This rumor is all over the place on Twitter. IDK, as much as I like Tannehill, if he goes down, as is likely to happen, we would be left with Pat Devlin starting football games for us. Anyone like such a trade (I suspect it would be for like a 4th rd pick) or is it better to keep MMoore for Depth/Insurance?
Trade him for whatever asset we can get.. I'd take a 5th rounder for him. If Tanny goes down this season is over regardless.
I'd pull the trigger if its a 5th or better. We have our answer at QB and while Moore provides good depth I'd rather try to find a diamond in the rough in the upcoming draft class.
Selfishly, I would hate to see him go. but, Matt Moore has been a total professional despite losing his job to Tannehill. He helped us win some games as a starter. If we can get something for him, and he has a chance to go get some playing time in AZ, I wish him nothing but the best.
La Canfora speculated on it as a possibility on TV yesterday. Wasn't reporting or anything, but I figure that's where people are taking it from. - sent from my Android device via Tapatalk -
Plus it makes sense, AZ needs Qb depth, we are sticking with Tannehill no matter what, so I'd expect it would come down to price.
How sweet would that be if realistic! I'd trade Matt Moore. What we saw of him in the preseason wasn't exactly wonderful. I'm sure there's a QB out there that we can pick up as a FA right now. What ever happened to Garrard? Is he sitting at home healthy somewhere?
I would do it. Devlin is a better fit for this offense and would probably be as effective (or more) than Moore, should either be pressed into duty.
Well lack of a qb is a big reason Zona keeps losing games. Do it for a 4th or a 5th + Early Doucet/Rob Housler
I don't know why a fifth-round pick would be considered good compensation for a QB who has proven he can play capably in the NFL. If a first-round pick has only a 50% chance of being a starter, why would a fifth-round pick be as valuable as a guy who can come in and play capably if your starting QB gets injured? You might as well keep the guy IMO. The very strong likelihood is that you wouldn't even be able to replace the backup QB himself with the fifth-round pick. These picks are not as valuable as many people believe. A player who has played well as a starter is far more valuable IMO.
And when David Garrard is waiting for a phone call to come back and be our back up? And since he knows our offense already it could be pretty seamless...
Seeing what they paid for Kolb I would say no less than a third for Matt Moore or at minimum a very good reciever.
Well if you're sure you can address an injury to Tannehill by getting Garrard back and in condition to play well, then you may pull the trade for the reason mentioned by DePhinistr8. However, I'd have to be sure about that, since this team still has a shot for the playoffs. Imagine the let-down for the other 52 guys on the roster who are playing their asses off if you trade Matt Moore and miss the playoffs because you're forced to play with a guy who has never even played an NFL regular season down. If I'm Jeff Ireland that's a scenario I don't want to see played out. I might just keep Matt Moore in my hip pocket, because I know he's played well in the past and I know the team responds to him, rather than take the chance for a measly fifth-round pick.
not really. they are losing games because they have the worst set of tackles in the NFL and it's getting their QBs pummeled every game.
Are you taking into account the fact that Matt Moore is under contract for only 10 more games and then will likely sign a free agent deal with whichever team gives him the best chance at winning the starting job (i.e. not Miami)? I'll take the 5th round pick. And yes I do recognize that draft picks are sometimes overvalued. But I also think lower round draft picks (such as 5th rounders) are often undervalued.
Why is it likely to happen that Tannehill goes down? Are you planning something? Is it all part of your scheme to get Mr. Young in Aqua and Orange?
Not really, Qb's take such a beating that usually more than half league's Qb's miss at least 1 game during the course of the year.
I appreciate and respect the fact you ate your crow voluntarily, however, can we stop with this 2012 version of Ted Ginn's Family? Philbin's offense is not reliant and actually doesn't work with a receiver who has to be the focal point of the offense every pass play of every game. That is what is meant by not needing a #1 receiver.
Stat? Remember to omit the ones that don't play week 17, win their job, lose their job, get traded, or get cut... After long snapper, kicker and punter, I'd say quarterback is one of the most durable positions in the game, especially given the rules that are in place to protect them. Do you really think that Tannehill has a better chance of getting hurt than [Strike]Richard Marshall[/Strike], Reggie Bush, Davone Bess, Jake Long, or Jared Odrick? Who fills their spots?
Have you seen Matt Moore play in this offense? He is a horrible fit. Trade his *** any chance you get.
lets move him if this is legit, if something would happen to RT (knock on wood), i think Jeff is having David Garrard on speed dial anyways i would assume
yeah, I could see if that did happen, that they'd want some kind of option besides Devlin on the roster. As was mentioned, Garrard perhaps...If he's still interested. Don't see that happening unless a) the price is right and b) Garrard or someone else of that ilk is available and ready to come in and back up Tanny...
Like I said, because this team is a legitimate playoff contender, it all comes down to how sure you are you can get David Garrard back in the fold and what kind of condition he'd be in. You don't want to blow a potential playoff season for a fifth-round pick IMO.
