The thing is that Tannehill in my opinion has played much better than his QB rating would suggest to you. The play calling has really bothered me. Tannehill has done best when he's been allowed to use the intermediate middle of the field. Yet almost every play Harline gets sent deep down the sideline. Tannehill doesn't have to throw to him you will counter, but my counter to that is that as a QB when you have single outside coverage you are taught to take that throw if you trust in your receiver. The issue is that Hartline doesn't have the physical ability to win any majority of those passes down field.
So all things being equal, what are we talking here in terms of added wins with Moore over Tannehill over the course of the season? 1? 2? It might be none.
Fasano is pretty solid as well. We're not really getting optimal efficiency out off our players, which is largely rookie quarterback stuff. My point is basically Tannehill isn't being undermined.
Tannehill is our QB period. I saw Peyton Manning throw three bone-headed picks in a row last week (none of which were tipped). What T-Hill needs is targets he can trust. That Armstrong drop was inexcusable, as were the bevy of dropped Marshall TDs last year. If the ball is in your chest you have to make the dang catch! I'll trade the whole lot including B-Marsh for a guy like Orande Gadsen. O.G. was slow as molasses and couldn't get an inch of separation, but he had a rare earth magnet for the pigskin and would out-fight his own mother for the ball. He kept drives alive. If our guys had stepped up, focused and taken quite simply what was there to be had we would have won the game. That's all folks.
I'm going to give Armstrong the benefit of the doubt for this week. He hasn't seen much game speed action in a while due to injuries, but going forward he needs to make that catch. If we lose games but Tannehill looks good I'm fine with that. Better chance we can add play makers around him in the draft.
You give a rookie QB the keys to the car, you expect detours and a few dings. You deal so he can learn to run the show. The end.
Isn't it way to early for a drunk thread?? I didn't even read your first post, just the title of the thread. Hearing anyone's rational on starting Matt Moore over our 1st round pick QB is pointless. We have to move on with the future and get through the growing pains that so far isn't anywhere near as bad as everyone thought it would be. I can't believe this is a serious thread!
Well don't look now, but there are over 130 replies, and there is some good discussion going on IMO. But if you're so closed-minded to the idea that you won't go any further than the title of the thread, I imagine you're not going to find anything that doesn't fit with what's already in your own mind.
And that's the question. But if he finishes the year with a QB rating of 60 give or take five points, which is about where he is now, I think we have to admit we would've won a significant number more games with Matt Moore. Hell he could improve a decent amount and still end up with a QB rating of only 65. I can't imagine Matt Moore getting anything lower than 80, even in this offense, and the difference between 65 and 80 is at least several wins.
A couple things: Not sure if we can use anything but a dry erase marker on that '80' QBR for Matt Moore. Love him or hate him, Brandon Marshall caught a lot of explosive plays from MM last year. Something like a ridiculous number of 20+ yard catches. But let's say hypothetically that's the case, that we're comparing Tannehill vs. X QB with a rating of 80; Personally, I think Tannehill's QBR improves and he finishes no lower than a 75, with an 80 probably being high. Anything higher than an 80 would be pretty damn impressive in this situation, all things considered. As far as the win differential based on QBR, I think given that there's only 16 games played means that the sample might be questioned. In baseball, for example, a metric like this might be more true considering you're playing approximately 160 games. So if you're off by a few it's not a big deal. Two games in the NFL is a big deal. If we say that Matt Moore was good for 4 more wins than Ryan Tannehill, but because of other variables (defense, non-qb turnovers, special teams play, etc.) it was really only like two wins, then what we have is a situation where you're better off letting Tannehill play due to the aforementioned experience factor, since he is obviously the guy going forward. In my estimation, you'd have to estimate that Moore would be good for AT LEAST 5-6 more wins than Tannehill to let him start. It'd have to be like a Packers situation where you drafted Aaron Rodgers but also still have Brett Favre who is playing at a high level, and also have a team capable of making a deep playoff run. The Dolphins don't meet any of these criteria right now, and so I think the feeling of Philbin, Taylor and others was that the difference in ability of these two guys in addition to those other factors made it a somewhat easy choice.
Hell yeah a bit surprised how well they have been doing. I figured they would have 3-4 losses this season. Hope the offense gets more consistency and the defense gets a lot better.Christian Bryant needs to keep his head in the game gets stupid penalties.
