1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Matt Moore: A Case for Starting Him

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by shouright, Sep 24, 2012.

  1. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    In the end here I'm finding myself agreeing with the folks who are simply saying that Tannehill needs to be left in for his own confidence and development, at the expense of winning and possibly of Joe Philbin's building credibility with his players, rather than the folks who are contending that Matt Moore wouldn't play better. I think the opinions that Matt Moore wouldn't play better are wishful thinking. I have lots of trouble believing an experienced QB who has demonstrated periods of consistent play much better than Ryan Tannehill's wouldn't come in there and play significantly better than him right now.

    If Tannehill's QB rating were even a measly 70 I might feel differently, but 58? No.
     
  2. maynard

    maynard Who, whom?

    18,425
    6,346
    113
    Dec 5, 2007
    clearwater, fl
    Well I tend to think its both. Ill take half agreeing with you any day of the week :tongue2:
     
  3. emocomputerjock

    emocomputerjock Senior Member

    5,649
    1,853
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    DC
    I think that the staff seeing Moore play in preseason and in practice and deciding to promote Tannehilll shows that they feel Tannehill *is* the better option for winning.
     
  4. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Well considering that you're "on the fence," you'll probably find yourself half-agreeing with me quite a bit. ;)
     
    Disnardo and maynard like this.
  5. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    They may have thought that before the season, but if they still feel like that, when Ryan Tannehill has the worst QB rating in the league, they ought to be out looking for a better backup.
     
  6. emocomputerjock

    emocomputerjock Senior Member

    5,649
    1,853
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    DC
    Maybe they feel that Tannehill's rating isn't solely on Tannehill?
     
  7. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    who?
     
  8. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Then they would have to believe the receiving corps is totally horrendous, because the defense and the running game aren't doing anything to undermine his play.
     
  9. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    But they brought in Gerrard. Bringing in a QB at this point is not feasible.
     
  10. emocomputerjock

    emocomputerjock Senior Member

    5,649
    1,853
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    DC
    I believe they believe that to be the case.
     
  11. HardKoreXXX

    HardKoreXXX Insensitive to the Touch

    20,459
    14,210
    113
    Apr 2, 2008
    Coral Springs, FL
    This is why you need to wait and revisit after the season, because his combined rating in the last two games IS 70.
     
    smahtaz likes this.
  12. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    That's not realistic. RT has played well but has made rookie mistakes. Those tipped passes that were intercepted are a reflection of a few bad plays that inordinately affect his passer rating b/c it is a small sample size. Outside of a few plays, he really didn't play much differently in his highly rated game than he did in his lower rated games. Those bad plays are learning experiences and just the cost of doing business when you're developing a young QB.
     
    dolfan32323 and smahtaz like this.
  13. Disnardo

    Disnardo Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    10,641
    2,121
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    Hialeah, FL
    Shou lets take a whole lota look into QBR andcorrelation to winning... especcially with this franchise... adding stats that are from 1972... and a backup QB names Earl Morrall...

    http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/mia/1972.htm

    We know that Moore with experience brings more to the table to help this Offense, but it seems that, that is all he brings in the system that the Phins are running now, as others have stated...

    and I went all the way back to 1972 to see what made those guys so good... and winners... and most of those games the average QBR was around 65-68... sure there were the 120's but they were the rarity more than the norm...

    Now, Morrall ,he had 3 games where his QBR was 48 (against the Bills), 50 (against the Colts), and 52(against the Bills)... and yes they still WON...

    Now I know that todays game Offensively is different, but the Phins are currently trying to win games the same way they won in 1972, and that is trying to run the ball and a short passing Offense..

    Now look at Marino's and team loosing record in 1988. He had 3 games where his combined average QBR was 103 and yet he still lost those 3 games...

    Of course the better the QBR means that the QB is performing well enough to help the team win, since Offensively the ball funnels through him...

    But it is still a team game and just because the QB's stat could be bad, might not completely reflect on him, it might and can reflect on the talent around him and specially on those other players that Offensivley touch the ball also...

    and you can visually see the performance of the QB barring his QBR stat... unless you have a point to prove and I have had a point to prove on occasion... and been wrong... or mistaken...
     
  14. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,652
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    Oh sh&$, " good will hunting" is on the scene...
     
    Disnardo likes this.
  15. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Take away those tipped passes (i.e., subtract two INTs from his overall stats) and his QB rating goes from 58.2 to 66.4, which vaults him all the way from last in the league to 29th (third from last).
     
