Gosh Shou... you just dream things could happen, well we all can then... Thill and the Dolphins are going to the playoff... and they will bring Moore along too... Happy??? and if Carpenter makes the FG after Thill drive in OT, we would have won the game, even with that 50 QBR....
MOORE SUCKS!!!!!! How clear can I be??? If he was ANY good he would have been able to score in the preseason vs the other teams scrubs, BUT HE DIDN'T. You know why??? He sucks.
I ignored this thread and haven't read through it so this was probably/hopefully mentioned. I just don't see any basis for the belief that Moore would be playing any better than RT. Moore is just not a good fit for this offense. It was obvious in the preseason and in camp that Moore's passes came off slower (timing-wise). That is one of the most important skills in this offense. He just doesn't fit. In fact, I would say that Devlin might even be more effective than Moore in this offense. And this is coming from somebody who likes Moore and was one of the few here who praised his signing last season. I wasn't surprised by how he played last year. Moore is a decent QB, but it is a fallacy to believe that you can just take a QB's rating from one system and expect it to be the same in another. There are things players do well and things they struggle with. This offense asks a QB to do the things Moore struggles with (quick passes, timing, mobility) and very little of what he does well (7-step drops, deep crossing patterns). You want to say that we would probably win more if we had a a better passer rating? Fine, agreed (and Duh?), but I see no basis for the belief that we would get that from Moore.
And all that makes sense, but I have to question then why Matt Moore is the backup QB on this team. Why is our insurance policy for our starting quarterback someone who by your estimation is largely incapable of playing in the team's current offensive system, so much so that he would be playing even worse than Tannehill right now (who, mind you, has the worst quarterback rating in the league)? Surely the coaches have realized Matt Moore's ill fit in this system. Why then would they pin their season on him in the event their starter gets injured, if it's true he would play so poorly?
That poor QB rating is highly deceptive in my opinion. I haven't seen anything in his play that is totally hindering us. If we lose more games so be it, that just means Ryan gets a chance to develop and we have better draft picks to surround him with talent.
What could be deceptive about it IMO are the two INTs in Houston that were freak plays (the tips that went straight up in the air and came down right in the breadbaskets of Texans players). The other two INTs he's thrown were more of the run of the mill variety. So if you remove those two INTs from his stat sheet, he would have a QB rating of 66.4, which would vault him all the way from 32nd (last) in the league, to 29th (third from last). No disrespect, but I think you have to question whether your subjective impression that the QB rating is "deceptive" has a lot to do with the fact that you're rooting for the guy to develop and eventually be good. Ask yourself if his QB rating would be so deceptive if you were a fan of another team.
I say it's deceptive because he's had two TD's dropped, two freak INT's, has shown good poise and that he can read a defense and make the right choice. All those deep ball incompletions for instance. As a QB when you have 1-1 coverage with no safety help up top you're generally coached to take that throw. The issue with that is it's a low percentage pass when you're throwing it to Hartline. There have been a lot of positive signs IMO.
Not being as good is not the same as "incapable". I think it was clear that the coaches intended Tannehill to sit for at least the start of the season, but then he outplayed everyone after getting less 1st string snapps. At that point it's silly not to start him.
Stats are subjective in the NFL. There is no sport more where individual performance is more dependent on teammates play. Besides, look at the stat you’re using. One of Tannehill’s best plays, his running touchdown, isn’t even reflected in the stat. Nor are some of Moore’s worst, his fumbles. You also have to incorporate analysis of play into a judgment, particularly if you’re trying to make the case that someone else should be starting. What have you got besides QBR? What is Tannehill doing that Moore would be doing better? He hasn’t had issues with the biggest thing a rookie has to do, which is setting protection and reading plays. He’s decidedly more athletic. What does Matt give above Ryan?
QB rating is not "subjective" if it correlates strongly with wins while controlling for the play of the other areas of the team, and that's precisely the case. To answer your question, I would say the number-one thing Matt Moore would provide over Tannehill is experience. There is a reason rookie QBs tend not to play as well as QBs who have been in the league longer, and it would be awfully silly IMO for anyone to say Ryan Tannehill is bucking that trend right now. He's the worst-rated QB in the league!
