Vikings Message Board.Com

Cliff wrote:And this is exactly what we saw when Patterson was in the game. Teams stopped playing zone against him. They started putting a defender right on the line, man to man, and Patterson has a *much* harder time getting open.

What you're pointing out, Cliff, is one of the reasons I observed (back in 2014) that Patterson had been shoehorned into the wrong role, the one WR position that required him to be right on the line of scrimmage and most vulnerable to physical, press man coverage.

Which brings us back to stubborn inflexibility, wondering how much progress the indestructible George Stewart may have made with Patterson in the year and a half since the middle of the 2014 season and how Patterson might fare in a role more suited to him.

Mothman wrote: What you're pointing out, Cliff, is one of the reasons I observed (back in 2014) that Patterson had been shoehorned into the wrong role, the one WR position that required him to be right on the line of scrimmage and most vulnerable to physical, press man coverage.

Which brings us back to stubborn inflexibility, wondering how much progress the indestructible George Stewart may have made with Patterson in the year and a half since the middle of the 2014 season and how Patterson might fare in a role more suited to him.

You mean the role of kick returner?

Mothman wrote: What you're pointing out, Cliff, is one of the reasons I observed (back in 2014) that Patterson had been shoehorned into the wrong role, the one WR position that required him to be right on the line of scrimmage and most vulnerable to physical, press man coverage.

Which brings us back to stubborn inflexibility, wondering how much progress the indestructible George Stewart may have made with Patterson in the year and a half since the middle of the 2014 season and how Patterson might fare in a role more suited to him.

The problem is Patterson himself doesn't need to be lined up at scrimmage to be facing man, of course. It's not just the press that gets him. He has trouble getting open when someone shadows him period. Which really blows my mind considering how powerful and fast he is.

dead_poet wrote: You mean the role of kick returner?

dead_poet wrote: You mean the role of kick returner?

As in Patterson is the best kick returner in the league? Yeah, that's one role for him.

It's really cool that CP gets the yardage he does with his returns. It gives the offense better field position so they can make their field goals at the end of a drive.

losperros wrote: As in Patterson is the best kick returner in the league? Yeah, that's one role for him.

It's really cool that CP gets the yardage he does with his returns. It gives the offense better field position so they can make their field goals at the end of a drive.

Snap fest going on.

Texas Vike wrote:

Snap fest going on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d16xAFjwcVw

Mothman wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d16xAFjwcVw

Dude's got talent!

Mothman wrote:
The second part doesn't exactly mesh with your views.

Nor does it contradict them.

Yes, and we've seen that pursuit of excellence take the passing game all the way to a league ranking of 31 out of 32 teams and the offense to bottom-quarter-of-the-league status.

this one is probably too far to grasp, but being ranked, say 26th, instead of 31st doesn't really mean an offense is closer to being excellent. I've come to understand why we fundamentally disagree about this, so I'm content not to elaborate. I'll just wait for you to point out that by defenition is does mean they are closer to #1 and we can agree to disagree.

Those of us advocating for Patterson haven't simply been pointing to an isolated example of a well-run route here and there and saying "see? he can do it!).

oh, ok. Since no one is saying it, we can agree to do away with that argument then.

There's a lot fuss about Patterson's route-running technique but I wouldn't be surprised to eventually learn it's not his technique so much as his decision-making that's been keeping him off the field.

I wouldn't be surprised about that either.

fiestavike wrote:this one is probably too far to grasp, but being ranked, say 26th, instead of 31st doesn't really mean an offense is closer to being excellent. I've come to understand why we fundamentally disagree about this, so I'm content not to elaborate. I'll just wait for you to point out that by defenition is does mean they are closer to #1 and we can agree to disagree.

Based on your comments above, I'm not sure I even understand what you think we fundamentally disagree about! Whatever it is, it's not encapsulated in the phrase "being ranked, say 26th, instead of 31st doesn't really mean an offense is closer to being excellent". I actually agree with that. However, finishing with a ranking of 31 out of 32 teams definitely indicates an offense wasn't excellent. If you don't agree with that, we've identified a point of fundamental disagreement!

PurpleKoolaid wrote: Ive had players I liked cut before, but this situation is different.

It'll be the same as Ponder getting cut. I liked Ponder, seemed like a good dude, like Patterson showed some flashes of good but overall the negative far out weighed the positive and he couldn't cut it so we had to move on.

Mothman wrote: Based on your comments above, I'm not sure I even understand what you think we fundamentally disagree about!

I agree.

Whatever it is, it's not encapsulated in the phrase "being ranked, say 26th, instead of 31st doesn't really mean an offense is closer to being excellent". I actually agree with that. However, finishing with a ranking of 31 out of 32 teams definitely indicates an offense wasn't excellent. If you don't agree with that, we've identified a point of fundamental disagreement!

We both agree that 31 out of 32 isn't indicative of excellence. I found it a non sequitur when you brought it up in this thread (or several others). I still find it a non sequitur, since nobody is agruing that the Vikings offense was excellent. But it seems to amuse you.

autobon7 wrote:They actually had cars back then?

Sorry Jim....couldn't resist. Also just trying to lighten the mood a bit.

No problem. I just saw your post or I would have responded earlier.

Mothman wrote: Based on your comments above, I'm not sure I even understand what you think we fundamentally disagree about! Whatever it is, it's not encapsulated in the phrase "being ranked, say 26th, instead of 31st doesn't really mean an offense is closer to being excellent". I actually agree with that. However, finishing with a ranking of 31 out of 32 teams definitely indicates an offense wasn't excellent. If you don't agree with that, we've identified a point of fundamental disagreement!

How is it that Musgrave could get more out of this group ((( minus Johson ))) than Norv ??? How is all of these players looked so dang good in Norv's first game as the Vikings new OC only to disappear afterwords ~ ???? Was Musgrave a better OC ~ ??? Sure looks like it with the work he has done as the Raiders OC ~

This is also going to be a make or break year for Norv...

halfgiz wrote:How is it that Musgrave could get more out of this group ((( minus Johson ))) than Norv ??? How is all of these players looked so dang good in Norv's first game as the Vikings new OC only to disappear afterwords ~ ???? Was Musgrave a better OC ~ ??? Sure looks like it with the work he has done as the Raiders OC ~

This is also going to be a make or break year for Norv...

I think Zimmer is sold on Norv. But maybe that will change if the offense doesn't deliver. That's especially true for the passing game.

Regarding Musgrave, I have to give the guy credit for understanding how to get the most from players. From what I've read, he relates to them well and creates smart plays that utilize their skills. OTOH, I didn't think Musgrave was a great in-game coordinator. Not a bad one, but not a great one. Then again, I don't think Norv is either.