Eh, it would take the new HC hugging him to be honest, MMoore is a good Qb but the new HC has to win games if he is fine with him then so would I be.

 

No.

How many times do we have to fall into this same trap?

Moore is a nice backup/spot starter. He is not a guy you build your franchise around or eschew a top level prospect for.

Yes, he's been better than anticipated, but so was Jay fiedler for a time.

Enough is enough

 

Well, keep in mind that MMoore is efficient, but he is not prolific, MMoore is something of a conductor rather then a gunslinger for us.

Some of that comes from BM dropping Td passes, but not all of it, and whether or not that is the way the new HC wishes to go in.

 

Trade him next preseason when a QB goes down, for a draft pick....

 

Was it Ron Wolf that said unless you have a Brett Favre, you draft a QB every year? I agree with that. If you don't have your franchise QB, you draft a QB every year until you do.

I like Moore, and I'm ok with him being the 2012 starter. But if we don't draft a QB in the first round this year I'll probably go mental

 

We have never fallen into this trap. There's nothing familiar about this.

The closest thing was Pennington, but he wasn't a viable starter because he wasn't going to stay healthy. Even then, he didn't have the upside of Moore.

 

Well, to me the smart play is for the new HC to announce MMoore is his starter and to do so prior to the draft, a month or more.

This cuts the fuse on a team wanting to rob us if we decided to trade up for a Qb prospect, it gives us more options, would be even better if we kicked the tires on Vet FA Qb's as well.

 

This isn't the same trap. This guy can play. Take note:

Our TE is the same guy that some have said sucks. It's the same TE that some accused the coaching staff of not utilizing earlier this year and every other year.

[video]http://www.nfl.com/goto?id=09000d5d8252a7c5[/video]

Our #1 receiver is the same guy. He is the same guy that just made the 65 yard play of the week.

[video]http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-fantasy/09000d5d8252c3c6/QB-Moore-to-WR-Marshall-65-yd-pass-TD[/video]

This offensive line is starting backups AND Marc Columbo. This coaching staff is calling the same plays with the same routes as last year.

The difference is the triggerman. Don't believe it? Go back to the preceding video and look at the routes of Davone Bess. You want to know why the only receiver anyone has liked (for the past three years) numbers suffer? Checkdown Chad is not on the field. The quarterback makes EVERYONE better. Well everyone except for the one guy running five yard routes every play.

That said, I still want to pick a QB in the first round and I want Jeff Ireland to sell his soul (draft picks) to the devil (Bill Polian) to get him.

 

No. I think it's imperative that Miami go out and draft a QB. At this point, it might be more to the beneficiary of the stabilization of the franchise and monetary gains. I know you don't make decisions based on the fans, but at this point, I think you might have to. The consolation prize? Matt Barkley or Robert Griffin III. And that's really who I care about. Unless Tannenhill shines during his pro workouts, I want Luck, Griffin III, or Barkley. If it doesn't happen, then you look at other draft options.

As for Matt Moore, he's been much better than I thought. I'm with Aqua, I think he's earned the right to compete for the starting gig next year. And if it's not Andrew Luck or an NFL ready Barkley or RGIII, then he gets the nod. I think you can win in this league with Matt Moore. He's shown that. However, I think you can be great and sustain in this league with one of those 3 guys.

 

Well, Kurt Warner disagrees with you. :)

 

I think we need to secure a first round draft pick. I am comfortable with Moore as a short term starter or as a backup (having a good backup is important as the Bears and Texans can tell you). However, is this REALLY the guy that will be hoisting a Lombardi for us? I don't think so.

When I think of Moore's success, I look at a similar situation that occurred at the beginning of the season in Buffalo. Fitzy came in last year and played well enough to be named the starter. He came in this year and just lit it up for awhile. And now? They have lost what, 6-7 games in a row since he got his contract?

No thanks to relying on Moore.

 

That comparison is a fallacy Texp, because Fitzpatrick is struggling does not mean Moore will then struggle as well.

 

Not a fallacy at all - I am not guaranteeing it will happen. I am saying that I personally would consider that a more likely outcome that Matt Moore, Super Bowl winning QB.

 

I think that's not really accurate. He's #4 in the league % of passes thrown over 20 yards, and he's #6 in accuracy there. He's just not throwing the volume of some other quarterbacks.

 

Truth be told, no. I would still draft a qb early, but let Moore fight to keep the job. We all seen what happened when the Bills basically annointed Fitzpatrick the franchise QB. I do not wnat to take that chabce with Moore and have all of our eggs in one basket.

 

Obviously situation will play a factor. But I think we need to make the effort to secure one of the top 3 guys. If that means trading up - so be it.

I am not willing to put all my eggs on the MM basket.

 

There will be Marino like expectations if we draft a QB early and fans will say he sucks before he is properly developed but I say yes you draft one.
Anything to get the fans to shut up about it.

