Cordarrelle Patterson

[mondry]

heh, nice discussion you two... don't think it went anywhere but ah well

[Mothman]

heh, nice discussion you two... don't think it went anywhere but ah well

Thanks. We gave it a good effort.

I don't think anybody's mind changed but I hope we at least managed to get a better understanding of the other's views. I feel that way anyway...

[fiestavike]

Thanks. We gave it a good effort.

I don't think anybody's mind changed but I hope we at least managed to get a better understanding of the other's views. I feel that way anyway...

I think so!
Much better than our last go round!

I had an interesting thought about this whole issue. I'm not sure its worth anything but I'll just toss it out there to see what you think. I wonder if your big picture view and my process view are just naturally suited to different roles. For example, in my opinion coaches don't have the luxury of taking such a big picture view, because its too broad and amorphous to communicate and build on. It winds up creating a big cluster when you try to bring a consistent philosophy to your position coaches and your roster of players. Meanwhile, a GM probably HAS to take that more big picture approach. One is primarily a teaching role, and the other is primarily an analytical role. Do you see any validity in this?

In re-reading our discussion, the one thing that stands out as frustrating at this point is that the priorities/desired goals you put forward in response to my emphasis on process are valid and shared by all: score more points, win more games, develop players, develop a goal/plan, etc. but I'm not certain I've identified what you see as the vehicle for achieving these results.

I guess I take all these things as a given so they don't seem profound or even distinct from what I'm putting forward. I'm just very focused on the vehicle--which I don't view as being in opposition to your goals, but as belonging to a different category or type all together, if that makes sense. Generally, I'm guessing you would advocate a combination of bringing in good talent, using a variety of teaching methods, tending to put player with the most athletic potential on the field (all things being equal), asking players to live up to a standard (all things being equal), implementing more creative play calling. Certainly, I'm in favor of all those things too (all things being equal). PerhapsI just view these things in the form of a hierarchy, and you view them as equal parts of a whole on a on a single plain? If so, it brings me back to the idea that these perspectives lend themselves well to different roles.

[dead_poet]

Zulgad: Patterson’s plan sounds good but right now it means little

http://bit.ly/24mORum

[Mothman]

I think so!
Much better than our last go round!

I had an interesting thought about this whole issue. I'm not sure its worth anything but I'll just toss it out there to see what you think. I wonder if your big picture view and my process view are just naturally suited to different roles. For example, in my opinion coaches don't have the luxury of taking such a big picture view, because its too broad and amorphous to communicate and build on. It winds up creating a big cluster when you try to bring a consistent philosophy to your position coaches and your roster of players. Meanwhile, a GM probably HAS to take that more big picture approach. One is primarily a teaching role, and the other is primarily an analytical role. Do you see any validity in this?

Sure, I see some validity in it. I'd say a GM has to take a broader view of things than a head coach but I do think a head coach needs to have a big picture view too. I don't quite see how that leads to a big cluster so you might need to elaborate on that.

Perhaps the difference is that I don't see head coach as primarily a teaching role. I see that position as primarily a management role.

In re-reading our discussion, the one thing that stands out as frustrating at this point is that the priorities/desired goals you put forward in response to my emphasis on process are valid and shared by all: score more points, win more games, develop players, develop a goal/plan, etc.but I'm not certain I've identified what you see as the vehicle for achieving these results.

I'd say the vehicle is highly effective management of resources.

I guess I take all these things as a given so they don't seem profound or even distinct from what I'm putting forward.

They're certainly not profound. I think the distinction is simply that I place a greater emphasis on results/production that you do, although that doesn't mean I don't value the importance of a process that builds good habits and develops fundamentals.

I'm just very focused on the vehicle--which I don't view as being in opposition to your goals, but as belonging to a different category or type all together, if that makes sense. Generally, I'm guessing you would advocate a combination of bringing in good talent, using a variety of teaching methods, tending to put player with the most athletic potential on the field (all things being equal), asking players to live up to a standard (all things being equal), implementing more creative play calling. Certainly, I'm in favor of all those things too (all things being equal). PerhapsI just view these things in the form of a hierarchy, and you view them as equal parts of a whole on a on a single plain? If so, it brings me back to the idea that these perspectives lend themselves well to different roles.

