Cordarrelle Patterson

[Mothman]

You are correct. I view production as secondary, and process as primary. Focusing on process will yield steady production over time, but focusing on production produces nothing. I guess its a subtle distinction but it seems very clear to me.

Process is simply a means to an end. In football, on offense, production is that end goal. Focusing on it doesn't yield nothing. It yields wins.

Let's assume every painter wants to produce a painting. But focusing on finishing paintings is likely to produce either no work or lousy work. Focusing on the process is the key to completing good paintings. Taking a short cut to get closer to finishing the painting may achieve the goal of producing a completed piece of work, but it does not produce as nice a piece of work, and it does not build the skills to consistently produce great work.

To carry the above analogy further into our conversation. Musgrave was using Patterson to produce Warhols. Nothing wrong with them, they are popular, they are accessible, they are a finished product, you can win with them. Turner is trying to produce Da Vinci's. The margin for error is smaller, it takes longer, but the finished product is a much higher quality. I don't think you can try to do both at the same time.

I like your painting analogy but it's a bit off-target. Focusing on finishing paintings, doing the work, learning from mistakes, building on what you've done right and wrong is precisely how a painter becomes better. That IS the process. Fussing over the minutiae forever in an effort to produce a masterpiece is a dead end in the earlier stages of an artist's development. An artist gets better by doing. You learn to make good paintings by making bad paintings, by failing and learning from your mistakes. One of the reasons I've been so critical of the way Patterson has been marginalized is because I understand the value of that experience. I'm not talking about taking short cuts with him. That has never been the point. I don't think most of the plays Musgrave used for him were shortcuts. Are screens, end arounds, pitches, etc. shortcuts? Turner was using those plays as part of his "Da Vinci" offense last year.

The Warhol/Da Vinci analogy is interesting but I don't buy it as it applies to Turner and Musgrave (and let's not forget that Warhol was quite successful, in both an artistic and economic sense). Both coordinators are trying to win football games. They each have a system and I have no doubt they both want their plays executed correctly but if Turner is actually eschewing production and development in search of perfection, he's making a mistake.

I agree that player development is an important part of the "long view". Its really what its all about. I feel like its my whole point. I disagree with you that Patterson isn't being developed, and I also disagree with the implication that Thielen or even Johnson also aren't players worth developing.

I wasn't trying to imply that.

As far as the other point, about utilizing different player's talents in different ways, I have no problem with that, but there still has to be a baseline standard, and I'm just not sure why the people who feel Patterson should have been getting more snaps prefer not to believe that this is the most likely reason he isn't on the field. I do understand rejecting what I'm calling the 'Turner approach' in favor of the 'Musgrave approach'. So for those who simply say, "the standard doesn't matter, its about the best chance to win this sunday, put him on the field," I disagree but I understand the position. If we acknowledge that there should be a standard, and if we assume he's not meeting it, that seems like the end of the issue, despite his great physical talents. This is where I see the divide on the board about Patterson.

I see you as standing with one foot in each camp, saying there should be a standard AND its about the best chance to win this sunday. The easiest way to maintain that position with one foot in each camp seems to be to remain very skeptical about Patterson not meeting said standard, occasionally intimating that perhaps the wrong standard is being used, or even that the coaches perhaps have a grudge against said player (or that the standard should just be production, which is basically just back to the Musgrave approach?). Obviously if one believes there should be a standard, there will be times when the player who gives you the most production still won't be on the field. This seems like the most obvious explanation, the one thats been intimated and confirmed by coaches and media.

I still see this as basically a divide between two schools of thought. The first one is the one that the Vikings have been using for all the years I've been a fan. Get the production, the standard is secondary to the talent, production is king so get the old QB who can put the best numbers now, etc.

This is one of the areas where I feel you seriously misunderstand me. I'm not a football hedonist who favors the quick fix so I can feel happy every Sunday. That's why I was against adding Favre to the team from the start. I'm not in favor of the immediate gratification of production at the cost of everything else. I just have a different view of how to build and develop a winning team.

You seem to view playing Patterson as some sort of cheap pursuit of production instead of an effort to achieve a higher goal. That's not how I view it at all. As I said above in regard to painting, an artist improves by doing. I think football players also benefit from doing, from actual playing experience. Musgrave wasn't just using Patterson to "produce Warhols", he was giving him valuable game experience and simultaneously helping the team win by making good use of Patterson's game-breaking ability. I don't think that hurt the Vikings in the short or long term. Patterson's the opposite of the "old QB" you referred to above. He's an extremely talented young player in whom they made a significant draft investment. He offers the upside of being developed into a highly productive core player that can benefit the team for a long time. He's not the short term quick fix of the aging veteran stop-gap, he's a player they literally invested in as a project to be developed. I don't just think he should be on the field to provide quick fix scoring on Sundays, I think he should be out there taking his lumps and learning on the job for the same reason Bridgwater is doing the same. The team traded back into the first round to draft both players to make them a part of their future.