  16. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Dis you need to stick to the stats that correlate with winning. Those are the valuable ones, the ones that actually predict what the team is trying to do out there.
     
  17. Disnardo

    Disnardo Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    10,641
    2,121
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    Hialeah, FL
    I don't know Shou... I am going to go out of the box....

    The only stat that correlate with winning 100% of the time, is the most points scored at the end of the game or event...

    This mean that NO OTHER STAT really is most important!!! Not even QBR... not even Passing yards... (Marino 500+ passing yards and 5 TDs in a loss to the Jets in 1988)!!!

    Than I do believe I am wasting my time...
     
  18. jsizzle

    jsizzle Banned

    2,935
    496
    0
    Jan 3, 2012
    I can't believe that this hasn't been brought up, or maybe it has and I missed it. Moore was no better last year vs. top teams, and he had MARSHALL to throw to. A true #1 WR. Tannehill has a bunch of 3's. Take Marshall away last year and I guarantee that Moore ends up with a losing record. A QB must have competent WRs to throw to.
     
  19. HardKoreXXX

    HardKoreXXX Insensitive to the Touch

    20,459
    14,210
    113
    Apr 2, 2008
    Coral Springs, FL
    People will tell you about Marshall's catch rate based on number of targets while ignoring other factors i.e coverages he faced.

    It's what happens when certain stats are viewed AS an argument as opposed to being used to support one.
     
  20. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Hey didn't you end this thread at some point? What's it doing still going, and what are you doing still here? :headscratch:
     
  21. vt_dolfan

    vt_dolfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    But...why on earth...would you try and use QB rating to make an argument....for a rookie QB three weeks into his career? I dont get it?

    Ryan Tannehill is the current and near term future of the Miami Dolphins, and I dont believe you will find a good amount of people that will tell you, his play is hurting the team right now. Lets just....take a breath.
     
  22. HardKoreXXX

    HardKoreXXX Insensitive to the Touch

    20,459
    14,210
    113
    Apr 2, 2008
    Coral Springs, FL
    Not to mention that even if the theory is correct that Moore wins more games, what does a few extra wins get you? If we're in agreement that this team isn't a playoff contender, all it does is give this team a lower draft pick for next season.
     
    jsizzle likes this.
  23. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    You don't get it because you're not understanding the argument.

    The argument is that we're trading wins for Ryan Tannehill's development with the way he's playing right now, which is reflected by his QB rating. The argument is not that he'll never be good.

    You need to get clear on what's being said before you respond. This is another thread where you're simply missing the mark.
     
  24. vt_dolfan

    vt_dolfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    but...it seems like your arguing...for arguments sake. Im not missing the mark.....you cant get off the damned QB rating thing. And this thread..like your other are extensions of each other....why you dont think Tannehill should be starting right now.
     
  25. jsizzle

    jsizzle Banned

    2,935
    496
    0
    Jan 3, 2012
    That's YOUR assumption. Moore looked like garbage in the preseason. So what makes you think he would WIN???? He couldn't get a TD in the preseason vs. nobodies. What makes you think he could now???

    :confused:
     
  26. jsizzle

    jsizzle Banned

    2,935
    496
    0
    Jan 3, 2012
    Amen brother!!
     
  27. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    You're still missing the mark. I give up.

    Don't worry, "jsizzle" will have all these threads shut down soon. :lol:
     
  28. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    You're back! :lol: :up:
     
  29. dolfan32323

    dolfan32323 ty xphinfanx

    12,587
    1,574
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Washington DC
    Haven't read this thread and I don't really care who people are in favor of starting. The fact is benching a rookie QB after 3 weeks is a terrible idea. What kind of message does that send to your QB and organization? Give Tannehill some time, he is only 3 games into his career.
     
  30. jsizzle

    jsizzle Banned

    2,935
    496
    0
    Jan 3, 2012
    Think about what you are saying.

    After 3 games, 2 of which were against arguably 2 of the best defenses in the NFL, you want to replace our rookie QB because of his QB RATING???? And you want to replace him with a journeyman, never will be QB who couldn't win one game vs a team with a winning record AND had a better WR corp???? And also had shown in the preseason that he cannot run a WC offense. This is what you are endlessly banging your drum about?????

    Do you see how stupid this argument is??? Surely there are better ways to spend your time??
     
    PhinsRDbest likes this.
  31. Alex13

    Alex13 Tua Time !!! Club Member

    25,809
    39,060
    113
    Dec 21, 2007
    Berlin,Germany
    same as asking if we have the QB of our future after 3 games ? its really mind boggling to me how you can complain about questions started in threads after what you have started by yourself in the last few months...
     
