We've seen three games from Ryan Tannehill. His QB ratings have been 39, 91, and 50.2. The QB ratings of the opposing quarterbacks in those games have been 102.4 (Schaub), 74.4 (Palmer), and 58.2 (Sanchez). Of course we know what happened in these games. We got blown out in Houston, largely because of the three INTs that figured largely into Tannehill's quarterback rating of 39. We murdered Oakland, largely because Tannehill didn't make the same kinds of mistakes, and the running game gained 263 yards on the ground. And we barely lost against the Jets in overtime. So the question is, how would the team have fared in these games if Matt Moore were quarterback? Remember that in Matt Moore's final nine games of last season, his overall quarterback rating was 97. The team went 6-3 in those games. For the sake of comparison, in 2008, when the team was 11-5 and made the playoffs, Chad Pennington's QB rating was also 97. I submit that we probably would've lost the game in Houston with Matt Moore at quarterback, but perhaps by a much smaller margin. It's doubtful Matt Moore would've thrown three interceptions. It's also doubtful Matt Moore would've played poorly enough to lose the Oakland game. What isn't doubtful IMO is that Matt Moore would've played well enough to win the Jets game. Mark Sanchez's QB rating in that game was 58.2. A QB rating even as poor as 70 (27 points lower than Moore's final nine games last year) would've probably won the game convincingly, as poor as Sanchez played, rather than having it come down to field goal attempts in overtime. So, if you believe that to be true, then you'd be looking at a 2-1, first-place team right now, rather than a 1-2 last place team, if Matt Moore had quarterbacked these first three games. So the question is, do you want to win now, or do you want to lose now for the sake of developing Ryan Tannehill? Because it's clear to me that if you're playing Ryan Tannehill, you're going to do a whole lot more losing now than if you were playing Matt Moore.
I usually agree with you on most things, but in this case I disagree with you 100% with no room for discussion There is NO case for starting Matt Moore. Tannehill is the present and the future. Tannehill led this team to victory yesterday and we shanked two kicks. He made one horrible throw all day and was victimized by at least 5 drops and some inconsistent play calling. Removing him after week 3 will have the same effect it had on Henne when we inserted Pennington as the starter in 2010. I'm pretty sure Tannehill has thick skin and can take a benching, but I'm not going to sacrafice his development so Matt Moore can win us 1 or 2 extra games this year.
So far it's one extra game out of three, which projects to five games on the year. That's the difference between a 6-10 record and an 11-5 one.
Agree with you Shou, but think if Woodley could be benched after leading us to a super bowl, then Tannehill starting over MMoore is just the seduction of the past showing up. 3 yrs from now Tannehill will be our Qb, MMoore will be long gone, may as well except it.
Give him a break, eventually he will see the insanity of actually thinking Dirty Sanchez with his 40% completion rate, wobblers and overall craptastic play was somehow better than the amazing talent, arm strength and progression Tannehill is making. Matt Moore = Sanchez, Ryan Tannehill = Future Franchise.
Interesting. Moore might struggle in this Offense though so its not a gimme that he would have won against the Jets. I say stick with Tanny right now. Let him get some games. He hasnt got many weapons so Im giving him the nod.
Not really. It's actually part of the fantasy world we live in called thephins.com. Seriously. I mean do you think this forum overall is real life? Or do you think it consists of the fantasy and conjecture of a bunch of nobodies, myself included? I'd say the latter.
You're assuming that Tannehill won't improve and that Matt Moore would be an improvement over Tannehill. Tremendous leap of faith to believe so... Which isn't based in reality, especially after Moore was given a chance to start and bombed out horrifically in the preseason. You are also forgetting one small piece of information. Moore had this guy named Brandon Marshall to throw to last year. In fact, Brandon had over 1000 yards, mostly on balls thrown by Moore.
You're making a big assumption that Matt Moore would be doing any better than Ryan Tannehill right now. Tannehill won the job in training camp and played better in the preseason. I also don't think it's fair to assume Matt Moore would have played well enough to win the Jets game. Add to that, Ryan Tannehill is playing pretty admirably considering he is a rookie. Matt Moore's upside is limited. Tannehill is already playing admirably and will only get better. He's absolutely 100% not embarrassing himself out there so I really don't see how you can make an argument for starting a mediocre QB in this situation. If Tannehill was playing John Beck bad, I'd be in agreement with you but he's not. Also projecting Matt Moore's stats from last year into this season with a new offense isn't fair either. Add to that his prior inconsistency from season to season with Carolina and your case gets weaker.
Arrggh, let's not get all catty here fellas... Despite my universal disagreement this is worthy of discussion. 2 days before Henne was benched by Sparano I got universally lambasted in the Club level for saying this team would play better under Pennington..So this scenario isn't as far fetched as even I would like to believe. However, if Philbin makes the switch I will lose a lot of faith this new coaching staff has earned from me.
The team as a whole bombed in the preseason and looked nothing like it does now. On the contrary, Ryan Tannehill is bombing out in the regular season, to the tune of a QB rating of 58.2 overall.
I think it is far-fetched. Moore looked like absolute crap in preseason games and showed me no signs that he could repeat his performance from the end of last season in this new system. Moore is a career backup QB. If people here want to continue the same load of crap at QB that we've had since Marino retired (sans the one year from Penny) then by all means let's start the mediocre backup QB rather than be patient and let our rookie QB develop. It's almost insane that this has been brought up 3 games into the season.