In my view, this is the first time I've ever seen the Vikings try another way, prioritizing the process. I think its going to end with great results and great production.

I think they've tried it a number of times. It simply hasn't been successful and frankly, I'm seeing signs that it may not work this time either, although it's too soon to tell.

[MrPurplenGold]

I'm not sure what the big deal is here. This coaching staff has taken the Vikings from the bottom of the division to division champs. To me they have earned the benefit of the doubt. Zimmer came in and changed the culture of the Vikings and for whatever reason Patterson has not seemed to fit that culture. He chose not to accept the mentorship Zimmer had in place for him and he chose not to workout with teddy in the off season last year. I can't confirm this, but based on those observations, he seems to have a me first attitude and Zimmer wants none of it.

Also, at his best, he was a gadget player who was good with the ball in his hands. Gadget players typically don't have longevity in the NFL and I'm sure the coaching staff knows this. So instead of having him worry about jet sweeps and bubble screens or other running plays, have him focus on the intricacies of being a great WR first and the rest will follow.

[Mothman]

I'm not sure what the big deal is here. This coaching staff has taken the Vikings from the bottom of the division to division champs. To me they have earned the benefit of the doubt. Zimmer came in and changed the culture of the Vikings and for whatever reason Patterson has not seemed to fit that culture. He chose not to accept the mentorship Zimmer had in place for him and he chose not to workout with teddy in the off season last year.

As I've posted many times now, Patterson did, in fact, work out with Bridgewater last offseason:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... ls-trainer

Also, at his best, he was a gadget player who was good with the ball in his hands. Gadget players typically don't have longevity in the NFL and I'm sure the coaching staff knows this.

He was a "gadget player" because the Vikings drafted a raw prospect with the intent to develop him. They need to follow through on that development. The "big deal" is that process appears to be at a virtual standstill (if not abandoned and left to Patterson himself). An expensive draft pick is being wasted, a potential asset to the offense squandered. Meanwhile, although Zimmer has taken the Vikes from the bottom of the division to division champs, the aforementioned offense has regressed on his watch. Personally, I think it will need to improve substantially for the Vikes to win a championship. I feel Patterson can be a part of that improvement and I know I'm not alone.

So instead of having him worry about jet sweeps and bubble screens or other running plays, have him focus on the intricacies of being a great WR first and the rest will follow.

Is he being taught the intricacies of the WR position? George Stewart has been coaching the Vikings WRs for 9 years now. How many really good, fundamentally sound WRs have they fielded and developed in that time? How many have shown significant improvement on his watch?

So many questions, so few answers...

[MrPurplenGold]

As I've posted many times now, Patterson did, in fact, work out with Bridgewater last offseason:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... ls-trainer

You are absolutely right. I didn't read that until after the fact. I guess what he didn't do was get someone to help him with his route running. he's doing that this offseason, so here's hoping he gets better with that aspect of it.

He was a "gadget player" because the Vikings drafted a raw prospect with the intent to develop him. They need to follow through on that development. The "big deal" is that process appears to be at a virtual standstill (if not abandoned and left to Patterson himself). An expensive draft pick is being wasted, a potential asset to the offense squandered. Meanwhile, although Zimmer has taken the Vikes from the bottom of the division to division champs, the aforementioned offense has regressed on his watch. Personally, I think it will need to improve substantially for the Vikes to win a championship. I feel Patterson can be a part of that improvement and I know I'm not alone.

I think the biggest disservice the Vikings did as an organization was allow Patterson to become a gadget player. They were more concerned with wins then they were with Pattersons long term development. so they allowed him to be an athlete that played WR instead of making him a WR that has tremendous athletic ability. Zimmer seems to be taking the later path. The assumption seems to be that his development is being stunted by keeping him off the field, I believe the contrary. While it may be creating confidence issues, he's got to have the ability to overcome them. At the end of the day we've got a better chance with Zimmers approach then Pattersons.

Is he being taught the intricacies of the WR position? George Stewart has been coaching the Vikings WRs for 9 years now. How many really good, fundamentally sound WRs have they fielded and developed in that time? How many have shown significant improvement on his watch?

So many questions, so few answers...

