Vikings Message Board.Com

The kid doesn't seem to be real smart when it comes to X's n O's.

Not sure how fixable that is for him in particular....but it's critical if he is going to be part of the offense.

I'm 50/50 on him right now.



edit: Norv has proven to be very system oriented if not inflexible....it's proving to work against CP for now.
It may be a bad fit which would be sad. I can't help but wonder what Musgrave could do with TB.

Ardenn wrote:I think there is a distinct possibility that he is being kept on the bench to try to motivate him to work harder. If they manufacture ways to give him the ball even though he can't run routes, he may (or they may believe that he may) not see the necessity of working on his craft. I think its a more long term plan.

I'll take Zimmer, Norv, the other coaches and players at their word when they say there is no attitudinal or work ethic problem with Patterson.

dead_poet wrote:I'm willing to give Norv a bit of a break here. This is now two offensive coordinators that seem to have difficulty trusting Patterson, and one that has been in this business a long time. I think if we looked at his snap percentage throughout the year, it'll show a steady decline. And unfortunately there's nothing that Patterson really has done to make me think he deserved to be out there any more.

Reread Jim's rant and then watch what Patterson did with limited field time late last year. You'll see a guy that is a threat to make big plays from anywhere on the field when he has the ball in his hands. As for the two offensive coordinators, Musgrave did just fine with Patterson once he actually started using him.

Patterson might have just finished the biggest "sophomore slump" in Vikes history. The guy was electric last season, and one of our few bright spots. This year, he regressed on all fronts. Let's hope it can be fixed. He seems like a good guy and he certainly has the physical gifts to be a superstar.

Mothman wrote:Musgrave's solution appeared to be to work with him to develop his role in the offense and once he felt Patterson was comfortable enough with that limited role, he got great production out of him. Norv's approach seemed to be to plug him into his system and when he he proved to be too raw to thrive in it, bench him.

And I think here we're at a crossroads with who Patterson is and who he can be. Both of these approaches have merit with potential benefits and pitfalls. Musgrave seems to have wanted to capitalize on what Patterson could do as a rookie. That's commendable. But doing so also may have stagnated his growth as a traditional wide receiver. Traditional wide receivers play more snaps and generally are more impactful than "gadget" guys (Tavon Austin comes to mind). Conversely, throughout the season Turner seemed to want to develop Patterson as a complete wide receiver in order to maximize his time on the field. Honestly, do you not think the production we saw from the few bubble screens from other players were successful? And perhaps they were such because they weren't expected. In my view, Norv was taking the long-term approach and trying to help Patterson. I suppose it just depends on your point of view because we're just speculating and can't see in Norv's mind.

Norv has been in the business a long time and has the better resumé but I think Musgrave may be the more flexible, adaptable coordinator. He wasn't a very instinctive playcaller, but he showed more than once that he could tweak his offense to get the most out of unique talent. Harvin's best production came under Musgrave. Peterson had his best season under Musgrave and Patterson certainly had a better rookie season than he did this year.

You can't compare Norv and Musgrave with Peterson and Harvin when only one of those only played one game for Turner. Turner has a pretty good track record with running backs and I think we would've seen Peterson successful in this offense (certainly catching more balls). It's a shame we didn't get to witness it this year. I'm quite anxious to see this offense again with everyone healthy and potentially AD back.

Frankly, I think it was the latter and the emergence of Johnson, who admittedly fit the system better and provided more production than Patterson was providing.

Exactly. I guess the question is do you want the better production you're getting or the potential for more big plays that Patterson might be able to provide? It's a tough call, made easier if the staff determined Patterson wasn't being as effective as someone else could be (and was being).

There are but I wonder: where's the adaptability?

An argument can be made that choosing CJ over Patterson is being adaptable, but I get your point. But at some point if what you're seeing in practice and in games is a guy that's performing worse than someone else on your roster, at what point are you being foolish for continuing to play him?

The previous staff was blasted for keeping this explosive talent on the bench too long and this staff has been all but lauded for benching him. As I see it, the primary job of an offense is to score points and the primary job of an offensive coordinator is to make the best use of the talent available to him to help that happen.I think Norv failed to do that with Patterson

Or he succeeded with Johnson? Not that Johnson was a superstar but I don't know if you can make an argument that CJ did less with his snaps than Patterson did with his.

and all we have to do is look at what the Vikes were able to do with the same player toward the end of last season to see how badly he failed. I'm not giving Patterson a pass here. He clearly has to work hard on his game but the guy is a natural, instinctive threat in the open field, and Norv couldn't figure out a way to get the ball to him in space a little more often? That's frustrating.

