I've given this a lot of thought and honestly Garrard's injury couldn't have come at a worse time. His time table for return is 2 to 4 weeks, so essentially he is going to miss our first 3 preseason games possibly even all of them. Like most people here I expected Garrard to win the QB race and start for us in week one; given this injury and the fact that he missed a whole year of football I just don't know if you can expect Garrard to start for us in game 1 anymore. If he makes it back in time for our last preseason game and plays a quarter of good football I could see it, but I don't know how probable that is. Next you have Moore vs Tannehill. Tannehill by most accounts has been better in Practice and our one preseason game thus far. I feel like Tannehill will beat out Moore for the job if it's just between them two. So the coaches are going to have to decide if they want Tannehill to start the season at QB given the fact he will probably play better than Moore and give us a better chance to win each game. But then there is the question of if he starts the year at QB do you let him play the whole year or do you pull him once Garrard heals and looks good in practice. I don't know if I would like seeing Tannehill start a game or two only to be yanked once Garrard is healed. Should be interesting.
This is a great thread! I'm really curious to see others opinions on this, as this has really put our coaching staff into something of a dilemma. I think Tannehill definitely looked better than Moore last night, and could move ahead on the depth chart. But what to do about Garrard. The difference between missing 2 or 4 weeks likely will play a big part of what transpires. So now I think it's between Garrard and Tannehill as to who starts, and circumstances and performance will decide our first game starter.
If I was Tannehill, I'd take this absence as an opportunity. Don't get me wrong, it sucks what happened to Garrard, and I really wanted to see him play because I think he a pretty good (great?) quarterback when he's 100 percent. But Tannehill has a golden opportunity, and if he keeps on building on his preseason performance, he'll be our starting QB, IMO.
Not quite the exact same thing happened, because Flacco wasn't battling 2 veterans (one of which lead the team to a winning record the previous season).
I think that had Garrard not been injured he'd have been the starter week 1 and I think that would have lasted for about 10 games depending on the record (if we were 6-4 or better - he'd continue). But, now, with Garrard out - possibly the entire pre-season (even if he does get back for game 4, that game is a washup game and it is unlikely he'll get enough work in to be a starter week 1) - I think Tannehill starts week 1. I think he will beat out Moore. Personally, I don't like this scenario b/c I think it is too soon and the team itself is so poorly constructed that he will struggle to gain confidence.