I agree there doesn't seem to be many WRS the Vikings have developed into quality WRs. Is it coaching or personnel, that I don't know. Though I will say most WRs that leave the vikings don't typically turn out to be stars once they leave

[PurpleKoolaid]

It really is exciting thinking of CP84 getting more play time this season better conditioned. I know they signed him knowing he would be a project player, and he wasnt really skilled as a WR yet, but the Vikings are the ones who KNEW this going into the draft, KNOWING he would need some extra work. But they also knew he was deadly with his freakish talent.

What scares me yet though is, Norv. I dont trust him (nor do I think he is a special guru OC), and I think he is carrying a grudge against CP84, which make no sense. The other side of the fence is always greener, but sometimes I wish we had Musgrave back. He could make use of CP AND Wallace. Can you imagine the field with CP84, AD, and Mckinnon on it? if any defender made the slightest mistake on any one of those three, and it would be off to the race. And CP should make a good endzone threat. Forgive me, im just lost in my own little dream.

[Mothman]

You are absolutely right. I didn't read that until after the fact. I guess what he didn't do was get someone to help him with his route running. he's doing that this offseason, so here's hoping he gets better with that aspect of it.

Fingers crossed!

I think the biggest disservice the Vikings did as an organization was allow Patterson to become a gadget player. They were more concerned with wins then they were with Pattersons long term development. so they allowed him to be an athlete that played WR instead of making him a WR that has tremendous athletic ability. Zimmer seems to be taking the later path.

I don't the previous staff was more concerned with wins than Patterson's development. If anything, that seems like a criticism better applied to the current staff.

I'm nots sure anybody allowed Patterson to become a so-called gadget player. He was just used on some of those plays because his abilities were well-suited to them (and they worked). It's hard for me to see that as a disservice to anybody. I doubt it was done at the expense of teaching him other aspects of the game.

I agree there doesn't seem to be many WRS the Vikings have developed into quality WRs. Is it coaching or personnel, that I don't know. Though I will say most WRs that leave the vikings don't typically turn out to be stars once they leave

I don't know either but their track record of WR development isn't great under Stewart. Rice is probably the biggest success story.

[Mothman]

I know this is a but here's another point to underline why I think it's been a mistake to relegate Patterson to the bench instead of having him play more and take his lumps while learning (and hopefully helping) on the field:

As I just posted in another thread, Mike Wallace caught 12 passes for 177 yards and 1 TD in the final 8 games of the 2016 regular season. The Vikes paid almost $10 million for Wallace last season. He'll be 30 next season and will cost even more should they choose to keep him.

I have absolutely no doubt that, whatever his issues, Patterson was capable of bringing at least that much, and likely more, to the offense last season. Heck during the first 8 games of 2014, a stretch that basically got him benched, he had 25 catches for 299 yards and a TD.

Patterson cost the Vikes about $8 million less than Wallace last year and will this year as well.

I know theres more to this than just stats but this helps illustrate why I see what's been going on with this player as such a missed opportunity. The Vikes just spent a year that could have been used to further develop Patterson overpaying for production he likely could have equalled or surpassed.

[fiestavike]

Process is simply a means to an end. In football, on offense, production is that end goal. Focusing on it doesn't yield nothing. It yields wins.

You've touched on the key point here. Process is the means. That's the key. That's why it is the priority.

I like your painting analogy but it's a bit off-target. Focusing on finishing paintings, doing the work, learning from mistakes, building on what you've done right and wrong is precisely how a painter becomes better. That IS the process. Fussing over the minutiae forever in an effort to produce a masterpiece is a dead end in the earlier stages of an artist's development. An artist gets better by doing. You learn to make good paintings by making bad paintings, by failing and learning from your mistakes. One of the reasons I've been so critical of the way Patterson has been marginalized is because I understand the value of that experience. I'm not talking about taking short cuts with him. That has never been the point. I don't think most of the plays Musgrave used for him were shortcuts. Are screens, end arounds, pitches, etc. shortcuts? Turner was using those plays as part of his "Da Vinci" offense last year.

The Warhol/Da Vinci analogy is interesting but I don't buy it as it applies to Turner and Musgrave (and let's not forget that Warhol was quite successful, in both an artistic and economic sense). Both coordinators are trying to win football games. They each have a system and I have no doubt they both want their plays executed correctly but if Turner is actually eschewing production and development in search of perfection, he's making a mistake.

I obviously failed to communicate clearly with the analogy I was trying to use. My point seems to have been totally obscured. I'm hesitant to even try to go down this road again, but let me try to illustrate with another analogies.

