losperros wrote:Yes, AD is great with the ball in his hands. How do we know that? He gets touches. Patterson is great with the ball in his hands so he should get his chances as well. Patterson never hurt the team with any so-called lack of competence, but he sure did help the team when they played him more often. Well, when Musgrave did anyway. That's still one of the biggest rubs. Musgrave could get explosiveness from Patterson but now we're supposed to believe that Norv cannot. Yeah, right.
Since we both know that Patterson did more than catch bubble screens (and that's apparent on film), then I assume you're merely exaggerating because of your weird disdain for CP personally. That part is your problem. OTOH, the Vikings problem last season was a lack of output and big plays from the passing game. Keeping both Patterson and Johnson on the bench made no sense.
They (fans and media) don't make highlights about poorly run routes and incompletions or players getting dominated at the line because it wouldn't be "highlights." In Patterson's case, there hasn't been much of that anyway and his highlights outnumber the dismal stuff (plus touchdowns are more meaningful to the team and therefore end up on highlight reels).
I see where you're coming from but I just can't believe that Zimmer or Norv would keep him on the bench out of spite. They want playmakers that can help them win. Patterson can be a playmaker but if what Zimmer is saying is true (and I don't see why we should think it isn't) then it
is a liability to have him out there.
Zimmer wrote:"Sometimes it's coverage based. Sometimes it's his acceleration after the top of the route. Sometimes it's the beginning of the route. It's just a combination of all of them."
If all of those things are a factor, that means for most of the plays Patterson is a wildcard that mostly comes up negative. Maybe he'll be in the wrong place or not on time because he doesn't accelerate at the right time or runs the wrong route. Maybe he'll get stuffed at the line, maybe he can't identify the coverage and so he plays it improperly. If
all of those are problems with his game rather than one thing he needs to shore up ... that's a huge issue. It is definitely a liability to have a player in that is potentially ineffective that often.
It'd be like a CB that was good at getting interceptions but is terrible in the run game, can't tackle, and even though he's good for an interception, he's also often out of place and allows the other team's WR to get chunks of yardage.
I can't blame the coaches for not playing someone who doesn't get it. I think that would also send the wrong message to other players when the team's philosophy seems to be "do your job" not "if you're naturally talented we'll play you".
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.