I agree. But who's to say whether playing him this year or 3 years from now will be better or worse for his development? I don't even think the coaches know. And there's also the ultimate consideration. Putting fans in the seats, making a profit, increasing the value of the franchise etc. Starting Tannehill does those things, starting Matt Moore doesn't. It's part of the equation whether we like it or not.
You can't make excuses for Tannehill if Devlin can come in and make plays behind the same exact offensive line. .I think Devlin deserves a look with the first team but that doesn't mean he should start. I just personally want to see him against a first team defense. Tannehill is clearly my favorite in all of this but if he struggles and can't make plays I will be calling for a look at Devlin sooner than later. I mean this season looks as though it's going to be a busted one unless Tannehill comes in and pulls an Andy Dalton. Thing is Tannehill isn't throwing to AJ Green.
I don't think anybody knows for certain, but I do think you can take a look at the surrounding cast the quarterback has and determine whether such a context is conducive to development or will hinder it. I think there's a point at which the benefit of experience by simply being on the field becomes either no benefit or a hindrance by virtue of how the rest of the team is functioning. In other words, simply being on the field and playing, despite the fact that it doesn't seem like it could be bad because it falls into the category of "experience," may actually not be a positive thing.
Gotta say I'm more than a little curious to see how Garrard would work in this offense. None of us has seen him in a game situation with this team. Would he be like a more seasoned and polished Devlin? Devlin, for all his inexperience and developemental needs, seems to run this offense very well. Garrard was supposedly a good fit and ran this offense well, too, in practice. If he can get back soon enough, he could still be in the picture opening day.
yeap that truly doesnt work, just ask Car with Newton, oh wait. Or Indi with Manning years ago, Oh wait. we should what? neverdraft a qb and take other team rejects because thyey have starting experience? cant draft a rookie then cause his first start he will have 0 experoience
Philbin said he'll probably wait another week before announcing the starter. At this point, Tannehill is the starter. I think that's clear. However, I believe they're waiting to see how long Garrard's knee will take. I believe they feel he gives them the best chance to win right now. Matt Moore is playing for a roster spot. If Devlin plays well, I could see them shopping/releasing Moore.
Devlin is playing for a roster spot. A lot of teams would kill for a third string QB with as much starting experience as Moore.
I am hoping for another strong outing from both Tannehill and Devlin this week. I think in doing so it solidifies Tannehill as the starter and Devlin as the third string QB for now.
Sure he is. However, they're not going to pay Moore or Garrard that kind of money to be an emergency QB. The competition for a roster spot has always been between them. Teams don't keep third strings like Moore because it costs too much. I can't see many scenarios in which we do the same--keeping Garrard and Moore.
They're going to make the same amount of money regardless of which string they are. That money is a sunk cost and has nothing to do with the coaching staff, none of whom negotiate contracts. If a third string QB winds up making $2.5 million dollars, that's Jeff Ireland's problem, not Joe Philbin's.
Devlin is a QB in this league. A strong backup at the very least. I don't say this because of his preseason games, I say this from watching a bunch of college games this offseason before the draft trying to evaluate our QB situation if we didn't draft a QB. He has the ability to put the ball exactly where it needs to be a large portion of the time, hitting receivers where they can catch and move upfield. He seems to have added a lot of zip on his ball the last year as well.
Well, he definitely isn't a fullback in this league. There is no basis for this statement. There is nothing you can point to in live NFL games that proves that Pat Devlin is a strong anything. He may very well become a strong backup, but as of right this moment there is no justification for what you're claiming. He certainly looks improved this preseason over last preseason against the same level of competition, but that's the catch: consider the level of competition.
Alright and there was no NFL proof coming out of college that Ryan Tannehill was a competent starting QB. However we took him at #8 with that intent. The proof doesn't have to be NFL game proof. First of all I meant that he can DEVELOP into a strong backup at the least. Not that he currently is. Second of all I brought it up because my point is that there is no use having a strong third QB like Moore/Garrard at the expense of cutting Devlin, especially if we can get compensation for them via trade. Third of all the "proof" of this doesn't need to come from the NFL. It comes from watching numerous games of his college career and not looking at "statistics" but rather intangibles like ball placement, eye/head movement, arm strength and poise.