I understand the frustration. I wish Patterson was more involved, too. I just understand why he potentially fell out of favor (though I do wonder if the Vikings never acquired Johnson if Patterson would've been starting or if he would've fallen behind Wright or Thielen). He's going to get another big chance. Everybody in the building (and the fan base) wants him to succeed in a big way. Hopefully he can. Yes, he's a natural, instinctive threat in the open field, but he has to get open first (consistently) to warrant the targets. Otherwise he will be relegated to return duty and "gadget guy", which has a place but would be unfortunate given his potential and draft position.

Those are both excellent points. I just didn't see much effort to do anything to help Patterson be more productive.

I'm just not convinced force-feeding him bubble screens would've done him a lot of good, long-term. Perhaps production in the short term. For that case, I can understand your position of Turner failing. I still think it's a hard case to make that having Patterson on the field more this season would've resulted in increased offensive output given the early results. Of course, maybe force-feeding him on Patterson-specific plays may have done the trick. Who knows. In the end, I hope the light clicks on in Year Three.

dead_poet wrote:And I think here we're at a crossroads with who Patterson is and who he can be. Both of these approaches have merit with potential benefits and pitfalls. Musgrave seems to have wanted to capitalize on what Patterson could do as a rookie. That's commendable. But doing so also may have stagnated his growth as a traditional wide receiver. Traditional wide receivers play more snaps and generally are more impactful than "gadget" guys (Tavon Austin comes to mind). Conversely, throughout the season Turner seemed to want to develop Patterson as a complete wide receiver in order to maximize his time on the field. Honestly, do you not think the production we saw from the few bubble screens from other players were successful? And perhaps they were such because they weren't expected. In my view, Norv was taking the long-term approach and trying to help Patterson. I suppose it just depends on your point of view because we're just speculating and can't see in Norv's mind.

You're right, we can't know what he was thinking but I see no reason to consider Patterson's situation an either/or scenario, in which he's a gadget receiver and his growth is stunted because he's not learning how to be effective in a more traditional role or vice versa.

Norv has been in the business a long time and has the better resumé but I think Musgrave may be the more flexible, adaptable coordinator. He wasn't a very instinctive playcaller, but he showed more than once that he could tweak his offense to get the most out of unique talent. Harvin's best production came under Musgrave. Peterson had his best season under Musgrave and Patterson certainly had a better rookie season than he did this year.

You can't compare Norv and Musgrave with Peterson and Harvin when only one of those only played one game for Turner.

I think it's perfectly legitimate comparison since my point was about Musgrave's ability to make the most of a key asset. My point wasn't simply that Musgrave's offense was more productive. Peterson and Harvin each had their best season under Musgrave. Patterson was much more explosive and productive in the latter's offense. There's no denying that we are talking about gifted athletes here so I'm not saying Norv should have been able to get the same kind of production out of an offense without peterson and Harvin as Musgrave got with them. I'm simply saying that I don't think it's a coincidence that Musgrave got that kind of production out of those players. He had his shortcomings as Vikings OC but I think he was quite good at adapting and designing ways to get production out of his most talented players.

Exactly. I guess the question is do you want the better production you're getting or the potential for more big plays that Patterson might be able to provide? It's a tough call, made easier if the staff determined Patterson wasn't being as effective as someone else could be (and was being).

Sure, but my suspicion is that call was made based on a stubborn insistence on sticking with the system when I would have preferred to see a great willingness to adapt to develop and make the most of a unique talent.

An argument can be made that choosing CJ over Patterson is being adaptable, but I get your point. But at some point if what you're seeing in practice and in games is a guy that's performing worse than someone else on your roster, at what point are you being foolish for continuing to play him?

It's a fair question but there's a bit of the chicken and the egg at work in this discussion. At what point is the weaker performance by the (at least arguably) more talented player due to the way he's being utilized? It's hard to answer but I'm obviously making the case that Turner's unwillingness to adapt to get more out of Patterson is a key reason for the latter's lack of production.

I understand the frustration. I wish Patterson was more involved, too. I just understand why he potentially fell out of favor (though I do wonder if the Vikings never acquired Johnson if Patterson would've been starting or if he would've fallen behind Wright or Thielen). He's going to get another big chance. Everybody in the building (and the fan base) wants him to succeed in a big way. Hopefully he can. Yes, he's a natural, instinctive threat in the open field, but he has to get open first (consistently) to warrant the targets. Otherwise he will be relegated to return duty and "gadget guy", which has a place but would be unfortunate given his potential and draft position.

