So please, tell me where you're getting the brand of objectivity you want in this forum, and tell me how it's more objective than a scout who identifies a problem that's supported by objective data. At that point we'll have the basis for believing our perception of who's at fault for the play in which Armstrong dropped the pass Tannehill threw, for example, is more correct than the perception suggested by the scout and the objective data. Good luck.
This site is better with Shou period because he brings a certain level of intellectual debate to the table. Even when I disagree.
I totally understand. You think Moore should be starting because he would win, which is 100% wrong. You are an open book.
You're missing my point. I'm not making a statement as to what I believe the problem is. I'm merely saying a scout is not objective, but rather subjective because they give an opinion based on data. It isn't concrete. To further the discussion though I will make a statement. Nothing I have seen suggests Ryan throws the ball too hard. If he threw it any softer to AA it doesn't even make it to him. He certainly doesn't throw short routes as hard as lets say....Favre did. No-one complained about him "throwing too hard" in fact receivers have said they needed to catch the ball out of self defense at times. In my opinion if the throw is too hard your hands aren't good enough.
I don't think Moore should be starting. My contention is only that Tannehill's play so far indicates that, with the way the rest of the team is playing, we are trading losses for his development by starting him IMO. In other words, IMO it's probably time to give up on the idea that Tannehill is going to buck the trend set by rookie QBs and somehow lead us to a winning season, if anyone had that idea (or fantasy) to begin with. Now, Robert Griffin III on the other had IS playing well enough to buck the rookie QB trend and lead his team to a winning season. But Tannehill, no.
So, you don't think Moore should be starting but you started a thread titled, "The case for starting Matt Moore".
I think that was probably done in the reverse of the way you're suggesting. I think the scout probably made his observation, and it just so happens it was backed up by objective data. Okay, so now we're left with Alex44 versus a professional scout whose observations were backed up by objective data. Who wins? You?
Matt Moore: A case for starting him. Same thing dude, it's semantics. You think Moore should be starting, that is very clear.
Ah, so we're going to trust Alex44's perceptions enough to tell us convincingly that Ryan Tannehill has solved the issue the scout identified when Tannehill was in college, and that what Tannehill is doing currently can't possibly be a continuation of what was going on when the scout was observing him. Come on.
There is "A" case for starting him, and it has to do with trying to win now. I didn't say it was my case personally. I would rather develop Tannehill than win now, but there are reasons why winning now might be the better thing to try to do IMO.
I would go by anyone who actually is talking about things that are current over someone who talked about something that happened last season. Players are not static, they change from year to year.
And we're going to let Alex44 tell us when that change has occurred. Hey I'm not down on Alex, per se, I'm just using him as an example of how it's difficult to find "objectivity" in this forum.
When Matt Leinart came out the Cardinals scouts were sure high on him. I called him a bust based on my own analysis. I was what....17 or so years old and correct in the instance where as the scout was horribly wrong. The point of this isn't to honk my horn, the point is that scouts can be horribly wrong. Everyone with eyes knew Jamarcus Russell was going to be a bust. Guess the Raider scouts didn't have eyes...even some draft pundits loved him. My point? Scouts can be wrong and fans can be right, yes. We are all people prone to mistakes, being a scout honestly doesn't mean you are always right or even close to it. Being a fan doesn't mean you are always wrong either. You are making it seem like everyone should always agree with a scout 100% of the time. I couldn't disagree more. Just because someone says something doesn't mean we all have to agree. How do you know some people on this site don't have the ability to be scouts and just never had the chance or their life didn't lead in that direction? Not having the title doesn't mean analysis is somehow inferior. Side note: I'm not claiming to have objective data either. My point is that there isn't much objective data in football when it comes to scouting. Now if the scout wants to measure the velocity of his passes and compare it to other QB's that is getting closer to something objective.
