Thread: If they let Kyle Sloter go, I will be pissed

Originally Posted by Shazam!

Obviously id like to think that the Broncos brain trust knows best but this I question why. The kid looks fantastic and his arm is elastic. I know its only preseason but how could this performance be ignored?

This seems like the pertinent question to me. Are they just worried about his limited experience, or are his skills more limited than his preseason performances would suggest? Does he grasp the whole playbook? Can he read defenses effectively?

Certainly it would be better to stick with the guy who brings some continuity from camp and has been in our playbook for weeks - but there must be something to the idea that they don't feel he's ready. So then that makes me wonder - are they just being too risk averse and need to give the kid a chance to shine? Are they falling into the conventional wisdom trap that he needs more experience? Or are they legitimately seeing some limitations that we're not?

Sorry Joel, but don't bother with your de-hype theory. Other teams use spies. Teams assume that at least 1 "fan" at every open practice is spying. Belicheat just took the practice that every team does, and in typical arrogant Patriots fashion and gave everybody a big middle finger and go way beyond with Spygate.

So, other teams all know what Sloter can do, and most of them don't care. "Nice developmental player." That's his category. If they sign Sloter off waivers, they would have an angry conversation with their personnel department who all did NOT rate him as a viable starter coming into the draft this April.

Not one NFL scout has changed his mind about Kyle Sloter. Most of them haven't changed their minds about Trevor, but that's another story.

So, what if Sloter plays the entire game this week, and plays well? Perhaps the Broncos have some competition signing him to the practice squad.

The problem is that Paxton stupidly keeps tucking and running whenever his first read isn't open - just what he was used to in college. Do that in the NFL and say Hi to Joey Bosa, or Kalil Mack. He's lucky his season isn't over the way he does that.

So, if he's going to miss the first 2 games they have to do something to pick up a veteran backup or keep Sloter on the 53. Looks like they will take a look at all the cuts and see if some veteran QB isn't available.

But, Joel is right that it's not as simple as "just sign a guy" because that guy isn't going to be given a chance to compete for a starting job. He's going to be cut in a couple of weeks. Little incentive for any established QB to sign here.

Originally Posted by Buff

This seems like the pertinent question to me. Are they just worried about his limited experience, or are his skills more limited than his preseason performances would suggest? Does he grasp the whole playbook? Can he read defenses effectively?

Certainly it would be better to stick with the guy who brings some continuity from camp and has been in our playbook for weeks - but there must be something to the idea that they don't feel he's ready. So then that makes me wonder - are they just being too risk averse and need to give the kid a chance to shine? Are they falling into the conventional wisdom trap that he needs more experience? Or are they legitimately seeing some limitations that we're not?

Reading that...grasp the whole playbook, read defenses effectively...if they go by that, they might as well cut Lynch now cause he can't do either.

Originally Posted by Buff

This seems like the pertinent question to me. Are they just worried about his limited experience, or are his skills more limited than his preseason performances would suggest? Does he grasp the whole playbook? Can he read defenses effectively?

Certainly it would be better to stick with the guy who brings some continuity from camp and has been in our playbook for weeks - but there must be something to the idea that they don't feel he's ready. So then that makes me wonder - are they just being too risk averse and need to give the kid a chance to shine? Are they falling into the conventional wisdom trap that he needs more experience? Or are they legitimately seeing some limitations that we're not?

Chris Harris basically explained it when he talked about the defense they have been playing in the pre-season. He said "it's totally vanilla." When they play the Chargers it's going to be a totally different story. Suddenly, they are going to be dialing up the pressure, throwing exotic looks at the offense where they can't get a good read on the defensive alignment. Harris is eager to start the season because the "defense" they have been playing in the pre-season isn't even really "defense" as far as he's concerned. They're just warming up and getting ready for the regular season. Von has hardly seen the field at all, and he might as well be in bubble wrap as far as the team is concerned. Same thing for Shane and Shaqil who were injured but will be present for game one.

