Mothman wrote:Their actions after the preseason suggest he was further down the depth chart than second string.
You mean after the preseason where Patterson ran the wrong route and directly led to a Hill interception? I wonder why that didn't enamor him to the coaching staff.
If actual playing time is any indication, Wallace, Diggs, Wright, Johnson and Thielen were all ahead of him on the depth chart. That seemed rather obvious over the course of the season and it doesn't seem like a stretch to suggest it may have impacted Patterson's practice reps. There are only so many plays and snaps to go around. If everybody else was getting more playing time, it seems logical to think they may have also received more practice time.
Do you think Patterson was getting the majority of practice reps with the second unit as Wallace's backup? Diggs and Johnson seemed to top the SE depth chart and it seems unlikely he was practicing much in the slot. I don't think Patterson has been used as a slot receiver at all under this staff.
We really have no way of knowing but CJ was a starter before being injured for a good portion of the season. That leads me to believe that, yes, Patterson likely was receiving a majority of the second team reps for much of the season for one reason or another, and that's under the assumption he was only getting them as a result of that. For all we know he was getting the bulk of the second team reps regardless.
Where was Thielen playing most of the time when he was on the field?
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the slot. ESPN has/had Thielen listed behind Wright anyway.
In August, the Vikings listed their preseason depth chart as:
WR1
Mike Wallace
Cordarrelle Patterson
Jarius Wright
Isaac Fruechte
Jordan Leslie
Gavin Lutman
WR2
Charles Johnson
Adam Thielen
Stefon Diggs
Donte Foster
DaVaris Daniels
Ryan Whalen
After cuts the depth chart read:
WR1 Mike Wallace Cordarrelle Patterson Jarius Wright
WR2 Charles Johnson Adam Thielen Stefon Diggs
Obviously that changed over the course of the season.
I'm not sure that's true but I understand your logic.
I find that more likely than there's some kind of conspiracy against him or a coaching staff with that much experience is choosing to keep a superior player on the bench without good reason.
If he's not playing, there must be a good reason for it, right?
I honestly don't know why that's so hard to believe.
]There's undoubtedly a reason. That doesn't mean it's a good reason or that the approach being taken is the best approach.
No, but it also doesn't mean that it's the wrong approach either. Not every player with immense physical gifts succeeds in the NFL. I look at Troy Williamson as an example. The coaching staff continued to put Williamson on the field, even through his struggles. Did that translate into a more productive offense? When Devin Hester or Josh Cribbs is/was on offense, do they succeed as receivers? Or has it been determined that Hester is/has been most effective as the primary return specialist (and other receivers on the field instead)? Patterson would hardly be the first.
It sure looks to me like they gave Patterson a brief shot and then wrote him off.
That's fine if that's your perspective but I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. What we perceive as a "brief shot" (because we're not privy to every practice and film study) may be standard for the NFL. Hell, it's been proven that first-rounders typically get the most leeway in terms of playing time if only because of their draft status. Not to mention that even as recent as last year Zimmer made the comment that Patterson still needs to decide if he wants to (paraphrasing) be a professional or "The Flash."
If he's continually making mistakes in practice (or is not precise enough to create adequate separation), if there are receivers that are better
pre-catch and getting open consistently and where they're supposed to be more often, I'd probably think
less of the coaching staff for putting Patterson in the lineup over them. That would send a poor message and you wouldn't be maximizing your offense, no matter how high Patterson's upside might be with the ball. However if they're keeping Patterson on the bench when he has proven that he's a superior receiver to, say, CJ then I would agree with you. I just find that highly unlikely.
The fact is he has had the benefit of three years of coaching/practice and even his personal receiving coach said that an incoming rookie still has better route-running skills than Patterson at this point (and one that isn't in the Amari Cooper level of route-running ability). Maybe I'm reading into that too much but I see that as an indication of just where Patterson's pre-catch skills are at this point. He may have improved, but that comment, to me, says that he's still below where he needs to be to be a starter in the NFL. The stats on throws to Patterson past the LOS are not favorable to his case.
I really wish this isn't the case because Patterson is clearly a special talent with the ball. I suppose we may find out next year if he's under a different coaching staff. If he suddenly becomes a good/great receiver then I'll join in the chorus of critics that will likely be bashing the Vikings/Zimmer/Norv for their decisions. When I see a guy like Diggs, who was listed at the back of the depth chart coming out of camp, able to work his way into the starting lineup and play well enough to stay there it makes me believe the coaching staff puts who they believe to be the best talent on the field that gives them the best chance to win each week. Frankly, I'm not sure special exceptions should be made for Patterson if he cannot do the same thing as Diggs.
Let's hope Patterson gets some chances in the preseason this year and can prove to us and the coaching staff that he's improved enough to warrant a starting spot, or at least 30+ snaps/game.
