Honestly you hope to hell he doesn't retire after this season. You try to keep him. It's one position you don't fret about in terms of depth, yet we should weaken it? I don't see the logic behind that. Doughty wasn't signed from the practice squad to be the backup to Moore; instead we chose to bring in Yates. That says a hell of a lot to me. I wouldn't bank on just deaf to giving the backup role to Doughty. Yes, I agree you should turn over the bottom, but you don't have to do it at the expense of established talent who performs when called upon. That's a mistake. If anything you're keeping Moore and looking for somebody to outplay Doughty for his spot this off season. You're looking for a bit more than what Doughty offers and you'll see in camp and preseason. But Moore is a commodity at a position that trumps all others in terms of value to a teams success. That's just not a good plan IMHO.
4,500 SF is not a mansion. And 1.3m is about an upper level home in CA. Out there in Castaic gets you that land. In La is a 3,000 SF house
I wish we'd cut Tannehill since we'll owe him about $21 million next season while Matt will be owed about $2 million. The guy literally comes at a tenth of the cost and outplayed him. I've never been a Tannehill fan and this only cements it. Let's play Moneyball. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
LOL... Tannehill isn't even making serious QB money. That's mid-tier, which is what he is. You seriously think that Moore "outplayed" Tannehill? Matty's last 2 games was 3 fumbles, 2 INTs, 2 meaningful TDs and another during the last 5 mins in garbage time against Pitt after the game was blown out. Pleasantly surprised he didn't throw more INTs. He tried. Moore folded like a cheap suit against the Pats and Steelers. He started 0 for 2 with an INT against the Pats, destroyed any chance of coming back against Pitt and also kept the Bills in that game despite Ajayi's strong day. No way we win 8 games, let alone 10 with him at the helm. Next season is tougher schedule and you want to dump Tannehill before his 2nd season in Gase's offense... sheesh. I'll take an upgrade over Tannehill any day of the week, but that ain't Matt Moore. Just enjoy that Matty was useful for a couple games against some teams in NY that were mailing it in and sort've hoping to play spoiler... sort've. Meantime, let's hope we draft another QB who can actually make the roster and compete for a spot.
He still don't understand how you can say he folded like a cheap suit vs. the Pats. They were about to pull within 1 score when Damien William's punk *** fumbled the football. The run game did nothing all game. The Pats said you'll have to beat them underneath if you want to at all - but to most detractors surprise he was able to and completed 70% of his passes. The only thing that folded like a cheap suit was the defense which in not one, but TWO games vs. upper echelon opponents surrendered nearly 20 and 21 pts in the first half.
2 of 10 with an INT when the Pats pressured him... And, of course, the patented Matt Moore fumble and INT. Yeah, I could've laid off the bad analogy of a cheap suit. It's just that you KNOW he's gonna cost you in crunch time with fumble or INT. Damien Williams saved him from being the goat in that game when the ball was punched out. I can forgive Williams on that play as he's a backup RB and was fighting for yards. Matty is just gonna Matty...
And that's the problem. Tannehill, along with many other QBs, is overpaid. Yeah, and the stats back up what I thought all along. So you're going to blame all those fumbles just on Moore despite getting drilled by unblocked defenders? You wanna talk about folding like a cheap suit? How about when Tannehill lost two games a few years ago to clinch a playoff spot, when just one win was all we needed? I've always said that the only thing Tannehill has on Moore is size and athleticism. Moore has always been the more instinctual, gutsy QB. The guy made big plays time and time again. We never should've drafted Tannehill at number 8 in 2012. We should've drafted Kuechly. Now we've gotta pay somebody who is statistically worse than the backup (comparing apples to apples in terms of their supporting casts) 10 times the amount. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not doing that at all. I just said we never should've drafted Tannehill. Tannehill and Moore had almost the exact same supporting cast and Moore was statistically better. Tannehill will cost approximately 10 times the amount Moore will. I don't get it. Why wouldn't you take the better value and use that money elsewhere? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're adjusting though. The INT came in the first quarter of the game. You're also counting a fumble that the Pats never recovered. You don't think some of that 3rd down percentage arises from the run game putting them in third and longs too often? After that INT he was 22 for 32 and 2 TD's. Score was 27-14 with us in prime position to score from the NE 9 yard line. Again he wasn't that one that cost us. He's the one who helped get us back in that game. He's also the one who helped us get into the playoffs. It's bizarre to me that you can so easily forgive a momentum killer like William's fumble (because he's a "backup") and put so much responsibility on the backup QB against the league's best team sans a competent defense and a run game that was nowhere to be found.
