Sloter To Move On To ... ???

Finally someone understand the argument. I know there are more of you out there, the link in my signature proves as much. The link even proves how many of you who always argue against Sloter, actually agree with the overall argument lol. Which is? Say it with me now ... Sloter earned a fair shot with the 2's.

I liked Heineken too, but he couldn't carry Sloters jock strap.

You need to visit the link in my sig .

That question bothers me too, but does it matter? What evidence did we see with our own 2 eyes for 12 preseason games? I saw evidence of him at least deserving a shot to compete with/against the 2's. More than the 2 quarters we saw against Buffalo.

Except the evidence we saw for ourselves. Evidence that even made you admit he deserved a promotion. So you're going to ignore the evidence you saw with your own 2 eyes, over what the other 31 teams think? Those other 31 teams who drafted the likes of Ponder, Teddy, Manziel, JaMarcus, Trubisky, Lynch, Mariota, Bortles, EJ Manuel, Weeden, Locker, Tewbow, Sanchez, Quinn, Vince Young, Leinart, Campbell, and Losman, just to name a few of the duds drafted in the 1st round in the past 15 years. It's their opinion you suddenly trust when they miss this badly, this often, on 1st round picks lol? Not to mention how many of those teams passed on future Hall of Famers. Yeah, they all certainly know what they're doing when it comes to QB's lol.

The bottom line is, Cousins isn't going to lead us to the promised land. You're delusional if you think so. And we currently have nobody on the roster who will. With Sloter, we at least had a bonafide project with the skill set and the intangibles worthy of more coaching. He was clutch, and had that "it" factor. There are just some things you can't coach, and Sloter had a lot of them.

If it's true he was getting all those other things wrong in practice, the same reason nobody else will give him the time of day, but has all these other skills, then Sloter isn't the problem, coaching is the problem. The same coaching that all of you now trust to win us a Super Bowl lol.

Think about that next time you're making excuses for Zimmer. Ohhh he's just had so much bad luck has he? Well like I said earlier, sometimes you make your own luck, based on your own ability and the decisions you make. When preparations meets opportunity. Zimmer isn't a very good head coach, and he's even worse at making his own luck.

Think of all the luck Belichick created just by drafting Tom Brady in the 6th round, and then playing him ahead of Drew Bledsoe. He could have taken the safe route and stuck with Bledsoe, who was just signed by the Patriots for 10 years $103m. He got injured early in 2001, but Brady didn't put up great numbers as his replacement, and it was Bledsoe who beat the Steelers in the AFCCG, but Brady who got the Super Bowl start. Zimmer doesn't have the balls to do anything that bold. Too busy playing it safe, which is why the trophy case will remain empty.

He has a bright future... selling insurance.

Let it go reign.............

I wonder if you have ever found any correlation between preseason success, and success in the regular season?

Here are the top 10 passer rated QBs with at least 20% of the max attempts by a QB in the preseason, :
Jones: 137
Barkley: 133
Darnold: 121
Sloter: 120
Tannehill: 120
Rudolph: 113
Falk: 111
Rudock: 105
Lauletta: 104

Tannehill is the only one in that list who translated to success in the regular season. Jones had a good year for a rookie, Darnold was terrible, Rudolph was terrible and the rest either didn't make a roster or never saw the field.

What about 2018 (I am only going to include the player at this point)?
Dalton
Prescott
Winston
Peterman
Manuel
Sloter
Dobbs
Schaub
Griffen
Mariota

No pattern is emerging.

2017?
Prescott
Rush
Wilson
Carr
Brady
Sloter
Hill
Hogan
Wentz
Davis

2016?
Bridgewater
Prescott
Shaw
Keenum
Bortles
Winston
Dalton
Cousins
McCarron
Morris

2015?
Stafford
Manuel
Hundley
McCown
Tanney
Tannehill
Daniel
McCoy
Bridgewater
McGloin

2014?
Wilson
Stanton
Brady
Rivers
Locker
Ryan
Rodgers
Dalton
Hill
Sanchez

2013?
TJack
BJ Daniels
Brees
Fitzpatrick
Romo
Yates
Hill
Kaepernick
Bradford
Manuel


That is probably enough years where we can find a pattern of backup QBs proving their worth in the preseason, and becoming valuable pieces to their team. Prescott maybe fits that mold, but he actually had a large part of his success in 2016 with the 1's and 2's in preseason, because get this, he looked so good in camp the team saw his potential and moved him to the number 2 spot prior to the first preseason game.

Outside of him, if a starter puts in effort in the preseason they trounce the competition, even if they are a bad starter looks like. Then you have a bunch of garbage QBs who never did a thing in the NFL who just tore it up in the preseason. How could that be if preseason stats matter?