Sales team A focuses on the process, teaching their salesmen how to build and maintain relationships. Sales team B focuses on getting sales, they send their employees out knocking on doors. Team B might be more productive in the short team, perhaps even in the long run, but they will not be as effective at the big sale, or at any particular sale because in the longrun they will not be as skilled or consistent or efficient a sales team.

This is one of the areas where I feel you seriously misunderstand me. I'm not a football hedonist who favors the quick fix so I can feel happy every Sunday. That's why I was against adding Favre to the team from the start. I'm not in favor of the immediate gratification of production at the cost of everything else. I just have a different view of how to build and develop a winning team.

I guess I don't understand what your view of how to build and develop a winning team is, but I would like to.

You seem to view playing Patterson as some sort of cheap pursuit of production instead of an effort to achieve a higher goal. That's not how I view it at all.

I view it as choosing production at the expense of the standard. Specifically, as choosing short term production - greater chance at production on this given play - over both standards and thus, over long term production.

As I said above in regard to painting, an artist improves by doing. I think football players also benefit from doing, from actual playing experience. Musgrave wasn't just using Patterson to "produce Warhols", he was giving him valuable game experience and simultaneously helping the team win by making good use of Patterson's game-breaking ability. I don't think that hurt the Vikings in the short or long term.

Patterson may or may not have improved by 'doing'. Its hard to say for certain because it doesn't appear he was being challenged. But I do think, in a vacuum, Musgrave's approach (pursuing production) harms a Team's development in the long term.

Patterson's the opposite of the "old QB" you referred to above. He's an extremely talented young player in whom they made a significant draft investment. He offers the upside of being developed into a highly productive core player that can benefit the team for a long time. He's not the short term quick fix of the aging veteran stop-gap, he's a player they literally invested in as a project to be developed. I don't just think he should be on the field to provide quick fix scoring on Sundays, I think he should be out there taking his lumps and learning on the job for the same reason Bridgwater is doing the same.

What Patterson and the stopgap QB have in common is that on any given play, they provide the greater chance for production. If that is the teams priority it makes perfect sense to play Patterson on any individual play. I would love to see Patterson do well enough, be reliable enough, demonstrate enough understanding, etc, to be out on the field taking his lumps and learning on the job. I'm willing to bet that Mike Zimmer, Rick Spielman, and Norv Turner all wish the same thing. I just think it would be a mistake to place their wishes above the standard they hold for their football team. The Vikings have tried that repeatedly in the past and since I've been a fan all they have to show for it are some highly productive seasons from some less than great teams.

[Mothman]

You've touched on the key point here. Process is the means. That's the key. That's why it is the priority.

I obviously failed to communicate clearly with the analogy I was trying to use. My point seems to have been totally obscured. I'm hesitant to even try to go down this road again, but let me try to illustrate with another analogies.

Sales team A focuses on the process, teaching their salesmen how to build and maintain relationships. Sales team B focuses on getting sales, they send their employees out knocking on doors. Team B might be more productive in the short team, perhaps even in the long run, but they will not be as effective at the big sale, or at any particular sale because in the longrun they will not be as skilled or consistent or efficient a sales team.

Your point wasn't obscured by the first analogy at all. I understood what you meant. I think the problem here is that we differ regarding the means. Process is the means, production is the end but there's more than one way to approach the process to get the desired production and reach the end goal.

As I said in regard to the art analogy, a painter gets better by painting, by repeatedly attempting and failing. That's the process. Reading and learning about painting can arm the artist with knowledge but it's a poor substitute for the actual experience of attempting to apply that knowledge. In your sales analogy, team A can focus on teaching salesmen how to build and maintain relationships. Team B can focus on getting sales but it's also possible to combine the approaches. There's no substitute for experience. What those salesman might learn from actually going door-to-door can be as valuable or more valuable than what team A might learn in the classroom, before attempting to apply what they've learned.

I think the best approach is a combination of knowledge/training and experience and I think the concept applies in football. There's value in learning behind the scenes, in practice and in meetings but that isn't a substitute for game experience.

I guess I don't understand what your view of how to build and develop a winning team is, but I would like to.

Some of it is included below but one thing I believe is the team should have a target goal and build toward it. They should obviously try to win every year but , for example, when Zimmer took over the Vikings I think it was pretty clear they were at least 2-3 years away from being able to legitimately contend for and win a Super Bowl. That being the case, since the team spent a first round pick on a young QB to develop, one year after spending a first rounder (and more) on Patterson, I think they should patiently develop that young talent together, looking toward the goal 3 years down the line. Give those players the opportunity to develop chemistry, to grow together in the offense. That, to my mind, is key to the process. Unfortunately, once Patterson was relegated to the bottom of the depth chart, I doubt he even caught many passes from Bridgewater in practice. He was probably catching them from Hill or Heinicke.

