Vikings Message Board.Com

Why not try Patterson at RB. He has all the tools, he's fast physical, and has the vision an moves to match. Also would help getting his confidence up while trying to grasp routes. He would be able to shift out of the backfield as well as play wide receiver through the game. He's looked pretty explosive taking the ball from the backfield in the past. I mean what could it hurt at this point.

darrenjohn1989 wrote:Why not try Patterson at RB. He has all the tools, he's fast physical, and has the vision an moves to match. Also would help getting his confidence up while trying to grasp routes. He would be able to shift out of the backfield as well as play wide receiver through the game. He's looked pretty explosive taking the ball from the backfield in the past. I mean what could it hurt at this point.

I don't know about on a consistent basis, but as a change of pace and a way to get more play makers on the field, im all for it.

He is a physical talent and a great playmaker with the ball in his hand, if Cobb and Harvin can handle it, so should he be able to.

He's been shifted into the backfield a few times, unfortunately we don't remember it because, you know, he almost never got any snaps this year.

I don't think it would be wise to try to shift him there permanently, though, because I question his between the tackles physicality and I'm sure his pass protection would make Adrian look like Steve Hutchinson.

I think he has some of the physical traits to be successful ....

The mental or drive to what to learn anything...the guy appears to be
no ability to learn long term. Three years and cant run a decent route tree


he seems to be clown IMO ..him smiling after that big fumble two weeks ago ???

jackal wrote:I think he has some of the physical traits to be successful ....

The mental or drive to what to learn anything...the guy appears to be
no ability to learn long term. Three years and cant run a decent route tree


he seems to be clown IMO ..him smiling after that big fumble two weeks ago ???

I still have the slimmest of hopes that if the Vikings move on from Wallace and Patterson does what he needs to do this offseason, he could start contributing as a WR next year...but my hopes are paper thin at this point.

Cant learn a route tree. I bet he would learn one if he was on carolina. I honestly think turner has a personal gripe with him

Boon wrote:Cant learn a route tree. I bet he would learn one if he was on carolina. I honestly think turner has a personal gripe with him

So do I. And Zimmer has a hand in it because he's the head coach. They kept an explosive weapon on the bench. As a fan, that pisses me off.

The route tree excuse never did wash, mostly due to his catches during his rookie season. For crying out loud, one can watch it on Youtube. And there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that he has a bad attitude or doesn't work hard, given that the Vikings players, Rick Spielman, and even the coaches have praised his work ethic. Yeah, he didn't work with Irvin but it's been confirmed he never missed a meeting and worked hard at every practice.

losperros wrote: So do I. And Zimmer has a hand in it because he's the head coach. They kept an explosive weapon on the bench. As a fan, that pisses me off.

The route tree excuse never did wash, mostly due to his catches during his rookie season. For crying out loud, one can watch it on Youtube. And there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that he has a bad attitude or doesn't work hard, given that the Vikings players, Rick Spielman, and even the coaches have praised his work ethic. Yeah, he didn't work with Irvin but it's been confirmed he never missed a meeting and worked hard at every practice.

Didn't this come up in the summer and I thought one of us went to a lot of trouble to dig up evidence supporting Norv playing players that he was disagreeing with off the field? I am pretty sure Zimmer and Norv have no history or sitting players they are upset with for extended periods of time. At this point its such a weird idea because why would they waste a roster spot on him?


I think its beyond silly to not trust your coaching staff to be professional. Maybe, just maybe. Patterson comes off as lazy with little work ethic in practice. There is a much larger body of evidence to support that than making the connection between a 109 yard kick returns = potential to be amazing receiver.

IrishViking wrote:I think its beyond silly to not trust your coaching staff to be professional. Maybe, just maybe. Patterson comes off as lazy with little work ethic in practice. There is a much larger body of evidence to support that than making the connection between a 109 yard kick returns = potential to be amazing receiver.

What evidence?

IrishViking wrote:Didn't this come up in the summer and I thought one of us went to a lot of trouble to dig up evidence supporting Norv playing players that he was disagreeing with off the field? I am pretty sure Zimmer and Norv have no history or sitting players they are upset with for extended periods of time. At this point its such a weird idea because why would they waste a roster spot on him?


I think its beyond silly to not trust your coaching staff to be professional. Maybe, just maybe. Patterson comes off as lazy with little work ethic in practice. There is a much larger body of evidence to support that than making the connection between a 109 yard kick returns = potential to be amazing receiver.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I truly don't remember that post/thread.

