Vikings Message Board.Com

A few game breakdowns of Teddy's performance:

Cause For Concern With Teddy?


All-22 of every Teddy dropback in Week 3

Mothman wrote:
Because he was in for 8 more plays (30 to Patterson's 22)? Again, that's confirmation bias at work. Patterson was targeted on 4 throws, Thielen on 3.

Just for the sake of clarity, Patterson was targeted on 0 throws last week. Hopefully we see him make some big plays against Denver today!

fiestavike wrote: Just for the sake of clarity, Patterson was targeted on 0 throws last week. Hopefully we see him make some big plays against Denver today!

Yes, I saw that when I had a chance to watch the rest of the game. I made the mistake above because the numbers were listed incorrectly in the game book I downloaded.

As you said, hopefully he'll make some big plays today. If he doesn't, oh well. I'm done with the whole Patterson debate. I don't care where he is on the depth chart and I'm beyond frustrated with the whole subject. I get the impression Turner lost interest in Patterson midway through last season and whether it's truly justified or not, Patterson's all but done as a Viking unless he can turn whatever minimal opportunities he gets into some eye-opening plays.

Mothman wrote:
Yes, I saw that when I had a chance to watch the rest of the game. I made the mistake above because the numbers were listed incorrectly in the game book I downloaded.

As you said, hopefully he'll make some big plays today. If he doesn't, oh well. I'm done with the whole Patterson debate. I don't care where he is on the depth chart and I'm beyond frustrated with the whole subject. I get the impression Turner lost interest in Patterson midway through last season and whether it's truly justified or not, Patterson's all but done as a Viking unless he can turn whatever minimal opportunities he gets into some eye-opening plays.

I understand Jim. I think the only totally unbiased position to take is agnosticism. We don't know exactly why he's struggling/not getting opportunities. I think we can probably agree to say that, although we 'suspect' different causes for his lack of production/development, we can both agree that neither one of us "knows" with certainty. I'm happy to go there and leave it alone.

fiestavike wrote:I understand Jim. I think the only totally unbiased position to take is agnosticism. We don't know exactly why he's struggling/not getting opportunities. I think we can probably agree to say that, although we 'suspect' different causes for his lack of production/development, we can both agree that neither one of us "knows" with certainty. I'm happy to go there and leave it alone.

Same here. We just don't know what the precise nature of the situation.

Hopefully, it will work out well in the end.