I'd be shocked if Tannehill finishes the season with ~ 65 passer rating. We've played two of the tougher defensive opponents on our schedule (and two of the toughest defensive opponents in the league). Arizona has one of the better defenses it looks also, so it will be tough to judge him on this game too. I think once we get past Cincy, St. Louis, Indy, Tennessee, and Buffalo the rating will come up to the mid-high 70s. If he's not at least at that number by then I think we can re-visit this discussion more seriously and with better understanding
Well as it stands now, in order to accomplish that he's going to need to have at least three games in which his rating is up around 92, since right now it's 58. If you have an F in a class, you have to get a few As to bring your grade up to a C. The correlation between QB rating differential and wins actually spans many seasons of play in the NFL. It isn't just a 16-game sample. Well you also have a situation here the Packers didn't have and many teams don't, where a first-year head coach is trying to establish credibility with his players, for which winning games is critical.
The Dolphins have a pretty soft schedule. Entirely possible and even probable he has a few games in the 90's. The 16 game sample we're referring to in this case is Tannehill vs. Matt Moore. That's why I question it. Now, if we had multiple seasons of both, like say Aaron Rodgers vs. Alex Smith, that's a different story. We have only a few seasons for Moore and 3 games for Tannehill, and you're only using one season for Matt Moore anyway.
I agree with that! Overall I am totally impressed with Miller, we could start talking Heisman next year. The kid can play!
How many times does Hartline have to get open deep (often wide open) before people stop claiming he doesn't have the physical ability to do it?
You sir are surprisingly high on Matt Moore....... let's judge him based on his 1st three games with the team like you have with Tannehill !
Well Shou if we want to get jiggy with it... how bout these numbers... Mat Moore a veteran came into starting against the Jets, Denver and Giants game last year... and the outcome were 3 losses... with QBR of 42... QBR of 93 and QBR of 52... Amazing that we did not win any games with Moore 0-3... At least we won one game wiht THill... and you cannot assume we would won with such and such... the games were not played and the fact is that when you put it all together you get this... Moore 3 games starting last year... Jets... Broncos...and Giants... combined QBR of 58... THill 3 games starting combined QBR of 62... Go figure... the rookie gives us the best chance...to WIN... just get him a NUMBER ONE receiver... EDITED- Also give credit where credit is due... Moore had 6 out of his 13 games played in 2011, where he DID NOT get AT LEAST and 80 QBR...
So yeah Tannehill is off to a better start than Moore was last year, without a #1 and he's a rookie...... To proclaim that it's one or the other is the real issue. Not sure why you weren't so outspoken when Tannehill was named the starter if you really felt Moore was the better option ?!??!?!
It isn't about whether he can get deep or can't get deep, it's whether or not he can deep when the other team expects him to be the deep receiver. Hartline can get deep because the CB can't ignore his play in the short range. Hartline made his big play with Armstrong in the game. There was no safety over the top to help, Cromartie wasn't sure whether Hartline would stay in the short/intermediate area on the sidelines or not. Cromartie bit without safety help and that allowed Hartline over the top. if you ask Hartline to run that every single time down the field (a team needs someone to go deep, otherwise you have zero spacing) you have the three quarters worth of Hartline being shut out.
Well I figured I could skip elucidating the history of how rookie QBs typically perform in the league in making a judgment about Tannehill's first three games, and of course being a rookie distinguishes him from Moore.
Than why evades those three bad games of Moore when he started last year... You keep pointing to those games after... SO WHY don't ypou give THILL THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT??? You give it to Moore by excluding his first 3 bad games... The Jets games, both last year... 41 and a 61 QBR...
Because Moore turned that around to the tune of a 97 QB rating over his last nine games, and we have none of that kind of history in the NFL to go on with Tannehill. In fact all we have is the projection of what he's likely to do based on how rookie QBs typically do in the league, which isn't anywhere near as well as Moore did in his last nine games last year. In other words, you're making an apples and oranges comparison.
No Shou you are.... NOTHING garantees you Moore would be as good as last year.... Nothing... same as nothing can guarantee you that Thill can win one more game... Lets look at Moore Shou since you are sure that he is going to have another successful year... His first year he had a 67 QBR.... His second year he had a 98 QBR.... His 3rd year he had a 55 QBR and... His last year (2011) he had a 87 QBR... I am Moore incline to go with another declining year, since that has been his MO... The facts are starring at us... apples and oranges... No Moore...and I am not a gambler...
this season is like a preseason type season anyway...since they can't go anywhere. Get Urban's system up and running and then wreak havoc next year!
I'll never support that mindset. EVERY season is about or should be about victories. EVERY week during the season should be about a victory.
Is it certain we'd be 2 and 1 with Moore? That looks like supposition to me. That said, every season is about winning as many games as possible. By Philbin going with Tannehill, I can only hope he did so because he honestly felt it gave the team the best chance to win the most games this season.
Yet, in crunch time, he led the team on the longest drive, by number of plays, in team history, and getting the win. That drive was one of the most impressive things this team has done in a long time IMO, especially as it was against the the Jets D at full strength.
tannehill has played and lost to 2 really good defenses and hasn't looked overmatched to me and now we play another defense that is really good and on fire right now.