My feeling is that unless Matt Moore severely outplays Tannehill this week, the job is Tannehill's. I do like Moore a lot as well, and love what he accomplished with us last season. He had his time here as the man, but when you bring in a hot, young QB destined as your franchise QB, then it is what it is. As the Eagles once sang... [video=youtube;1GGbi80h6Y0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GGbi80h6Y0[/video] And that's just the way life is. Go get 'em RT!
If you're naive enough to suggest that the cost of a player and their position on the depth chart doesn't play a role in the discussion between coach and GM, then more power to you. Again, I'll be surprised if we go into the 2012 season with Tannehill, Moore, and Garrard as our top 3 QBs on the depth chart, in whatever order. Plus, David Garrard would be owed nothing if he isn't on the roster Opening Weekend I believe, per Ben Volin.
This is such horse manure and about as weak of an argument I've seen on here. A guy opines that Pat Devlin could be a solid QB based on his play in college and improvement from last season to this season. Is that different than every other projection that's made? College player to pro? Backup to starter? Platoon to every down? It's all projection. I hate debating with you, because most of the time is dull witted sarcasm and empty thoughts. At the very least bring some funny sarcasm to the table or substantial debate.
I meant during the week as in practice and in the game against Atlanta. Maybe Moore just tears it up this week, but we all know he's not a great practice player. So essentially, I'm agreeing with you. I believe there is a 75% chance Tannehill is starting in Houston.
First guy to put a number to it. I like that. What's you number if Garrard is healthy enough to participate in the fourth preseason game?
If Garrard is healthy and looks amazing in the 4th preseason game, the job belongs to Garrard. Period IMO 100% As of now I'd say Tannehill is the starter 90%, with the 10% being he craps the bed horribly AND Moore plays very well.
Nice thread/write up. However I can't see us going into this season with Tannehill, Moore and Devlin. Can't imagine we'd be foolish enough to let Garrard go. In fact as much as I hope Tannehill does start (by EARNing it) game 1 and onward, I just see Sherman keeping Garrard backing Tanny up or even starting then giving Tanny 2 series a game for half the season. This was not my idea, someone suggested it in CK's 1st half analysis thread. I think it makes sense. And that's especially true if we don't get the running game going. We seem to see enough out of Tannehill that we can actually start thinking maybe we've got our "franchise" QB for the next 15 years. I don't want him ruined in his rookie season by an OL that allows him to get knocked around all game long, and for now it sure seems that's going to be a serious problem due to the rookie RT being a virtual turnstile, or more like a bullfighter just waving his cape at the defender on their way to sacking Tanny.
If we're going to start Tannehill, we might as well cut Moore and Garrad. No use having them around, Devlin is much better.
Yeah, Really with the Pat Devlin talk. I think he's pretty good, and I think we have two nice QB prospects moving forward.
When you state that a player currently "is a QB in this league", yes, the proof has to be NFL game film, not preseason play against the 4th string defense of a bad team. Unless you simply want to state the obvious that the player is rostered as a quarterback on an NFL team, which isn't what you meant at all. I didn't say it doesn't play a role. I said it's not the coaching staff's problem. If the GM overpays a player who isn't good enough to make it higher on the depth chart, that's the GM's responsibility. As opposed to random ad hominem attacks and reading things in posts that aren't there? If you don't like me, my posts, my thoughts, or my reasoning, then use the ignore feature. The Internet is big enough for both of us.
I'm going to ignore your post because you didn't even reply to what I said with any pros or cons, any insight into the situation or anything relevant. I don't feel like getting into a battle of semantics. If you want to discuss the actual body of the post, your opinion on the matter or anything else reply and I'm all ears. If not, see you in the Marlins thread man.
IF Tannehill does become the regular season starter, would you be OK with having Garrard and Moore as the backups or would you want get rid of one and keep Devlin as a developmental 3rd QB?