I said "largely incapable." The question still remains: why would the coaches have a backup quarterback on this team who by their own estimation couldn't play any better than the worst-ranked QB in the league in terms of QB rating? That's a glaring inconsistency if your argument is that Ryan Tannehill, the way he's playing now, is playing better than Matt Moore would.
They don't have a better option. If Garrard had stayed healthy he probably would have started and Moore would have been gone.
This post lacks a lot of respect for this site, and the OP. Folks who Disagree with the mans opinion, then show why, without childish retorts, unless of course those people are children..
Well I'll tell ya what, if it's true that Matt Moore wouldn't play as well in this offense as Ryan Tannehill is right now, they sure oughta be out looking for one.
It's subjective in that its value (meaning score, not importance) depends on people other than just the QB. You cannot just take two scores and definitively point to which QB played better. You keep going to ratings, do you really think Ryan has played the worst in the NFL? Please elaborate on “experience”. Is he going to make better decisions? Faster reads? What? He showed none of that during the preseason.
I think you've posited a question for discussion, but then got backed into a corner and have to defend it. QB rating does correlate with winning, but its not 100%. There's enough variance where 3 games aren't statistically relevant. The Jets game, Tannehill played well enough to win. That is fact. As far as Moore being the #2, he's the #2 for reasons other than play. He is the accepted leader and veteran. Its not really more complicated than that.
It really doesn't matter who played better from a subjective standpoint. What matters is that when you control for how the other areas of teams play, QB rating independently predicts wins. So if your QB has a rating like Ryan Tannehill's, regardless of your subjective impression of his play, and regardless of how the rest of your team is playing, the overwhelming likelihood is that you aren't going to win. It's just that simple. In the way that matters (because it's so strongly correlated with wins), yes. I imagine he'd do all that, don't you? I mean for what reasons do more experienced QBs typically play better than rookies? It has to boil down to something, doesn't it?
What controls for that is a statistical analysis in which you input the play of those other areas into a regression equation.
If I were "backed into a corner," I don't think we'd be 259 replies out here and still having legitimate discussion. He played well enough to win (almost) only because the opposing quarterback's rating was so low (58), which, again, is a testament to the correlation between QB rating and wins. Well if he stands to play worse than Tannehill in this offense, his leadership is gonna go down the tubes pretty quick if he ever gets out there on the field. He better "lead" safely from the sidelines.
Well if we're talking about lack of "system fit" as being Moore's downfall, I'd at least be out there looking for a guy for whom there wouldn't be anywhere near the degree of lack of system fit, somebody whose strengths are at least consistent with the offensive system.
Right, but what are you inputting to the equation for the other areas. Trust me, I regularly run logit regressions to come up with rankings and game predictions. The only things that are useful offensively are net yds per pass attempt, and run success rate. Everything done offensively is reflected in those.
I don't see Moore getting any time this year. I think if Tannehill ends up just flat out blowing then look for Devlin to get a look. I really feel that Devlin deserves a look if Tannehill just can't get it done. This doesn't mean I want Devlin starting i'm just saying that he should be next in line if Tannehill either sucks horribly or gets injured. We gain nothing by playing/starting Matt Moore. We atleast see if there is a potential future for Tannehill or Pat Devlin by playing them. Matt Moore probably needs to go to a team where he can step in and play if needed. A team like Denver would be a good fit for Moore behind Peyton. Or a teams like Houston, San Fran, or Chicago. Those teams are trying to win now and I think that is a better situation for Moore. We are quite simply not a contending team nor should we be. So for me it's either Tannehill or Devlin this year. Those are the guys I want to see at QB.
Right, but I see two issues: -You would lose Pat Devlin in the process -Any QB available now is going to be so bad that it would be a serious undermining of Tannehill The reality is that the coaching staff made their bed when they named Tannehill the starter. For better or worse, they can't replace him at this point.
