Matt Moore's Most Recent Season as a Starter | Will He Start this Week?

"HardKoreXXX wrote:

I dunno. Personally I think the whole "spark" thing is overstated. Maybe Moore wins a game against a bad team, but then what? Does he carry that through the rest of the season and to a playoff appearance?

That's the problem with making a change; it's short-sighted. ESPECIALLY when that change involves inserting a career backup.

It's not short-sighted in my view because regardless of who starts, we're going to be picking a QB in the 1st round next year. So you might as well go with the best man right now. And I think that's Matt Moore.

It's not just a 'spark' really. I think Moore is better suited to lead this team, this offense.

He may be considered a career backup, but what has Tannehill done to warrant 'starter' designation? Be given the job as a rookie? Granted, Moore is a notoriously poor practice player. But is that the major difference between the two players? Just 'not suck' in practice? Ryan is the superior physical talent but that isn't amounting to much right now. If all I can go on is recent performance, Moore performed better in preseason.

"Muck wrote:

It's not short-sighted in my view because regardless of who starts, we're going to be picking a QB in the 1st round next year. So you might as well go with the best man right now. And I think that's Matt Moore.

It's not just a 'spark' really. I think Moore is better suited to lead this team, this offense.

He may be considered a career backup, but what has Tannehill done to warrant 'starter' designation? Be given the job as a rookie? Granted, Moore is a notoriously poor practice player. But is that the major difference between the two players? Just 'not suck' in practice? Ryan is the superior physical talent but that isn't amounting to much right now. If all I can go on is recent performance, Moore performed better in preseason.

He beat out Matt Moore.

Also Moore's performance in preseason wasn't with starters or against starters.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

He beat out Matt Moore.

Also Moore's performance in preseason wasn't with starters or against starters.

I didn't feel like anybody really won or lost in 2011.

They were basically even, neither guy was good. Ryan knew the playbook. Both guys were behind David Garrard before he got hurt.

If you play well with an inferior supporting cast, how is that a demerit?

Starting Moore should signify to ownership that Philbin has failed at the development of his QB of choice in Ryan Tannehill. Which all but signals he should be let go at the end of the season. We know what Moore is. A Backup. We should be still finding out what Tannehill is only 3 games into him learning a new offense for the first time in his career.

Btw... I think threads simply posting a link only with no content of substance is incredibly useless.

Also keep in mind Hickey has no ties to T-hill or Philbin, which would make it easier to blow it all up like Ross should have done at the end of last season.

"Mcduffie81 wrote:

I think Tannehill is very aware of how he is playing. I don't think he needs to receive a message from the coaches.

I think he needs more time in the system and for the time being a very large emphasis on the running game. Get him going early by moving him around, bootlegs, keeper options....get the blood pumping and keep the early nerves at bay.

Wouldn't that be nice..rollout, bootlegs, a run up the gut for a first down, then followed by a fist pump in the middle of the field.

I've seen a few keeper options where he doesn't keep it.

People dont learn. Moore gets us to 8-8 and then what? Philbin stays.... common sense

"JShady wrote:

I think people don't want Moore to start because he took us out of the suck for Luck.

Nah... nothing to do with it. Moore just isn't seen as a clear cut upgrade over Tannehill. The lingering memory of him is that when he came in last season against Buffalo, he had a chance to make something positive happen and instead went 6 attempts, 2 INTS... trying to force the ball downfield. He has had opportunities to improve and beat out Tannehill each season and hasn't done so.

I'm not opposed to a change as SOMETHING needs to happen to get these guys back on focus... Tannehill lacks certain tangibles, intangibles, and game instincts, but the drops are inexcusable and almost every time it seems as though the receivers are looking away as it happens. Footsteps?

"Patssuck wrote:

People dont learn. Moore gets us to 8-8 and then what? Philbin stays.... common sense

8-8 SHOULD get Philbin fired. Inexcusable after all this time and with all the personnel decisions he has been involved in.

"djphinfan wrote:

Wouldn't that be nice..rollout, bootlegs, a run up the gut for a first down, then followed by a fist pump in the middle of the field.

I've seen a few keeper options where he doesn't keep it.

He had open field in front of him several times times against the Chiefs in which he could have ran for positive yards and 1st downs and instead opted to throw. If any of that is going to happen, Lazor will have to call it for him ahead of time. He simply isn't going to do it on his own.

"cuchulainn wrote:

He had open field in front of him several times times against the Chiefs in which he could have ran for positive yards and 1st downs and instead opted to throw. If any of that is going to happen, Lazor will have to call it for him ahead of time. He simply isn't going to do it on his own.

Nope, I think someone has to get in his ass...like really get in there and shake some things up.

"Larryfinfan wrote:

Matt Moore was not very productive as a starter...that's why he's not starting now.

Think the word you're looking for is consistent. He wasn't consistent as a starter. He was however very productive in a handful of the games from that 11' season.

"JShady wrote:

I think people don't want Moore to start because he took us out of the suck for Luck.

Maybe so, but that's kind of idiotic if you think about it. "Let's hate the guy who played too good and kept us from getting Andrew Luck. But since we can't have Luck, then let's start the young, inaccurate guy over the one who's already proven that he can win with this team."

"IdrA wrote:

Think the word you're looking for is consistent. He wasn't consistent as a starter. He was however very productive in a handful of the games from that 11' season.

OH, he was the thing people complain about Tannehill about?