 

My opinion is that it's more likely that Matt Moore becomes a "franchise" quarterback than a prospect we draft does. In fact, it's more likely that a prospect we draft fails completely in the vein of Mark Sanchez, Matt Leinart, etc. than one becomes an "elite" quarterback.

I don't think people are really all that conscious of the success rates of those players, and they are dismissive of Moore because he isn't and it's inappropriate.

 

I think that would be very wasteful. You're either going to let Matt Moore walk with no compensation(His contract runs through 2012) or you're going to have a failed, high-round rookie draft pick you are highly unlikely to come close to recouping your costs on.

Someone needs to make a decision, and make the right decision, and while it's daunting I don't think it's too much to expect.

 

Yes. I would trade up if I had to.

I like Matt Moore, but he hasn't beaten a team with a winning record so I'm tempering that enthusiasm, and I'm definitely not taking a couple of wins against losing teams as reason to NOT draft a QB next year. ;)

I actually start with Moore next year, even if we draft Luck. I like Moore enough to have him start in 2012, but I'm not a fan enough to not draft a QB.

 

IMO you can't be an elite QB that can carry a team if you can't play well when pressured. Whenever I evaluate QBs, I look for the times when the surrounding team screws up and the QB has to bail them out. Here are Moore's stats when blitzed and under pressure:

pass Split Cmp Att Pct Yds Y/A TD Int 1st Sck Rtg
Ag.Blitz 49 96 51.0 650 6.8 2 2 31 15 71.1
Und Pres 12 37 32.4 166 4.5 0 2 9 28 25.3


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/players/8544/passing_splits.html#ixzz1hBz6ixBV

Those aren't great results. There are plenty of QBs that can produce a good rating when everything goes right. That's why teams make the mistake of giving big contracts to the likes of Fitzpatrick. And all QBs suffer production drops when pressured, but the drops aren't all equal. The elite guys are the ones that still produce plays even in those situations. If you look at the elite QBs in the league, you'll find that Moore's performance in those situations doesn't compare favorably, not even to Tebow, Alex Smith or even Henne for that matter. Now personally, I prefer to base my evaluations on what I see than just the stats. But people tend to lose objectivity when there are wins and losses occurring. These stats provide an objective basis to determine whether or not Moore has displayed an ability to carry the team. IMO he has not. Now I like Moore. I defended his signing when it occurred. I felt that he was good enough to produce in a QB friendly system and he has validated that opinion. However, I also didn't think he was a potential franchise QB and unfortunately, thus far he hasn't done anything to alter that opinion either.

 

I remember watching someone quarterback the Dolphins for a number of years who did exactly what you described. Efficient, not prolific, conducted the offense like a Maestro conducts a symphony orchestra. Won two of the three Super Bowls he appeared in. Gentleman by the name of Griese. If the team could run for oh, 150-200 yards and pass for 200-350 per game, AND be consistent in the Red Zone (TD not FG!) that would be a dangerous opponent during the season. Ireally want to see who comes out and does what in the combine. I would not rule out Tannehill. I would rather have Barkley, but... how much do we trade up, if that is deemed necessary, to get him.

If we pick up Hillis, or a hard running/blocking/short yardage runner, a good fast WR, a good Free Safety, and a decent (as opposed to almost obscene) Right Tackle this team would be difficult to defense. Add some other components to increase depth - we would be back in the fight for the AFCE each year, and probably heading toward Conference Championship contention.

 

Zilch, zero, nada, not a ting, nothing

I like Moore and think he is the 12 starter but we dont have the luxury to be wrong and this is the best year for qbs in a long time, cannot keep waiting to see if qbz pans out. We need to draft a qb


and I am all in on RGIII

 

Matt Moore has to have a very good to great team around him to be serviceable. And he can't put a team on his shoulders to win a game. When things go bad, he can't turn them around. Eagles game is a good example.

That's to take nothing away from him. He had done nothing short of a TREMENDOUS job, IMHO coming into a terrible situation and winning some ball games.

But he's done this before in Carolina only to completely disappoint when handed the starting gig. Let's not let history repeat itself.

That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing him start next year if he beats out whatever QB we draft in training camp.

 

Sorry D I usually agree with you but think you are dead wrong. Moore isnt a franchise qb and no way more likely than a top draft choice. This Moore's 3rd year, elite doesnt take 3 years. Elite shows immediately, that doesnt mean they dont make mistakes and dont need to grow, but they show a special quality. Moore hasnt snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, hasnt shown even remotely that he can. Can a prospect? Dont know, but maybe. Moore hasnt shown it in 3 years.


Now you say if I read it correctly that drafting a qb and keeping Moore is a mistake, why? Moore's contyract isnt prohibitive and the Rook hasnt been jerked around to affect his psyche, so why is it bad to allow the rook to sit a year and start Moore and then make a move in 13?

 

I simply don't allow this to happen.

If Ireland or whoever is in charge determines that these 3 guys are all franchise caliber elite QBs then whatever needs to be done to land one of them should be done.