That's not the argument lol. I'm starting to sound like a broken record. If anyone addressed the actual argument, they would agree with me, as the link in my signature proves. In your own assessment, did Sloter earn a shot with the 2's before we kicked him out the door? Yes or no?

Then what's the point of preseason? And what metric do we use to determine who is or isn't worthy to make an NFL roster? Should we go by college statistics? Then by that logic Johnny Manziel should be a Hall of Fame QB. How many Heisman winning QB's have had great careers in the NFL anyway? The list seems small.

If you really want to analyze it, there doesn't seem to be any reliable metric when it comes to choosing QB's. And the results we've seen at the NFL level reflect that. It's why a team like the Bears can jump up in the draft to grab a guy like Trubisky over Mahomes and have it completely blow up in their face. No team knows what it's doing, they're just good at pretending they know.

My point is, the people who make a decision have to base those decisions on something so at the very least they can justify those decisions later. Guessing or flipping a coin isn't going to work, even though it seems those methods would yield similar results lol.

So why can't preseason results be a useful metric? It's the closest you can get to simulating regular season NFL experience. And if someone exceeds in preseason, regardless of how they've performed in any of the many other inferior metrics, isn't that worth something? Does that at least tell you a player is qualified to take the next test, or advance to the next level until they reach a point when they can no longer pass the challenge? Does that not seem like a natural process? How much sense does it make to see a guy succeed at the very last level you challenge him at, and then pass on him before you see what he can do at the next level? And I'm not just talking about the numbers, we all watched Sloter with our own 2 eyes, and the statistics only support what we actually saw on the field, where he passed the eye test too, and appeared to have that "it" factor going.

I also know Sloter succeeded based on What Rick Spielman asked him just before cutting him, "do you have a switch or something?". What do you suppose Rick was referring to when he asked him that? He was referring to the fact that Sloter wasn't so good in practice, but was clearly a freak when it mattered most, on the field in simulated NFL football games. Then we find out what practice entails, which is 3-6 passes a day, coming off the bench, cold turkey. So let those facts sink in. The Vikings, and I'm sure the rest of the NFL, put more value on those handful of passes than they do a simulated game, at full speed, in front of 50k fans. As a big proponent of the scientific method, that seems incredibly backassward to me lol.

Nobody said they mattered or that it would automatically translate to NFL successes. His numbers serve as supporting evidence of what we saw when he played, and of him earning a shot with the 2's. If those kinds of numbers aren't worthy of seeing what someone can do at the next level, then seriously, why does the preseason even exist?

I'm baffled at why everyone continues to equate my argument of Sloter earning a shot to compete against guys like Siemian/Mannion for the backup role, with him being the starter or anything else. Do we honestly think Sloter would have done worse against the Bears than Mannion last December?

Because if I can extend the argument a little further, I'd say, what's the point of having backup QB's like Siemian/Mannion, who we know for certain are hot garbage and aren't going to lead us anywhere, if Cousins goes down, over an unknown commodity like Sloter? The season is guaranteed over if we have to turn to Mannion. He's not going to be the next Warner. I'm not saying Sloter is, but the fact that he's an unknown commodity means his ceiling is potentially higher than Mannion. At the very least, the experience would be more valuable to him. More experience isn't suddenly going to make Mannion better. And yes, Sloter could in fact be worse, but those are the risks you take when you're trying to fill the trophy case. Taking the safe route by riding a guy like Mannion merely because he's started before and has more experience, absolutely WILL NOT fill the trophy case because we do in fact know what he brings to the table. Which is nothing! What sounds better, nothing, or possible?

Should I mention one more point? Who is excited about Mannion? Nobody. Sloter was exciting and a fan favorite because people saw how he carried himself on the field. It wasn't just his skill or the results he produced, it was that "it" factor, and his youthful enthusiasm. His personality is so much better than a guy like Cousins. The clutch factor didn't hurt. His intangibles reminded me a little bit of Brett Favre, and he had a cannon for an arm to match. There's nothing about him or his game that wasn't worthy of more grooming. Especially for a franchise that has had a long line of duds and choke artists at QB.

It would be completely different if we gave him his shot, and he failed, or if we already had a bonafide franchise QB who we knew could win big games, but we didn't, and we don't. I'm a little confused about why more people aren't asking questions, but it just plays into my whole "at least we're not Detroit" theory about the fan base. We're content with mediocrity, and have this sick aversion to wanting our franchise to take chances. We'd rather not finish below .500 than fill the trophy case. That much I'm convinced of. It's why everyone has applauded all the recent "play it safe" moves this franchise has made recently. We're a 9-7 team that hasn't taken any chances, and for some reason people believe that's going to lead to a Super Bowl anytime soon lol. This mediocre mindset fan base gets exactly what it deserves, an empty trophy case.

Now this is where you or someone else strawmans me into saying I'm claiming Sloter would have helped us fill the trophy case lol.