Sorry, I think big picture. And getting a couple more wins with a sub-average backup QB like Moore is extremely short-sighted (no offense).
We've basically lost one game because of Ryan Tannehill- Vs. the Texans, a game we wouldn't have been favored in regardless. Looking at the schedule and the team's performance so far, .500 with a rookie quarterback who is having growing pains isn't really all that unfeasible. I'll take it.
what makes you think that? based on how he played in this offense all preseason, where is this thought coming from? He was CLEARLY outplayed by Tannehill in this system
Sanchez had guys running wide open. The Jets could make the same argument that if their QB was better they would have won convincingly. It doesn't matter. This season is not about victories. It's about getting Tannehill ready to play at a high level when the etam around him improves. As a season ticket holder I would have loved to have won eysterday, but even a win wouldn't have made this a great football team. We're very mediocre and will be until free agency and the draft gets us more and hopefully better players. ******ing Tannehill's development for the hope of winning 7 games rather than 4 or 5 makes no sense
You are gonna go down fightinng to prove you. Are right huh? I guess we havent beenn watching same games.
I don't think winning now gets us anything in the long run. I don't think Moore is capable enough to squeeze out extra wins in this offense. We've got the same needs going into next year regardless of how this year pans out, so letting things stay as they are is just fine with me.
True and fair point. But don't forget that Henne had Camarillo and Ginn in addition to Bess and Hartline before BM came here. I would take those 2 in a heartbeat, even right now, lol. Matt Moore relied heavily on BM, though I will say that Moore trusted Clay where Tanny doesnt seem to. Iirc, Hartline need a triple move to beat Cromartie in OT. With Egnew doing God know what, the seams are shut down. Sanchez was even worse than normal without Keller Its not just WRs. It is all targets. Oh and Armstrong likely could have housed that ball he dropped. 3rd and long, in stride and the Safety took a bad angle. Game could have been over right there
So let's say you start Matt Moore. Then what? What are the advantages? A worse draft pick? I don't understand the philosophy there. The guy was horrible in preseason and has a history of performing well against bad teams.
I was a proponent of starting Matt Moore and it was my opinion of starting him and developing Tannehill. Well the decision was made. Tannehill was named the starter. He's a rookie; you don't start a rookie and expect instant success. Peyton Manning's first year when he was thrown to the wolves had a 3-13 season. Cam Newton last year was 6-10. We've committed to Tannehill so it's time to let him sink or swim. If he continues to show progress ie; as Manning did his rookie season then next year we should be in GREAT shape. If Tannehill becomes an Alex Smith, Joey Harrington or Ryan Leaf, then we wasted a first round draft pick. This is also an opportunity to see what other players on the team are going to rise to the occasion in the face of adversity and challenge...time to shake the milk and watch the cream rise to the top.
Not playing Tannehill would be a silly move. Not because he's necessarily better than Matt Moore right now, but because it's the only sensible way to develop the guy. There's quarterbacks who benefit from holding a clipboard; Tannehill's not one of them. He's got the playbook down, to the point where he's changing plays Peyton style. He's comfortable in the offense. He's showing command of the huddle (or should I say no huddle). That's not to say that Tannehill doesn't have obvious issues; he does. He's tends to lock on his targets (pick six, here we go), he still does that little tap on the ball that's a dead giveaway as to where he's throwing, he's got some accuracy issues. However, that's stuff you can only really correct if the guy's actually playing the game; he won't improve on that by holding a clipboard and getting limited snaps with the B team. Plus, you also can't evaluate if he is actually improving on these things when you don't put him in a game situation; with real pressure, real hitting and real consequences. At the end of the year, you need to know if Tannehill's good enough; you need to know if he can eliminate glaring weaknesses in a 16 game stretch. Because if he doesn't, you need to look for the next guy.
I think he's better than Matt Moore right now, based on what I have seen through three games, including birds eye views of all three games that encompass the coverage. He's made what I felt was only one bad, risky throw the entire stretch. It just so happened it got returned for a TD and really hurt.
It may well be that we could have won with Matt Moore playing yesterday. But, we just as well could have won twice with Tannehill playing except for two 'wide lefts,' an attempt to freeze the Jests PK which backfired, the injury to Reggie, an absolutely execrable performance by the Defensive Backfield, and/or the DL's inability to reach Sanchez. Besides, the operative thought process is that which is underlined above. Tannehill is a rookie, and the staff has chosen to start him not only because of his present talent but the apparently probable higher performance ceiling which we can see even in some of the mistakes. A rookie throws just that small enough farther than necessary to Hartline to allow for a great catch for a good gain. A more practiced and more accustomed to the WR throws that pass and allows Hartline to run under it at full stride and into the end zone. That will not happen without game experience, which this whole process this year is beginning. I for one, am excited to see that with a rookie in his third game we almost beat our arch nemesis - and if not for mistakes in other areas of the game, we would quite probably be talking about Tannehill's continued growth rather than examining the possibility of his replacement (and probable diminution or cessation of any real progress) to put in place a QB who has, in all probability already hit his ceiling, and further, will not likely be here next year.) In other words, replacing Tannehill with Moore at this stage of the game (literally) seems counterproductive to me in the long run.