I'm just not convinced force-feeding him bubble screens would've done him a lot of good, long-term.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I wanted them to force feed him bubble screens. That was just one of several types of plays I mentioned, the underlying point being that there ware ways to get a receiver the ball even when he hasn't full developed the skills to consistently win down the field. Bubble screens are just one way. Where were the clearing routes to isolate Patterson one on one in the open field? The slants? He looked pretty effective running down and out routes to the sidelines, why not a little more of that? Spend an intensive week focused on teaching the kid how to properly execute a double-move on a go route... something. I just get the impression he was shoehorned into a system he wasn't ready to handle and then relegated to the bench when he almost inevitably struggled.

Perhaps production in the short term. For that case, I can understand your position of Turner failing. I still think it's a hard case to make that having Patterson on the field more this season would've resulted in increased offensive output given the early results. Of course, maybe force-feeding him on Patterson-specific plays may have done the trick. Who knows. In the end, I hope the light clicks on in Year Three.

I hope so too. I also hope Norv fiunds a way to field a much more productive offense next year. Turner-coached offenses have now finished in the bottom half of the league 3 years in a row and while I realize personnel has had something to do with that and Norv has a long history of effective playcalling, it's hard to ignore those finishes, especially when two of them were in the bottom 6.

Mothman wrote:In fact, the way Musgrave handled things is one of the reasons I'm being critical of Norv. Patterson was a raw prospect. Musgrave's solution appeared to be to work with him to develop his role in the offense and once he felt Patterson was comfortable enough with that limited role, he got great production out of him. Norv's approach seemed to be to plug him into his system and when he he proved to be too raw to thrive in it, bench him. Norv has been in the business a long time and has the better resumé but I think Musgrave may be the more flexible, adaptable coordinator. He wasn't a very instinctive playcaller, but he showed more than once that he could tweak his offense to get the most out of unique talent. Harvin's best production came under Musgrave. Peterson had his best season under Musgrave and Patterson certainly had a better rookie season than he did this year.

There are but I wonder: where's the adaptability? The previous staff was blasted for keeping this explosive talent on the bench too long and this staff has been all but lauded for benching him. As I see it, the primary job of an offense is to score points and the primary job of an offensive coordinator is to make the best use of the talent available to him to help that happen. I think Norv failed to do that with Patterson and all we have to do is look at what the Vikes were able to do with the same player toward the end of last season to see how badly he failed. I'm not giving Patterson a pass here. He clearly has to work hard on his game but the guy is a natural, instinctive threat in the open field, and Norv couldn't figure out a way to get the ball to him in space a little more often? That's frustrating.

Very well said. I couldn't agree more, Jim.

I like Norv but he's paid big bucks to do a job, which consists of getting his best playmakers on the field and utilizing them in a way that they (and the team) succeeds.

Mothman wrote:I think it's perfectly legitimate comparison since my point was about Musgrave's ability to make the most of a key asset. My point wasn't simply that Musgrave's offense was more productive. Peterson and Harvin each had their best season under Musgrave.

And Tomlinson had his best season under Turner. I guess I'm missing the point. But I don't believe Turner is necessarily a worse offensive coordinator than Musgrave because of Patterson's down year.

He had his shortcomings as Vikings OC but I think he was quite good at adapting and designing ways to get production out of his most talented players.

And I think Norv has a much more extensive track record of that than Musgrave. I don't know how that's even debatable (other than the player in question, I suppose).

Sure, but my suspicion is that call was made based on a stubborn insistence on sticking with the system when I would have preferred to see a great willingness to adapt to develop and make the most of a unique talent.

That's fair. But I do find it hard to fault him when his system has produced some of the most explosive seasons by receivers (Gordon), running backs (Tomlinson), tight ends (Gates, Cameron), etc. in the NFL. Though I will say he may never have coached someone like Patterson before. But I don't necessarily think it's the wrong call to try and develop him into more of a traditional receiver. I do think he may have erred too far in that direction and could've probably put in a few more plays for him each game. But again, there's a lot that goes on during practice we don't see so perhaps there was a reason for that.

It's a fair question but there's a bit of the chicken and the egg at work in this discussion. At what point is the weaker performance by the (at least arguably) more talented player due to the way he's being utilized? It's hard to answer but I'm obviously making the case that Turner's unwillingness to adapt to get more out of Patterson is a key reason for the latter's lack of production.

Yeah, it's tough. Probably no right answer. Just a matter of your perspective.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I wanted them to force feed him bubble screens. That was just one of several types of plays I mentioned, the underlying point being that there ware ways to get a receiver the ball even when he hasn't full developed the skills to consistently win down the field.

