In retrospect

This thread will have over 300 replies.

Better season this year, maybe. But in the long run this will be a good thing starting tannehill. We would not be contenders with Moore, and that's all that matters.

"shouright wrote:

This thread will have over 300 replies.

Well... After our early season pissing match this season, I concede to you. You and Pads were right.

No I'd still start Ryan. Maybe we win a few more games but I'll take the experience and draft spot advantage. Maybe we can get a WR worth the air he breathes.

in retrospect trading Brandon Marshall was an excellent idea!

not replacing him? that was even smarter!

I think you can go either way on whether starting Moore or Tanny would have been the best bet. But at the end of the day, starting Moore doesn't make Carpenter hit those gamewinning FGs. Starting Moore doesn't stop the OL from struggling this year. Starting Moore doesn't necessarily stop the running game from dropping off drastically. Starting Moore doesn't stop the defense from being unable to generate a pass rush. Starting Moore doesn't stop us from trotting scrubs out onto the field in our secondary.

At the end of the day, IMO, I think it was the right call to start Tanny. He is learning a lot and shown he can make plays as a QB. Might the offense be better with Moore? Definitely a possibility. But I think with all the holes & struggles on this roster, it was the right move to start Tanny. I don't think we'd be competing for a playoff spot with Moore, either.

"Bumrush wrote:

Well... After our early season pissing match this season, I concede to you. You and Pads were right.

Actually I didn't think we should start Moore then, and I still don't.

However, I attribute almost all of what we're seeing offensively to starting a rookie QB.

"Alex44 wrote:

No I'd still start Ryan. Maybe we win a few more games but I'll take the experience and draft spot advantage. Maybe we can get a WR worth the air he breathes.

Thing is, with the state of the AFC, we could be competing for a wild card spot.

I don't care about what happens in the playoffs, but I'll take a playoff spot any day over this misery. Tannehill would have had a full year to absorb, and in all probability would have started if Moore got injured at some point.

"shouright wrote:

Actually I didn't think we should start Moore then, and I still don't.

However, I attribute almost all of what we're seeing offensively to starting a rookie QB.

Knowing what you know now, would you have started Moore?

Playoffs are a pipe dream, a veteran leader puts together a few good drives and we could be sitting at 7-5 and firmly in place for a WC spot.

One week after Ryan Tannehill wins a game against a playoff team...

"shouright wrote:

Actually I didn't think we should start Moore then, and I still don't.

However, I attribute almost all of what we're seeing offensively to starting a rookie QB.

Not A rookie, specifically Ryan Tannehill.

Luck, RG III are leading offenses that have some pop in their guns while Tannehill is firing blanks.

"Bumrush wrote:

Knowing what you know now, would you have started Moore?

Playoffs are a pipe dream, a veteran leader puts together a few good drives and we could be sitting at 7-5 and firmly in place for a WC spot.

To be fair Tannehill put this team in position to be 7-5. He led the team into FG position against New York & Arizona. Carpenter didn't hit those FGs.

"Bpk wrote:

Not A rookie, specifically Ryan Tannehill.

Luck, RG III are leading offenses that have some pop in their guns while Tannehill is firing blanks.

Include Wilson in that category.

"Bumrush wrote:

Include Wilson in that category.

Are we forgetting about Tannehill's performance last week?

"Bumrush wrote:

Knowing what you know now, would you have started Moore?

Playoffs are a pipe dream, a veteran leader puts together a few good drives and we could be sitting at 7-5 and firmly in place for a WC spot.

Yeah but that's only slightly better than mediocre, and that's the ceiling you're at with Moore IMO.

You start Tannehill because of his (theoretically) higher ceiling and hope you can develop something better.

"Bumrush wrote:

Thing is, with the state of the AFC, we could be competing for a wild card spot.

I don't care about what happens in the playoffs, but I'll take a playoff spot any day over this misery. Tannehill would have had a full year to absorb, and in all probability would have started if Moore got injured at some point.

We saw Fiedler get us there 6 years In a row. We didnothng when we got there. This line of thinking gets us no where.

The idea, and we'll see if it works or not, is that tannehill can be something more.

"ckparrothead wrote:

One week after Ryan Tannehill wins a game against a playoff team...

He's coming along, but clearly he's not arrived fully yet.

Which is really what we should expect from a guy with two years starting at QB in college and only 11 NFL starts.

What's making it hard for people is that the Redskins and Colts are doubling an tripling our TD outputs.

I can't believe this thread exist

When you talk about starting Moore versus Tannehill, you have to look at both the short-term and long term picture.

Short Term, we probably win a couple more games, maybe even compete for a playoff spot. I don't think you could find anyone that thinks this team could do much more than that. Long term though, if you start Moore you're just delaying the learning curve with Tannehill - if the team isn't going anywhere (and it's not), then starting Tannehill is the right call, so you can jump start the learning curve and work towards getting better, not just this year but in 2013 and 2014.

"ckparrothead wrote:

One week after Ryan Tannehill wins a game against a playoff team...

Outside of that game, what has this offense done since we lost in Indy?

We had chances against Buffalo and fizled, got destroyed at home by Ten, and were anemic again today offense. One late hit away from losing to Seattle as well.

Moore lost in practice and in preseason games.
Little reason to believe he would be better

No. You know what you have in Moore. A guy who can win you a few games, but will never be great, and take you where you want to go. That's why you drafted Ryan. You get him in there, see what he can do. Especially with how comfortable he should be in this system.

The Marshall trade was a good decision in my mind. It was a bad decision not to have an immediate play to replace his physical presence, and his ability though. Having someone else out there with Hartline and Bess, that can dictate coverages, can open up the running game, and make your passing game that much more threatening. We're far too easy to defend right now. Until that changes, get used to this kind of offensive output IMO.

"Bumrush wrote:

Include Wilson in that category.

Not sure what His stats are recently so I skipped him.

"shouright wrote:

Actually I didn't think we should start Moore then, and I still don't.

However, I attribute almost all of what we're seeing offensively to starting a rookie QB.

I agree that playing Tannehill now will benefit us more next year. He can't go into next year with the same WR group. I would like to see him hit those open receivers though. He was off badly with his accuracy today.