Your not talking about play, your talking about a rating that isn't reflective of everything that a qb does. Tannehill was at least average. Moore never matched the 20 points scored on the jets last year, and put up a 41.8 QBR his first game against them. Your suspicions are unfounded. Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2
Are you in charge of Matt Moore's fan club? All 4 of your posts are about him. Moore struggled against backups in the preseason.
more than that (outplayd in the Preseason), IMO, we already know what we have in MM: someone who can't lead us to the promise land. sad for him (he seems like a really fun guy), but that's just it. this year is just plain rebuilding, what would be the point in starting MM? win a couple of games more (and we have to admit, even this is just a BIG maybe, knowing all the MM limitations) and maybe losing on some big players next year.... I want to win , now, badly, and I am not for "giving up" the season...but I want to win with RT, becuase that can garantee some long-term success (and if he is not the One, we need to find out as soon as possible)...winning now with MM doesn't give us anything on the long run, just a couple of useless wins...useless because, even if we were in the play-off run, we have to admit there is NO chance we go anywhere, we don't have a good enough team, right now.
And that's all well and good, again if you're willing to trade losses for his development. As it stands right now, if you believe we could've won with Moore playing yesterday, that's one loss out of three games that could've been avoided, which projects to five such losses on the year. Again that's potentially the difference between a 6-10 season and an 11-5 one. If you're prepared to trade a playoff season for a non-playoff one to develop your quarterback, fine, but if you are, I think it's time to divest a whole lot of emotional energy from this season.
I find it funny when some folks jump on Sho for what they perceive is a conclusion on his part, it's obvious why he started the thread, his opinion has been consistent, he's not down on Tannehill, and doesn't want Moore, he's simply pointing out sacrifices you make with a rookie, and seeing what's important to you, wins or development. I think he's correct in this case,we would be 2 and 1 and in first place, but is that more important than the development at this point.?
The "math" on this is all very simple and obvious IMO, but what clouds our ability to see it is the perception that Tannehill is "locked in" as the starter because this season is all about developing him. That's fine if you want to use this season to develop him, but realize that you're trading losses for it as we speak.
I am ready. I am not so thrilled in the idea to go to the play-off just without any real chances to go all the way (well,of course, I sure would cheer anyway if we did, a fan is a fan ), like in 2008 when we made the PO and we were embarassed in Baltimore. For me it is not losing big in that game (it can always happen in a single game, even when you have a very good team), but the clear feeling we had no real chances to beat them, that we were like in different leagues
And what you get into there is the fact that we have a first-year head coach who is unproven, and using a quarterback who could possibly be the difference between a playoff team and a non-playoff one could very well have him lose the team. This "Ryan Tannehill development" issue goes beyond just Ryan Tannehill. You have to ask yourself if Joe Philbin needs to build credit with his players by winning.
I think you need to check on the likelihood of losing to a team whose quarterback has a 58.2 rating, and the likelihood that Matt Moore wouldn't have produced a QB rating different enough from that to win the game. Again, Matt Moore could've had a QB rating as low as 70 (as opposed to Tannehill's 50), and it's very likely the game wouldn't have come down to field goal attempts in overtime. The game would've very likely been won convincingly by the Dolphins in regulation. It's not like the stars would've needed to align here.
Matt Moore's QB Rating was 61.1 in week 17 last year against the Jets (in Miami). That was with Brandon Marshall. I think we're reaching here in assuming he would have been better than RT yesterday. Had Armstrong made that catch on the 3rd and long, then Tannehill's passer rating would've been approximately 56 EDIT: And this was after Matt Moore had already been acclimated to the system he was in for 12 games
Tannehill is leaving a lot of plays on the field, but I don't think Moore would be much better. He's a poor fit for the system they're running.
Matt Moore's redeeming quality is improvisation, which he wouldn't have much of an opportunity to do in this offense. Last season most of his success was breaking off the original play and essentially throwing it up to Brandon Marshall. It had marginal success, but thats not really an offense you want to go ahead and develop.
Saying we would be 2-1 if MM started is a huge assumption that no basis in fact. It assumes thing thhat cant be known nor proven Sure moore wonnt make rookie mistakes, but to act like he doeesnt make. Mistakes just look at his record vs >500 teams. Hell even 500 teams. I dont think it is a any better than a 50/50 bet that moore = more wins
The fallacy in this thinking is that the Matt Moore of 2011 would be the Matt Moore of 2012, with his higher passer ratings, etc. Matt Moore had Brandon Marshall in 2011. Just counting the games Moore started, he had a 97.1 passer rating when throwing to Brandon Marshall. He had an 82.9 passer rating throwing to everyone else. I think rather you need to check on what actually happened during the games and the skills displayed by both quarterbacks and see which one would have played better than the other.
In two games against the jets last year Matt averaged a 51 QBR, threw multiple picks in each game, and never matched the 20 points Ryan did. Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2
Giving credit where it is due, Moore had a sick TD drive in the 4th quarter in the last game that was literally all him
Who's 1st 3 games as a pro looked like this? QBR of 58.6, 51.1, 39.3 Hint he will be in the HOF one day with out a doubt. Answer: Payton Manning Not saying I am comparing the two, but if you are going believe in a rook then stick with the rook. It just may pay off. I know the Colts were glad they had patience, even though Payton ended the year with a 71.2 QBR
