Cordarrelle Patterson

[Cliff]

Conversely, it is not fair to compare on record. Zimmer has two seasons and everyone else had at least 4 or more.

Zimmer has the second most wins in his first two seasons as Vikings head coach behind Dennis Green, I believe. So why not compare him there too?

[fiestavike]

Exactly. The cart keeps getting put before the horse, which is what my comment regarding myth-making was about. It feels like Zimmer' stature as a head coach is continually being elevated beyond his accomplishments, he's being "mythologized" (as in "to create or promote an exaggerated or idealized image of...") into what people believe or expect he will be as a head coach and one of the more frustrating aspects of that is the way past coaches get dumped on in the process of weaving this narrative of his supposed superiority.

I don't think anyone is doing that. I think its just the take you are bringing to the conversation. If Zimmer was a terrible coach, it wouldn't change what any previous coach was.

This is basically a debate over how one qualifies an opinion.
My view of Zimmer as the best in 30 years is based on how I perceive he runs his organization and how he presents himself. That is probably over simplifying it a bit, as I’m coming from a background that includes 15 years of experience in business management and financial consulting. So my opinion, while in the format of the internet where anyone can say anything, are based on my own professional experience. You can tell me I’m full of crap and that is fine, no one said you can’t have your own opinions. However, I’m just calling it as I see it. If I had to choose a leader, I would greatly prefer someone with the traits of a Zimmer over someone like any of the previous four coaches. Believe, I’ve worked with similar personality types to all of them. The Zimmer type wins for me and it isn’t a close contest.

The criticism on here is basically “well he hasn’t won a superbowl yet” or “he hasn’t won in multiple seasons yet”. These are both true statements. Great. I don’t know about you guys, but I want to know what I have before the big moment comes. In order for both of the above statements to be true we would already have to be 3-5 years into Zimmer’s tenure. How do you assess it in year 2, where we are now? Do we just roll the dice and accept that he is what he is? These types of assessments are, IMO, lazy. They are easy. Anyone can say somebody is great when they have filled a trophy case. My 7 year old can figure that out. How do you figure it out before he is in season 5?

I get that my view of Zimmer is an opinion, but I wouldn’t say it is creating any kind of mythology. Zimmer has to create his own mythology, which he is doing. I’m just observing behaviors and opining on them . IMO, the way he does things makes him the best of the past 5.

well said.

[Mothman]

I don't think anyone is doing that. I think its just the take you are bringing to the conversation. If Zimmer was a terrible coach, it wouldn't change what any previous coach was.

I think I'll leave it at that and add:

My apologies to everyone for steering the thread down this doomed path.

[fiestavike]

First off, no it isn't relevant, the point I am making is that until we have a similar sized body of work from Zimmer, it doesn't make sense to declare him a better coach then Green

Unless of course, he is a better coach. The record, the sample size, may indicate that Zimmer is better or that Green is better, but its just one way of measuring it, and not a particularly informative or decisive one. Maybe I don't understand why so much emphasis is put on the "declaration", or why it is completely dependent on this one particular measure in order to be valid. There's almost a bit of modern materialism in the emphasis having to be exclusively on this measure (or else of no value), as though all that exists is that which can be quantified and measured. The world is mighty boring if that is to be the only measure of things, and I see no point even analyzing or arguing anything, simply look at the winning percentages with equal sample sizes and move on. Obviously, that would be a farce. Its a farce because although it "makes sense" in a certain light, it as obviously false. Whether "we can say" that a is better than b, or b is better than a, does not change the fact that a IS better than b, or b IS better than a, or there is not a bit of difference between them. One of those is a fact, well before the reports come in. the body of work is just a shabby attempt to measure that fact with a bunch of increasingly smaller, and increasingly constrained and less informative facts.

The irony is that I don't really care who the better coach is. I'm excited about Zimmer because I think he's a good coach, not because I think he is better than Green. I would be excited about him if I thought Green had been a good coach or even if I thought Green was a great coach. Perhaps one day, I will change my opinion on Zimmer being a good coach. It will not be based on how his resume compares to Green when we have a similar sample size and can compare their records and rankings. It will be based on the character, culture, and leadership he continues to bring, or fails to bring, to the team(s) he coaches.

[fiestavike]

I think I'll leave it at that and add:

My apologies to everyone for steering the thread down this doomed path.

*edited--nevermind.

