Mothman wrote:I don't accept that as a legitimate reason not to act in this situation. People (especially young people) sometimes make mistakes or questionable choices. It doesn't matter whether Zimmer should have to do it again. If it's something that needs to happen, make it happen.
Where does personal responsibility fit into that equation?
Zimmer's a professional too, an older more mature professional who is essentially a manager of employees. Part of his job is to get the most out of his players.
You're assuming they're not getting the most out of him. Maybe they are. Not every player has a Randy Moss ceiling. Either through effort, attitude or talent limitations some players are Devin Hester, Antonio Brown or Johnny Manziel. Patterson (perhaps through no fault of his own) might be "just" a Devin Hester/WR 4/5. There's still value there.
If Zimmer feels Patterson needs guidance and Patterson made a mistake and passed on a chance to get it, I see no room for a "you had your chance, you don't get another" mentality. From a manager's point of view, the more sensible approach is to convey disappointment to the employee, make it clear this is something of importance to his development (assuming Zimmer feels that way) and help the guy get better. in other words, address the problem.
I still think it comes back to personal accountability. But I imagine Zimmer has had those conversations with Patterson privately. At the very least I imagine if Zimmer went to that trouble the first time, he made it pretty clear this was something of importance to his development. It's on the coaching staff to guide but it's on Patterson to accept and do his part. It's a two-way street.
When I was an art director and employees in my department needed training, I didn't just give them one chance to get something right or to follow advice on how to improve. As long as they were still employees and still needed to learn, part of my job was to help them do so because that's what was best for the company, the team. The goal was to put out the best work possible and my job was to facilitate improvement and get the most out of the team. As I see it, this is no different. It's just on a much larger scale.
I'm not suggesting that Patterson is ignoring all aspects of his coaching. As with your employees, I'm sure Patterson has followed the directions of the coaching staff, perhaps even to the best of his ability. It could simply be that his learning curve is steeper and others on the team have bypassed him. Would you promote someone who may have been the weakest pupil/employee on staff? What would warrant that promotion?
I don't feel I have to believe that because I know the coaches are human and they aren't going to make the best decision in every case. If they were that infallible, Kurt Coleman would still be a Viking.
Perhaps not, but wouldn't you agree they have much more information at their disposal with which to make roster decisions than we do? Regarding Coleman, one would hope that he could've recreated his success here if he started opposite Smith but perhaps he was simply a better schematic fit in Carolina. There are other factors to consider.
I think it's debatable. Johnson and Thielen were both ahead of him on the depth chart and both saw more playing time. I think it 's likely they saw more practice time too.
I believe Patterson was a starter when the twos were in during the last preseason. Maybe he was demoted further but I simply find it hard to believe his second team reps were being stripped away at a great loss to his development.
Well, they're clearly sitting a superior talent and something caused their change of heart. They had a good look at him all spring and summer in 2014 and still started him for the first half of that season.
That was before we acquired CJ, Wallace and Diggs, correct? All I'm saying is that it's possible as far as doing the things you ask a wide receiver to do that those three are better and more consistent. That was a different team with different core of receivers.
If he was the bumbling incompetent he's so often made out to be, whey didn't they notice it and react sooner? They were using him in crucial game situations.
Perhaps they were A) giving him the chance to prove himself and/or B) he was the better of the options available. Instead of "pulling a Diggs" and essentially forcing the coaching staff to start him he trended the other way.
As I said earlier in this thread, this whole issue has essentially become a question of faith/confidence in the coaching staff and considering the state of the offense and passing game, I lack the kind of faith in their judgment that would lead me to simply accept that they're handling Patterson as well as possible.
That's fair. I still wish we could've seen Patterson line up across from Diggs, too. Just to see if that could've sparked
something. But aside from YAC ability, I can probably see why Wallace was higher on the depth chart.
