Thanks..... and good points. What worries me is Garrard & Moore being 2013 FAs. For that reason I'd want Tannehill to get as many reps this year as possible to ensure he's as ready as possible for the '13 starting role.
That's a really good way to look at it. You're a good person, and good karma like that in the league is why people would want to deal with us, and sign here, if we consistently thought that way... Buuuut anyways, what can we get for him? *****Actually, as an addendum, Raf what's your opinion o the differences between how Garrard fits this sytem versus Ryan's fit in the system? I see Garrard as steady, more likely to make the right football choice on any given snap, but also less likely to take a big risk to create a bigger play. I see Tanny as more likely to miss something in his read, or throw to the 'wrong' guy, but more likely to try to fire the ball where it's riskier but higher reward. I would imagine Garrard comes with fewer INTs than Tanny, but Tanny would have a higher Yards-Per-Attempt. I'm also guessing, though, that Garrard makes better pre-snap adjustments into the right plays to attack the defense he sees whereas Ryan could keep the play the same and run into run blitz kind of thing.
Well, to be honest, preseason is critical for any long-term decision... and we may even want to delay it until we see Tanny in real regular season action. The risk of trading Moore is that we are trying to accelrate Tanny's development into a one year timeframe and it may or may not organically happen that way, but even IF Garrard makes it through this year without injury will he resign? Will they agree on a contract? Will his back last TWO years? If they let him go after this year, and Moore is gone then we'd be relying SOLELY on Tannehill? There is certainly something to say for Clean's argument of depth and stability at the most important position in football. But the counter point is, by keeping Moore: 1) We have an issue with practice snaps for Tannehill to develo 2) Moore is likely not the ideal fit for this system anyways so why keep him around if it won;t work out well for him OR us 3) We risk a disgruntled player, which can distract, or at least make future free agents wary about getting stuck in a situation here 4) We give up potentially improving the team at another position.. or heck, we could use any draft pick to get a developmental QB prospect again, or to move up in one of the other rounds next year. How Moore, Garrard and Tannehill look in preseason will be critical. There are three things to look for: 1) How does Garrard withstand the pounding and hits? Any signs, even small ones, of his back getting tweaked in limited preseason action would be a big red flag. he knows it, and may even try to hide it if it's minor. 2) If Moore struggles in the pre-season games, in addition to not practicing as well as Garrard, it starts to solidify the idea the he is not well suited for this offense. In which case, why keep him? 3) Does Tannehill show well against opposing defenses in all the preseason games, or are serious concerns exposed? We'll know if he looks like a shorter development curve or a longer one soon enough. Knowing those could turn the current situation ENTIRELY upside down. In that sense Clean is right that it's premature to decide who to trade, keep or start. But it's not premature to start discussing scenarios That's what GMs do... they shortlist things so they have it on speed-dial. Pro-active, not reactive. As things stand, I'd plan to move Moore... unless he changes my mind.
For so long we have had such a poor stable of QB's, for this season I say keep all 3 and plan on Tannehill starting in 2013. Then you look to trade Whoever started for us all season, and there's the best trad for a high draft pick. Either Moore or Garrard would make fine backups for Tanny next season while we develop Devlin as the #3. I really don't agree with the posts stating Moore will be our starter. If healthy, Garrard went to the Pro Bowl the last year he played. (2010). He is a good fit for the new WCO and IMO gives us the best chance to have a winning season this year. Long term I prefer Moore as Tannehill's backup as Garrard is going to start getting long in the tooth.
I'm not sure, but I'm under the impression Garrard and Moore's contracts are both up after this year?
Just because he generally looks better in games than in practices does not mean he isn't prioritizing practices. Some guys just instinctively do better when the live bullets are flying as opposed to a more controlled setting such as practice.
I would prefer to see how he does in the preseason games, before deciding that, since he has not been in this system before. IMO, it would be presumptuous of me to declare he cannot perform well in this offense.
So rigid, dude. Anything to get baby into a corner, eh? I don't have a set date. I can say this, if I were the one handling it, I would certainly want to trade him after having stopped and thought about WHO I'D trade him to, what I'd want and if it was worth doing... so, like the discussion we're having now. Yeah, this part would come first... before the actual trading. Not sure what date, but I'd like to lay groundwork and know the options first.
That's true in general. I can;t remember the quote or anything, but I remember watching Moore talking about practice and games and saying something about 'showing it on the field' on gameday. That was the gist of it and sort of crystallized my opinion of him.
It's a fair point. He may surprise me, but yeah, I am predicting that he doesn;t seem like a fit. Would rather be wrong than right. It would be a good problem to have. The good news? We'll start getting some real data tomorrow! Any idea how the snaps will be distributed and with which string?
I agree with BPK's #43 post. ...... and I probably wouldn't trade anyone until the deadline nears [unless doing so sooner allows us to roster a player we feel is potentially integral to our future].
Arizona, Arizona, Arizona. In all seriousness, keep the promising young QB unless 1) Devlin provides near his equal, AND 2) you get an outrageous price for him. That should be GM 101.
