clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

2011 UDFA Luke Patterson Could Stick With Chiefs

New, comments
May 13, 2012; Kansas City, MO, USA; Kansas City Chiefs offensive lineman Luke Patterson (77) speaks to media after the Chiefs rookie mini camp at the Kansas City Chiefs practice facility. Mandatory Credit: Denny Medley-US PRESSWIRE
May 13, 2012; Kansas City, MO, USA; Kansas City Chiefs offensive lineman Luke Patterson (77) speaks to media after the Chiefs rookie mini camp at the Kansas City Chiefs practice facility. Mandatory Credit: Denny Medley-US PRESSWIRE

There have been a few Kansas City Chiefs players over the years who were brought onto the team to play one position but ultimately get moved to another position. Dexter McCluster, as a receiver in year one and a running back in year two, is an example of that. I've argued that it's usually not a good sign if a position change is happening because that means something went wrong in his original position.

Take Luke Patterson, one of the Chiefs 2011 undrafted free agents. He came in as a defensive lineman and was switched to the offensive line. How often does a move like that work out? Not very often, but in Patterson's case, it sounds like there's a chance that it could.

Speaking to the media this weekend, Romeo Crennel talked up Patterson, who participated in the rookie minicamp.

"Once we moved him over to offense, he's been on offense ever since," Crennel said. "We had him on defense, and didn't feel like that was going to be the place for him, but he's showed enough tenacity and work ethic that we thought maybe he could help us offensively. So, we moved him to the offensive side of the ball. It's a total change for him, but the kid has something to him. I think he's got some toughness. He's not a vocal guy. He's kind of quiet, but I think he's made progress in the year that he's been here."

And now for your buzz word alert...

"That's that ‘it' factor. You can look in his eyes and say that he has ‘it.' You can't really say what ‘it' is. You can't really define it but he has ‘it.' When I say that he has something to him, it's kind of like an ‘it' factor."

Maybe I'm just being cynical on this Monday morning but I think I'd rather hear that a player has great technique or made a great play on the field in practice rather than an undefinable characteristic like the "it" factor.