Mothman wrote:
I agree that it's impossible to prioritize everything at once but that's where we part ways on this. I doubt Turner's goal on offense is any different than Musgrave's: production is the primary goal of any offense. I can't emphasize that enough how strongly I feel about that. The intent on almost every play is to gain yardage and only in very particular game situations (like the victory formation) is that not the case. Offenses are on the field to produce yardage and points. I think both Turner and Musgrave are probably trying to achieve that goal.
I get the impression again and again that you seem to think that's a secondary purpose, which confuses me. That may be where our discussion breaks down (and if I'm wrong about your view, I guess it's clearly where it breaks down!).
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.
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.
It seems where we may differ on this most is that I see production as the top priority but I may also have a different take on the "long view" than you do. To me, the way to achieve excellence is to maximize that production on offense over the long term and that not only involves an emphasis on precision and consistency but it also involves utilizing and developing talent. Over time, I think they have much more to gain by developing a player with Patterson's natural ability, by finding a good role for him in the offense, than by using players like player Thielen or even Johnson as they did last year. What growing pains might cost them now could pay big dividends down the road.
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. If Patterson can't or won't fully unlock or utilize his talents, Adam Thielen may well be a better NFL player. If that't the case, develop him, despite the growing pains of having less production and explosive potential on the end around to #19 than you might get out of #84.
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. 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.
