We've seen three games from Ryan Tannehill. His QB ratings have been 39, 91, and 50.2.
The QB ratings of the opposing quarterbacks in those games have been 102.4 (Schaub), 74.4 (Palmer), and 58.2 (Sanchez).
Of course we know what happened in these games. We got blown out in Houston, largely because of the three INTs that figured largely into Tannehill's quarterback rating of 39. We murdered Oakland, largely because Tannehill didn't make the same kinds of mistakes, and the running game gained 263 yards on the ground. And we barely lost against the Jets in overtime.
So the question is, how would the team have fared in these games if Matt Moore were quarterback?
Remember that in Matt Moore's final nine games of last season, his overall quarterback rating was 97. The team went 6-3 in those games.
For the sake of comparison, in 2008, when the team was 11-5 and made the playoffs, Chad Pennington's QB rating was also 97.
I submit that we probably would've lost the game in Houston with Matt Moore at quarterback, but perhaps by a much smaller margin. It's doubtful Matt Moore would've thrown three interceptions.
It's also doubtful Matt Moore would've played poorly enough to lose the Oakland game.
What isn't doubtful IMO is that Matt Moore would've played well enough to win the Jets game. Mark Sanchez's QB rating in that game was 58.2. A QB rating even as poor as 70 (27 points lower than Moore's final nine games last year) would've probably won the game convincingly, as poor as Sanchez played, rather than having it come down to field goal attempts in overtime.
So, if you believe that to be true, then you'd be looking at a 2-1, first-place team right now, rather than a 1-2 last place team, if Matt Moore had quarterbacked these first three games.
So the question is, do you want to win now, or do you want to lose now for the sake of developing Ryan Tannehill?
Because it's clear to me that if you're playing Ryan Tannehill, you're going to do a whole lot more losing now than if you were playing Matt Moore.
Page 1 of 9
-
I usually agree with you on most things, but in this case I disagree with you 100% with no room for discussion :)
There is NO case for starting Matt Moore.
Tannehill is the present and the future. Tannehill led this team to victory yesterday and we shanked two kicks. He made one horrible throw all day and was victimized by at least 5 drops and some inconsistent play calling.
Removing him after week 3 will have the same effect it had on Henne when we inserted Pennington as the starter in 2010. I'm pretty sure Tannehill has thick skin and can take a benching, but I'm not going to sacrafice his development so Matt Moore can win us 1 or 2 extra games this year.sports24/7, Hellion, Xiidaen and 44 others like this. -
-
Agree with you Shou, but think if Woodley could be benched after leading us to a super bowl, then Tannehill starting over MMoore is just the seduction of the past showing up.
3 yrs from now Tannehill will be our Qb, MMoore will be long gone, may as well except it. -
Matt Moore = Sanchez, Ryan Tannehill = Future Franchise. -
I mean do you think this forum overall is real life? Or do you think it consists of the fantasy and conjecture of a bunch of nobodies, myself included? I'd say the latter. -
You are also forgetting one small piece of information. Moore had this guy named Brandon Marshall to throw to last year. In fact, Brandon had over 1000 yards, mostly on balls thrown by Moore.MAFishFan and MonstBlitz like this. -
You're making a big assumption that Matt Moore would be doing any better than Ryan Tannehill right now. Tannehill won the job in training camp and played better in the preseason. I also don't think it's fair to assume Matt Moore would have played well enough to win the Jets game.
Add to that, Ryan Tannehill is playing pretty admirably considering he is a rookie. Matt Moore's upside is limited. Tannehill is already playing admirably and will only get better. He's absolutely 100% not embarrassing himself out there so I really don't see how you can make an argument for starting a mediocre QB in this situation. If Tannehill was playing John Beck bad, I'd be in agreement with you but he's not.
Also projecting Matt Moore's stats from last year into this season with a new offense isn't fair either. Add to that his prior inconsistency from season to season with Carolina and your case gets weaker. -
However, if Philbin makes the switch I will lose a lot of faith this new coaching staff has earned from me. -
It's almost insane that this has been brought up 3 games into the season.MAFishFan likes this. -
-
Shou, you are way too focused on QB rating.
His QB rating is based on many factors, including a lack of WR's, a ROOKIE QB learning the Pro game, and is deflated downwards after having 3 balls batted down week 1 in Houston, 2 of whom became INT's.
Let's look at intangibles. Down 3, game on the line, he drives the team to FG range and we tie the game. OT period, drives the team to FG range only to have Carpenter miss.
What did our old friend, Chad Henne do with games on the line? Let me give you a hint. 1st and 10 Incomplete. 2nd and 10 Incomplete. 3rd and 10 Incomplete. 4th and 10 Incomplete or INT. Be happy with have a QB with a cluth gene.
4th quarter, 15 yard line, 3rd and 10, throws a rocket pass, PERFECTLY placed to Armstrong that gets DROPPED. That catch could have sealed the game for us if we continued driving down the field.
Stop with QB ratings dude!!!infiltrateib likes this. -
Bombing out? Getting us into FG range for game winners is bombing out? It's his first 3 games for cryin' out loud.
Mondays around this place...yeesh....
Love ya Shou...but damn dude... -
We lost the game because our quarterback played even worse, which is hard to do when you're talking about quarterback ratings that low. -
-
Shou, are you still making this thread if Carpenter makes his last kick? After Tannehill drives down with 3min left in the 4th quarter to tie it, and then drove us down from our own 10 in OT to win it?
If you still think you would have made this thread, then ok. But I highly doubt you would have... -
I think, as I told my buddy last night, if you blame RT then IMO, you are not thinking logically. He didnt play ights out, but put us in position to win. Play calling sucked, coaching blew that game IMO.
If you didnt. Expect growing pains, then you were fooling yourself, IMO.MAFishFan likes this. -
You're also assuming Matt Moore has been consistent over his career. Which he hasn't. -
Stick with the rookie. He made a couple of nice plays when the game was on the line in the midst of an otherwise poor day. That's what I like to see. That 41 harder to Hartline was great. Could he have lead him, for a TD possibly? Maybe. But he rolled out, extended the play and made a good throw. We just missed the kicks.
-
schmolioot and DePhinistr8 like this.
-
This counts now, THill has great unseen stuff, his accuracy is as spotty as Moore's had been up until this point. -
Another thing to consider. Matt Moore had Brandon Marshall. Ryan Tannehill has Brian Hartline. I'm not saying that makes all the difference, but it's a factor that needs to be considered.
-
-
-
Heard all of the "..if he only had a Wr.." crap when Henne was here, sorry bro, Qb makes the Wr better, not the other way around. -
Shour likes to play the Devils advocate and he brings up a legitimate question worthy of discussion.
I dont think he really supports this idea but it is a good topic IMO.:yes:shouright likes this. -
I dont think we would be any better off with Moore playing than Tannehill right now... I think Moore playing yesterday we dont even win get that tying field goal, and he probably throws an extra pick or two...
Hiruma78 likes this. -
The front office and coaching staff will never truly admit it since they field a football team with a bunch of players that are playing their *** off to win, but I think they know full well that this team is deficient in enough areas that they aren't going to be significantly better with Matt Moore at QB to make much of a difference.
-
Page 1 of 9