I don't know if I view them all as equal but I do seem to view them in a less rigid hierarchy. As I mentioned yesterday, I think flexibility is very important and as I wrote above, I see the role of a head coach as primarily managerial so I don't think a broader view lends itself to a different role. To me, it's essential to the head coach position.

I'm not sure how to explain my perspective further. Since Patterson is the subject of this thread and discussing him led us to this point, I'll use him as an example.

Let's say that:

A.) Patterson doesn't have the full grasp of the offense the coaches want him to possess. He's not meeting that standard but his attitude and effort are fine.

B.) There are some plays he fully grasps and some routes and plays he runs effectively (this seems to be the case, as far as I can tell).

If I understand your view of all this correctly, putting Patterson on the field to run those plays would undermine coaching standards because he doesn't have the thorough grasp of his position required by those standards. Is that correct?

In my view, if that is the standard, it's overly rigid. I think the standard should be that players need to understand and correctly execute the plays they're asked to run. Ideally, everybody would have a complete grasp of their position but achieving that may take more time for some players than others. I see no point in not utilizing a player's skills while he's still trying to fully grasp the offense, especially if that player has playmaking ability that could help the team win now. I also don't think using a player like that sends the wrong message. If he knows what he's doing on the plays he's actually in the game, he's meeting the standard. The teaching and learning process continues. It's not a reckless pursuit of short term results that undermines the process of development (for the player or the team). To me, it's simply smart management.

[Mothman]

Zulgad: Patterson’s plan sounds good but right now it means little

http://bit.ly/24mORum

Thanks for the link, even if the article just left me more frustrated.

From Zulgad:

Patterson spent this past season as a kickoff return man who had no role in the offense. His two receptions, an embarrassing figure, were the fewest among Vikings players who caught passes in 2015.

It's less embarrassing when you understand those were the only two times he was targeted with passes. He went 2/2. He can't catch them if he's not given the opportunity to catch them which leads me to this comment from Zulgad:

Patterson has millions of reasons to invest time and effort into finally making himself into a productive NFL receiver.

He can't "make himself" into a productive NFL receiver. It doesn't work that way. The coaching staff has a responsibility to help the players learn and be productive but even if he's getting (or gets) the coaching he needs, he still can't be productive without opportunities to be productive. I know that gets back to the now-tedious argument about whether he deserves to be on the field or not...

He caught the two passes they threw to him. That seems like a start. Maybe if they'd thrown him 10 more he would have had 8-10 more catches? Maybe not but there's no production without opportunity.

If Patterson's 2 catches all season are embarrassing even though he was rarely on the field on offense, how do we describe the 12 passes the $10 million man caught over the last 8 games of the season?

In the end, Zulgad gave us another article with vague allusions about how Patterson "doesn't get it" and needs to change without telling us what he doesn't get and what, specifically, needs to change.

[dead_poet]

Here's a thought I had that might be relevant to the conversation. The Patriots and their structure/coaching are considered to be the premiere or best example of coaching in the league. In 2013 they selected WR Aaron Dobson with the 59th overall pick. After catching 37 balls his rookie year he has 16 receptions since. Some of this has to do with injury but the majority has to do with his performance (or lack thereof) and he's been a healthy scratch in many games in 2014-2015 due to what Belichick said were "football reasons." If the Patriots and Belichick are seen as one of the standards in coaching and talent management (as it relates to on-field performance and wins) and Dobson -- either due to attitude or lack of performance -- can't get/stay on the field, it may be more to do with Dobson than it is with the coaching staff and coaching philosophy being too rigid. It's no secret how Brady insists on precision from his receivers and if you do something wrong (late to team meeting, have a fumble, etc.) you're benched in that organization. Is that being overly rigid or creating a culture of excellence and accountability?