[Jordysghost]

Unless of course, he is a better coach. The record, the sample size, may indicate that Zimmer is better or that Green is better, but its just one way of measuring it, and not a particularly informative or decisive one. Maybe I don't understand why so much emphasis is put on the "declaration", or why it is completely dependent on this one particular measure in order to be valid. There's almost a bit of modern materialism in the emphasis having to be exclusively on this measure (or else of no value), as though all that exists is that which can be quantified and measured. The world is mighty boring if that is to be the only measure of things, and I see no point even analyzing or arguing anything, simply look at the winning percentages with equal sample sizes and move on. Obviously, that would be a farce. Its a farce because although it "makes sense" in a certain light, it as obviously false. Whether "we can say" that a is better than b, or b is better than a, does not change the fact that a IS better than b, or b IS better than a, or there is not a bit of difference between them. One of those is a fact, well before the reports come in. the body of work is just a shabby attempt to measure that fact with a bunch of increasingly smaller, and increasingly constrained and less informative facts.

The irony is that I don't really care who the better coach is. I'm excited about Zimmer because I think he's a good coach, not because I think he is better than Green. I would be excited about him if I thought Green had been a good coach or even if I thought Green was a great coach. Perhaps one day, I will change my opinion on Zimmer being a good coach. It will not be based on how his resume compares to Green when we have a similar sample size and can compare their records and rankings. It will be based on the character, culture, and leadership he continues to bring, or fails to bring, to the team(s) he coaches.

I have no problem with healthy discussion and speculation, none at all.

But if statistics and facts aren't a 'particularly informative or decisive' way of measuring things, then what does that make your subjective perception of character, culture and leadership?

I never stated once that Green was definitively better then Zimmer or not, only that it is far from a given, and personally, until he actually has the credentials to suggest that, I remain skeptical.

I have no issue with one taking that stance, I happened to have thought Rodgers was on track to be a better player then Favre since before he had his first NFL start (If you don't mind me pulling from personal experience for comparison sake), I understand your point, and take no issue with that opinion, I just think it should not be taken as a certainty until there is something quantifiable to support such a thing.

[Jordysghost]

There's an idea that all logical arguments form circles. They complete themselves and we can look at that argument and say, yes, that makes sense. So for example, a coach led his team to a great record, a productive offense and within a game of the superbowl, so he's a good coach. It does make sense. It just leaves a lot of the truth outside the circle. I'm trying to draw a circle which is notably larger, and contains several pieces of the truth which are harder to quantify, but no less true. I'm not interested in presenting it again for the time being, just explaining my perspective.

Jordy, if you think Dennis Green was a great coach, or a good coach, that's fine with me. As I said, it is a fact that depending on your measure, he has accomplished more than Mike Zimmer. I'll freely admit that. Personally I don't think that makes him a better coach, and I think there's enough else to the story that I don't even call him a good coach. Your circle is rational and makes sense, I just think its too small a circle to contain the truth. I hope that's a helpful way of expressing what I'm trying to say in a non-confrontational manner. I'm working on improving in that regard.

Also, my argument to this point has really primarily been that Green wasn't a good coach. My comments on Zimmer have been very minimal since the conversation took a turn toward debate with the myth-making comment. I don't really care about ranking the coaches. I think Zimmer is the best coach the Vikings have had since I've been a fan, if you don't, or feel a resume is necessary to support that conclusion, that's fine with me. I'm not looking at it as a ranking, just as a break with incompetence and the introduction of competence. That's my view of it and as a Vikings fan, I'm excited about that.

How big of a circle do you need though? I mean, 9 years (his entire tenure with the Vikings) is to small?

[fiestavike]

But if statistics and facts aren't a 'particularly informative or decisive' way of measuring things, then what does that make your subjective perception of character, culture and leadership?

Its a subjective opinion about an objective reality. I don't mean to come across as anti-fact or anti-stat, but I'm against the cult of fact that winds up being anti-truth.

I have no issue with one taking that stance, I happened to have thought Rodgers was on track to be a better player then Favre since before he had his first NFL start (If you don't mind me pulling from personal experience for comparison sake), I understand your point, and take no issue with that opinion, I just think it should not be taken as a certainty until there is something quantifiable to support such a thing.

I'm glad you have a sense of where I am coming from. There will never be something quantifiable that has enough validity (relationship to truth) to ever provide certainty. If you are waiting for quantifiable certainty you must remain eternally agnostic about everything in life. Your opinion won't change whatever the reality is, but you won't have to worry about that, because you will never have an opinion. You won't be wrong, and you'll never be right.

[Jordysghost]

We both seem to agree that every situation is different, which leads to less then apt quantifiable resolutions, but really fiesta, While I don't think this is applicable in this very conversation (Whether Zimmer is or isn't better then Green) at some point quantifiable facts and statistics HAVE to take precedent.

Otherwise you end up with people that think Favre is the best QB in NFL history..

I can't imagine an employer deigning the tangible production of one of his employees irrelevant in spite of the weather conditions and local current events.

[fiestavike]

I can't imagine an employer deigning the tangible production of one of his employees irrelevant in spite of the weather conditions and local current events.