Play Patterson as a running back...interesting.
He'd obviously be pretty good at sweeps, but could he, would he even want to try running through the line and taking those hits? Only he knows, but doubtfully, Patterson as a running back in a Vikings uniform will never come up at a coaches' meeting, or would it?

Addendum: I truly wonder if any Vikings coach or personnel staff reads any of the Viking forums...prolly, but secretly...

...wisdom

IrishViking wrote:Didn't this come up in the summer and I thought one of us went to a lot of trouble to dig up evidence supporting Norv playing players that he was disagreeing with off the field? I am pretty sure Zimmer and Norv have no history or sitting players they are upset with for extended periods of time. At this point its such a weird idea because why would they waste a roster spot on him?

Perhaps it came up this summer, I don't recall. Turner's rep is once you're in his doghouse, it's hard to get out, so I imagine the dug up evidence supported that. Admittedly, I'm no longer a Norv guy, though I really like Zimmer a lot. I just don't think either coach is perfect. At this point to me it's such a weird idea that they would relegate playmakers to the bench. Yet they did.

IrishViking wrote:I think its beyond silly to not trust your coaching staff to be professional. Maybe, just maybe. Patterson comes off as lazy with little work ethic in practice. There is a much larger body of evidence to support that than making the connection between a 109 yard kick returns = potential to be amazing receiver.

And I think it's beyond silly to trust any coaching staff to be infallible. Maybe, just maybe, the body of evidence supporting the touchdowns Patterson has scored from the RB position, as a WR, and a kick returner reveal a connection between talent = big time playmaker. YMMV

Mothman wrote: What evidence?

That he doesnt get the minutes!


Am I taking crazy pills? Since when is the assumption that Zimmer and Norv have a childish ax to grind the MORE likely scenario than Patterson is just another talented athlete without the work ethic to take it to the next level?

Every missed route, every game he doesn't get called in, every 4 receiver set he wasn't on the field. This is the evidence to support it and the only way that it isn't evidence is if you assume the unprovable point that, as I said above, Zimmer and Norv have the emotional maturity of 12 year olds and would rather damage their playoff chances than play a good player.

Since that point is completely unsubstantiated I work off the assumption that Zimmer and norv are doing what the other 32 head coaches and OCs in the league are doing and giving their team the best chance to win. Ergo, Patterson does not give them the best chance to win.

The burden of proof would be on the people who are making the claim that Patterson has WR talent because based on what he has shown he is right where he needs to be on the depth chart.

IrishViking wrote:That he doesnt get the minutes!

Am I taking crazy pills? Since when is the assumption that Zimmer and Norv have a childish ax to grind the MORE likely scenario than Patterson is just another talented athlete without the work ethic to take it to the next level?

Every missed route, every game he doesn't get called in, every 4 receiver set he wasn't on the field. This is the evidence to support it and the only way that it isn't evidence is if you assume the unprovable point that, as I said above, Zimmer and Norv have the emotional maturity of 12 year olds and would rather damage their playoff chances than play a good player.

Since that point is completely unsubstantiated I work off the assumption that Zimmer and norv are doing what the other 32 head coaches and OCs in the league are doing and giving their team the best chance to win. Ergo, Patterson does not give them the best chance to win.

The burden of proof would be on the people who are making the claim that Patterson has WR talent because based on what he has shown he is right where he needs to be on the depth chart.

The burden of proof is on the accuser so if you're going to accuse Patterson of being lazy and having a poor ethic, you need more proof to substantiate that claim than a lack of playing time, which can be explained in other ways. Without such evidence, the conclusion you've drawn is an assumption, a theory, just like the idea that he's in Norv's doghouse.

Maybe he's kept on the bench because they feel the players in front of him perform better and/or have a better handle on the system. Maybe they want the players who spend the most practice time with the starting unit in the game, as a means of establishing continuity and helping Bridgewater develop chemistry with his receivers. A lack of minutes doesn't automatically translate to a lazy attitude and a poor work ethic. If so, do you believe Charles Johnson has the same problems?

Mothman wrote:The burden of proof is on the accuser so if you're going to accuse Patterson of being lazy and having a poor ethic, you need more proof to substantiate that claim than a lack of playing time, which can be explained in other ways. Without such evidence, the conclusion you've drawn is an assumption, a theory, just like the idea that he's in Norv's doghouse.

Hey now, Argue the semantics all you want but the burden of proof is on the people who think they know Patterson talent level better than the coaches. You cant skip the burden of proof for that side and go right to me needed to prove my point based on language choice

Lazy, bad, unlucky, unskilled, whatever. Bottom line is there is no reason to put him on the field beyond throwing spaghetti at the wall out of frustration