Football Outsiders Looks at Holes on AFC East Rosters

We did. I'm not here to say Matt Moore didn't play well last season. I'm here to say he's not good enough to win a superbowl. That's just my opinion. Hell, I'd love to be wrong and see the guy really step up his game and improve on what he did last year and do just that. But to assume that will happen and not try to improve the position would be a huge mistake in my opinion.

 

Yes. Maybe. Maybe. Yes. No. Yes.

 

I'd be ok with that too. Like I've said before, I'll never blame Ireland for missing on QB prospect. I'll blame him for not trying. My preference is Manning + Moore + Tannehill. Pretty much cover all the bases there. Veteran who could win a superbowl if healthy, a young guy who would hopefully be the future, and a damn good backup should the rookie not be ready and Peyton not be healthy.

I'm not completely opposed to Flynn either. I worry that bringing Flynn in would mean not drafting a QB high. And I'm not so sure we should draft a QB high if the prevailing thought was that Flynn was the guy. I'm just not sure about Flynn, but I'm basing a lot of that on the lack of success of similar one or two game wonder QBs, which isn't exactly fair.

 

Wow is it time for FA yet?

 

Matt Moore did very well with our unti to finish out the season.. however would anyone say that he can surpass 10-11 wins next year? bring us through the afc's playoff picture and win us a title? i personally dont think so.. i know i want all the bread in the basket asking for that but i think a new direction at QB is the way to go.. No its not our #1 need but it doesnt go past our second need. moore is not elite, and that is what we should be striving for, not settling for good seasons.. we want great

 

The question you have to ask isn't whether he is elite now, but will he ever be elite in the future. Moore has shown for long stretches that he can play with the best in the league, being ranked #2 in the NFL in 2009 for a 5 game stretch, a couple games this year in a row where he played very well, etc. In that, you get games where he looks good to average and a few where he looks bad.

Considering he's had roughly 25 starts broken up over 5 years, you need to see him for a whole, continuous season before determining this. There are less than a handful of guys who were elite in their first 25 starts. Moore has shown flashes and an ability to play at that level, he just needs to show whether he can do it consistently or not.

Given a solid team around him, I think Moore can develop into a top 7 guy.

 

No, they don't. This isn't the 1950s. Football doesn't work that way any more, and a case can be made that it never did. (Otto Van Graham says hi.) How many championships did the LaDainian Tomlinson + Drew Brees/Philip Rivers combo win? Where's Adrian Peterson's ring?

I'm going to get flak for saying this, but I don't care: Dan Marino's problem was Dan Marino, not a lack of a Terrell Davis.

IMO, Matt Moore is much, much closer to his ceiling than his floor.

 

lol If you say so. Flack given.

I never said a RB could win a championship completely by themselves like someone in AP's situation would of had to have done. But if that's what you need to make your point.

Citing three situations in the last however many years like that doesn't make your case. You said we aren't going anywhere without a QB, well plenty of teams have gone further than we have this year alone without a qb.

BAL wouldn't of gotten that far without Rice and HOU def wouldn't of done anything without Foster.

 

You said that a good running back can disguise bad QB play, without offering any sort of proof besides an unnecessary defense of Dan Marino.

 

The one who really deserves flak is Shula. Love the guy to death, but he failed to give this team a defense during the Marino years. Lots of defensive busts like Jackie Shipp, John Bosa, Eric Kumerow, etc.

 

Baltimore and Houston also have better QB's than we do. Better playmakers, on both sides of the ball than we do.

 

Which it does, and I did.

 

And their RBs are better playmakers.

There's a bigger gap between their RBs and ours than our QB to theirs, imo.

 

Funny how M. Moore fans like to just ignore that he turned the ball over 6 more times on fumbles as well and pretend those don't count as turnovers. Apparently if those don't get calculated in QB rating (which can be a joke to begin with) then it doesn't take away from his play. Usually a fumble is more damaging than an interception as the opposing team gets the fumble right where the ball is fumbled if it isn't returned for additional yardage. On most interceptions they are at least thrown down the field.

For anyone to think M. Moore had a damn fine season leads me to question their football sanity. Only played well against the worst teams on schedule, who have some of the worst defenses in football, and almost all the wins were part of the opposing team's losing streak.

If ever a QB had to rely on the team playing well to win it was M. Moore last year.

 

Thank you.