If Patterson is useless in the Vikings offensive system. What makes you think he will be useful in another offensive system?
It seems like when people own a player such as Patterson that they are willing to place blame on anything and everything besides the player himself.
If Teddy Bridgewater believed in Patterson being in the right place at the right time and doing his job, he would look for Patterson when he is on the field. He doesn't. That is not the fault of the team, the coaching staff or the QB. It is on Patterson and no one else.
Until that changes Patterson will be nothing but unrealized potential. A change of teams isn't going to be a solution.
You're missing the whole point how Patterson should be used.
He's the definition of an offensive weapon. He's averaging 12 yards per rushing attempt on both the pro and college level and is averaging 1 TD for every 4 rushing attempts in the pros. So far he gives you a 25% chance to score when you just hand the ball off to him!
It really shouldn't be that hard to incorporate Patterson in the offense on some level. Every once in a while you could have him run an end around or fake and hand it off to AD up the gut or going the opposite way when the defense shifts and has to respect Patterson as a threat. You could have him run drag routes/bubble screens/go routes. Hell you could just line him up in the backfield when AD needs a breather like what the Rams have done with Tavon a few times this year.
I can understand that he shouldn't be the team's WR1 but to not use him at all in the game plan shows incompetence and a lack of creativity in the coaching staff.
I am not missing the point of how Patterson
should be used.
I recommend reading
Chris Browns article on constraint plays for additional context of what we are talking about in regards to how Patterson could or should be used.
From the article:
In a given game your offense might look like it is all “constraint” plays: all gimmicks, screens, traps, draws, fakes and the like. Maybe so, if that’s what the defense deserves. But you can’t lose sight of the structure of your offense. Just because the bubbles, the flares, the fakes, and other gimmicks are your best offense for a couple of weeks doesn’t mean that it will be there. Indeed, the best defense against that kind of stuff is simply a sound one. Thus great offenses must be structure around sound, time tested core ideas, but have the flexibility to go to the “constraint plays” whenever the opportunity exists. Too often, the constraint plays are alternatively given too much and not enough weight.
Patterson is not sound enough in the normal parts of the offense for the Vikings or Bridgewater to have faith in him consistently being able to win with normal play calls because he has shown them in games as well as in practice that he is too inconsistent. He does not get to the right spot at the right time. Too often he cannot beat the jam or the way he runs his route causes him to not get open early on in the play. So the Vikings cannot expect him to be a primary weapon in the core base plays of their offense.
Surprise is an important element of a successful constraint play. If Patterson is not executing normal core plays of the Vikings offense, then the defense has less concern about defending him on those plays. They will be focusing on what Patterson can do and be more alert that the Vikings may be running a trick play with Patterson. Because of this foreknowledge it makes it less likely that the defense will be caught off guard by the trick play to Patterson which will make such a play less likely to be effective.
Jarius Wright was able to gain 17 yards on a nice reverse early on this season. He also won a game for the Vikings last season on a screen pass he took over 50 yards for a score. It is not like the Vikings do not use constraint plays. Quite the opposite. The Vikings and Bridgewater have been criticized for not being more effective with play action and how Bridgewater is not throwing as well after a play action as he does without one.
I think this is due in part because the Vikings needed to put some big runs on film again with Peterson and prove that this is a threat the defense has to respect, which in turn will make the fakes off of similar looking plays more effective for Bridgewater.
An offensive weapon as you characterize Patterson as being also means he doesn't have a defined position or role in an offense. He is a player who can catch the ball and run. He has remarkable ability to make defenders miss tackles but he is deficient in ways that makes it difficult to get him the ball in situations that set him up for success.
As for your citation of his statistics. You do realize that he has had some very big runs. Including week 1 of 2014 with Norv Turner where Patterson has over 100 yards rushing on only 3 carries. By no coincidence Adrian Peterson also played in this game which had the Rams focused on stopping the base running plays of the offense. No one had seen the play where Patterson motions into the backfield for a toss play with Asiata becoming the FB. The Vikings did give this look six to ten more times over the course of the 2014 season, but defenses were aware of it from game one and it was not nearly so effective again.
So are you saying that Norv Turner should be fitting a square peg in a round hole and keep trying to force these plays to Patterson as being the best way for the Vikings to win?
Obviously doing so would be appreciated by Patterson owners in fantasy football. However I have Norv Turner on record as saying he is trying to get the players and the team to play good football not fantasy football.
As far as it not being hard to force these plays to Patterson? Sure they could try to do this every game regardless of how effective it is. Just to get Patterson involved with the offense. However the Vikings are trying to win games and play players who can build consistency and chemistry with Teddy Bridgewater as an overall team and development goal that takes precedence over finding ways to make Patterson more helpful to the offense.
I think your criticisms of Norv Turners lack of creativity or innovation in play design of the offense are not fair when actually looking at the evidence or the big picture of what the Vikings offense is trying to accomplish. Which is to win games.