I still think MM will be the starter next year, I think RT gets cut, we save either 10 or 15 mil, depending on if they can carry over half of his dead money. MM has more than proved he can run this O just as good or better than RT, in '12, he took a winless, rudderless team and turned it around, this year he came out and played very well, in a better situation. In a "prove it" year, the best RT can muster is 19 TDs and 12 INTs?, in the best situation of his career? lol, and a pathetic performance vs the Ravens in the biggest game of his career? I swear, I can't figure why anyone would really want him back at 20 mil, I really can't.
Come on Finny, Tanny is not getting cut. It's not happening. I need to see another year of Tanny to argue he's "arrived." He didn't play well against Balt but did against AZ. But he played well enough this year towards the back to get me eager to see him improve next year. People will have film on Tanny under Gase but Gase is smart, and should have adjustments. Just like when he put too much on Tanny's plate and took it away and they offense and Tanny excelled. Funny enough that's happened in both of his best years, this and 2014.
I will be perfectly honest with you. I would have to talk to the Vikings about Bridgewater. He would be around the same price as Moore salary wise, but he would be almost 10 years younger than Moore. As a backup, he would have the chance to get it together without accellerated expectations placed on him starting. He's played and won games in this league, so he wouldn't be a huge liability coming into a game if he had to at some point. I'm not talking about trading the farm for the guy by any means, but it looks like the Vikings are ready to roll with Bradford so he could be available. I am sure DVP wouldn't mind having him around either. Don't have to push Moore out the door, but you can also be prepared if he walks away. Either way, it doesn't hurt to shake the bushes.
You would have to trade away a 3rd at minimum. You would have to pay him 3x what Matt makes at minimum. You would create a QB controversy and drama around the team. All for Teddy Bridgewater? I also think being a young guy Teddy could easily be given the chance to start elsewhere, how much better are the Texans for example with him? He is in that 20-30 range imo for NFL Qbs so I dont see how he would end up here in a backup role and I dont want him as our starter.
if Chicago moves on from Cutler i'd think they'd be interested in Matt Moore. He has previous experience with Fox during their days in Carolina and i'm sure he could hold down the position while they groom a youngster under him.
I think it's why he will want to continue to just be a backup..it's a good gig with Ryans durability..2mill a year for a tutor position with the occasional substitute days..
As much as I wish this would happen, it won't. I have zero faith the Dolphins organization has the guts to make this move. Ross wants Tannehill because he looks like a marketable QB, plus they've already thrown away an 8th overall pick for him. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
See, this is the problem with a mediocre QB. We always need yet another year to evaluate him. Well guess what, now we're paying $20 million a year for him. We could just roll with Moore, who performed better, and put most of that money elsewhere. He didn't play well against Baltimore, a winning team, but did against Arizona, a losing team. Interesting observation. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's not an argument. Every Tannehill supporter has to deal with the facts now. Sorry, but Moore had better stats than Tannehill with the same case. Actually, didn't he go without Pouncey and as many good Ajayi performances? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes he did. Check the stats. He also did it without Pouncey or most of those Ajayi 200 yard games. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Facts. lol. Ok facts. A 4 game sample size isn't facts. "Better stats" in smaller sample size is not a fact. You're assuming he'd continue on that path if the season was extended for the same amount of games that Tannehill played. That's not facts.
But you want to praise Moore's stats vs Jets and Buffalo? Matt did a great job as a back up for us. But he is the back up..period. Any Dolphin fan who thinks Gase will start any QB that does not give him the best chance to win are being foolish. Foolish. I hope Matt comes back in the same role, and I hope we will not need his services for another 4 yrs. But if we do , for some reason, I am sure he will be solid again. Clearly, Gase feels Tannehill is the better player and gives us the better chance to win. And at this point, I am rolling with he thinks....this is not rocket science.
All I am saying is see what he costs. He very well could be too pricy but you don't know if you don't ask. He has one year left on his rookie deal for like 2.2M so he would cost what Moore does now. You don't have to extend him but they could if they wanted to. No controversy, Ryan is our starter with a backup who has played before and is part of the youth movement on the roster. If he rehabs well and is made to look good by the QB Whisperer, then his value goes up and we have fools gold to trade later like Philly and New England have done forever. All I am saying is if we want to compete, we need to get off the sidelines and take a few chances at developing/rehabing some guys for draft picks/ players like the other successful teams do.