"Muck wrote:

I didn't feel like anybody really won or lost in 2011.

They were basically even, neither guy was good. Ryan knew the playbook. Both guys were behind David Garrard before he got hurt.

If you play well with an inferior supporting cast, how is that a demerit?

Moore lost to both Tannehill and Garrard.

It is like saying, "he did well in Arena football."

The team is going to continue to try and win until that option is eliminated. Things have been tightly knit in the AFC for quite some time now. An 8-8 record can get you in the playoffs. With that being said we are a long way from being "out of it", so I expect Joe PhiddlePhaddle to continue to look at all options as potential answers towards getting wins.
I still think Ryan Tannehill gives us the best chance to win right now, over Matt Moore. Benching Tannehill this early would signify throwing in the towel on him, and that would be the end of his era. I think he honestly (and deservedly)...gets the rest of this season to prove that he's not a bust.
We have no other options at QB right now. Starting Matt Moore this early is a horrible idea in my opinion. If we end up losing the next three games, dropping to 1-5, it might then be time to start Matt Moore in hopes of him being able to rally us back into the playoff picture. At that point we would just have to pray that we have the next Rich Gannon....I guess one can dream.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

Moore lost to both Tannehill and Garrard.

It is like saying, "he did well in Arena football."

You can't lose a fixed ballot, and Tannehill was starting no matter what. Philbin bet his career on it.

"KeyFin wrote:

You can't lose a fixed ballot, and Tannehill was starting no matter what. Philbin bet his career on it.

If Moore was significantly better than Tannehill, he would have been starting.

Philbin went with the better of the two quarterbacks.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

OH, he was the thing people complain about Tannehill about?

I think Moore is/was inconsistent for different reasons. He makes more bad decisions, but has better fundamentals. But then that's the trade off.

He'll likely make both more good plays and more bad plays. But at least it's exciting.

"IdrA wrote:

I think Moore is/was inconsistent for different reasons. He makes more bad decisions, but has better fundamentals. But then that's the trade off.

He'll likely make both more good plays and more bad plays. But at least it's exciting.

He does have better fundamentals, however he does get sacked almost as much as Tannehill. Tannehill averages 2.9 sacks per game and Moore is 2.6.

I see replacing Moore with Tannehill as replacing an under 80 rating quarterback with another under 80 rating quarterback. Yes, he had one year at 87.1, however that was only 12 games. Tannehill had 84.1 until the last two games.

I could see if Moore was a player that has played significantly better in the past, but he hasn't.

The problem with Tannehill is that you just can't win with the type of passing efficiency (YPA) he's exhibiting nowadays. One of the biggest predictors of winning in the NFL is YPA differential, and it's going to be real hard for the Dolphins' defense to hold an opposing QB under the 5.1 YPA Ryan Tannehill is currently exhibiting, let alone hold him enough under 5.1 to give the team a realistic chance of winning based on that alone.

Something has to change under those circumstances, because winning is just very, very unlikely unless something changes. And if you don't have confidence that Ryan Tannehill can change, then you have to change the QB. The only direction is up. You can't get any worse than what we're seeing right now, in terms of the team's chances of winning.

"cuchulainn wrote:

Nah... nothing to do with it. Moore just isn't seen as a clear cut upgrade over Tannehill. The lingering memory of him is that when he came in last season against Buffalo, he had a chance to make something positive happen and instead went 6 attempts, 2 INTS... trying to force the ball downfield. He has had opportunities to improve and beat out Tannehill each season and hasn't done so.

I'm not opposed to a change as SOMETHING needs to happen to get these guys back on focus... Tannehill lacks certain tangibles, intangibles, and game instincts, but the drops are inexcusable and almost every time it seems as though the receivers are looking away as it happens. Footsteps?

That Buffalo game was well out of hand by the time Moore came in for a limited appearance. My lingering memories are the 2012 game against the Jets when he entered in the 1st qtr after Tannehill got hurt and led the team to soundly beating the Jets 30-9. Also, the last game in 2011, also against the Jets, when he led the team on a 21 play drive to score the go ahead TD in an eventual win.

"Dolphans Unite! wrote:

The problem with Tannehill is that you just can't win with the type of passing efficiency (YPA) he's exhibiting nowadays. One of the biggest predictors of winning in the NFL is YPA differential, and it's going to be real hard for the Dolphins' defense to hold an opposing QB under the 5.1 YPA Ryan Tannehill is currently exhibiting.

Something has to change under those circumstances, because winning is just very, very unlikely unless something changes. And if you don't have confidence that Ryan Tannehill can change, then you have to change the QB. The only direction is up. You can't get any worse than what we're seeing right now, in terms of the team's chances of winning.

That is true, however I see zero evidence that Moore's efficiency would be better at this juncture. Changing to a qb who is worse than Tannehill, seems to be a step back.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

That is true, however I see zero evidence that Moore's efficiency would be better at this juncture. Changing to a qb who is worse than Tannehill, seems to be a step back.

And if it's not better, then you lose nothing. However, you can't stick with a quarterback who's playing this way, because he gives you very, very little chance of winning. You have to change quarterbacks simply because you have nothing to lose! :)

"Dolphans Unite! wrote:

And if it's not better, then you lose nothing. However, you can't stick with a quarterback who's playing this way, because he gives you very, very little chance of winning. You have to change quarterbacks simply because you have nothing to lose! :)

Or you can coach well.