I view it as choosing production at the expense of the standard. Specifically, as choosing short term production - greater chance at production on this given play - over both standards and thus, over long term production.

I don't view it that way at all. I view it as an integral part of the development process. We see the principle applied to young quarterbacks again and again. They are often asked to go through growing pains, to develop their game on the job with the hope they will eventually grow and play up to the standard teams look for from a quality starting QB in the NFL. I certainly don't think Bridgewater has played at a particularly high level for an NFL starter at this point in his career but the Vikings have him out there learning anyway because they're trying to build something with him. I don't see playing Patterson as choosing short term production at the expense of the standard. I see it in the same light as Bridgewater; giving a young player valuable on-the-job experience as a means to an end. Developing those young players together during the course of their initial contract can be a big part of building a successful team.

Patterson may or may not have improved by 'doing'. Its hard to say for certain because it doesn't appear he was being challenged. But I do think, in a vacuum, Musgrave's approach (pursuing production) harms a Team's development in the long term.

I don't see how. There's absolutely no reason running the kind of plays Musgrave called for Patterson would preclude teaching him other aspects of his position. It's essentially a win-win: you develop the player while still benefitting from his natural ability.

What Patterson and the stopgap QB have in common is that on any given play, they provide the greater chance for production. If that is the teams priority it makes perfect sense to play Patterson on any individual play. I would love to see Patterson do well enough, be reliable enough, demonstrate enough understanding, etc, to be out on the field taking his lumps and learning on the job. I'm willing to bet that Mike Zimmer, Rick Spielman, and Norv Turner all wish the same thing. I just think it would be a mistake to place their wishes above the standard they hold for their football team. The Vikings have tried that repeatedly in the past and since I've been a fan all they have to show for it are some highly productive seasons from some less than great teams.

I think another reason we differ on this is because I'm not convinced about the nature this supposed standard the Vikes have set or that they're taking the different approach to business you're talking about. I'm sure they have standards but how they're applied strikes me as confusing at best. This same coaching staff made Patterson a starter in 2014. If meeting this elusive standard is one of the core values they apply when deciding who gets on the field, why was he ever starting for them, much less for over half a season? Did he somehow meet the standard at one point and then fail to meet it to such a degree that he was only worth targeting twice last season?

I also wonder if this standard only applies to knowing the playbook. Are there standards of performance and production? As I pointed out above, during the 8 games that ended (after 9) with Patterson essentially being benched in 2014, he produced more than Wallace (supposedly the team's top receiver) did during the last 8 games of 2015. he's younger, less expensive and offers far more upside to the team down the road if they develop him.

Process might be the means to production but production matters so shouldn't there be standards for on-field performance and production as well?

I hope all of that provides some clarity.

[fiestavike]

I think the best approach is a combination of knowledge/training and experience and I think the concept applies in football. There's value in learning behind the scenes, in practice and in meetings but that isn't a substitute for game experience.

This much we agree on. But this is not the point I'm trying to elaborate on through the analogies, so obviously I'm not doing a good job coming up with analogies. The issue isn't about experience vs training. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. That's my own failure. I'm really not interested in 'winning' the discussion, at this point I am just trying to communicate clearly. I am failing. I may come back to this.

One quick point--I think a small part of our struggle here is that we are conflating a conversation about the team (and theories of coaching and development) with a conversation about Cordarelle Patterson. The following is an example of where my comment is about team, and your response is about Patterson. I've noticed this several times in our recent exchange and I think it contributes to keeping us from being on the same page.

I don't see how. There's absolutely no reason running the kind of plays Musgrave called for Patterson would preclude teaching him other aspects of his position. It's essentially a win-win: you develop the player while still benefitting from his natural ability.

I'm not saying Patterson couldn't develop in this circumstance (just that I'm not sure he was in this particular case) but more importantly, that this approach is bad for the team's development.

Basically, I'm just trying to get us onto the same page. I support an approach that I'm not sure you accept or reject because we can't seem to get beyond your objection to the premiss. Again, my own failure to communicate.

Stay with me hypothetically here that there is a standard (or set of standards) a player must meet in order to play. Let's pretend that those standards are 1. working hard. 2. a level of technical proficiency demonstrated in practice and 3. demonstrating the knowledge in film/meeting rooms required to perform the role. Let's assume that the Vikings pretty much operate on this basis under Zimmer and lets assume that Cordarelle Patterson has failed to meet standards 2 and 3. Just suspend your disbelief and go with me this far. IF that is the case, would you support keeping Cordarelle Patterson on the bench until he can meet the standards?