Nope. I mean, if you want to cherry pick then you could certainly make that case. Hell, I could make RT look better than Dan Marino using that method. However, any reasonable person, i.e. anyone with one iota of football knowledge, would never claim that Moore played better than RT.
You only save money for a year. If Moore is anything more than a stopgap, then you'll be paying him Tannehill money soon too. That's just how non-rookie salary starting QB's generally get paid. So either you accept an average QB in Moore long term or you use a high pick on a QB to try to replace Moore from year 2. Thing is.. this is already (albeit barely) a playoff team. This season showed you could get to the playoffs with Tannehill and/or Moore (I personally think had Tannehill not gotten hurt we'd have had the same record, including the playoff loss to Pitt). So spending a high pick on a position of desire rather than a position of need makes relatively little sense to me. Of course, I'd argue totally differently had we not made the playoffs, but we made it (barely)! And this season also showed our primary weaknesses are on defense, especially LB. So I think that while it would be desirable to someday find an elite QB which Tannehill clearly is not and for now doesn't look like he'll ever be (though the 2016 Matt Ryan story does suggest it could happen someday) you have to try and do that the Russell/Brady way.. with mid/low-round picks. There is also one thing Tannehill does have on Moore: upside. Moore played exactly the way I and many others expected him to, except possibly for the very impressive part that the 5 year layoff seemed to have no effect on him. Tannehill however actually improved last year, especially in the pocket presence department, and it's clearly coaching doing this (he's had good protection before yet never showed the pocket presence). So we may not have seen the plateauing (wow! 4 different vowels in a row in that word haha) of Tannehill yet. In any case, I say focus on fixing the defense and putting in some extra pieces on offense (possibly OG and TE) and see if we do any better next year. IF we miss the playoffs next year and Tannehill hasn't improved, well.. THEN you can cut him with little cap hit anyway.
I'm trying to stay out of this argument since it's pretty old already, but you can't hold a small sample size against Moore. Was it his fault he only started 4 of the 16 games? By that logic, he MUST START in 2017 so the team has a apples to apples comparison. Unless Tannehill needs surgery this offseason, I'm pretty confident that he's the starter. But that doesn't change the fact that Matt did more on offense with way less. I mean, the guy came off the bench without a snap with the first team offense in 5 freaking years. You don't get much more epic than that, and he produced a higher rating than our starter? That's not a knock on RT- that's a compliment to Moore as the ultimate professional.
Just out of curiosity - how did Tannehill's performance stack up to his peers when comparing last year to this year?
Not trying to be a stickler, but he did get a snap. I believe it was in a game vs. the Jets a couple years ago.
Oh, that makes sense. No wonder he had the 3rd best QBR in the league this season then- he got a snap in 2014 that prepared him for all of this. =)
With the same supporting cast, Moore did better. Sweep the stats under the rug, call them insignificant, but those are the facts. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No matter who is QB'ing back there - the difference maker is Gase. Tebow, Cutler, Tanny, and now Moore. The proof is in the pudding with his ability to raise a QB's level of play.
You're kidding, right? It's easier to make the case Moore is better than Tannehill than to make Tannehill look better than Marino. Then prove it. Because you can't use stats. Moore didn't have Pouncey or as many 200 yard rushing games from Ajayi. So you've got some explaining to do. The fact that this is even debatable is sad considering Tannehill will be paid ten times the price. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ajayi was benched for his play in the preseason and his attitude. More than likely, the wake up call worked for him. And on Moore, Gase is not the only HC to peg Moore a good QB but a back up. Do you really think that Moore is the better QB? Honestly? Seems there are a few on here are looking for a reaction more than trying to be right. Unless RT's injury is worse than expected, Hard, if not impossible, to see a scenario where Rt is not the unquestioned starter.......but lets see how it plays out. 99% of the people know already, and their confidence comes with the facts and the words that come out of the men in charge.
Do you mean how Tannehill's year 5 vs. year 4 stats are different from that of other starting QB's? Or do you mean something else independent of how many years a QB has played? Either way, I'll just say that from a statistical point of view I doubt any argument could be made that Tannehill did something out of the ordinary in year 5 relative to his previous years because Tannehill's year 5 stats are within variance of his last few years (he had a good stretch in 2014 too). So when I say he improved his pocket presence, I'm just talking about what I saw.