So, good against scrubs in the pre-season doesn't really tell you much (except that Paxton couldn't even look good against Scrubs so there's that). No defense is trying to take anything away from you in the pre-season. NO DC is analysing your game and trying to figure out what you can't do well and trying to force you to do that.

So, it's not surprising that if VJ is given a choice between a veteran like Paxton, and a rookie like Sloter he's choosing the vet as his backup.

I think the fans have just given up on Paxton and want to move on from him and have labelled him a bust, but the team has NOT. They plan on keeping developing Paxton in the hope he will ultimately pan out and nobody else is really getting a chance until next season. That includes Sloter.

If they bring in a vet who is on the 53 on day one, his entire year is guaranteed. For a team with about $9mil in cap space, dumb move for a couple of weeks when the early schedule is easier than the latter half. Let Sloter play backup and cut him when "the bust" comes back.

So the question is: If you're Cleveland looking at that, our preseason games and a choice of DeShone Kizer, Oz or Kessler to run your offense, does Sloter reach our PS?

TAMPA -- DeShone Kizer clinched the Browns starting quarterback job Saturday night by passing his last big test in the dress rehearsal game here against the Bucs, sources told cleveland.com.

Kizer's number weren't great in the 13-9 victory, including a 28.2 rating, but he showed Jackson enough to beat out Brock Osweiler and Cody Kessler for the job and earn the opening day start against Pittsburgh Sept. 10 at FirstEnergy Stadium.

"I feel comfortable with him,'' Jackson said after the third preseason game here. "He has the right feel for me and for what I'm looking for.''

There's your answer. They just named Kizer as their starter. They are committed to him. Sounds loony to me, but they're the Browns. They do stuff like that all time.

The Broncos would probably be doing the same thing - naming Paxton as the starter based on some dubious game play - IF the Broncos were going to compete for the #1 overall pick instead of trying to get into the playoffs.

If you're going to suck anyway, might as well play the rookie, get him some experience and see what you have after a season.

And Brock never had a real chance to win the job. First they basically bought a first round pick with $16 M in cap space they weren't going to spend anyway. Second, they found that there was no trade market for Brock, so they were eating the money anyway. So, Brock is their backup - unless they can get something for him.

Some team will be desperate enough to want Osweiler and give them something for him eventually, or Kaiser will suck horribly enough that they have to put Brock in just to avoid crushing Kizer's confidence. (Like pulling the goalie in hockey when he gives up 5 goals in a period or something).

But, there's no point in starting Brock. He probably sucks as bad as Kizer and even if he doesn't, he's not in their long term plans, so there's no point starting him only to go 6-10 instead of 4-12 or something.

Originally Posted by Cugel

Chris Harris basically explained it when he talked about the defense they have been playing in the pre-season. He said "it's totally vanilla." When they play the Chargers it's going to be a totally different story. Suddenly, they are going to be dialing up the pressure, throwing exotic looks at the offense where they can't get a good read on the defensive alignment. Harris is eager to start the season because the "defense" they have been playing in the pre-season isn't even really "defense" as far as he's concerned. They're just warming up and getting ready for the regular season. Von has hardly seen the field at all, and he might as well be in bubble wrap as far as the team is concerned. Same thing for Shane and Shaqil who were injured but will be present for game one.

So, good against scrubs in the pre-season doesn't really tell you much (except that Paxton couldn't even look good against Scrubs so there's that). No defense is trying to take anything away from you in the pre-season. NO DC is analysing your game and trying to figure out what you can't do well and trying to force you to do that.

So, it's not surprising that if VJ is given a choice between a veteran like Paxton, and a rookie like Sloter he's choosing the vet as his backup.

I think the fans have just given up on Paxton and want to move on from him and have labelled him a bust, but the team has NOT. They plan on keeping developing Paxton in the hope he will ultimately pan out and nobody else is really getting a chance until next season. That includes Sloter.

Right but we're not debating Paxton vs. Sloter... I think it's clear that Paxton gets the backup role when he's healthy. We're debating Sloter vs. unnamed veteran QB signed off the street while Paxton is hurt.