I suppose it still boils down to me as personal responsibility and meeting expectations. I can't believe that Patterson has been doing things in an acceptable manner (on par or better than his receiver peers) and the coaching staff decided to demote him anyway. As I've mentioned before, some players just aren't cut out for full-time offensive roles as their talent just isn't there to excel. The Bears tried making Hester a wide receiver (he was a WR originally at the University of Miami) but ultimately he's been largely unsuccessful in that role on multiple teams and relegated to the bottom of depth charts. Patterson wouldn't be the first relatively inexperienced receiver (or any receiver, really) to flame out and make his career in the return game. Josh Cribbs and Billy "White Shoes" Johnson are other examples. Ted Ginn may have been another but he had a bit more of an offensive role this year on the Panthers (more due to lack of other options, which sounds familiar).

Ultimately I want Patterson to succeed (with the Vikings, preferably), but there's no guarantee he'll ever be more than a very good special teamer (on any team) due less to a coaching staff not coaching him in the right way and more to his own receiving deficiencies. YMMV. Hopefully he gets another chance to compete for a starting role on offense. I still want him starting on base 2-WR sets opposite Diggs. That just feels like a fun, talent-infused combination. But ultimately I only want that to happen if he's earned that opportunity by beating out others. The fact that Diggs was able to get into the lineup (and stay there even when CJ regained full health), to me, means the Vikings coaching staff is flexible and willing to putting who they feel are the best players out on the field.

[fiestavike]

In the end, Zulgad gave us another article with vague allusions about how Patterson "doesn't get it" and needs to change without telling us what he doesn't get and what, specifically, needs to change.

I really dislike Zulgad, but I'll defend him here with a proposition. So far PA and Mike Morris have spilled the beans from the "off the record" media film sessions that the media was shown a lot of footage of Patterson completely blowing it. Perhaps Judd is communicating what was clearly communicated to the entire Twin Cities press without reporting info given to him off the record...or perhaps (likely) its just lousy reporting.

[fiestavike]

Here's a thought I had that might be relevant to the conversation. The Patriots and their structure/coaching are considered to be the premiere or best example of coaching in the league. In 2013 they selected WR Aaron Dobson with the 59th overall pick. After catching 37 balls his rookie year he has 16 receptions since. Some of this has to do with injury but the majority has to do with his performance (or lack thereof) and he's been a healthy scratch in many games in 2014-2015 due to what Belichick said were "football reasons." If the Patriots and Belichick are seen as one of the standards in coaching and talent management (as it relates to on-field performance and wins) and Dobson -- either due to attitude or lack of performance -- can't get/stay on the field, it may be more to do with Dobson than it is with the coaching staff and coaching philosophy being too rigid. It's no secret how Brady insists on precision from his receivers and if you do something wrong (late to team meeting, have a fumble, etc.) you're benched in that organization. Is that being overly rigid or creating a culture of excellence and accountability?

I suppose it still boils down to me as personal responsibility and meeting expectations. I can't believe that Patterson has been doing things in an acceptable manner (on par or better than his receiver peers) and the coaching staff decided to demote him anyway. As I've mentioned before, some players just aren't cut out for full-time offensive roles as their talent just isn't there to excel. The Bears tried making Hester a wide receiver (he was a WR originally at the University of Miami) but ultimately he's been largely unsuccessful in that role on multiple teams and relegated to the bottom of depth charts. Patterson wouldn't be the first relatively inexperienced receiver (or any receiver, really) to flame out and make his career in the return game. Josh Cribbs and Billy "White Shoes" Johnson are other examples. Todd Ginn may have been another but he had a bit more of an offensive role this year on the Panthers (more due to lack of other options, which sounds familiar).