This is not a situation where you let the draft come to you. This is a situation where you seize it by the throat.

However, if we feel Tannehill or weeden are also franchise QBs then that's a different story. And I still would probably take either in the 1st becuase I'm not taking any chances

 

Matt Moore's progression has been there but I really don't ever see him being a QB that can carry a team. In my opinion we need a QB that can carry a team when things go bad.
If you put Moore on a team that has a dominant defense, a great offensive line, and one or two dangerous offensive players I have no doubt that he would do very well "managing" games. Super bowls are not won with franchise QB's all the time. Sometimes it's the guys that can manage the game that win. Phil Simms, Trent Dilfer, Mark Rypien, and Doug Williams come to mind. Jake Delhomme, Kerry Collins, Neil O'donnell, and Matt Hasslebeck are others that have made it there and lost as "managers".
So I think Matt Moore can be a super bowl QB, but he has to have a stacked team around him to do it. Even then it would be tough because injuries are such a common theme in football.
I think we need a QB that can step it up when injuries happen. Guys like Aaron Rodgers, and Phillip Rivers are good examples of that.
We have had too many retreads and game managers here. It hasn't worked.

Not it though....I'm fine with drafting a prospect QB of some sort and letting Moore keep the job as well until he gives it away.
As for Luck, Barkley, or RG3? I doubt it happens at this point unless we make a trade. I would settle for Landry Jones (if he sat for a year).

 

But those stats themselves aren't particularly objective, either.

Pro Football Focus takes out drops, throws aways, etc. in "pressured" situations, and he's completing 60.1% of his passes, good for 8th in the NFL.

Then you've also got to take into consideration how much of those fact that Moore has a higher conversion of pressures to sacks is his fault. You can find plenty of examples of him eluding pressure, but then there's also plenty of circumstances where he's got situations where say, Marc Colombo isn't actually able to touch the guy he's supposed to block.

Or you've got games where Brian Daboll decides that he's not actually going to provide extra blockers against blitz heavy teams. You've got the Eagles game, where PFF has 17 instances of someone in pass protection(Not plays, there could be multiple people in pass pro in one play), with 11 of them being Reggie Bush, who is an awful pass blocker. Or the Cowboys with 20, and half of those again coming from Bush.

What gives you the idea that Brian Daboll's offense is "quarterback friendly", anyway? What makes you say that? Because I can find examples of someone who has actually played for him claiming exactly the opposite:

 

None of the "elite" quarterbacks in the league were "elite" in their third years in the NFL. Not a single one.

Because you get nothing from Matt Moore. His contract is up after next season.

 

You're already conceding before the game has even started.

I'm not conceding until all 3 guys are gone before we pick in april.

 

We can't do anything about Cleveland, Washington, or even Seatle at this time. I think we need a QB to build around but i'm not interested in being bit by the same dog twice by drafting another Chad Henne or believing in Matt Moore only for him to turn into A.J Feely next year. No thanks to another Jay Fielder either. Retreads don't seem to work here either. We went through Frerotte, Rosenfels, Fatpepper, Harrington, Trent Green, and Brian Griese. The only retread that did work was Pennington. Thats 1 out of about 9 in a 12 year period. I love Matt Moore as a backup and I hope he starts (on another team). It's time to draft a franchise QB. It's time to trade the hell up and do this!

 

Before we continue going nuts about Moore, please peruse Derek anderson's 2007 stats, that got him the franchise tag.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/8627/year/2007/derek-anderson

Looks an awful lot like our own Mr. Moore.

 

Where did I put a "low" ceiling on him?

I'm merely stating fact Aqua, look at his passing attempts per game, has he had more then 40 ppg so far?

 

I describe it as QB friendly b/c of the route combinations and reads it requires. IMO that is the key to making it easy for your QB to succeed. I imagine that quote is from McCoy. I don't really give much credence to what a rookie considers confusing. As for MM under pressure, I think it's obvious that he doesn't play well under pressure just from watching him. I only included the stats b/c I find that people can't see it or believe it even when it's obvious. Actually I've also found they can't see it even when when the stats are included. LOL As for PFF, I find their stats to be very poor whenever they attempt to make subjective judgments. They're good at counting plays, but when it comes to determining what is a drop or who is at fault, I find their stats to be useless. In this case, just looking at the completion % is not a good measure even if the subjective element could be relied upon. It's simply too narrow. I find that if you compare ratings you get a better delineation between who is elite and who isn't. It's by no means a perfect measure, but it is the best out there. It's actually not that different from what many coaches have always used. When I was more involved in this stuff, I found that coaches regularly used a QB's performance on obvious passing situations to measure how good they were when it mattered.The logic was that in obvious passing situations you're removing some of the impact of the defense just being fooled. The QB has to perform against a defense that knows what he's doing. Over the years, I've found that to be a pretty consistent predictor of which QBs you can expect to perform in the clutch and carry your team to the next level.