I'm not trying to create a scenario in which you feel compelled to answer in the affirmative, I'm just trying to understand what your objection is.

As we discussed earlier in the exchange, one can't prioritize everything, and maybe we are just prioritizing different things, but I feel that we're having trouble getting clarity on what those things are.

Questions about whether the hypothetical above is remotely accurate are fine and valid, but if you will humor me lets put them off until we have more clarity on whatever philosophical differences we may have. I think it will lead to a more fruitful dialogue.

[Mothman]

This much we agree on. But this is not the point I'm trying to elaborate on through the analogies, so obviously I'm not doing a good job coming up with analogies. The issue isn't about experience vs training. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. That's my own failure. I'm really not interested in 'winning' the discussion, at this point I am just trying to communicate clearly. I am failing. I may come back to this.

I understand. This is a less than ideal way to communicate so I often find myself feeling the same way.

One quick point--I think a small part of our struggle here is that we are conflating a conversation about the team (and theories of coaching and development) with a conversation about Cordarelle Patterson. The following is an example of where my comment is about team, and your response is about Patterson. I've noticed this several times in our recent exchange and I think it contributes to keeping us from being on the same page.
I'm not saying Patterson couldn't develop in this circumstance (just that I'm not sure he was in this particular case) but more importantly, that this approach is bad for the team's development.

I guess I'm not clear on what you see as the "Musgrave approach". Based on what you've written, I'm guessing you see that as putting a player on the field before he's met the standard you perceive Turner holding players to in his offense and that it's bad for the team because, from your point of view, it undermines that standard.

Is that even close to correct?

asically, I'm just trying to get us onto the same page. I support an approach that I'm not sure you accept or reject because we can't seem to get beyond your objection to the premiss. Again, my own failure to communicate.

Stay with me hypothetically here that there is a standard (or set of standards) a player must meet in order to play. Let's pretend that those standards are 1. working hard. 2. a level of technical proficiency demonstrated in practice and 3. demonstrating the knowledge in film/meeting rooms required to perform the role. Let's assume that the Vikings pretty much operate on this basis under Zimmer and lets assume that Cordarelle Patterson has failed to meet standards 2 and 3. Just suspend your disbelief and go with me this far. IF that is the case, would you support keeping Cordarelle Patterson on the bench until he can meet the standards?

I'm not trying to create a scenario in which you feel compelled to answer in the affirmative, I'm just trying to understand what your objection is.

Under that hypothetical set of circumstances and considering just those factors, I'd be okay with it.

As we discussed earlier in the exchange, one can't prioritize everything, and maybe we are just prioritizing different things, but I feel that we're having trouble getting clarity on what those things are.

Questions about whether the hypothetical above is remotely accurate are fine and valid, but if you will humor me lets put them off until we have more clarity on whatever philosophical differences we may have. I think it will lead to a more fruitful dialogue.

I agree and in that spirit:

The reason I wrote "considering just those factors" is because I think there are other factors that need to be considered as well. They don't all have equal weight but I'm very much a "big picture" guy when it comes to this sort of thing so they would need to be part of the thought process. I've mentioned some of those other factors already. For example, team-building considerations would weigh into my decision.

I also think circumstances need to be a part of these choices. A talent-laden team with a QB on his last legs that's trying to make a final Super Bowl run might handle playing time differently than a 2 win team with 4 games left in a season and no shot at the playoffs.

[fiestavike]

I guess I'm not clear on what you see as the "Musgrave approach". Based on what you've written, I'm guessing you see that as putting a player on the field before he's met the standard you perceive Turner holding players to in his offense and that it's bad for the team because, from your point of view, it undermines that standard.

Is that even close to correct?

Yes. that's a fair summation.

Under that hypothetical set of circumstances and considering just those factors, I'd be okay with it.

As would I.

I agree and in that spirit:

The reason I wrote "considering just those factors" is because I think there are other factors that need to be considered as well. They don't all have equal weight but I'm very much a "big picture" guy when it comes to this sort of thing so they would need to be part of the thought process. I've mentioned some of those other factors already. For example, team-building considerations would weigh into my decision.