Ultimately I want Patterson to succeed (with the Vikings, preferably), but there's no guarantee he'll ever be more than a very good special teamer (on any team) due less to a coaching staff not coaching him in the right way and more to his own receiving deficiencies. YMMV. Hopefully he gets another chance to compete for a starting role on offense. I still want him starting on base 2-WR sets opposite Diggs. That just feels like a fun, talent-infused combination. But ultimately I only want that to happen if he's earned that opportunity by beating out others. The fact that Diggs was able to get into the lineup (and stay there even when CJ regained full health), to me, means the Vikings coaching staff is flexible and willing to putting who they feel are the best players out on the field.

And both Belichick and Zimmer are from the Parcells tree, who seemed to take a similar approach. I think that your above comments are pretty much on the money.

[dead_poet]

It's less embarrassing when you understand those were the only two times he was targeted with passes. He went 2/2. He can't catch them if he's not given the opportunity to catch them

He can't "make himself" into a productive NFL receiver. It doesn't work that way. The coaching staff has a responsibility to help the players learn and be productive but even if he's getting (or gets) the coaching he needs, he still can't be productive without opportunities to be productive. I know that gets back to the now-tedious argument about whether he deserves to be on the field or not...

He caught the two passes they threw to him. That seems like a start. Maybe if they'd thrown him 10 more he would have had 8-10 more catches? Maybe not but there's no production without opportunity.

If Patterson's 2 catches all season are embarrassing even though he was rarely on the field on offense, how do we describe the 12 passes the $10 million man caught over the last 8 games of the season?

Here's another thought: there's more to it than Patterson's two receptions and Wallace's 12. How do each receivers look on tape? Can Wallace better beat press coverage? Does he have superior timing and able to get to the right place at the right time but due to Teddy not pulling the trigger and/or an offensive line breakdown was not targeted more at no fault of his own?

Can he "take the top off the defense" in a better, more consistent way? Are Patterson's routes sloppy/rounding them off? Is he tipping the DBs to the route, etc.? There's a lot more to evaluate, and I suspect the coaching staff has a lot more tape to look through on each receiver to make the necessary determinations. It's not a leap to deduce that a veteran with Wallace's skills as a receiver are superior to Patterson's in the areas mentioned above.

[Mothman]

Here's a thought I had that might be relevant to the conversation. The Patriots and their structure/coaching are considered to be the premiere or best example of coaching in the league. In 2013 they selected WR Aaron Dobson with the 59th overall pick. After catching 37 balls his rookie year he has 16 receptions since. Some of this has to do with injury but the majority has to do with his performance (or lack thereof) and he's been a healthy scratch in many games in 2014-2015 due to what Belichick said were "football reasons." If the Patriots and Belichick are seen as one of the standards in coaching and talent management (as it relates to on-field performance and wins) and Dobson -- either due to attitude or lack of performance -- can't get/stay on the field, it may be more to do with Dobson than it is with the coaching staff and coaching philosophy being too rigid. It's no secret how Brady insists on precision from his receivers and if you do something wrong (late to team meeting, have a fumble, etc.) you're benched in that organization. Is that being overly rigid or creating a culture of excellence and accountability?

I suppose it still boils down to me as personal responsibility and meeting expectations. I can't believe that Patterson has been doing things in an acceptable manner (on par or better than his receiver peers) and the coaching staff decided to demote him anyway. As I've mentioned before, some players just aren't cut out for full-time offensive roles as their talent just isn't there to excel.

That's true and I've acknowledged that possibility all along. As I've been saying, the situation is aggravating not just because the talent is going to waste but because we have next to no good information about why.

The Bears tried making Hester a wide receiver (he was a WR originally at the University of Miami) but ultimately he's been largely unsuccessful in that role on multiple teams and relegated to the bottom of depth charts.

Yes, but they actually tried. They didn't just give it a half-hearted 8 or 9 game effort and give up.

Ultimately I want Patterson to succeed (with the Vikings, preferably), but there's no guarantee he'll ever be more than a very good special teamer (on any team) due less to a coaching staff not coaching him in the right way and more to his own receiving deficiencies. YMMV.