This is all i needed to read, you ASSUME we lose games because of Tannehill, we didnt lose Sunday because of Tannehill, we lost because the Kicker that is paid to make FGs missed TWO, one in overtime. He's a rookie, he is going to make rookie mistakes, those mistakes don't always lead to the reasons the Dolphins lose. Look at the team as a whole and not just tunnel vision the QB position. And the BS "QB driven league" excuse is just that. yes it is a QB driven league but so many ppl miss interprut the meaning of that as blame the QB for everything. Its still a team sport, and even all pro QBs need solid Wr's to throw to, and a defense that can stop an offense when called on to do so. The game of football is about right now, and RT put this team in position to win the game, Caprenter blew the kick. Period.
Well if it's true Matt Moore would be so bad, I would think you'd want Pat Devlin coming off the bench first, in fact.
Its debatable. I think Devlin looked better in the preseason, but that wasn't against the same competition as Moore. One thing about Devlin is that much of his value to the Dolphins is in a potential future trade. Making him look as good as possible is important in maintaining that value.
Not at all, IMO you think it all starts and ends at the QB position and anyone who thinks that is simply wrong. There are ten men on the field that have jobs to do. you think Matt Moore is gonna suddenly make Naanee appear? You thing Moore is going to make Armstrong catch that 1st down pass he dropped? Sorry but you're the one missing a whole lot my friend.
I could reply and try to change your mind, but it would involve a dissertation of objective data that probably still wouldn't do the trick, so I'll refrain.
Is there objective data to support the idea that YPA is more strongly influenced by any other area of the team than the QB?
LOL well that maybe true i can be thick headed at times, but i am not the one overacting about a rookie QB in his 3rd game with the worst Wr corp in the league.
Like I said in the post you originally quoted, I'm all for starting Tannehill, but I think it's already clear that's going to come at the expense of winning, and I'm concerned that a first-year head coach who needs to build credibility with his players may not be able to afford a lot of losing if his players perceive there's a QB on the bench who gives them a better chance to win. In other words, my point is a long way from "Ryan Tannehill sucks! Bench him!" There's a little more thought and big-picture context happening here than that.
Ok then lets look at from that perspective. #1 Does Moore = more wins? #2 Do the players beleive Moore = more wins? #3 Do the players buy into the let the rookie learn process? #4 Does the HC care about the players evaluation of the QBs? #5 Do we as fans want the HC to let the players feeling dictate what his desicions are? #6 Does the HC worry (at this point) ift the FO is going to fire him if he sticks with RT? My answers: #1 We dont know, but going by last years results isnt a gauge to go by, only what he has done this year with this offens with these players. #2 You'll have to aske them, but has RT the soul reason we lost two games or is it a team effort? #3 Ask them but until we get a larger sample size of games and u start hearing the rumors of b!tching going on then it's a gussing game. #4 I hope not. #5 No #6 I hope not, i dont want to think the FO is looking to yank the HC under these circumstances and understand the process of what is going on. But the big question is this...#7 Do we risk the developement of RT for a backup QB that may not get us anymore wins then the rookie? There by stunting his growth and either waiting another year to find out OR him never developing into the QB we hope for? My opinion? Well ty for asking. I dont see anything RT is doing that is bad enough or digressive enough to put Matt Moore in. I dont see Moore making this team better and I dont see him getting us a win in Houston. NYJ game? Maybe. Moore has alot of flaws in his game, and quite simply we are not here to develope Matt Moore. If it means a few More losses then so be it. But then again like I said earlier, we dont know if Moore=More.
But you have given no reason that Moore would have a better QBR, other than in a different offense, with different players, playing against different teams, he had a different QBR. When the teams were the same he averaged aproxamatly the same QBR. That’s the point you’re not addressing. QBR isn’t an inherent thing like speed, we aren’t talking about a 40 time here, but that’s how you’re trying to use it. We don't have to imagine, we all saw the same preseason games. When did he do any of that? Yes an experienced Tannehill is better than an inexperienced Tannehill. That isn't the question, the question is on this team, with this offense, is an inexperienced Tannehill better than an experienced Moore? Nothing in the preseason would lead me to believe that is true.