It isn't irrelevant, but its certainly not determinative. The real measure of the employee comes before the production. The production is a measure of the employee, as well as a measure of many other things. Can you envision a scenario in which an employer knows a particular employee to be a good employee, but their production is less than expected? Or, can you envision a scenario in which an employee has great production, but has come by it in an unseemly way or by taking short cuts? There is a correlation between good employees and production, but the essential thing about a good employee is that he is a good employee not that he has great production.

(Interestingly, this could bring us back to Cordarelle Patterson, who's production in the past has outpaced his actual ability to effectively play WR). Those with whom I have frequently disagreed about this subject, in my opinion, place a greater emphasis on the measure than on the reality of who Patterson is as a football player.

[mansquatch]

I don't want to roll in the mud too much, but if the business is seasonal and weather is a deterministic factor, like Agriculture, then you will almost certainly have a scenario where you need a way to differentiate between nature driven circumstances and what the employee can actually control. (Full disclosure: I work in Ag and this is an issue near and dear to my heart)

The only reason I'm going down this path is to illustrate a challenge in evaluating performance. Getting back to the NFL, how do look at a teams result and assign credit? Stat lines are the obvious place to look, but take poor CP84, the original topic of this thread, as an example. If he has say 10 catches in 15 attempts is that good or bad? Were his receptions quality or not? Were they against good defenders or poor? Were they in garbage time? On and On you can go. Too much detail is analysis paralysis, but too little means you might miss what is truly important. Spielman/Zimmer get paid A LOT of $$$ to define this fine line and then get results.

[dead_poet]

Via @drewmahowald:

I tracked every play in Cordarrelle Patterson's career in which he was targeted or got a carry. Here are some #s

https://twitter.com/daemonic3/status/514994232558252033

[slapnut19]

i still lean on the expertise of spielman, zimmer and turner when it comes to patterson. not once in the past year have i heard "he's a great player, we have to get the ball into his hands." all i've heard from the gm down is that patterson needs to do the little things receivers need to do and be more consistent. it's pretty cut and dry if you look at it objectively. teams don't win championsips or even make deep playoff runs with gadget plays or bubble screens. the guy isn't a legit nfl wr and that's why he's on the bench. i have a hard time believing that they will pick up his 5th year option next month, and i think there's a decent chance he gets dealt over draft weekend.

[Mothman]

When did "gadget play" and "bubble screen" became pejorative terms around here? Such plays are a legitimate part of the game and a team that makes good use of them can reap significant benefits.

After all these pages and all this discussion about Patterson, i still don't understand why there's such an "all or nothing" attitude from the coaches and from many fans in regard to his game. Patterson doesn't have to be on the field for every down to make a valuable contribution while he's learning the finer points of the game.

Look at those stats above: 290 yards and 4 touchdowns on 24 carries! That's a spectacular average of 1 TD every 6 carries and over 12 yards per carry. Throw in the receiving numbers and we see production last year's Vikings could have used. As many of us have been saying all along, there's no excuse for not getting the ball into his hands more often. There are ways to do that.

Patterson touched the ball 4 times on offense last year. Four.

... and that offense? They finished 29th in the league's rankings. Maybe they could use another playmaker on the field once in a while?

[slapnut19]

When did "gadget play" and "bubble screen" became pejorative terms around here? Such plays are a legitimate part of the game and a team that makes good use of them can reap significant benefits.

After all these pages and all this discussion about Patterson, i still don't understand why there's such an "all or nothing" attitude from the coaches and from many fans in regard to his game. Patterson doesn't have to be on the field for every down to make a valuable contribution while he's learning the finer points of the game.

Look at those stats above: 290 yards and 4 touchdowns on 24 carries! That's a spectacular average of 1 TD every 6 carries and over 12 yards per carry. Throw in the receiving numbers and we see production last year's Vikings could have used. As many of us have been saying all along, there's no excuse for not getting the ball into his hands more often. There are ways to do that.

Patterson touched the ball 4 times on offense last year. Four.

... and that offense? They finished 29th in the league's rankings. Maybe they could use another playmaker on the field once in a while?

occasionally those types of plays work, but not over the course of an entire season, especially with a one dimensional player like patterson. sooner or later defensive coaches know it's either a run/short pass to him, or a fake. if he isn't a factor down the field then it limits what plays where he can contribute, and really limits how the coaches can use him. and yes, those stats look great, but take a look at how he performed in 2014. i've posted it several times, so i won't do it again. he basically had close to the same amount of touches as he had in 2013 with no where near the impact. i just don't understand how this is so complicated. just being a great athlete doesn't make you a great, good, or even decent wr. the guy is entering his 4th season, and 3rd in the same system. it's time to start expecting more from a guy who was a 1st round pick.