There's no guarantee he can't be more than that either. He hasn't had much of an opportunity to make an impact on the offense under this staff and we haven't really had any explanation as to why he only touched the ball 3 times on offense last year. I understand the argument that he may just not be good enough. I've certainly heard it enough but when you look at the pretty low standard of performance and production we saw from the Vikes WRs, it's hard not to wonder just what the heck is going on. I also wonder about the very basic logic at work: if Patterson's so bad he doesn't deserve playing time, why did he get any? Why put him out there and give him the ball 3 times if he doesn't deserve it and since he did nothing wrong on those 3 plays (if I remember correctly, 2 of them went from good gains and first downs), why didn't he then receive more opportunities?

Hopefully he gets another chance to compete for a starting role on offense. I still want him starting on base 2-WR sets opposite Diggs. That just feels like a fun, talent-infused combination. But ultimately I only want that to happen if he's earned that opportunity by beating out others. The fact that Diggs was able to get into the lineup (and stay there even when CJ regained full health), to me, means the Vikings coaching staff is flexible and willing to putting who they feel are the best players out on the field.

Maybe... they seem as desperate and impatient as they do flexible. Patterson got a crack for 8 or 9 games and then he was out. Johnson stepped in, became the "best WR on the team" according to Turner and then after a slow start to 2015 and an injury, he was out. Heck, wasn't his last catch of the season the crucial catch @Chicago that set up the game-winning FG? Why give that guy another chance to shine, eh?

Diggs got off to a quick start and then his production tailed off too. Will he be benched by mid-season of 2016? Meanwhile, Wallace's production was awfully low but he was on the field all year. Maybe that's because they felt his production was due to other factors?

Sorry, it ALL frustrates me and I'm in a bad mood today. This passing offense needs an enema!

[dead_poet]

Yes, but they actually tried. They didn't just give it a half-hearted 8 or 9 game effort and give up.

Did that experiment cost them wins? I don't know what the best decision actually is: continue to play a guy and hope he develops at the potential expense of potentially better players behind him OR play the guys that you feel give you the best chance to win every Sunday? Again, I go back to the Patriots model and I think the answer is pretty obvious who gets to play each week and who is a game day inactive.

There's no guarantee he can't be more than that either. He hasn't had much of an opportunity to make an impact on the offense under this staff and we haven't really had any explanation as to why he only touched the ball 3 times on offense last year. I understand the argument that he may just not be good enough. I've certainly heard it enough but when you look at the pretty low standard of performance and production we saw from the Vikes WRs, it's hard not to wonder just what the heck is going on.

I'm not sure I agree with the low standard of performance. I'm sure if you asked Turner or Zimmer they would say they have pretty high standards. They're not going to put a guy out there on Sunday that cannot meet their standards Tuesday-Friday. Just because they didn't have high production doesn't mean they have low standards. I don't think those two are mutually exclusive.

I also wonder about the very basic logic at work: if Patterson's so bad he doesn't deserve playing time, why did he get any? Why put him out there and give him the ball 3 times if he doesn't deserve it and since he did nothing wrong on those 3 plays (if I remember correctly, 2 of them went from good gains and first downs), why didn't he then receive more opportunities?

Injury-related or perhaps package-specific? I'm not sure. We did see how the Vikings wanted to use McKinnon on the perimeter on a few plays last season due to seeing on film a way to exploit defensive coverage limitations. Maybe that was something similar or simply another wrinkle they felt like they could throw out there that may catch the defense off-guard (like doing a Wildcat formation for a play or an end-around but more matchup or situation specific). Heck, maybe Patterson had a really good week or two leading up to then and they wanted to reward that with playing time. I'm sure there was a reason.

Maybe... they seem as desperate and impatient as they do flexible. Patterson got a crack for 8 or 9 games and then he was out. Johnson stepped in, became the "best WR on the team" according to Turner and then after a slow start to 2015 and an injury, he was out. Heck, wasn't his last catch of the season the crucial catch @Chicago that set up the game-winning FG? Why give that guy another chance to shine, eh?