I did, and it makes sense to me. I can appreciate perspectives other than my own. I can entertain multiple perspectives about the same thing. On the one hand, I'd like to develop Ryan Tannehill even if it means losing now. On the other hand, I realize Joe Philbin as a first-year head coach needs to develop credibility with his players by winning, and I hope that doesn't suffer for the sake of developing Ryan Tannehill. So there is "A" case for starting Matt Moore, if you believe he would help you win now. I didn't say it was MY case.
Why not? What pass was dropped because it was too hard? Generally speaking people only use "objectivity" when they are trying to skirt the issue and using it against someone who doesn't agree with them.
Well try to think like someone who isn't you because it doesn't make much sense. You seem to be taking two sides of a same argument. I do not agree that developing Ryan Tannehill means losing now, especially if the player he is benched for is Matt Moore. When Garrard got hurt, that line of reasoning went out the window. I don't believe starting Matt Moore would help Miami win now. Right now Miami is playing their best quarterback AND developing their quarterback of the future.
What we're talking about here is the certainty with which we're arriving at our perceptions. We have a pass Tannehill appeared to throw hard that Armstrong dropped. What I react against is the very quick and seemingly unexamined perception that Armstrong is at fault, when in fact there is a scout and objective data to suggest that Tannehill may have been at fault due to an issue he had in college that could very well still be going on. So in the end, we may not be able to have "perfect" objectivity, since that isn't possible, but when we have this other information (the scout and the data), we should at least consider that Tannehill was at fault, rather than perhaps trying to preserve a positive opinion of what he did on the play by blaming the result on someone else. It's all about simply trying to have balance, rather than just immediately concluding something without considering all the possibilities.
well yes it would require I type it with spaces but luckily I'm automatically logged in on all my devices
no probs mate. caps isnt necessary however..... still a pain but worth it just to be obnoxiously attention grabbing !
I don't agree with that at all. I don't see any reasonable basis for the belief that we have a better option on the roster. If Garrard were healthy then that would be a different story based on what we saw in TC. Since we don't have a better option, we're not trading anything. We're playing the guy that gives us the best chance to win.
That's the issue. You have to look at the actual play and assess the reason for the incompletion. You don't say, "well one scout saw an issue in college and I'm going to assume that the drop here happened for the same reason".
Sure, but you also don't say, right away, "the pass was dropped because Armstrong sucks," not when Tannehill has objectively had an issue with drops, which was believed by a scout to be his fault, and then consider the play conclusive evidence that "Tannehill would be playing much better if he only had better receivers." I mean we're talking about a rookie QB here who was thought by many to need a year or two of development to reach his potential. If anything we should be leaning towards blaming him, not other players, for whatever is going on out there. Now, obviously there are cases when the player(s) at fault is more clear, but when it's ambiguous, you're probably going to be right more often than not by blaming the rookie QB. I'm not saying just blame him without considering the alternatives, because that's exactly what I'm reacting against here, but what I am saying is that we surely shouldn't be leaning towards blaming other players for something ambiguous involving a rookie QB. It's not like Tannehill was going to magically come in here and light the world on fire, and he's being prevented from doing that only by the ineptitude around him. He's a rookie QB who was expected by many to need a year or two of development. Expect him to look poor during that time, and expect it to be his fault primarily. I know many of us (myself included) had a fantasy that he'd come in there and just take the world by storm year one, but I think we can safely put that to rest at this point, and not because anyone else is at fault.
In regards to game play, Matt Moore may have poor pocket awareness at times but he is much more accurate deep, and incredibly strong with his on the field reads. Tannehill stares down his main and misses tons of secondary receivers. Best example? Bess on the goal line on 3rd and 3.
I'll ask. Is Matt Moore a future QB in Miami? Are we looking to get in third and long? You know he doesn't fit. Right?
Horrible example. The play was a designed roll out to the OPPOSITE side of the field, Tannehill never looked that way and NOBODY is going to roll out right, stop and have time to throw back across the field.
