Patterson at WR: 18 catches, 114 yards, 0 TDs

Just talking to my son the other day about good ole "what's his name".  All I could remember was his name was Flashy.
I liked Cardelle and enjoyed many of his plays with the Vikings but was afraid this was what he had done since leaving and joining the Raiders.

I expect the Raiders will opt out of Patterson's contract after this season, and save themselves about $3.25M. At that point, I hope we try to bring him back for about $1.5M/year with expectation he is an excellent ST gunner and return man who can pop in for a few plays at WR.

He had some big plays (couple long rushing tds) in the first few games and when I saw them play he was on the field at receiver a lot, but like with the Vikings he didn't get the ball often.  I don't think he's been as involved on offense as much recently.  He leads the league in kick return average again, but teams must still try their best to prevent his returns as he's only had 13 (and he's always back there when I see their games).

@"Jor-El" said: I expect the Raiders will opt out of Patterson's contract after this season, and save themselves about $3.25M. At that point, I hope we try to bring him back for about $1.5M/year with expectation he is an excellent ST gunner and return man who can pop in for a few plays at WR.

@"Jor-El" said: I expect the Raiders will opt out of Patterson's contract after this season, and save themselves about $3.25M. At that point, I hope we try to bring him back for about $1.5M/year with expectation he is an excellent ST gunner and return man who can pop in for a few plays at WR.

Carr and the Raidas have taken a step back as well.

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"Jor-El" said: I expect the Raiders will opt out of Patterson's contract after this season, and save themselves about $3.25M. At that point, I hope we try to bring him back for about $1.5M/year with expectation he is an excellent ST gunner and return man who can pop in for a few plays at WR.

mmm,   i see the interest, but i dont know... I think I am fine with our ST being not as special,  but knowing that all of our WR can actually play the position if we need them to.

Patterson does have value. You just cannot rely on him as a regular WR.  But as a rookie he scored 9 TDs. That's a lot. He also had 40+ receptions and around 500 yards. That's not bad either. And he's a very good special teams player. He averaged more than 30 yards a return. No need to dismiss him because he is not a traditional WR. Sherels has value, too, but not as a traditional CB. There is room on the team for such guys. 

@"Jor-El" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"Jor-El" said: I expect the Raiders will opt out of Patterson's contract after this season, and save themselves about $3.25M. At that point, I hope we try to bring him back for about $1.5M/year with expectation he is an excellent ST gunner and return man who can pop in for a few plays at WR.

mmm,   i see the interest, but i dont know... I think I am fine with our ST being not as special,  but knowing that all of our WR can actually play the position if we need them to.

Well, 52 catches last year...I think he was playing WR decently in Shurmur's system. Yes, I do remember his struggles in 2014-15 - but I trusted him in 2016 more than I trust Floyd or Treadwell now. Of course, you have to evaluate whether he was playing for a contract last year and won't ever get back to that level. OTOH...good grief, doesn't Floyd know he is working for another contract, if not his career, right now, and doing very little??

@"dadevike" said: Patterson does have value. You just cannot rely on him as a regular WR.  But as a rookie he scored 9 TDs. That's a lot. He also had 40+ receptions and around 500 yards. That's not bad either. And he's a very good special teams player. He averaged more than 30 yards a return. No need to dismiss him because he is not a traditional WR. Sherels has value, too, but not as a traditional CB. There is room on the team for such guys. 

@"Jor-El" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"Jor-El" said: I expect the Raiders will opt out of Patterson's contract after this season, and save themselves about $3.25M. At that point, I hope we try to bring him back for about $1.5M/year with expectation he is an excellent ST gunner and return man who can pop in for a few plays at WR.

mmm,   i see the interest, but i dont know... I think I am fine with our ST being not as special,  but knowing that all of our WR can actually play the position if we need them to.

Well, 52 catches last year...I think he was playing WR decently in Shurmur's system. Yes, I do remember his struggles in 2014-15 - but I trusted him in 2016 more than I trust Floyd or Treadwell now. Of course, you have to evaluate whether he was playing for a contract last year and won't ever get back to that level. OTOH...good grief, doesn't Floyd know he is working for another contract, if not his career, right now, and doing very little??

@"StickyBun" said: That's Cordarelle Patterson of the Raiders year totals thus far. No TDs on kickoff returns as a Raider. 

