I know there have been debates on both sides of the fence here. I was strongly in favor of starting Tannehill. But in retrospect, would it have made sense to start Moore this year? This team has had some heartbreaking losses and our offense has been out sync the entire 2nd half of the season. Ryan has hit a rookie wall and our offense cannot put up points, even when we defend a team like vaunted Patsies well. One can only wonder where this team would be today with an offense that was somewhat in sync. Heartbreaking loss against the Patriots but if you can't put up more than one TD, at home, you may as well give up before the first snap. Doubly frustrating when you consider what we received for Brandon, his production and what we are getting back this year.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not A rookie, specifically Ryan Tannehill. Luck, RG III are leading offenses that have some pop in their guns while Tannehill is firing blanks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Meanwhile, Wilson wins on the road against the Bears and Luck is just Luck. 4 TD's and converts on 4th down.. And we can't put up yards or points against a suspect NE D at home, with our running game doing a decent job.
Brady missed open receivers too. We're just not at a point offensively where we generate enough downfield chances to make up for early misses. They become amplified when you are as "pop gun" as we are.
Meaning it makes no sense to compare the two in missing receivers. Tannehill was awful today. Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 via Tapatalk 2
I didn't say he wasn't but Brady missed two wide open TD's. Every QB does. But we amplify our misses due to our overall offensive ineptitude.
I'm a big Tannehill fan but let's not kid ourselves, he struggled today. Underthrew and overthrew receivers along with questionable accuracy on several other throws. He had some great throws too, but overall struggled.
Tannehill is playing like a Rookie QB should. Sorry hes not Andrew Luck yet, but he has been a solid rookie QB. Having him sit a year just prolong everything. I mean what can the bench do to really help his game?
Can we use the same argument for veterans to justify why Daniel Thomas is no Arian Foster or how Chad Henne is no Tom Brady? Luck is as elite as a rookie QB comes. Come on, his talent level is well above Tannehill's. It's no knock on Tanny, but Luck is not a "normal" rookie QB.
I guess the rose-colored glasses are coming off, since for many people Tannehill played "awful" today, though he actually played better today than he did several times earlier in the season.
But what is frustrating is that Wilson just threw for 2 TD's, had a rating over 104 on the road against Chicago and won. Wilson, RG3 and Luck are getting better. Tannehill has been regressing.
