No thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

Nope. He's a decent QB who's won 3 of 4 across his career with an elite team. It's Osweiler all over again; a guy has a few good games and remains largely unproven, so someone gives him a record-setting contract. Someone will be stupid enough but hopefully it's not us.

 

I would not be disappointed in him. Someone will learn one day not to give these guys big contracts. A team will do it, but they probably shouldn't. How much has Matt Flynn made on one game?

 

Only if we are sacraficing him to appease the Indian Gods and break the curse of Joe Robbie Stadium.

 

AJ Feely


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Matt Moore is likely to stick next season as our backup with the guaranteed money due for 2017, so I don't think we bring in a different backup QB unless its a cheap rookie. I think that Garapolo will likely go somewhere that he has a chance to start, rather than be a long term backup to RT17, also.

 

I like Garapolo, but we have Doughty.

 

That's a no to Jimmy G for me.

If this team keeps Tannehill though beyond this season, I wouldn't be surprised to see them draft someone in maybe the 3rd or 4th that Gase may identify as a QB he'd like to develop and work on with the potential to push for the job down the road. I'm not sure with can afford that luxury though at this point with our many other needs at LB,OL, DE etc. etc.

 

I think it would almost be criminal not to give Gase a rookie to groom over the next few years. He is a QB whisperer...that's almost undeniable. I know he likes Doughtry so if I'm Matt Moore, I'm starting to get nervous.

 

If we draft someone next spring, and he turns out to be really solid and ready, then Moore might be cut in the preseason. However, we only save 775k by cutting him and would take a 1.4m dead money hit, so I don't think he'll simply be let go during the UFA period.

 

I think it would be criminal not to draft a QB in the middle rounds even if we stick with Tannehill. You know.. Dak Prescott is a 4th rounder, Russell Wilson is a 3rd rounder and Derek Carr is a 2nd rounder. And those are just picks in the last 5 years. Importantly, this list shows scouts don't get it right often enough that you should take your chances on finding the next great QB in the later rounds unless it's patently clear you already have one.

 

I think there's a chance Moore retires after this year or next, so that's part of my thinking here as well. Although I personally love the guy and argued for him to start multiple seasons recently, there's almost zero chance he plays another down in the NFL unless Tannehill. After this season, he's probably going to be QB3 and I think he calls it a day with Miami.

 

One of the things thats always interested me with QBs are cases where a guy might have done better had his intro to the league been different. For example, a guy who was thrown right in and didn't do well might have been better off sitting on the bench for a few seasons. Or vice versa, a guy gets drafted behind a solid vet, sits on the bench for three or four years without ever really getting into a game, and then can't get anyone to give him a shot as a starter, but who could have been good had he been drafted by a club that needed him on the field from day one.

Guys like Prescott and Wilson walked into just the right situation, but would they have done the same had they held a clipboard for a few years as both originally were intended?

 

Hell no. I have no strong opinion on Tannehill at this point one way or the other, but I can say without a doubt, there is no way Jimmy Garapalo is an upgrade on THIS Dolphins team than Ryan Tannehill. Let some other idiot GM make the mistake of thinking that performance in an offense on a team that steals defensive signals will translate anywhere else than New England.

 

Interesting thought. I made that point in another thread. Prescott is having an outstanding year. Everyone knows that. He's clearly talented. That's easily visible. That surrounding cast though? That OL, those RB's, those WR's, I mean... talk about a perfect scenario to thrive. He's taken advantage of that. Not taking anything away from the guy, he's clearly talented, and what he's been able to do is absolutely impressive, but damn, what a perfect situation to be thrown into.

A guy that's able to show the talent he has, I think would perform well though whether he started this year, or started with that surrounding cast next year after holding the clipboard for Romo this year. Some guys are just... good. They get it. They're gamers. Their talent is that good. Dak appears to be one of those guys, just like Wilson is. Dak was thrust into this position due to Romo's unexpected (yet should have been expected given his recent injury history lol), but if I'm not mistaken Russel Wilson wasn't thrust into that spot on circumstance, he simply outplayed the guys he was up against for the job if I'm not mistaken.

 

Well, Seattle had just given Matt Flynn a fairly large contract to be their QB of the immediate future at that point. Almost everyone expected that Wilson would sit for a while. But, everyone expected that of RT as well. Both just outplayed the others they were up against and have started all 76 games since.

 

I think if anything the evidence suggests a good QB is likely to demonstrate he's good whether he first sits or not before starting. The reason is that there seem to be so many examples of good or great QB's among those that started as rookies as well as those that sat a year or more.

For example.. Flacco, Eli, Peyton, Roethlisberger, Wilson all started as rookies while Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Romo, Rivers sat at least a year.

Now.. eyeballing the list of starting QB's since 2000, it does seem like you find more duds among those that started as rookies. But I think the reason is simple: if you sit the coaches can evaluate you longer meaning if you're a dud you're likely never to start. In other words, starting QB's that sat at least a year were already filtered out more than those that started as rookies. So the good ones seem to rise to the top regardless.

Yeah.. none of that's conclusive, but that would be my first guess. The short answer of course is that no one knows.

 

Can't fathom even a slight reason why we would consider this.

 

Good post. I think you are correct on that where guys just never get a shot. Look at Brady, would he ever have been given a shot if Bledsoe had not been hurt?

 

And, Wilson was given a chance to compete.

 

As much as I don't want to agree with you, i was personally hoping we would draft Garappolo when he came out. Now I want Doughty to get a real shot.

 

what would he cost?

 

Kinda like this year? Kinda like life in general?

There is a reason he is still on the practice squad, there is a reason he is the only player on the practice squad that travels with the team.

 

No because of what it would cost to get him. Tanny and develop a young QB...perfect recipe IMO

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

He could NOT be there Travis, he is not needed for the game, but there is a reason they bring him.

 

We need to keep making runs on QBs until we get someone competent to back up Tannehill, but I'd rather draft them. There's a long and nasty history of teams picking up Patriots' backup QBs.