Looks like he had a good game !
What ? Oh .

On a side note
our special teams box score had some modest numbers this week

No KO return yards
&
1 PR for 9 yards

@"Jor-El" said:

@"dadevike" said: Patterson does have value. You just cannot rely on him as a regular WR.  But as a rookie he scored 9 TDs. That's a lot. He also had 40+ receptions and around 500 yards. That's not bad either. And he's a very good special teams player. He averaged more than 30 yards a return. No need to dismiss him because he is not a traditional WR. Sherels has value, too, but not as a traditional CB. There is room on the team for such guys. 

Good comparison, and I would put it this way: I like Patterson playing WR more than I like Sherels playing CB.

@"dadevike" said:

@"Jor-El" said:

@"dadevike" said: Patterson does have value. You just cannot rely on him as a regular WR.  But as a rookie he scored 9 TDs. That's a lot. He also had 40+ receptions and around 500 yards. That's not bad either. And he's a very good special teams player. He averaged more than 30 yards a return. No need to dismiss him because he is not a traditional WR. Sherels has value, too, but not as a traditional CB. There is room on the team for such guys. 

Good comparison, and I would put it this way: I like Patterson playing WR more than I like Sherels playing CB.

Any QB sees Sherels on the field and immediately goes after him. 
Patterson also blocks pretty well for a WR. He doesn't fumble. He runs hard. And he is always a threat to take it all the way. When he steps onto the field, the defense takes notice. The way Shurmur is running this offense, I suspect he could find a use for Patterson.

@"greediron" said:

@"dadevike" said:

@"Jor-El" said:

@"dadevike" said: Patterson does have value. You just cannot rely on him as a regular WR.  But as a rookie he scored 9 TDs. That's a lot. He also had 40+ receptions and around 500 yards. That's not bad either. And he's a very good special teams player. He averaged more than 30 yards a return. No need to dismiss him because he is not a traditional WR. Sherels has value, too, but not as a traditional CB. There is room on the team for such guys. 

Good comparison, and I would put it this way: I like Patterson playing WR more than I like Sherels playing CB.

Any QB sees Sherels on the field and immediately goes after him. 
Patterson also blocks pretty well for a WR. He doesn't fumble. He runs hard. And he is always a threat to take it all the way. When he steps onto the field, the defense takes notice. The way Shurmur is running this offense, I suspect he could find a use for Patterson.

Haha, sorry I had to laugh at that comment.  The only thing they noticed was him running a jet sweep or setting up for a bubble screen.  He was so 1 dimensional it was just awful and the defense did not have worry about an actual route downfield.

@"dadevike" said:

@"greediron" said:

@"dadevike" said:

@"Jor-El" said:

@"dadevike" said: Patterson does have value. You just cannot rely on him as a regular WR.  But as a rookie he scored 9 TDs. That's a lot. He also had 40+ receptions and around 500 yards. That's not bad either. And he's a very good special teams player. He averaged more than 30 yards a return. No need to dismiss him because he is not a traditional WR. Sherels has value, too, but not as a traditional CB. There is room on the team for such guys. 

Good comparison, and I would put it this way: I like Patterson playing WR more than I like Sherels playing CB.

Any QB sees Sherels on the field and immediately goes after him. 
Patterson also blocks pretty well for a WR. He doesn't fumble. He runs hard. And he is always a threat to take it all the way. When he steps onto the field, the defense takes notice. The way Shurmur is running this offense, I suspect he could find a use for Patterson.

Haha, sorry I had to laugh at that comment.  The only thing they noticed was him running a jet sweep or setting up for a bubble screen.  He was so 1 dimensional it was just awful and the defense did not have worry about an actual route downfield.

9 TDs as a rookie. 7 out of the offense. Not bad for just one dimension. How many of our 3 dimensional players did better than that?

52 catches last year primarily after Norv left and as a 3rd WR.  That would look pretty good in this offense right now and id have no problem with him stealing snaps from Treadwell, Floyd, or Wright while making the return game explosive again.  Not to mention being a 3rd RB at times.

I always felt he might struggle getting up to speed in another new offense.  While he's not a prototypical WR he is a playmaker.

Next year Cook, Thielen, Diggs, Rudy, Patterson........Dayum.

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...

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.