Sorry, that was one of the ways you mentioned. I didn't take the flea-flicker one seriously because we might see that play by one team once a season. Thanks for the other examples.

Where were the clearing routes to isolate Patterson one on one in the open field? The slants? He looked pretty effective running down and out routes to the sidelines, why not a little more of that?

Again, maybe those plays were there. Do you know for certain they weren't and he just wasn't targeted? It'd be interesting to go back and find out the routes he ran this season.

I just get the impression he was shoehorned into a system he wasn't ready to handle and then relegated to the bench when he almost inevitably struggled.

It's hard for me to complain much about a system that has produced solid wide receiver success with other players. I do get that Norv could've been a bit more creative in his use of Patterson, but Patterson also needed to progress this season to be a more complete receiver and he wasn't able to to do it. They obviously both could've done more to help the other.

I hope so too. I also hope Norv finds a way to field a much more productive offense next year. Turner-coached offenses have now finished in the bottom half of the league 3 years in a row and while I realize personnel has had something to do with that and Norv has a long history of effective playcalling, it's hard to ignore those finishes, especially when two of them were in the bottom 6.

There's not much excuse for Rivers in Turner's last year but looking at the QBs and RBs he had to work with the last two seasons and it's hard to ignore the challenges he faced. It would've been quite a feat for any coordinator to squeeze out significantly more production. But I'm obviously just speculating.

dead_poet wrote: It's hard for me to complain much about a system that has produced solid wide receiver success with other players. I do get that Norv could've been a bit more creative in his use of Patterson, but Patterson also needed to progress this season to be a more complete receiver and he wasn't able to to do it. They obviously both could've done more to help the other.

That's a good point. Both Norv and Patterson probably could have done more to help each other.

Norv seems to genuinely like Patterson and does acknowledge the guy's potential. He even said at times CP was the victim of "bad luck" this year. So I think that Turner and Zimmer are both sincere about working with Patterson during the off-season. Maybe next year we'll see Patterson do the amazing things that he does but be a more complete player at the same time. I hope so. Because I think we've seen proof that keeping Patterson confined to the bench isn't helping him or the team.

dead_poet wrote:And Tomlinson had his best season under Turner. I guess I'm missing the point. But I don't believe Turner is necessarily a worse offensive coordinator than Musgrave because of Patterson's down year.

You're missing the point. Sorry, I'm probably not making it clear. I'm not saying Turner is a worse offensive coordinator. I'm trying to speak to an aspect of what they two coaches do, not their overall performance or history as NFL OCs. I think Musgrave may be better at adapting and designing ways to get production out of his most talented players, at least at this point in their respective careers. Maybe that's overstating things but I certainly think he did a better job of it than Turner did this year. Overall, Turner is obviously the more accomplished offensive coach.

That's fair. But I do find it hard to fault him when his system has produced some of the most explosive seasons by receivers (Gordon), running backs (Tomlinson), tight ends (Gates, Cameron), etc. in the NFL. Though I will say he may never have coached someone like Patterson before. But I don't necessarily think it's the wrong call to try and develop him into more of a traditional receiver. I do think he may have erred too far in that direction and could've probably put in a few more plays for him each game. But again, there's a lot that goes on during practice we don't see so perhaps there was a reason for that.

Well said. I wish we had more information. Maybe we'll get a little more in the coming weeks.

Sorry, that was one of the ways you mentioned. I didn't take the flea-flicker one seriously because we might see that play by one team once a season.

Sure, but that was part of my point: did we even see Turner break out that sort "once in a season" type call for Patterson? I'm just disappointed in what I perceive as a lack of effort to get more out of such an obviously talented player, especially in a season with the offense sometimes struggled to score.

Again, maybe those plays were there. Do you know for certain they weren't and he just wasn't targeted? It'd be interesting to go back and find out the routes he ran this season.

It might make a good offseason project. I don't recall seeing much of that stuff but admittedly, I wasn't always looking.

It's hard for me to complain much about a system that has produced solid wide receiver success with other players. I do get that Norv could've been a bit more creative in his use of Patterson, but Patterson also needed to progress this season to be a more complete receiver and he wasn't able to to do it. They obviously both could've done more to help the other.

I think that makes a pretty fine "bottom line' to this discussion.

There's not much excuse for Rivers in Turner's last year but looking at the QBs and RBs he had to work with the last two seasons and it's hard to ignore the challenges he faced. It would've been quite a feat for any coordinator to squeeze out significantly more production. But I'm obviously just speculating.

He definitely hasn't been dealing with loaded offensive rosters the last two years but I do think the trend is worth watching.

