Moderator: Moderators
dead_poet wrote: I dunno; whenever I've had a eight-pack people always seem to get smarter and have great ideas ("Let's go to ANOTHER BAR!"). Two more and I feel damn-near genius.
I'll drink to that! 
Thanks.losperros wrote:Very well said. I agree fully with your response here, Jim. You're so right about the offense needing more horsepower. The Vikings needed to finish drives with touchdowns instead of field goals. I think Patterson would have been helpful.
Well said.Regarding Zimmer, it's only a stretch to believe he might actually be wrong about something if one believes he's entirely infallible. I don't. I doubt Zimmer would either.
I've literally faced an ice-covered uphill battle and it's nearly impossible! When I was a kid, we had an odd winter storm, a mix of snow and freezing rain that left a particularly slick glaze over everything. I've seen plenty of similar storms since but never one that left the ground like this one did. Anyway, I had to walk up a steep hill on my way school and I couldn't do it, not even on the grass! I tried again and again, eventually resorting to crawling, which STILL wasn't working very well. Finally, I was lucky and a friend's mother drove by, saw me, and gave me a ride to school.CbusVikesFan wrote:This move is not surprising at all. It's been a ice covered uphill battle for CP. I never thought that he would work out as far as a good WR but he surely has qualities that would make you think so.
Thanks. I find the first part of the breakdown more useful than the 2nd. Any WR can get open, but doing so consistently is the key, especially when its imperative to get open without the context and timing of an overall offense.
fiestavike wrote: Thanks. I find the first part of the breakdown more useful than the 2nd
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.Any WR can get open, but doing so consistently is the key, especially when its imperative to get open without the context and timing of an overall offense.
The argument that he has done it, so we know he can do it misses the point entirely. Its like saying Dwight Howard has made free throws, so we know he can make free throws. But the relevant fact is that he does so with such inconsistency that teams literlly foul him intentionally because the odds of him making a free throw are worse than the odds of another player making a contested jumper.
Yes, Patterson can get open and has gotten open, but he's not good at it, and he evidently has not improved enough to be part of the offense the Vikings are trying to build.
No matter how dramatic the athletic upside of a player, the upside to the team is limited without a level of proficiency. Giving Patterson the benefit of every doubt, its a choice between establishing a goal of "a little more production" vs a goal of excellence. I'm not interested in anything short of championship football, and I'm glad Zimmer and Co. aren't either.
Mothman wrote: The best coaching involves flexibility, grasping a player's strengths and weaknesses and utilizing him appropriately. I said all the way back in 2014 that Turner was blowing it with Patterson by shoehorning him into the wrong role. He's built like a split end but he didn't possess the skill set of a starting split end at that point so lining up at that position and running him on deep post routes so often was a bad coaching decision. He was asked to play the wrong role and when he didn't quickly master it, they gave up on him. It was, and is, shortsighted.
To put it another way, that mis-use of a player has long been a part of the argument in favor of playing Patterson and consequently, the Dwight Howard free throw analogy isn't really appropriate. We haven't missed the point. 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!). There are routes and plays Patterson could run well ona pretty consistent basis even a year and a half ago and if Stewart hasn't been able to help him get a better handle on nuances of the game like how to plant and cut when running a post route since then, I'd be surprised. That's something that should be quite
To play devil's advocate, A) WAS Patterson sent on a lot of deep post routes when on the field? I don't recall that being the case. B) His skill set doesn't include deep post routes? Essentially run fast in a straight line? That's scary. I would hope he has that ability. He tested out athletically and physically for that to be the case, at least with a decent degree of competence. C) Are we that confident in our amateur football analysis that we know more about how to use Patterson than the veteran coaching staff? I'm not saying they're infallible, but it seems a stretch to believe we know where Patterson should be played over Norv 'N Friends.Mothman wrote:The best coaching involves flexibility, grasping a player's strengths and weaknesses and utilizing him appropriately. I said all the way back in 2014 that Turner was blowing it with Patterson by shoehorning him into the wrong role. He's built like a split end but he didn't possess the skill set of a starting split end at that point so lining up at that position and running him on deep post routes so often was a bad coaching decision.
MrPurplenGold wrote:I think part of it is his limited skill set leads to a sense of predictability. If he can only do a few things very well, teams will eventually identify those things and scheme around them.
I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not assuming that. It would be difficult to sustain that pace.While Patterson is a great physical talent, he isn't transcendent. We all assume he would have been able to continue the success he started as a rookie without identifying the probability of defensive coordinators just identifying what he does well and stopping it.