Originally Posted by GEM

If they bring in a vet who is on the 53 on day one, his entire year is guaranteed. For a team with about $9mil in cap space, dumb move for a couple of weeks when the early schedule is easier than the latter half. Let Sloter play backup and cut him when "the bust" comes back.

That's my theory! At that point Gem, Sloter would almost certainly pass through waivers. Teams wouldn't be looking for a developmental QB in week 6 of the regular season. They might pick up a veteran if their starter was injured and they needed an experienced backup, but not a rookie.

But, they're not doing that. Personally, I think they will have no choice but to keep Sloter because they will have a hard time getting any veteran QB to come here for 2 weeks. And that's what the job really is. A couple weeks on the roster until Paxton gets healthy enough to play if they need him.

It would be so easy to do it right, they are just being stubborn.

First, put Booker and Carlos Henderson on IR. That opens up 2 roster spots, one for Sloter and one for Ridley. Then put Sloter on the 53 to start, but don't play him (obviously Trevor is supposed to play every snap). Then when Paxton is ready to come back week 3 cut Sloter and sign somebody off the practice squad.

Then in week 6 bring Booker back and decide whether to cut Jamal Charles or Ridley. Then sign Sloter back on the PS. Easy as long as Sloter doesn't blow his PS eligibility.

Originally Posted by Buff

Right but we're not debating Paxton vs. Sloter... I think it's clear that Paxton gets the backup role when he's healthy. We're debating Sloter vs. unnamed veteran QB signed off the street while Paxton is hurt.

I was trying to explain why VJ isn't comfortable with Sloter as his backup at all. The answer is "he's a rookie who has never faced regular season NFL defenses and we have no idea what we'd see if he did." With a veteran, presumably you know what he will be able to do against real opposition.

Usually not much or the guy wouldn't be available in the first place.

Originally Posted by Cugel

I was trying to explain why VJ isn't comfortable with Sloter as his backup at all. The answer is "he's a rookie who has never faced regular season NFL defenses and we have no idea what we'd see if he did." With a veteran, presumably you know what he will be able to do against real opposition.

Usually not much or the guy wouldn't be available in the first place.

Right and I understand the conventional wisdom... My post was more about "Is the conventional wisdom actually correct, and we're getting ahead of ourselves over a couple of preseason performances against backup defenders playing a vanilla scheme?" Which is your contention...

OR

Is there something to the idea that this kid seems to possess some intangibles, and if we're going to realize most of our downside signing some crappy veteran backup, should we just give him a chance?

I think most of us lean towards the latter. But we also don't have to answer for the decision when he shits the bed in primetime and throws 4 INTs with a lockerroom full of pro bowlers on defense.

Originally Posted by Buff

Right but we're not debating Paxton vs. Sloter... I think it's clear that Paxton gets the backup role when he's healthy. We're debating Sloter vs. unnamed veteran QB signed off the street while Paxton is hurt.

There was a Denver "insider" a week or two ago who (don't remember who he was) stated the locker room felt like Sloter had a better grasp on the playbook than the other 2 quarterbacks.

It seems pretty obvious to me that we're trying to hide him on the PS, hence the "de-hyping". Until another team tries to sign him, I'm not really concerned.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

It seems pretty obvious to me that we're trying to hide him on the PS, hence the "de-hyping". Until another team tries to sign him, I'm not really concerned.

Right but the discussion has changed with Paxton's injury. Now we need a backup for week 1 - which makes his prospects of making the 53 man roster a real possibility. It also means we have to keep 3 QBs at the expense of another roster spot.

Originally Posted by Buff

Right but the discussion has changed with Paxton's injury. Now we need a backup for week 1 - which makes his prospects of making the 53 man roster a real possibility. It also means we have to keep 3 QBs at the expense of another roster spot.

It's also a distinct possibility that Sloter is the latest "great undrafted hope" that fans are just sure could be the next TD or Rod Smith, but just winds up being nothing more than camp fodder. If he's still not on the 53 despite the injury to Lynch, then that would make me lean more in that direction.

If only there were a competent vet on the market who has led a team to a Super Bowl and is probably better than any QB we have anyway.