I don't know, I think they made the right call. How much of Musgrave putting Patterson on the field had to do with Musgrave/Frasier coaching for their jobs? Maybe nothing, maybe everything? We have no way to know, but that incentive to win now is definitely more acute for a staff in year 4 vs. year 1.

The pass CP didn't catch on Sunday was not a perfect throw by Babyface, but it was hardly uncatchable. I think Babyface deserves AT LEAST 50% fault on the resulting pick, but CP not bailing his QB out is also at fault. A few weeks prior we saw CP touch the ball and fumble it. It isn't like the lack of trust thing wasn't justified.

My guess is this coaching staff has CP pegged and they are doing what they think constitutes the best approach to get him to become what he can potentially be. CP has gotten by on talent alone for most of his career. If you want him to do more than be talented then you have to find a way to properly motivated to apply himself in that regard. IMO, the question you guys are ultimately debating is which approach to developing CP84 is best. There is no correct answer for us to reach since we will NEVER have the complete story, which includes what, if any, other methods the staff may have tried before the current approach was implemented.

Just a random thought, but who says no on a Patterson for Gordon swap between the Browns & Vikings? Both players in potential need of a fresh start. Gordon obviously has the more checkered past but has shown to be an elite WR in Norv's system. Patterson, while he hasn't shown elite WR ability, was an elite playmaker as a rookie & doesn't have the off field issues of Gordon.

Mothman wrote: I hope so too but my biggest complaint about the coaching staff this year was the way they handled Patterson. We're obviously not privy to everything that happened behind the scenes but it sure seems to me like he was shuffled off into Norv's doghouse. I realize he had some issues with route-running and being where he was supposed to be but there were also some plays earlier in the season where he got open and was missed. He was instrumental in helping the team drive into field field goal position on the final drive of regulation in Tampa Bay. He came in late against Detroit and made a few key catches. Even on Sunday, on the one attempt I recall bring thrown his way, he was in position to make the catch, he used his body properly to shield the defender from the ball and he couldn't handle a throw that was a little behind him. It was catchable so he should have handled it but the point is, that's a route he can run and a catch he's made at other times.

I didn't feel Norv was creative with Patterson and I think the Vikes did as much to squander his talent this season as Patterson himself may have done to squander his opportunity. Last year, the coaching staff was mercilessly criticized for keeping him on the bench too long. This year, he was basically banished to the bench and nearly all of the criticism is being directed toward him. Norv and Mike are basically getting a pass for not being able to figure out to make better use of a player who is truly explosive.

As Kapp said above, "nobody wanted the ball in his hands". Unfortunately, by the end of the season that even seemed to apply to Patterson's coaches but as the way teams avoided him on kickoffs and keyed on him when he was a potential runner shows, opponents were worried about what he could do with the ball in his hands. Again, I understand that his game needs work but are we supposed to believe Patterson can't run a bubble screen, a quick slant or a go route? How about sending him down the middle on a flea flicker? The Vikes didn't exactly work to get the ball to him. If they had, maybe their offense would have scored some more points this year.

Sorry about the rant.

These are some good points. But I wonder if this had anything to do with wanting Teddy to develop the "right" way??
If you're trying to groom the QB of the future, as a pocket passer, I think you want to focus on running an offense that plays to his strengths and his development. Should the focus be on developing Bridgewater to be able to read defenses, understand where his receivers should be on hot routes, etc? Or should the focus be on developing a WR with an unorthodox style, gadget plays, etc.?

My guess is if Cassel had stayed healthy we would have seen a greater focus on developing CP, but once he went down and TB came in, the focus turned to developing TB. And I would imagine it would be frustrating trying to develop a rookie pocket passer if the "feature" WR wasn't where he was supposed to be half of the time.

Of course I have no basis for these statements but that doesn't prevent me from making them!!

mansquatch wrote:

The pass CP didn't catch on Sunday was not a perfect throw by Babyface, but it was hardly uncatchable. I think Babyface deserves AT LEAST 50% fault on the resulting pick, but CP not bailing his QB out is also at fault. A few weeks prior we saw CP touch the ball and fumble it. It isn't like the lack of trust thing wasn't justified.

.

Careful, you might have just started a 3 page debate on whose fault this was

VikingPaul73 wrote: Careful, you might have just started a 3 page debate on whose fault this was

Are you trying to make me bite right through my tongue? I just had to stifle about a dozen sarcastic remarks at once!

Mothman wrote: Are you trying to make me bite right through my tongue? I just had to stifle about a dozen sarcastic remarks at once!

Good then it was successful

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk