Vikings Message Board.Com

Not to belabor the point but the problem I have with patting the coaching staff on the back for the way they handled Patterson last year is that I think there's a good chance they actually mis-handled him. I think they're culpable in his lack of production. he si too, of course, but I'm not at all convinced he's playing the right position. Turner's offense calls for a big X receiver and I think the role fell to Patterson due to his size but at this stage of his career, he seems mis-cast as a split end. I'm all for teaching him, helping him to develop the skills he needs to shine in the NFL but I really dislike the lack of flexibility Turner showed last year. Patterson may have the combination of size and speed to play the X spot but he was also the Vikings most raw receiver, which arguably made him a poor choice to play the WR position that requires him to be on the line of scrimmage, often against press coverage, and often going deeper downfield. Despite his size, I'd say his skill set fits that of a flanker or slot receiver much better. Regardless of where he plays, I realize he needs to understand the system and execute but I'm not convinced he doesn't understand the system. He definitely needs to work harder to get open, needs to stick with routes and play smarter. Every player has to do what's required of him in the offense but it sure seems to me that they shoehorned him into the WR spot he was least suited to play and then benched him when he (almost inevitably) struggled. That strikes me as mis-management of a potentially valuable resource.

Once the 2013 Vikes felt Patterson was ready to play a bigger role in their offense, they used used him very effectively and got 344 yards and 5 TDs out of the him in the last 4 games of the 2013 season alone. That kind of production probably wasn't sustainable but last year, the Vikes got 157 more yards and 3 fewer TDs out of Patterson over the course of an entire 16 game season. Again, to me that indicates mismanagement of a talented player.

I thought Turner was stubborn and slow to adjust last season. He eventually made some adjustments later in the season that seemed to help Bridgewater and the receivers. Of course, by then, Patterson had effectively been benched so he didn't benefit from it.

Mothman wrote:Not to belabor the point but the problem I have with patting the coaching staff on the back for the way they handled Patterson last year is that I think there's a good chance they actually mis-handled him. I think they're culpable in his lack of production. he si too, of course, but I'm not at all convinced he's playing the right position. Turner's offense calls for a big X receiver and I think the role fell to Patterson due to his size but at this stage of his career, he seems mis-cast as a split end. I'm all for teaching him, helping him to develop the skills he needs to shine in the NFL but I really dislike the lack of flexibility Turner showed last year. Patterson may have the combination of size and speed to play the X spot but he was also the Vikings most raw receiver, which arguably made him a poor choice to play the WR position that requires him to be on the line of scrimmage, often against press coverage, and often going deeper downfield. Despite his size, I'd say his skill set fits that of a flanker or slot receiver much better. Regardless of where he plays, I realize he needs to understand the system and execute but I'm not convinced he doesn't understand the system. He definitely needs to work harder to get open, needs to stick with routes and play smarter. Every player has to do what's required of him in the offense but it sure seems to me that they shoehorned him into the WR spot he was least suited to play and then benched him when he (almost inevitably) struggled. That strikes me as mis-management of a potentially valuable resource.

I don't think he is currently qualified to play any standard position in an NFL offense. He is a gadget player at this point in his career and if that's all he will ever be, the Vikings would be well advised to part ways with him.

Once the 2013 Vikes felt Patterson was ready to play a bigger role in their offense, they used used him very effectively and got 344 yards and 5 TDs out of the him in the last 4 games of the 2013 season alone. That kind of production probably wasn't sustainable but last year, the Vikes got 157 more yards and 3 fewer TDs out of Patterson over the course of an entire 16 game season. Again, to me that indicates mismanagement of a talented player.

And what good was that to the Vikings long term? If Patterson is going to fulfill his incredible potential, he has to learn to operate within the larger offense. I think the idea of measuring the wisdom of personnel and playing time decisions by the short term statistical return is misguided. It seems very un Jim like

I thought Turner was stubborn and slow to adjust last season. He eventually made some adjustments later in the season that seemed to help Bridgewater and the receivers. Of course, by then, Patterson had effectively been benched so he didn't benefit from it.

[/quote]

We don't know how much leeway turner and the staff gave Patterson before they pulled the plug on his season. Again, it also seems short sighted to say that he was benched and therefore didn't benefit from it. The existence of the standard they held him to, and the fact that they held him to it, could prove to be VERY beneficial. It may have served as the wake up call he needed. It is also very beneficial to the rest of your football team. If you are just going to trot the most talented guys out there each and every week you are really undermining the value and responsibility of coaching.

To me it seems evident that whatever short term return they might get from Patterson scoring 3 more touchdowns and piling up a couple hundred more yards is much less valuable than teaching him what routes to run, how to run them, and how to be a consistent professional.

I'm feel like your view on this is not as holistic as your takes generally are and is myopically focused on immediate production.

"COME ONE MAN!"

fiestavike wrote:I don't think he is currently qualified to play any standard position in an NFL offense. He is a gadget player at this point in his career and if that's all he will ever be, the Vikings would be well advised to part ways with him.

It's way too soon to determine if that's all he'll ever be and I'm not convinced it's even true now.

And what good was that to the Vikings long term? If Patterson is going to fulfill his incredible potential, he has to learn to operate within the larger offense.

You keep saying that as if I'm suggesting otherwise and I'm not.

I think the idea of measuring the wisdom of personnel and playing time decisions by the short term statistical return is misguided. It seems very un Jim like

It's not what I'm doing. I'm pointing to evidence of Patterson's playmaking ability, the same kind of evidence that presumably led the Vikings to trade up and draft him even though they knew he would be a project. It's the same kind of evidence I assume led Turner to immediately start working on plays for Patterson and that led the Vikings to start him last year. They were clearly excited about the possibilities his natural ability could afford them and i doubt it's a stretch to say that's due at least in part to the way he finished the 2013 season. To me, shoehorning that kind of talent into a role that fit the player poorly and then benching him is a classic example of putting the system before the talent and failing to adapt.

We don't know how much leeway turner and the staff gave Patterson before they pulled the plug on his season. Again, it also seems short sighted to say that he was benched and therefore didn't benefit from it.

I didn't say Patterson didn't benefit from being benched. I said Patterson didn't benefit from the adjustments Turner made to the offense later in the season because Patterson was on the bench.

To me it seems evident that whatever short term return they might get from Patterson scoring 3 more touchdowns and piling up a couple hundred more yards is much less valuable than teaching him what routes to run, how to run them, and how to be a consistent professional.

I don't understand why people keep implying that those options are mutually exclusive. Is it impossible to teach Patterson how to run better routes and be a consistent professional if he's not lined up at the x position? Is there some reason plays designed to get him the ball near the line of scrimmage or in open space can't be incorporated into the playcalling along with the deeper routes they want him to run? They certainly ran those kinds of plays last year and Wright benefitted from them greatly at times so they're in the playbook.

I'm feel like your view on this is not as holistic as your takes generally are and is myopically focused on immediate production.

What's myopic about my position? I just see no reason they can't get more immediate production out of him and develop his skills. To me, it's far more myopic to say Patterson has the size of an x receiver so he has to be an x receiver and if he struggles with that one role, he should simply be benched. The team knowingly made an investment in a raw player and when a team makes that sort of investment, I think it should be done with the understanding that a skill set will need to be developed and that's going to take time. Meanwhile, there's no reason that player's natural playmaking ability, the very reason he was drafted in the first place, needs to be squandered. If anything, the emergence of Johnson at the x position should give the Vikings the option of moving Patterson to flanker or into the slot and getting him off the line. He might benefit tremendously from that and it could create some more favorable matchups.

Mothman wrote: It's way too soon to determine if that's all he'll ever be and I'm not convinced it's even true now.

I agree. I didn't mean to imply that is all he will ever be, just that hypothetically if that is all he will ever be, his value is low.

You keep saying that as if I'm suggesting otherwise and I'm not.

Ok, so we agree on that much!

It's not what I'm doing. I'm pointing to evidence of Patterson's playmaking ability, the same kind of evidence that presumably led the Vikings to trade up and draft him even though they knew he would be a project. It's the same kind of evidence I assume led Turner to immediately start working on plays for Patterson and that led the Vikings to start him last year. They were clearly excited about the possibilities his natural ability could afford them and i doubt it's a stretch to say that's due at least in part to the way he finished the 2013 season. To me, shoehorning that kind of talent into a role that fit the player poorly and then benching him is a classic example of putting the system before the talent and failing to adapt.

I don't see why recognizing Patterson's playmaking ability and his "project" status means you have to put him on the field as a gimmick player. I think Patterson was drafted for his ceiling as an elite WR, not his floor as an athlete. Therefore, he should be expected to develop into an elite WR. To me its not a matter of shoehorning, its a matter of basic fundamentals, which we both agree the Vikings recognized that he lacked when they drafted him. In other words, there is currently NO system in which he would be an NFL level player despite his talent. I think the desperation of the previous staff led them to put him on the field prematurely to take advantage of him as an athlete. this staff gave him every benefit of the doubt and LONG time of blowing basic responsibilities before pulling him. Probably too long.

I didn't say Patterson didn't benefit from being benched. I said Patterson didn't benefit from the adjustments Turner made to the offense later in the season because Patterson was on the bench.

Ok, but those adjustments might not have been possible with Patterson on the field. we can only speculate.

I don't understand why people keep implying that those options are mutually exclusive. Is it impossible to teach Patterson how to run better routes and be a consistent professional if he's not lined up at the x position? Is there some reason plays designed to get him the ball near the line of scrimmage or in open space can't be incorporated into the playcalling along with the deeper routes they want him to run? They certainly ran those kinds of plays last year and Wright benefitted from them greatly at times so they're in the playbook.

I don't think its mutually exclusive. I think all kind of plays could be incorporated to utilize his play making ability if he is first able to fulfill his basic responsibilities. The evidence suggest that he wasn't, which is why he wasn't on the field. Instead, Wright got those opportunities, and Thielen got those opportunities, because they were capable of fitting within an NFL offense and being where they needed to be. I can't imagine Adam Thielen getting playing time over Patterson for any other reason. I'm not sure why you have so much more faith in a public assessment of a beloved player (greenway) than the ACTIONS of said staff to remove one of their most talented players from the field. It seems obvious that he was not living up to the minimum standard of performance.

What's myopic about my position? I just see no reason they can't get more immediate production out of him and develop his skills. To me, it's far more myopic to say Patterson has the size of an x receiver so he has to be an x receiver and if he struggles with that one role, he should simply be benched. The team knowingly made an investment in a raw player and when a team makes that sort of investment, I think it should be done with the understanding that a skill set will need to be developed and that's going to take time. Meanwhile, there's no reason that player's natural playmaking ability, the very reason he was drafted in the first place, needs to be squandered. If anything, the emergence of Johnson at the x position should give the Vikings the option of moving Patterson to flanker or into the slot and getting him off the line. He might benefit tremendously from that and it could create some more favorable matchups.

I just see no reason they can't get more immediate production out of him and develop his skills

I agree.

To me, it's far more myopic to say Patterson has the size of an x receiver so he has to be an x receiver and if he struggles with that one role, he should simply be benched

Not saying that. Saying he currently doesn't have the skills to play X, Y, Z or any other receiver position. Instead he has the skills to be a gadget player. I hope he will develop into more. He was drafted because of his perceived potential to do so. Certainly his athletic ability has never been in question.

The team knowingly made an investment in a raw player and when a team makes that sort of investment, I think it should be done with the understanding that a skill set will need to be developed and that's going to take time

I agree, but that doesn't necessarily mean he needs to be on the field. Its also not mutually exclusive that he can't develop some baseline of fundamental skills and understanding while he is on the bench. In addition, maintaining that standard is good for him AND the whole football team in the longrun.

I think it should be done with the understanding that a skill set will need to be developed and that's going to take time

I agree. I haven't given up hope on him nor do I believe the coaching staff has.

Meanwhile, there's no reason that player's natural playmaking ability, the very reason he was drafted in the first place, needs to be squandered

Maybe this is where we disagree. I don't think that's why he was drafted. I think he was drafted because of his incredible potential.

If anything, the emergence of Johnson at the x position should give the Vikings the option of moving Patterson to flanker or into the slot and getting him off the line. He might benefit tremendously from that and it could create some more favorable matchups

that could be. I think if he was ready for that they would have used him that way. I'm not sure what has convinced you he would thrive in the slot. Every indication is that he was making mental mistakes on a consistent basis and failing to be where the play was designed for him to be. I'm not sure why playing in the slot would make those mistakes any less likely than playing outside.

fiestavike wrote:I don't see why recognizing Patterson's playmaking ability and his "project" status means you have to put him on the field as a gimmick player.

I didn't say he should be put on the field as a gimmick player.

Regarding the rest: I appreciate your response but some of my comments are clearly being misunderstood (probably my fault) and I don't think the debate is going anywhere anyway. We're too far apart on this.

I'm also wiped out. Sorry...

Mothman wrote:I'm pointing to evidence of Patterson's playmaking ability, the same kind of evidence that presumably led the Vikings to trade up and draft him even though they knew he would be a project. It's the same kind of evidence I assume led Turner to immediately start working on plays for Patterson and that led the Vikings to start him last year. They were clearly excited about the possibilities his natural ability could afford them and i doubt it's a stretch to say that's due at least in part to the way he finished the 2013 season. To me, shoehorning that kind of talent into a role that fit the player poorly and then benching him is a classic example of putting the system before the talent and failing to adapt.

I wholeheartedly agree. It was a system before talent issue and it seems to me that Zimmer has been alluding to that lately, especially where Patterson is concerned.

I'm not convinced the only thing Patterson could have done last year was gimmick plays. I very much respect Turner's history as a coordinator, but that's why I became impatient with him. It's his job to put playmakers on the field and find ways to use them. That's what he gets paid for, and he had a raw but amazing talent to work with in CP.

Sure, Patterson has to do a better job. Thankfully, according to Zimmer, CP apparently is having a good off-season. That said, I'm happy that Zimmer believes that the coaching staff must also do a better job at getting the ball in Patterson's hands. It's a door that swings both ways.

Another weird observation about the Patterson situation last year... I'm re-watching the preseason games, just to see how Teddy progresses, how McKinnon looked, etc. But the odd thing was that Patterson was pretty clearly our #1 receiver. He was the guy targeted for first downs, he seemed to be open reliably, he caught a nice bomb from Cassell, etc. It was the textbook definition of non-sequitur - you could have had no way of guessing the type of season he was going to have from watching him pretty much be everything we would have wanted in the (first three games so far...) preseason..

I dunno. Maybe he's a slot receiver in a X receiver's body.

I honestly thought Patterson was going to go off last year(a lot of experts did too) I drafted him kinda early and
WTH nothing

DK Sweets wrote:Thielen again? C'mon guys...at his best he's not ever going to be more than a role player.

And you know this how? Based on the 20 something snaps he got all season? And even IF that's all he ends up being, so be it. Role players are needed on every team. Thielen may not have been born with the natural ability to be a star NFL player, but I will take a role player with a strong work ethic, attention to detail and a passion for the game any day over raw talent with the inability to grasp the teams schemes. Don't get me wrong, I really want CP to succeed, but the physical aspect of the game will only take you so far, you need the mental aspect to go along with it.

You're right; I don't KNOW anything. But considering how little he saw the field, I would say it's a good indicator that he's not as good as many would like to believe (as in, a potential starter). It's just a little frustrating to me to hear him built up as some kind of secret weapon when that is based off of the preseason - a preseason where he barely outshines Rodney Smith.

This guy was once supposedly better than Jarius Wright. Now he's better than Patterson, too? It just seems like a lot of hope for somebody who has proven so little.

DK Sweets wrote:You're right; I don't KNOW anything. But considering how little he saw the field, I would say it's a good indicator that he's not as good as many would like to believe (as in, a potential starter). It's just a little frustrating to me to hear him built up as some kind of secret weapon when that is based off of the preseason - a preseason where he barely outshines Rodney Smith.

This guy was once supposedly better than Jarius Wright. Now he's better than Patterson, too? It just seems like a lot of hope for somebody who has proven so little.

I wasn't trying to imply anything bro, it was just a question to the statement you made is all. I get what you are saying, I just feel that he has loads of potential to be a really good player for us (Thielen) I look at his progression and the short amount of time he has done it in. The first year he tried out for the team he was placed on the practice squad, and after only one season he made the roster. He is a workaholic that constantly tries to find ways to get better in every aspect of the sport. I think Zimmer saw that and that's why he made the team. Is he better than Patterson? Yes and no. I think he's better in the mental aspect, where as Patterson is better in the physical aspect. But neither player saw much playing time last season, so is that also an indicator that CP is not as good as people would like to believe? I believe that both players have a high ceiling, it just takes some players longer to reach it than others. every aspect of this sport is a crap shoot when it comes to evaluating players, I mean who would have guessed Charles Johnson would come right in and make the impact he did? Not me.

I'm sorry if I seemed riled up, I didn't take any offense to your post. I just truly believe that Thielen at his ceiling will be a very solid #4, and I think you helped make my point to a certain extent. At one point in their careers, CP was putting up 7 offensive TDs while Thielen wasn't even good enough to be on the roster. Even last year, CP clearly had a better year.

The fans are viewing one of these guys as a bust and one as an up-and-coming player based on where they started. If they had traded draft positions, the narrative would be completely different.

CP is still clearly the better player. All reports indicate he's working as hard as he can. I like Thielen, and I think he is a valuable piece of this team...I just get frustrated with how many people are writing CP off but saying Thielen is poised for big things.

DK Sweets wrote:I'm sorry if I seemed riled up, I didn't take any offense to your post. I just truly believe that Thielen at his ceiling will be a very solid #4, and I think you helped make my point to a certain extent. At one point in their careers, CP was putting up 7 offensive TDs while Thielen wasn't even good enough to be on the roster. Even last year, CP clearly had a better year.

The fans are viewing one of these guys as a bust and one as an up-and-coming player based on where they started. If they had traded draft positions, the narrative would be completely different.

CP is still clearly the better player. All reports indicate he's working as hard as he can. I like Thielen, and I think he is a valuable piece of this team...I just get frustrated with how many people are writing CP off but saying Thielen is poised for big things.

Gotcha. I think all the love for Theilen is just because it has that whole feel good story. Plus being a local kid helps lol.

I'm not attatched to whether or not Theilen makes the team...I'm not even sure I'm spelling his name right. He's a baller though.
Didn't he block a punt last year? I always seem to notice him on kick coverage too.
Seems to be one of those guys who can do anything you ask of him well, but he's not the best at any of them.

Just going to take a stab at who this muse is, but my guess is T.J. Houshmandzadeh. He was one of the smarter receivers around when he played and, of course, he has Zimmer's respect and vice versa.