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't CJ sustain an injury which prompted Diggs into the lineup in the first place and then Diggs had some very good games that essentially made him impossible to go back on the game day inactive list (and they weren't going to exchange CJ for Wallace). It seems to me there were logical reasons for the depth chart changes. For example when CJ was the best WR on the team in 2014, there wasn't Diggs or Wallace on the roster.

Sorry, it ALL frustrates me and I'm in a bad mood today. This passing offense needs an enema!

Sorry you're having a bad day, Jim! I don't think it's a secret that the entire passing game needs to be fixed. Zimmer doesn't strike me as a guy that's easily pleased even when things go well (i.e. last year's defense). I have to imagine he's much more annoyed/pissed than you or I regarding the state of the passing game as a whole. I very much look forward to seeing the changes that are made between now and week 1 because I expect to see some. Beware the Wrath of Zimmer.

[losperros]

Maybe... they seem as desperate and impatient as they do flexible. Patterson got a crack for 8 or 9 games and then he was out. Johnson stepped in, became the "best WR on the team" according to Turner and then after a slow start to 2015 and an injury, he was out. Heck, wasn't his last catch of the season the crucial catch @Chicago that set up the game-winning FG? Why give that guy another chance to shine, eh?

Yes, Johnson did make that crucial catch. It was a great job on his part and a reminder of the kind of things he did for the Vikings during the 2014 season. I would have loved to see some Johnson/Diggs sets on the field, especially since Wallace and Bridgewater often seemed to lose sight of each other once the ball was snapped.

You're right, Turner did call Johnson the "best WR on the team" in 2014 but he also said he was developing new plays for Patterson when he first was hired. He says things.

Diggs got off to a quick start and then his production tailed off too. Will he be benched by mid-season of 2016? Meanwhile, Wallace's production was awfully low but he was on the field all year. Maybe that's because they felt his production was due to other factors?

Sorry, it ALL frustrates me and I'm in a bad mood today. This passing offense needs an enema!

It frustrates me for all the reasons that you've listed. In my view, next season isn't just make or break for Patterson (or Johnson), it's also a telling season for Bridgewater, certain OL players, and just maybe Norv's system.

[Mothman]

Did that experiment cost them wins? I don't know what the best decision actually is: continue to play a guy and hope he develops at the potential expense of potentially better players behind him OR play the guys that you feel give you the best chance to win every Sunday? Again, I go back to the Patriots model and I think the answer is pretty obvious who gets to play each week and who is a game day inactive.
I'm not sure I agree with the low standard of performance. I'm sure if you asked Turner or Zimmer they would say they have pretty high standards. They're not going to put a guy out there on Sunday that cannot meet their standards Tuesday-Friday. Just because they didn't have high production doesn't mean they have low standards. I don't think those two are mutually exclusive.
Injury-related or perhaps package-specific? I'm not sure. We did see how the Vikings wanted to use McKinnon on the perimeter on a few plays last season due to seeing on film a way to exploit defensive coverage limitations. Maybe that was something similar or simply another wrinkle they felt like they could throw out there that may catch the defense off-guard (like doing a Wildcat formation for a play or an end-around but more matchup or situation specific). Heck, maybe Patterson had a really good week or two leading up to then and they wanted to reward that with playing time. I'm sure there was a reason.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't CJ sustain an injury which prompted Diggs into the lineup in the first place and then Diggs had some very good games that essentially made him impossible to go back on the game day inactive list (and they weren't going to exchange CJ for Wallace). It seems to me there were logical reasons for the depth chart changes. For example when CJ was the best WR on the team in 2014, there wasn't Diggs or Wallace on the roster.
Sorry you're having a bad day, Jim! I don't think it's a secret that the entire passing game needs to be fixed. Zimmer doesn't strike me as a guy that's easily pleased even when things go well (i.e. last year's defense). I have to imagine he's much more annoyed/pissed than you or I regarding the state of the passing game as a whole. I very much look forward to seeing the changes that are made between now and week 1 because I expect to see some. Beware the Wrath of Zimmer.

