialty' offensive weapon that can't fit in with the offense other than in a limited capacity. I'm still not sure how you put Patterson in, if he can't play WR properly, and not telegraph what you're doing. Who's expendable enough on offense to put in Patterson, a player who is basically just taking up space, until you call a play specifically for him?

I don't think the idea was to wash their hands of him or that they necessarily have given up on him that easily. Until he improves as a receiver the coaches don't think his pros outweigh his cons. At least not for the system he's in.

Patterson has admitted to not working as hard as he should have in his rookie year. Are the coaches to blame if he came into the NFL already raw, then didn't work as hard enough coming in as a rookie?

Reputation for not working hard enough (by his own account) and can't do his job properly on the field ... that just doesn't sound like a starter on a Zimmer-led team.

[Mothman]

I'm still not 100% it doesn't have to do with Zimmer's coaching style. Whoever gets the job done better gets to start. No special treatment (or at least make it seem that way).

That may be the case but I'm not sure that's always the best approach. I also have to say if Clemmings was truly better in practice every week than the backup linemen on the team, that's really scary!

They're definitely making it clear they're not particularly interested in a 'specialty' offensive weapon that can't fit in with the offense other than in a limited capacity. I'm still not sure how you put Patterson in, if he can't play WR properly, and not telegraph what you're doing. Who's expendable enough on offense to put in Patterson, a player who is basically just taking up space, until you call a play specifically for him?

I think his supposed incompetence tends to get exaggerated. He's made mistakes but we've seen him do the things a WR needs to do; run good routes, catch with his hands, shield the defender with his body, draw coverage, block, score, etc. He wouldn't simply be taking up space. He's already shown he can do considerably more than that, even under this coaching staff.

Matt Vensel alluded to a lack of attention to detail in Patterson's game in an article on the Strib site today. Another possible piece of the possible...

I don't think the idea was to wash their hands of him or that they necessarily have given up on him that easily. Until he improves as a receiver the coaches don't think his pros outweigh his cons. At least not for the system he's in.

Clearly but that doesn't mean they're making the right call and as I said above, I'd like to know what they're doing about it instead of just getting comments like "it's up to him". Are they doing enough when he's with the team to help him improve as a receiver?

Patterson has admitted to not working as hard as he should have in his rookie year. Are the coaches to blame if he came into the NFL already raw, then didn't work as hard enough coming in as a rookie?

No, but they didn't actually have him as a rookie and he made that comment before playing a down for the current coaching staff. The whole point of the remark was to express the change in his mindset and since then, Zimmer has actually stated that he's been happy with Patterson's work mentality.

Reputation for not working hard enough (by his own account) and can't do his job properly on the field ... that just doesn't sound like a starter on a Zimmer-led team.

He doesn't have to be a starter.

I realize this is never going to be settled but I think the coaches clearly have some culpability here. The only time I've seen anything close to a determined effort from this coaching staff to make the most of Patterson's talent was in the first game he played for them. I don't have a hard time imagining Zimmer being obstinate (it seems pretty obvious he can be hard-headed about things) and Turner has a reputation for both stubbornness and predictability. I'm just not willing to give them a pass on this issue. If Patterson has literally made so little progress in 2 years under this staff that he's not even worth putting on the field (on offense) then that's on their shoulders as well as his but it's hard to believe that's the case because it doesn't jive with what he's shown when he's played.

It took about 6 games for the coaching staff to go from praising Patterson's abilities and talking about how much they were asking him to do, how well he was handling it, etc. to him basically disappearing from the offense. The press hasn't covered this much at all considering that we're talking about a former first round pick who showed enough during his rookie season to be considered a future star. Something just doesn't add up. The absence of detail and interest from the media on this subject seems odd to me.

After the first game of 2014, when Patterson exploded for over 100 yards and helped the Vikes to the first win of the Zimmer era, Zimmer said:

"We always want to get our playmakers the football. So however we can do that -- by throwing it, catching it, handing it -- it doesn't matter," coach Mike Zimmer said. "Our offensive coaches and Norv Turner do an awesome job of understanding where to go and when to take the shots."

I'd sure like to know where that mentality went.

[losperros]

After the first game of 2014, when Patterson exploded for over 100 yards and helped the Vikes to the first win of the Zimmer era, Zimmer said:
I'd sure like to know where that mentality went.

So would I.

[Mothman]

This is from November 4th:

http://www.twincities.com/2015/11/04/vi ... ut-future/

Vikings coach Mike Zimmer agreed Patterson’s attitude has been good.

“He comes out there and works hard every day, and he’s trying to get better and trying to do things right,” he said.

It really doesn't seem like Patterson's work ethic is a problem.

[jackal]

http://i.imgur.com/SpnX1is.jpg

To be fair Mike McCarthy's is a denny's menu not a cheat sheet for playcalling

[mondry]

I do too. I get the impression, they inherited him, gave him a brief shot and decided to wash their hands of this particular project and move on.

Agreed, for me it's not even that he doesn't see the field so much as we've heard nothing about any "extra" steps being taken to work with Patterson. It's always just a "he has to figure it out, if he can't he'll be a kick returner".

[dead_poet]

Agreed, for me it's not even that he doesn't see the field so much as we've heard nothing about any "extra" steps being taken to work with Patterson. It's always just a "he has to figure it out, if he can't he'll be a kick returner".

Extra steps like setting up a meeting/offseason workout (plan?) with a HoF wide receiver known for his route-running? Let's also not forget Patterson isn't a rookie anymore. He has had the benefit of three years NFL experience with some of the league's best (YMMV there). It would be pretty surprising if he wasn't getting decent practice reps even with the second team. Isn't that where Diggs was early in the season? It's not out of the realm of possibility that Patterson just hasn't developed as quickly as they had hoped and, absent a minority of plays, his standard wide receiver skills (precision, depth, beating press, etc.) are simply below others on the roster. In a strange way that might be more of a compliment to the 2015 receiver corps than a knock on Patterson. I mean, if we were starting Bobby Wade-type players again I'm pretty sure Patterson would be starting. Right?

[Mothman]

Extra steps like setting up a meeting/offseason workout (plan?) with a HoF wide receiver known for his route-running?

Which could have consisted of anything from a day or two to weeks. We know next to nothing about it. I've asked many times before, if that kind of guidance was considered truly important, why wasn't there another effort to provide it? They could have set something else up or brought in a receiver during the summer to work with him.

Let's also not forget Patterson isn't a rookie anymore. He has had the benefit of three years NFL experience with some of the league's best (YMMV there).

I don't know about the leagues' best but either way, we've barely had any chance at all to see if it's made a difference.

It would be pretty surprising if he wasn't getting decent practice reps even with the second team. Isn't that where Diggs was early in the season?

Yes, but with 6 receivers on the team and Patterson apparently relegated to the last of those spots, I don't think it would be surprising to find that his reps were somewhat limited.

It's not out of the realm of possibility that Patterson just hasn't developed as quickly as they had hoped and, absent a minority of plays, his standard wide receiver skills (precision, depth, beating press, etc.) are simply below others on the roster. In a strange way that might be more of a compliment to the 2015 receiver corps than a knock on Patterson. I mean, if we were starting Bobby Wade-type players again I'm pretty sure Patterson would be starting. Right?

Who knows? As I said above, it doesn't add up. What you said above is certainly within the realm of possibility but they started 2014 determined to get the ball to him and after 7 games, he stopped being worth the effort for the next 27, even on a team with a passing game that clearly struggled? That seems unusual, to say the least.