The "norm around the league" argument is always a non-starter for me. After all, the goal isn't to be average or to be like every other team, it's to be the best team. At least I hope that's the goal!Defensive coordinators are going to put 8 or 9 guys in the box because TB hasn't shown he can beat them deep. If AD is in the backfield while Teddy is in shotgun they can play more zone because AD isn't the greatest at running out of the shotgun. Unless you're a transcendent type player, you have to be more than just good, you have to be good and fit the scheme, CP just doesn't seem to fit the scheme. We can blame the vikings coaching staff, but I would consider that more of the norm around the league than vice versa.
dead_poet wrote:To play devil's advocate, A) WAS Patterson sent on a lot of deep post routes when on the field?
You didn't describe a deep post route. A post route isn't run in a straight line. The receiver takes the route straight upfield and is supposed to make a hard cut inside, at an angle toward the goal post (hence the name of the route). Patterson had a tendency to round off the cut. That's hardly the kind of issue a good WR coach should find impossible to correct over time but it was definitely a problem for Patterson in 2014.
B) His skill set doesn't include deep post routes? Essentially run fast in a straight line? That's scary.
C) Are we that confident in our amateur football analysis that we know more about how to use Patterson than the veteran coaching staff? I'm not saying they're infallible, but it seems a stretch to believe we know where Patterson should be played over Norv 'N Friends.
Since we agree coaches aren't infallible, how would you like me to respond?And speaking of deep fly outs, which really are straight lines, Bridgewater has been consistently off the mark with those as well. OTOH, I think Patterson could have turned some short to mid-range throws into big gains, including some touchdowns. As you said, that's Patterson's game.Mothman wrote:You didn't describe a deep post route. A post route isn't run in a straight line. The receiver takes the route straight upfield and is supposed to make a hard cut inside, at an angle toward the goal post (hence the name of the route). Patterson had a tendency to round off the cut. That's hardly the kind of issue a good WR coach should find impossible to correct over time but it was definitely a problem for Patterson in 2014.
It hasn't proven to be a good route for Bridgewater to throw either, regardless of who plays WR, which is one of the reasons he seems to be a mismatch for Turner's scheme, which has tended to use post routes as a staple.
That's why I don't assume that.mansquatch wrote:I still think it comes down to risk vs. reward. Especially last year. At one point there were 7-2. So if you are winning and winning consistently, why would you up and take a guy like CP84 and put him in when you've got Diggs ascendant? Once they hit the rough patch of the season they started losing more, but they only got blown out in two games, the home GB loss and SEA home loss. (Those two blowouts featured defensive struggles early.) They were in every other game. (Excluding the SF MNF debacle that was a disaster also)
I agree CP84 can be explosive, but there is a judgement call to be made on whether his mistakes in those explosive games would have offset the extra 30-50 yards of offensive production he would bring to the table. 2 of our close losses were by missed field goals. Would his mistakes have turned those 3 points losses into 7 point losses? What about games were we won by a small margin?
I do not know the answer, I just think you guys are way too one sided in your quest for production that you are not considering the costs of the negatives to the team. I think everyone on here agrees that our passing game stunk last year. Why is it that CP84 starting is all positive and no negative vs. whomever he replaces? One could even take this a step further and ask if the fixing the OL would add more production that swapping in CP84? I don't know the answer, but it seems very short sighted to me to just assume that putting him in won't also have other consequences.
It's mine too. I acknowledge the potential downside to playing him. I just think the potential upside could greatly outweigh it if he's used effectively. At the very least, I'd like to find out.losperros wrote:And speaking of deep fly outs, which really are straight lines, Bridgewater has been consistently off the mark with those as well. OTOH, I think Patterson could have turned some short to mid-range throws into big gains, including some touchdowns. As you said, that's Patterson's game
Patterson wouldn't have been the "cure all" for last season's passing game. I do believe he could have helped it. And last season's passing game definitely needed the help. That's my main reason in thinking it was a mistake not to give CP more playing time.
The red line is the line that Patterson usually takes on a post. It’s not sharp, it’s not explosive, and it’s not going to get him open against man coverage. The yellow line would be an ideal post route, as a quick inside release would get the receiver leverage toward the middle of the field, which he would then use to separate with a sharp stem at the top of the route.
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.My general impression from watching Patterson was that he’s talented and strong enough to be thrown the ball in more situations than the Vikings currently call for, but that his weakness as a route runner does generally limit his upside as the Minnesota coaches continue to call plays for him to run routes against man coverage.