Thanks! I'm sorry I'm having a bad day too. Back pain… it's a drag.

I'm also sorry I let my bad mood affect the tone of my response earlier. Fortunately, the day has improved!

Regarding your post: I don't know if starting Hester cost the Bears wins. He had a solid year or two as a WR (his best would have led the Vikes last year) but never really took to the position in the way they had hoped

The Patriots have been in a pretty different situation than the Vikes so how they handle personnel may differ accordingly. There are certainly some superficial similarities between Dobson's situation and to answer the question you posed earlier, benching a player for poor behavior is not overly rigid. However, I do think benching a player for fumbling or making a mistake could be overkill. It really depends on the situation.

I think the choice between continuing to play someone in an effort to develop his game (even at the expense of potentially better players behind him) OR to play the guys that the coach feels give the team the best chance to win every Sunday is largely situational too. Sometimes, the less reliable but more explosive player might actually give the team the best chance.

The Vikings have shown that they're willing to put those developmental players on the field and live with mistakes. They've done it quite a few times under Zimmer, most notably at QB.

You're right, I should have phrased my comment about "pretty low standard of performance and production from the Vikes WRs" a little differently.

I'm sure you're right that they coaching staff had a reason for putting the ball in Patterson's hands the few times they did last year. Unfortunately, that reason is elusive, as is their reasoning for not doing it more often. It's the primary source of my frustration on this topic.

You're correct that CJ sustained an injury and that led to Diggs getting into the lineup. I actually mentioned that.

As you said, the entire passing game needs to be fixed and You're probably right that he's more annoyed about it than we are. that's one of the reasons I like him. I look forward to seeing what he and the team do to address the problem too.

[Mothman]

Here's another thought: there's more to it than Patterson's two receptions and Wallace's 12. How do each receivers look on tape? Can Wallace better beat press coverage? Does he have superior timing and able to get to the right place at the right time but due to Teddy not pulling the trigger and/or an offensive line breakdown was not targeted more at no fault of his own?

Can he "take the top off the defense" in a better, more consistent way? Are Patterson's routes sloppy/rounding them off? Is he tipping the DBs to the route, etc.? There's a lot more to evaluate, and I suspect the coaching staff has a lot more tape to look through on each receiver to make the necessary determinations. It's not a leap to deduce that a veteran with Wallace's skills as a receiver are superior to Patterson's in the areas mentioned above.

Of course not and I realize everything above is consideration and there are more beyond that. I think I've considered ALL of it at this point, including the many potential reasons he might have been relegated to the bench. if we had any kind of straightforward answers from the team about this stuff, I might not even have a complaint. Unfortunately, we don't...

I really dislike Zulgad, but I'll defend him here with a proposition. So far PA and Mike Morris have spilled the beans from the "off the record" media film sessions that the media was shown a lot of footage of Patterson completely blowing it. Perhaps Judd is communicating what was clearly communicated to the entire Twin Cities press without reporting info given to him off the record...or perhaps (likely) its just lousy reporting.

My money's on the latter but I'm nota Zulgad fan either.

The media film sessions occur once a year, in the spring, so they're basically old news. The most recent one they could possibly be drawing upon was held before camp, the preseason and the regular season. That doesn't mean Judd's not still using that as the basis for his views though...

[Yes, Johnson did make that crucial catch. It was a great job on his part and a reminder of the kind of things he did for the Vikings during the 2014 season. I would have loved to see some Johnson/Diggs sets on the field, especially since Wallace and Bridgewater often seemed to lose sight of each other once the ball was snapped.

You're right, Turner did call Johnson the "best WR on the team" in 2014 but he also said he was developing new plays for Patterson when he first was hired. He says things.

It frustrates me for all the reasons that you've listed. In my view, next season isn't just make or break for Patterson (or Johnson), it's also a telling season for Bridgewater, certain OL players, and just maybe Norv's system.

I couldn't agree more, Craig.