Login

11-22-2017, 10:53 AM

The reason I post it is because Del Rio was crowing about how the Vikings didn't use Patterson 'correctly' and Oakland had big plans for him. Riiiiight. He's limited and they found out pretty quickly.

11-22-2017, 01:06 PM

Quote: @"RS Express" said:
Patterson: 18 rec, 114 yds. 10 rushes, 124 yards, 2 TD. KR: 13 for 401 yards, 30.8 avg. Vikings 2017 KR: 17 for 432, 25.4 avg.

Treadwell: 14 rec for 152 and, er, nothing.

CP will likely be cheaper next year than our current WR bust...

I've said it before and I'll say it again...I will take the 25 everytime vs somewhere between the 15 and the 35 with the occasional bigger one.

On touchback they have almost zero risk of a penalty, how many time dif we see returns set back to the 12 or so because of a penalty. Also virtually no risk of injury,

....real estate is expensive and the NFL is going to give our O the first 25 yards of it for free....all you have to do is catch the ball and kneel.

If he could actually be a contributor on O...bring him back, but wasting a roster spot on a KR specialist in todays kicking game is stupid IMO. Especially with our defense not surrenderinG as many scores. His avg is 5 yards more, if we give up 3 scores a game on avg that's only 20 yards a game he would improve our starting field position...not worth the game day active roster spot on that alone. He better bring it on offense as well without being a liability when out there.

11-22-2017, 02:57 PM

Patterson as a #3 or #4 guy? Special Team Ace? Nice fit in the payroll?

Sure, no problem with that. As long as the #84 doesn't get sullied anymore.

11-22-2017, 04:30 PM

Quote: @"purplefaithful" said:
Patterson as a #3 or #4 guy? Special Team Ace? Nice fit in the payroll?

Sure, no problem with that. As long as the #84 doesn't get sullied anymore.

#84 should just be retired, especially after Randy is in the HoF (hopefully this coming induction). Nobody is even wearing it this season and for some reason a lot of the young receivers these days seem to like teen numbers. ??

11-22-2017, 04:33 PM

Quote: @"CLOBIMON" said:

@"purplefaithful" said:
Patterson as a #3 or #4 guy? Special Team Ace? Nice fit in the payroll?

Sure, no problem with that. As long as the #84 doesn't get sullied anymore.
#84 should just be retired, especially after Randy is in the HoF (hopefully this coming induction). Nobody is even wearing it this season and for some reason a lot of the young receivers these days seem to like teen numbers. ??

I dont like the idea of retiring numbers, although I am good with Special K's #77 being hung up permanently, teams only have so many options for numbers so leave them active but have the ring of honor for the players. not saying Randys contributions arent deserving but I dont like the practice in general.

11-22-2017, 05:02 PM

As a KR, Patterson during his 4 years here gave us the #1 or #2 average starting field position after a kickoff...
As a WR, I can't help but wonder what Shurmur would do with Patterson's talent based on the mileage he's getting out of guys like Keenum and Remmers...Musgrave certainly was able to put Patterson in a position to succeed...I'm guessing he'd do the same here...

11-22-2017, 05:26 PM

Quote: @"BarrNone55" said:
As a KR, Patterson during his 4 years here gave us the #1 or #2 average starting field position after a kickoff...
As a WR, I can't help but wonder what Shurmur would do with Patterson's talent based on the mileage he's getting out of guys like Keenum and Remmers...Musgrave certainly was able to put Patterson in a position to succeed...I'm guessing he'd do the same here...

I have to think that Shurmur was involved in the decision to not try and resign CPatt. as far as the starting field position.... we are only talking about a matter of a few yards difference per kick off from top to bottom IIRC. KR stats are pretty over hyped with the 25 yard line starting spot now IMO.

If he would come on the cheap and Shurmur was convinced he could get 10-15 productive plays per game out of him where he isnt handicapping the offense when he is on the field... I would be good with bringing him back. he was really looking good on P coverage last year which would be a nice addition.

11-22-2017, 05:30 PM

I’m fine with Patterson as a #4-5 WR backing up the X
position and being primarily a ST stud.
He’s not a guy you want on the field much on offense, but he could hold
down the X position for some period of time if someone got injured. I think his value is greatly diminished with the new touchback rules. You're pretty much just expecting him to get 1 TD a season. I'm not sure how many special teamers you want that get paid more than a rookie contract.

11-22-2017, 05:38 PM

I'd think they'd prefer to see how well Rodney Adams and Stacey Coley, or maybe another rookie develops as a real WR before they'd look getting Patterson back.

I doubt they'd waste their time and money on Flashy again.

11-22-2017, 06:00 PM

If only the guy could translate his gunner strength to deep receiving threat. He's still past the blockers and first one down there for the Raiders punt team nearly every time.