To me, that makes sense if anything does regarding a trade. That way, you see how Garrard is holding up and performing, and you are more likely to find a desperate team because of an injury, and therefore more likely to get a higher draft pick. Perhaps at least a round better than a trade at the final cutdown would net you. Then again, I am still not convinced that Moore cannot do well in this offense, or that Tanny is ready or would be best served long term, with extended playing time as a rookie. I just think it is safer for his long term development to handle him the way Palmer, Rivers and/or Rodgers were handled. Sometimes rookie QBs do well getting thrown into the fire early. Some do not perform well, but overcome it. Some though have their psyche permanently damaged IMO. I cannot think of one 1st round QB who was negatively effected long term, by riding the bench for a season or 2. Many fans are impatient to see their new toy. I think in the case of highly drafted rookie QBs, patience is often a virtue.
No way either of those happen, imo. And who would Zona have to offer, I wonder? I am far more interested in player-for-player than a pick.
I disagree. No, okay I agree... and Clean is right, I'm impatient to develop Tanny... but logically waiting a few more weeks or two months to see things develop is smarter given the number of uncertain variables with each guy. Nearer the trade deadline, then... when the Broncos are struggling. Only issue is.. it's less likely to happen under that scenario because if Moore plays poorly enough in pre-season to have garrard starting, no one will wanna trade for him anyways. If he plays really well, he'll end up starting for us. lol. Maybe it's impossiible to trade the guy for value, but hey we managed to offload Josh McCown and Moore is more betta dan dat man.
Unless they subscribe to the premise as some here have suggested, that his struggles are due to being a poor system fit.
Lol, did we somehow end up switching spots in the canoe without noticing?? True... if that supposition is true. And I think it's safe to say that 8some* people around the league may think that, at least.
^^ Hopefully both QBs look good but one just looks better than the other, while Tanny hopefully progresses nicely. That'd make a viable trade option should we want to pursue it. lol @ the "struggling Broncos" comment.
I think Moore could fetch a 3rd/4th if we were to wait until a playoff team had at injury at QB near the trade deadline, and it will happen because it does every year. If the staff wants to play Tannehill this year and thinks he is ready I have no issue with it. However if we want to wait until next season keeping Moore is the right call.
Matt Moore has shown he can start and win games in the NFL, of that there is no doubt. He is a bad system fit in Miami, in SD or Oakland he would fit in just fine, SD makes perfect sense for him. How about MMoore for Larry English?
Well, I think before we start talking about trading MMoore, we better be more certain that Garrard is really the guy. His Jax team mates and fans felt he was holding back and called him out publicly...Lets see some more of him before we anoint him anything more than a backup... And I think MMoore has earned the right to be looked at pretty hard before any decisions are made...
By all accounts Devlin is a different player this year. His arm is no longer significantly worse than the other QBs in camp (from a zip/strength perspective) and he supposedly knows the offense as well as any of the other QBs.
Flash, then get injured. We are paper, paper thin at Lb, as Spitler and Trusnik are not good 4-3 Lb's, they are not athletic enough. Basically our Lb depth chart consists of Guyton and a bunch of not much else.
Pad, if there is one position that we will need to grab a player after the last preseason cutdown, it would be at LB, particularly the Mike but really someone who can play either Mike or Sam. Our depth there is really making me nervous.
I basically agree except that I wouldn't necessarily expect a higher YPA from RT. I just think that at this point Garrard will make better decisions both pre-snap and post-snap.
Reason I would be up for trading Matt Moore if him and David are tied..............Matt Moore's 14 goddamn fumbles. I could see an injury in the preseason causing a scramble. 4th round pick plus late round pick or player. I would go for that. A 3rd and 4th in the next draft could give Jeff a lot of room to move around the board.
We'll know as the trade deadline nears. Heck, we'll know more after today. If Moore is GREAT then we have to reassess everything.
If Tannehill was to win the starting job tradeing Moore for a 3rd would be great. I think Moore is worth more than Kolb. If Garrard starts we better have a backup plan until he shows to be healthy.
If Garrard looks good, and Tannehill does not look in-over-his-head in pre-season I'm happy to let Moore go but some people worry about it. Yet, here is how I look at it.... if we had signed Peyton Manning, we would not have drafted Ryan Tannehill or signed Garrard imo. We'd be heading into the season with a VERY questionable starting QB (MAnning) who's health is a ? for him to be effective, and we'd have one veteran backup (Moore) who is not an ideal fit for the style of our system. Then Pat Devlin. I feel like Garrard, plus Tannehill (doesn;t just suit the system, he IS the system as his OC from college is the one who came here with him) and Devlin is even more stable than the previous scenario of Manning and Moore. The extra bonus is, we could get a player or pick to help the team. Preseason will show where we will need that. I think we angle for a player who is a great second string guy, almost starter quality at LB or DE.
Right now Guyton is our "depth" Trusnik has played the Mike with poor results, he doesn't run well enough. Man oh man pity Edds washed out, we could really have used a player with his skillset, otherwise a part of me would love to see a new Sam and let Koa be depth. Ernie Simms is still floating around.
