J. Kapp 11 wrote: Dude, with all due respect, what is your fixation with Kyle Sloter? Did you go to high school with him or something?
You don't "see what a quarterback has" in the middle of the season. This isn't baseball, where you can put a guy at shortstop for a few games to see if he implodes. This is the quarterback position, the most important position on the field, the position you simply can't cover up. Turning it over to a guy who played exactly one year of college ball at a Big Sky school just to see what he's got? That tells the rest of the team, "You all are guinea pigs in the great football experiment of seeing whether this small-school guy can actually play. Thank you for risking your career and your health, but, well, we're not actually trying to win." Veteran players get royally PI$$ED when management does that. And you get a bad reputation around the league. Free agents don't want to play for you if they don't think management is committed to winning.
If Kyle Sloter is going to be an NFL quarterback, he's going to have to prove himself the way Adam Thielen did -- by busting his butt on the practice squad and earning his place.
i feel a bit like you've taken my opinion out of context.
i don't feel like i have a fixation on Sloter. i do have a concern that this current GM and FO has a penchant for relying on seriously injured players to play important positions. left tackle, right tackle, center, now possibly QB.
anytime i've posted in regards to Sloter as a possibility it has been with the caveat that neither Bradford or TB recover and, until this last game, that keenum was a non-starter. i am open to rethink that position though. obviously, that would not be known until later in the season...obviously. the question was, would they stick with keenum even if he was getting nowhere significant in terms of playoff a run, or would they throw the rookie out there...in that case?
i find you to be very condescending, Bob....with all due repsect.