Ok, I tend to be focused on principles and processes. I want to know how to get from A to B. I feel like I have a very general sense that you would prioritize team-building, or that capitalizing on investment is important to you, but not as strong a sense how you would do these things. I understand if you aren't interested in delving further into the issue, but I am interested better understanding your view if you are interested in sharing. Undoubtedly there are always lots of factors to weigh, in fact more than can possibly be weighed with any accuracy, which is why in my way of thinking principles become paramount. Its just my opinion, but I think this is what players are talking about when they say Zimmer is a straight shooter. His principles and expectations (standards?) are clear and unmistakable.

In addition to this, I think the other point we have disagreed on is production vs process. I still don't think I've communicated that effectively either. I always feel like basketball is one of the best sports for presenting the idea of process as paramount because there are fewer moving parts, but I don't think its any less true on the football field. Simply put, when I'm watching my Spurs, I don't particularly care if the ball goes in the basket. Sure, as a fan, sometimes I get caught up in the moment, but objectively, whether the ball goes in or not on any given shot is irrelevant. What I want to see are good shots. Good shots are the product of good passing, good movement, executing fundamentals. Ultimately, good production (points) is the product of good shots, and good shots are the product of good passes, good screens, practicing shooting, etc. Fundamentally, points (production) are a result. It does no good to aim for the result. You can aim for points from half court or you can aim to make a good pass from half court. One of those actions is far more likely than the other to result in a good outcome. If you can train a team to aim for good process, over time you will consistently have good results. When teams start focusing on a result, thats when they blow a lead, they don't show up for a game, etc. This is the phenomenon I was trying to touch on with my painting analogy. So many young artists start out with an idea in their head of their finished product and then they rush to "get there". But focusing on that finished product is one of the mistakes you learn from, when you complete a painting, and it rather looks like $%#$. That's something I've experienced anyway. I don't know if that's clarifying or not, but I hope so.

Poker also provides a great example of this phenomenon, and the importance of process over results.

Again, not asking you to agree with me, I'm just trying to illustrate my view on this more clearly.

[Mothman]

Ok, I tend to be focused on principles and processes. I want to know how to get from A to B. I feel like I have a very general sense that you would prioritize team-building, or that capitalizing on investment is important to you, but not as strong a sense how you would do these things. I understand if you aren't interested in delving further into the issue, but I am interested better understanding your view if you are interested in sharing. Undoubtedly there are always lots of factors to weigh, in fact more than can possibly be weighed with any accuracy, which is why in my way of thinking principles become paramount. Its just my opinion, but I think this is what players are talking about when they say Zimmer is a straight shooter. His principles and expectations (standards?) are clear and unmistakable.

I understand that's your perception and as I posted somewhere earlier in this thread, I think this subject is a somewhat of a litmus test for how people feel about the coaching staff. You say Zimmer's principles and expectations are unmistakable and you seem convinced he runs the team using a clear set of standards. I see some reason to question that, including in regard to Patterson.

In addition to this, I think the other point we have disagreed on is production vs process. I still don't think I've communicated that effectively either. I always feel like basketball is one of the best sports for presenting the idea of process as paramount because there are fewer moving parts, but I don't think its any less true on the football field. Simply put, when I'm watching my Spurs, I don't particularly care if the ball goes in the basket. Sure, as a fan, sometimes I get caught up in the moment, but objectively, whether the ball goes in or not on any given shot is irrelevant. What I want to see are good shots. Good shots are the product of good passing, good movement, executing fundamentals. Ultimately, good production (points) is the product of good shots, and good shots are the product of good passes, good screens, practicing shooting, etc. Fundamentally, points (production) are a result. It does no good to aim for the result. You can aim for points from half court or you can aim to make a good pass from half court. One of those actions is far more likely than the other to result in a good outcome. If you can train a team to aim for good process, over time you will consistently have good results. When teams start focusing on a result, thats when they blow a lead, they don't show up for a game, etc.

... or it's when they show up focused and resolute and they stomp the opposition.

The entire process aims for the result. As we've already said, the process is just a means to an end. Results are the point. It matters if the ball goes in the basket because if that doesn't happen enough, the team will lose. In the end, the team with the most points wins. It's a simple truth.

To put it another way, all of that process, the good passing, good movement, sound fundamentals, good shot choices means squat if the team still ends up with a lousy shooting percentage or can't match-up talent-wise against the opposition. It's important but in the end, good shots are made by good shooters and the team needs to score. Practice and good decision-making is just part of the equation. Talent, and good utilization of that talent, plays a significant role as well. I can't think of a sport where the importance of talent is more apparent than it is in the NBA.

This is the phenomenon I was trying to touch on with my painting analogy. So many young artists start out with an idea in their head of their finished product and then they rush to "get there". But focusing on that finished product is one of the mistakes you learn from, when you complete a painting, and it rather looks like $%#$. That's something I've experienced anyway. I don't know if that's clarifying or not, but I hope so.

