RandBall: Is it time to regress and just get Patterson the ball?

This is oversimplified and perhaps lacks some nuance, but it’s also just a question and not a statement:

Is it time for the Vikings’ offensive regime to stop trying to make Cordarrelle Patterson a complete receiver and go back to the previous regime’s strategy of just getting him the ball in creative ways to let him try to make magic?

I understand this concept is problematic because a receiver drafted in the first round (one for whom four other picks were traded, by the way), should be able to be more than a gadget player. If the Vikings are ever going to get first-round value out of Patterson, he likely needs to well-rounded.

That said, he’s in his third season now. And if the depth chart and snap count is any indication, it’s just not happening. Patterson has exactly two catches and one rush this season; in Sunday’s 16-10 win over Kansas City, he was on the field for seven snaps — fewer than every other healthy wide receiver and most certainly way fewer than Stefon Diggs, who had 129 yards on 7 catches and played 57 of 70 snaps.

Diggs, a fifth-round rookie, is already a far more reliable overall receiver than Patterson. That much is obvious based on his playing time and how much Teddy Bridgewater is looking his way.

But does that mean there isn’t a role at all for Patterson? This was a guy, many will recall, who scored nine touchdowns — four receiving, three rushing, two on returns — as a rookie. The old coaching Leslie Frazier/Bill Musgrave coaching regime protected him by throwing a lot of quick hitches, WR screens and getting him running room in space on sweeps. It was basic. But it worked. He was frightening whenever he had the ball.

The new regime understandably wanted him to build on his game. It hasn’t happened — and if it hasn’t happened yet, it’s fair to wonder if it’s ever going to happen.

But it’s also fair to wonder this: The Vikings in 2013 with Musgrave running the offense finished tied for 14th in the NFL at 24.4 points per game — and that was with a comical rotation of quarterbacks and plenty of other problems, but also with some pretty significant contributions from Patterson. Last year’s Vikings, with Mike Zimmer and Norv Turner in control, finished tied for 20th in points. They were missing Adrian Peterson for almost the entire season and working in a rookie QB, so yes there’s a mitigating circumstance. This year’s Vikings? They’re 29th in points per game.

That’s a very simple stat that doesn’t account for game flow, field position and points scored that aren’t directly attributable to the offense. But the larger question still holds: Is this a team that could use someone with game-breaking skills with the ball in his hands on 5-7 plays a game? Not 5-7 snaps per game. But getting the actual ball 5-7 times per game in non-return situations?

I think the answer might be yes. That doesn’t even mean you have to stop working on making him a complete receiver in case the light bulb flickers. And again: Zimmer and Turner are clearly more patient than I am. They might have every reason to not play Patterson because of what they see in practice. My longest look at Patterson came in 2013, when he had nine touchdowns even though defenses knew what was coming in a lot of cases. Since then, he’s scored twice.

The gap between the ideal return on investment and the likely return on investment with Patterson is significant. But that doesn’t mean he has no value at all.