  32. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    I think you need to think about what I'm saying, because you still don't understand it.
     
  33. finfansince72

    finfansince72 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    13,843
    10,283
    113
    Dec 18, 2007
    Columbia, South Carolina
    There is no reason to start Moore, he lost the job in training camp and doesn't deserve to start because of that. Theres no real reason to think we would be winning more games with a Qb that got outplayed by a rookie in training camp. Moore has been a career backup for good reason. We took our Qb of the future and playing him and putting up with his growing pains is the best road to a eventual Championship team, starting Moore isn't the answer. I don't think there is even a legitimate argument to made to start Moore, it doesn't make any sense.
     
    jsizzle likes this.
  34. jsizzle

    jsizzle Banned

    2,935
    496
    0
    Jan 3, 2012

    Again, read the original post. I was asking the KNOWLEDGEABLE fans, and I know there aren't very many, if they saw any TECHNICAL issues after 3 games. Please read before posting.

    :up:
     
  35. ExplosionsInDaSky

    ExplosionsInDaSky Well-Known Member

    3,163
    2,325
    113
    Sep 13, 2011
    ^I agree for what it's worth...Moore shouldn't even be a consideration right now and one can only speculate if Moore could deliver us wins. In all reality despite throwing the pick six last Sunday Ryan Tannehill didn't lose us that game.. Our kicker did. I seem to remember him actually somehow (luck and crappy refs) getting us in field goal range and giving us a chance to put New York away. It didn't happen but thats not on that kid. I don't know how to feel about Tannehill just yet. I see some things that suggest his bust rate is very high but then I see some things that give me hope. It's only three games so it's still just too early to tell.
    As far as benching him goes.. That makes no sense to me what so ever. The staff decided to roll with him from the start and we need to continue to do so until he's either injured or just flat out sucks ***. You can't turn a pickle back into a cucumber once it's a pickle. If Tannehill falls flat on his face then it's time to see what Devlin can do but we are nowhere near that point yet. Not even close imo.
     
  36. Disgustipate

    Disgustipate Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    31,608
    55,634
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    I think it's pretty arguable that Matt Moore would be playing better than Tannehill right now.

    I don't think there's a lot of argument that Ryan Tannehill is non-viable starter, that we've taken significant lumps because of his play, or that he's potentially being "damaged" by starting now, which are the only real reasons for putting Moore in.
     
  37. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    So I suppose the only way the pick-six would've lost us the game is if we were slightly ahead or tied, and the pick-six was our last play of the game, rather than the missed field goal? Otherwise the pick-six was meaningless in terms of having lost the game?

    Come on folks. Our quarterback had a 50 rating in that game, and the pick-six was a big part of it. You're not going to win many games with a quarterback who's playing that way.

    On top of that, with Mark Sanchez playing the way he was (QB rating of 58), it wouldn't have taken anything but average QB play or even slightly worse to win that game convincingly.

    Focusing on the kicker to the exclusion of the variable most strongly correlated with winning is myopic.
     
  38. unifiedtheory

    unifiedtheory Sub Pending Luxury Box

    12,363
    7,091
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Burnaby, BC, Canada
    I want him to take his lumps. He won't learn the speed of this league holding a clip board. Nothing he will be taught in the classroom will give him the real World experience he is gaining now.

    Last week, on the pick 6, he had Fasano, he threw it too late. He won't learn he has to trust what he see's in the classroom. He saw it and threw it but it was late. He will learn more about what is "late" and what is "on time" playing in games.

    He cost us week 1 but it's arguable we would have won that game or not. He was good week 2. He was alright last week, I think he got screwed by the play callers a little bit and his own inexperience. Matt Moore does not win week 1. We win week 2 with anybody. We MIGHT win week 3 with Matt Moore but this experience Tannehill is getting now is worth much more than a couple of wins. I'd rather go 6-10 with Tannehill gaining 16 starts worth of experience than go 8-8 with Matt Moore.
     
  39. jsizzle

    jsizzle Banned

    2,935
    496
    0
    Jan 3, 2012
    You are 100,000,0000% right. And on the pick 6, if he throws that ball 1 second earlier, it's a big first down. I have the utmost confidence in the coaching fixing these little timing issues. Just like they did in one week with the tipped passes.
     
  40. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Hey, but why would the coaches want to fix those issues when they had nothing to do with the loss? Why wouldn't the coaches just be working with Dan Carpenter? ;)
     

Share This Page