Again, not asking you to agree with me, I'm just trying to illustrate my view on this more clearly.

Understood. I think you're being clear. It seems we just disagree. I get the impression you see these things in much more harshly defined terms than I do.

Regarding the painting analogy, focusing on the finished product isn't a mistake. In fact, more often than not, it's essential to achieving the desired result. Rushing to get there by skipping necessary steps IS a mistake so I understand what you're saying and agree that fundamentals, principles and process are all important. However, I don't think they're more important than the end result.

Fussing too much about the process can also lead to never really producing good finished work. being overly precious about the work can be as detrimental as being reckless.

Bringing this back to Patterson, football and team-building: in my view, the head coach and GM need a vision for where the team is going (like the artist in the analogy). The process is an important part of getting there. We agree on that. It may be that where we disagree is on the importance of talent and the value not only of the end result but of achieving results and gaining experience along the way. One way to look at the process is that players must be able to achieve to a certain level to play at all. Another is that playing helps them to achieve that level. Those playing experiences, both good and bad, can be building blocks.

I'm a big believer in flexibility, especially when it comes to teaching and learning. Not everybody learns the same way or at the same speed so I'm not a fan of rigid systems that don't allow for the flexibility to make use of talent. I think there's a real distinction to be made between fruitlessly chasing results at the expense of player/team development and achieving results by making good use of the talent/tools at hand.

[fiestavike]

I understand that's your perception and as I posted somewhere earlier in this thread, I think this subject is a somewhat of a litmus test for how people feel about the coaching staff. You say Zimmer's principles and expectations are unmistakable and you seem convinced he runs the team using a clear set of standards. I see some reason to question that, including in regard to Patterson.
... or it's when they show up focused and resolute and they stomp the opposition.

The entire process aims for the result. As we've already said, the process is just a means to an end. Results are the point. It matters if the ball goes in the basket because if that doesn't happen enough, the team will lose. In the end, the team with the most points wins. It's a simple truth.

To put it another way, all of that process, the good passing, good movement, sound fundamentals, good shot choices means squat if the team still ends up with a lousy shooting percentage or can't match-up talent-wise against the opposition. It's important but in the end, good shots are made by good shooters and the team needs to score. Practice and good decision-making is just part of the equation. Talent, and good utilization of that talent, plays a significant role as well. I can't think of a sport where the importance of talent is more apparent than it is in the NBA.
Understood. I think you're being clear. It seems we just disagree. I get the impression you see these things in much more harshly defined terms than I do.

Regarding the painting analogy, focusing on the finished product isn't a mistake. In fact, more often than not, it's essential to achieving the desired result. Rushing to get there by skipping necessary steps IS a mistake so I understand what you're saying and agree that fundamentals, principles and process are all important. However, I don't think they're more important than the end result.

Fussing too much about the process can also lead to never really producing good finished work. being overly precious about the work can be as detrimental as being reckless.

Bringing this back to Patterson, football and team-building: in my view, the head coach and GM need a vision for where the team is going (like the artist in the analogy). The process is an important part of getting there. We agree on that. It may be that where we disagree is on the importance of talent and the value not only of the end result but of achieving results and gaining experience along the way. One way to look at the process is that players must be able to achieve to a certain level to play at all. Another is that playing helps them to achieve that level. Those playing experiences, both good and bad, can be building blocks.

I'm a big believer in flexibility, especially when it comes to teaching and learning. Not everybody learns the same way or at the same speed so I'm not a fan of rigid systems that don't allow for the flexibility to make use of talent. I think there's a real distinction to be made between fruitlessly chasing results at the expense of player/team development and achieving results by making good use of the talent/tools at hand.

I guess I would just suggest that if you view what the Vikings have done since Zimmer arrived through the prism that I advocate - standards and process - It all makes sense. If one doesn't agree with that approach, that's fair enough, but if they do, I suspect they like the direction this team is headed.

[Mothman]

I guess I would just suggest that if you view what the Vikings have done since Zimmer arrived through the prism that I advocate - standards and process - It all makes sense.

Believe me, I've tried! I understand how it makes sense to you but there's a leap of faith in there I can't make right now. I like Zimmer quite a bit but I'm not a believer, just a sincerely hopeful fan. He's still going to have to convert me.

If one doesn't agree with that approach, that's fair enough, but if they do, I suspect they like the direction this team is headed.

I'm not sure where they're headed but I have high hopes. I see enough I like to feel encouraged and enough that concerns me to think this team could end up being another in a long line of disappointments.