http://wqam.com/interviews
With all of the talk about upgrading the QB position from the owner, GM, Marshall and most of the fan base, this guy has a pretty solid outlook on the whole thing. It's worth a listen.
-
-
Yea he seems like a pretty laid back guy, understands he has to step up. I think he's gonna show a lot of improvement after he gets a grasp on this new offense. If we do end up taking Tannehill I hope he sits for a few years and hopefully Moore plays well enough to land a nice contract after signing maybe a 1-2 year deal after this season. If not a QB lets get a stud play maker, fill some holes and hope Weeden falls.
smahtaz likes this. -
-
-
-
I don't think Garrard will start but it mainly has to do with age and injury, not talent. He actually fits the system extremely well. Accurate passer with decent mobility. If we draft Tannenhill I think the chances of Garrard starting go way up because in that scenario you really aren't tied to Moore in any way, it becomes may the best QB win. Where as if you take a later round prospect or a guy like Osweiler you HAVE to tie yourself down to Moore as a starter for the next 2-3 seasons and see what he has.
As a side note, I think Moore is probably the better QB. However I think Garrard fits the system a bit better. Though Moore is deceptively athletic.Stringer Bell, smahtaz and unluckyluciano like this. -
unluckyluciano likes this.
-
-
-
I think the fact that the Jags cut him days before the 2011 season started says a lot. Yeah, there was an injury but you don't cut a QB just because he's injured. They recognized there was a ceiling that had been reached there.
I'm not saying there's no way Garrard beats out Moore. It could happen. He's a lot like Moore in many ways. Effective, efficient, usually keeps the TD/INT ratio on the right side of 1, but the production is limited. For Moore and Garrard 200 yards and a TD is a normal outing. The top guys in this league throw for 300 without breaking a sweat. -
Now what you said about Moore is a bit more accurate. Just counting starts he averaged 208 passing yards per game and a shade over 1 TD. Where I disagree though, is his ceiling. I believe in a better offensive scheme he is capable of averaging about 250 yards and 2 TD's a game over the course of a season. Averaged out that is 4000 yards and 32 TD's
I'd take that from my QB. Can he do it? Maybe or maybe not. I happen to like his skill set and believe he can, but I may be wrong and his numbers stay the same. I just happen to think a strong offensive system (something he's NEVER had) could do him wonders. -
I'd love to see Matt Moore become the type of QB you describe and it's not out of the realm of possibility. The good thing about this QB situation the Dolphins are in is that they can draft someone like Tannehill or Weeden, and Matt Moore should still have every opportunity to start and have his chance to see if he can do that.
I just think it's a mistake to assume Matt Moore or Dave Garrard can be that guy and not draft somebody this year. -
David Garrard had 3 seasons within his last 5 with a rating above 83. Don't believe me?
http://www.nfl.com/player/davidgarrard/2505101/profile
Matt Moore career TD-INT Ratio = 1.23
David Garrard career TD-INT Ratio = 1.65
Matt Moore career completion pct = 59.1
David Garrard career completion pct = 61.6
Matt Moore career QBR = 80.1
David Garrard career QBR = 85.8
You want to play with numbers?
Plus Garrard is more mobile and IMO more accurate on the run, seemingly a better fit for the WCO.
I'm not saying Garrard is leaps and bounds ahead of Moore, but unlike you, I do see parity and believe it will be an excellent competition at QB. But, according to you, there will surely be no competition right? Moore is elite compared to Garrard? -
-
If you are Philbin who do you feel most comfortable tying yourself down with? For example maybe he and Ireland look at the tape and decides "I don't really think any of these QB's available to us in the draft have what it takes to carry a franchise" in that case he basically has to stick with Moore. Or they can watch tape and decide that a player...Tannenhill for example, maybe they decide that the ceiling of Tannenhill isn't much higher than the ceiling on Moore and would rather dedicate the pick to another area of the team.
IMO If you don't like any of the QB's better than what you have it would be silly to take one. In a way hitching yourself to Moore is a lot like hitching yourself to a draft pick if you believe his ceiling is higher than what he's been able to do so far. -
I think you aren't giving Garrard enough credit man. No he isn't and never was a franchise QB but he had to deal with a lot of the same issues Matt Moore has and you can't discount the fact that his numbers while not amazing were pretty good. You don't complete 64% of your passes in multiple seasons and have a QB rating of 85 because you suck.
You can't take the fact that he is very accurate away from him nor can you take away his mobility. Also much like Moore he never had a good offensive system nor much offensive talent at the skill positions. If you are looking for a one year starter I think he gives Moore a run for his money (if healthy and where he was before injury). I think Moore probably wins out anyway but it isn't the landslide you might think. Now if you're looking for a guy to start the next 2-3 seasons it is obviously Moore you hitch yourself to.
To add on, I'd say what Moore had to work with last season was way more than Garrard ever had.Tone_E likes this.