Patterson as running back

[PatsDeb]

Patterson was terrible. Patriots need Michel back.

He wasn't terrible - he did what they asked him to do. I still think it was a stop-gap experiment based on the opponent. No way they are trotting out Patterson against Green Bay (or if they are, we are in big trouble). Did anyone else have visions of Laurence Maroney while watching Patterson? Standing too tall with dreadlocks flying. LOL.

 

[libra957]

Patterson at RB, Edelman as a corner, troy brown....we've seen this before.

 

[fnordcircle]

How much will we get in trade for Michel at the end of the season?

 

[maineman209]

I wasn't a fan of putting him in the backfield on multiple carries. I don't blame him for failing most of the time. He has a place on this team but not as a RB.

Why not just hand it off to Barner? Give him those carries.

A couple of reasons.

The greater the number of roles a player has experience with, the greater his usefulness since there's a greater number of situational responses he can be plugged into - either as a direct producer, or as a distraction/misdirect. So, by giving Patterson more experience actually running out of the backfield, it enhances his individual value and establishes him - in the eyes of opposing defenses - as a legitimate threat to run.

He had 10 carries in one game, which is more than he's typically gotten in one season in the past (yes, he's been used as an RB a handful of times during his career prior to joining the Pats). It doesn't matter that he failed on a few of those. What matters is that he was at least marginally successful on a few, too. But, what matters more is that McD kept running him. His first appearance in the backfield against the Bills turned out not to be a one-off "trick play", so the defense had to begin playing the run when he was in there.

So, all of that is now on the tape that the defenses of future opponents will be studying. It's another possibility that they'll need to account for. It's possible - maybe even likely - that Patterson only takes a couple-three handoffs from Brady between now and the end of the regular season. And then, in the post-season, McD will be able to line him up in the backfield and run play-action off that. To a great degree, it's a "setup" for a future opponent - something the Pats do regularly.

Anyway, I suspect that McD knew from studying tape that the ground game wouldn't be particularly successful against the Bills D, whether it was Barner or White getting the carries (and it wasn't), so giving handoffs to Patterson wouldn't be significantly worse (and it wasn't), plus, doing so would help establish a set of misdirection plays for future games.

 

[Coolade2]

A couple of reasons.

The greater the number of roles a player has experience with, the greater his usefulness since there's a greater number of situational responses he can be plugged into - either as a direct producer, or as a distraction/misdirect. So, by giving Patterson more experience actually running out of the backfield, it enhances his individual value and establishes him - in the eyes of opposing defenses - as a legitimate threat to run.

He had 10 carries in one game, which is more than he's typically gotten in one season in the past (yes, he's been used as an RB a handful of times during his career prior to joining the Pats). It doesn't matter that he failed on a few of those. What matters is that he was at least marginally successful on a few, too. But, what matters more is that McD kept running him. His first appearance in the backfield against the Bills turned out not to be a one-off "trick play", so the defense had to begin playing the run when he was in there.

So, all of that is now on the tape that the defenses of future opponents will be studying. It's another possibility that they'll need to account for. It's possible - maybe even likely - that Patterson only takes a couple-three handoffs from Brady between now and the end of the regular season. And then, in the post-season, McD will be able to line him up in the backfield and run play-action off that. To a great degree, it's a "setup" for a future opponent - something the Pats do regularly.

Anyway, I suspect that McD knew from studying tape that the ground game wouldn't be particularly successful against the Bills D, whether it was Barner or White getting the carries (and it wasn't), so giving handoffs to Patterson wouldn't be significantly worse (and it wasn't), plus, doing so would help establish a set of misdirection plays for future games.

Agree 90%.. only I think it's likely he is given multiple carries every week. Until he fumbles..! ( knock on wood.). Seriously any running back needs to get chemistry with the OLINE and comfortable with the play calling. This was game 1 of the usage which I called for weeks ago. mcD and belichick read my posts I'm sure.... For any package , they put work in at practice so there is time invested in this.