It's an assumption, but I don't think it's a big assumption to think that a guy with a good bit of starting experience who played his last nine games as a starter with a 97 QB rating would be playing significantly better than a rookie, especially when that rookie is playing poorly like rookie QBs tend to.
But that's essentially the choice you're making by starting Tannehill: lose now for the sake of his development. If you don't mind losing now for the sake of his development, then fine, start Tannehill.
It certainly isn't real life if you think we're going 11-5 with Matt Moore, who simply isn't a good QB. He lost miserably to this rookie that is "holding us back".
Shou, you are way too focused on QB rating. His QB rating is based on many factors, including a lack of WR's, a ROOKIE QB learning the Pro game, and is deflated downwards after having 3 balls batted down week 1 in Houston, 2 of whom became INT's. Let's look at intangibles. Down 3, game on the line, he drives the team to FG range and we tie the game. OT period, drives the team to FG range only to have Carpenter miss. What did our old friend, Chad Henne do with games on the line? Let me give you a hint. 1st and 10 Incomplete. 2nd and 10 Incomplete. 3rd and 10 Incomplete. 4th and 10 Incomplete or INT. Be happy with have a QB with a cluth gene. 4th quarter, 15 yard line, 3rd and 10, throws a rocket pass, PERFECTLY placed to Armstrong that gets DROPPED. That catch could have sealed the game for us if we continued driving down the field. Stop with QB ratings dude!!!
In Tannys defence I would say most QB's would have a pretty low rating if he has Naanee, Armstrong and a Revis covered Hartline to throw to. And Bush was out for alot of the game.
Bombing out? Getting us into FG range for game winners is bombing out? It's his first 3 games for cryin' out loud. Mondays around this place...yeesh.... Love ya Shou...but damn dude...
We just lost a game against a QB who had a QB rating of 58.2. Do you have any idea what the odds of that are? Do you have any idea how hard it is to lose a game against a quarterback who's playing that poorly? We lost the game because our quarterback played even worse, which is hard to do when you're talking about quarterback ratings that low.
Did you watch the game? Are you going to sit here and tell me that Mark Sanchez was a better QB yesterday? Seriously? If you believe so then I'll have nothing else to add to this thread, because it is absolutely ludicrous to make that argument. If our freaking kicker makes ONE OF TWO kicks that our QB put him in position to make, this post wouldn't even exist. End of story.
Shou, are you still making this thread if Carpenter makes his last kick? After Tannehill drives down with 3min left in the 4th quarter to tie it, and then drove us down from our own 10 in OT to win it? If you still think you would have made this thread, then ok. But I highly doubt you would have...
Thats irrelevant. Doesnt matter what ratings are. If they both have low ratings then you have potential for closer game. Plus they dont play against each other. Defenses have alot to do with ratings.
Bum, the issue is that AVERAGE QB play on our side would've probably won the game convincingly. I suspect Matt Moore would've played at least AVERAGE in that game.
Actually I'm all for continuing to start Tannehill, but I think you have to realize at this point that you're trading losses for his development.
I think, as I told my buddy last night, if you blame RT then IMO, you are not thinking logically. He didnt play ights out, but put us in position to win. Play calling sucked, coaching blew that game IMO. If you didnt. Expect growing pains, then you were fooling yourself, IMO.
But you're disregarding everything in my post that explained why I think it's a big assumption. Like for starters, you're completely ignoring the fact that in this offense Ryan Tannehill outplayed Matt Moore in training camp and preseason games. In at least 2 of the games I watched, Ryan Tannehill looked better against the starters than Matt Moore did against the backups. You're also assuming Matt Moore has been consistent over his career. Which he hasn't.
Stick with the rookie. He made a couple of nice plays when the game was on the line in the midst of an otherwise poor day. That's what I like to see. That 41 harder to Hartline was great. Could he have lead him, for a TD possibly? Maybe. But he rolled out, extended the play and made a good throw. We just missed the kicks.
When you aren't a playoff team... the number of wins you have is irrelevant. And we are much further away from a playoff team than Matt Moore. Matt Moore is not a good QB, and isn't taking this team anywhere. In fact, I'd be very comfortable saying that I think Tannehill gives us the best shot to win.
Yeah, training camp is a bit in the rearview at this point MB, ditto preseason. This counts now, THill has great unseen stuff, his accuracy is as spotty as Moore's had been up until this point.
Another thing to consider. Matt Moore had Brandon Marshall. Ryan Tannehill has Brian Hartline. I'm not saying that makes all the difference, but it's a factor that needs to be considered.
Hard to be accurate on deep throws when your WR's have little to no separation. His medium range sideline passes have been a thing of beauty, as have some of the shorter, down the middle passes.. Too bad our guys can't handle the velocity and continue to drop them
He rarely throws deep and is not particularly accurate on most of the intermediate stuff. Heard all of the "..if he only had a Wr.." crap when Henne was here, sorry bro, Qb makes the Wr better, not the other way around.
Shour likes to play the Devils advocate and he brings up a legitimate question worthy of discussion. I dont think he really supports this idea but it is a good topic IMO.
I dont think we would be any better off with Moore playing than Tannehill right now... I think Moore playing yesterday we dont even win get that tying field goal, and he probably throws an extra pick or two...
The front office and coaching staff will never truly admit it since they field a football team with a bunch of players that are playing their *** off to win, but I think they know full well that this team is deficient in enough areas that they aren't going to be significantly better with Matt Moore at QB to make much of a difference.