The positives out weigh a couple no gains and people complaints about the few run stuffs should recalibrate the brain cells.. um .. do you stop throwing the ball after incompletions..? Same difference. The upside is there and the issue is getting it blocked well and watch our version of Eric ****erson fly through some nice holes.. can't wait to bump this thread when Patterson takes handoff 50 yards for a TD

 

[Uptown]

I hate to do this but can't resist, Josh Gordon had 5 carries for 88 yards in '13.

LOL!!!

 

[Soliel]

He wasn't terrible - he did what they asked him to do. I still think it was a stop-gap experiment based on the opponent. No way they are trotting out Patterson against Green Bay (or if they are, we are in big trouble). Did anyone else have visions of Laurence Maroney while watching Patterson? Standing too tall with dreadlocks flying. LOL.

If they trot Patterson out in Green Bay. Oh lord. I’ve got a rosary here

 

[RobertWeathers]

If they trot Patterson out in Green Bay. Oh lord. I’ve got a rosary here

Yea. Its not the best option. GB's run D is not as good as BUF so he might have some more success. His ball security still concerns me.

 

[TomPatriot]

Some guy named Eric ****erson also ran too high

There was also some Gale Sayers guy but . . . ya know . . . "old school."

 

[TomPatriot]

The Pats' run-blocking appears to have been making such holes fairly frequently this season. Even last night, there were sizable cutback lanes available to Patterson that he simply didn't see - lanes that Michel and White, and even Barner, would have seen and exploited. I think Patterson can learn to find and exploit them, although I highly doubt that his usage last night was any kind of indication that McD intends to use him out of the backfield on a regular basis.

However, I think McD demonstrated his own willingness to do so, and that Patterson demonstrated that he's not terrible. Gives opposing DCs yet another tweak to account for (and be fooled by).

Ya, he is slow to the hole because he's probably not sure where it is. He is much better in space, as was evident on his 22 yard run. He did better than most players would given he's hardly played the position.

 

[maineman209]

If they trot Patterson out in Green Bay. Oh lord. I’ve got a rosary here

I won't be surprised if they trot out Patterson. And then go play-action. To Patterson out in the right flat.. But not the left flat. Patterson always trips over something there (Kraft really needs to get that part of the carpet fixed).

 

[maineman209]

Ya, he is slow to the hole because he's probably not sure where it is. He is much better in space, as was evident on his 22 yard run. He did better than most players would given he's hardly played the position.

As Fears noted, Patterson reads holes fine on returns. However, in those situations, he's already in the open field, and the defense is more spread out. Finding the holes in the relatively close quarters behind the LoS is a little different. However, Fears expressed confidence that Patterson would figure it out quickly.

Patterson is apparently all-in on the RB gig, BTW.

 

[Dragda]

I hope they use him back there now and again just to setup a situation where they put a LB coverage assignment on him and get the mismatch.

 

[RobertWeathers]

There was also some Gale Sayers guy but . . . ya know . . . "old school."

Maroney ran high.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

I'd note that he is actually a receiver too - no reason he can't run a simple wheel route out of the backfield and get the ball in space that way.

 

[PatsDeb]

If they trot Patterson out in Green Bay. Oh lord. I’ve got a rosary here

We definitely don't want to be saying, "Get your rosary ready!" instead of your popcorn!

 

[Simpelton]

As Fears noted, Patterson reads holes fine on returns. However, in those situations, he's already in the open field, and the defense is more spread out. Finding the holes in the relatively close quarters behind the LoS is a little different. However, Fears expressed confidence that Patterson would figure it out quickly.

Patterson is apparently all-in on the RB gig, BTW.

Anything to make sure he can stay in the league. Not surprising. I'm actually interested in what he might be able to do with a bit more experience. Heck of a baptism by fire though

 

[TomPatriot]

Maroney ran high.

True in more than one sense of the word.

 

[PatsFan2]

The Pats ain't doing Patterson any favors playing him at RB: when a DT - hard hitting SS or LB hit him head on that will be end of that. He was drafted as a WR for that reason.

 

[libra957]

Gotta wonder if the Brady air it out 60 times because there is no running game.