Making a big deal over 19 points vs 20 points is really splitting hairs. I'd rather win with 19 than lose with 20, especially considering 7 of the Jets points were a complete gift.
It tells me one thing, you cannot use just a passer rating as the sole means of saying how well a QB played. Moore's game winning drive was as clutch as you're going to get, and more than offset his passer rating or any previous mistakes in that game.
More supposition. There's no way to prove there would be more wins already or over the course of the season with Moore starting.
When you can't have certainty, all you can have is probability. The probability is that Matt Moore would have played well enough in that game to create the kind of QB rating differential that's very strongly associated with winning. You like this word "supposition," but you can do better than that. There's something called probability.
I think there's a strong likelihood that just about all of us, myself included, are seeing what we want to see from Ryan Tannehill, minimizing his negative play and maximizing his positive. We're giving him a wide latitude to make mistakes, and a low threshold for considering something he does as great. Now, that's all fine when you're looking at a rookie QB, from whom you really shouldn't expect anything tremendous, but realize that he's looking awfully overmatched, as almost all rookie QBs do. His QB rating in the 50s is proof of it.
I totally agree on all points. This was not a situation that needed to happen either. I refuse to believe Naanee was the best that Ireland could do in free agency.
You can admit it if it makes you feel good, but no logical person need admit it. Moore has never played an entire season in this offense. While I like Moore as much as anyone does, there is no guarantee he'd have a better passer rating in this offense, with this group of receivers, or produce more wins.
Don't give me more of that condescending egg headed crap. So I used supposition. I could have used: assumption or presumption or speculation or conjecture.
There's no way you can go based off last season alone to come up with the probability that Matt Moore would have won on Sunday. Waay too many variables including offensive system, coaching staff, talent differences, etc. This is an exercise in what if trying to hide in mathematical terms.
And had Carpenter hit the field goal we'd be talking about how Tannehill brought them downfield for the game tying field goal, and then again in OT for the game-winning field goal. We'd be talking about how good Tannehill is in the clutch and how the pick 6 didn't rattle him at all and how big his balls are
I really don't understand how you're coming to this conclusion. I think the best predictor of how Matt Moore would have performed against the Jets is to look at how he performed against the Jets just 9 months ago. And that wasn't much better than how Tannehill performed......and that was with Bush and Marshall
There is no case to start him...none. I'm sick of this team being middling and mediocre. With Matt Moore we might catch lightning in a bottle again and go 7-9 or 8-8. Picking 13th every year with a 3rd tier quarterback sucks. I want wins but in the end, I don't really care about wins. I want to see growth out of the future of the franchise.
I said one game out of three projects to five on the year. It's the difference between a 6-10 team and an 11-5 one, but it's also the difference between a 1-15 team and a 6-10 one. Now, if you've stopped laughing, perhaps you can pick up on the subtlety and nuance.
I'll give you whatever I feel like if it doesn't violate the ToS, thanks. And at the risk of sounding condescending, you're still not getting the difference between probability and supposition, as well as all the other words you used as synonyms for it. I'll leave it to you to figure that out.
But you could also call that an aberration based on Moore's performance around the same time. Let me ask you this: if he had played the Jets in all nine games in which he had a 97 QB rating overall last year, do you think all nine of them would've gone the same way?
Actually there is a case for it if you consider that growth of the franchise, which you say you want, could be dependent on Joe Philbin's establishing credibility with his players, which is in turn dependent on winning, which is in turn dependent on having a QB who's playing well enough to win. The best way to lose a team is to sit the quarterback that gives it a better chance to win. And if you're a first-year head coach with no reputation preceding him, losing your team is already far more of a possibility than it would be if you were Bill Belichick, for example. It's not like these players are going to suffer through a whole lot more games with a QB with a 50-some-odd rating, with Matt Moore on the bench, and reassure themselves by saying, "not a problem -- trust in Joe Philbin." And I'm incredibly high on Joe Philbin as a coach, but I can also see the big picture here. There is a theoretical point in the future -- and it may not be that far away -- where his continuing to start Ryan Tannehill is itself viewed by his players as evidence of his ineptitude as a coach, and you sure don't want that in his first year, when he has little if anything to balance that with in the way of accomplishment.
I like what I have seen from RT so far. As long as he continues to improve from week to week I think it was smart to start him this year and begin the process of making this offense his. I am also comfortable with having MM as his B/U. I think trading BM was a mistake. I think RT has a strong enough personality that he could of handled him in the huddle and his talent would of been an asset to RT. Think of Bess Hartline and Marshall as our 3, Bush in the back field and Fason @ TE. IMO thats not a terrible offense to surround your rookie QB with. If BM does nothing else, he demands double coverage and opens up plays for everyone else. Put that together with the decent O-line play and I think we have a productive offense. Im not trying to reopen the BM debate but I am saying that not having someone as talented as him out there is hindering our offense right now.
Based on the fact that the first time he played the Jets his QB rating was in the 40s, then yes, I can assume his QB rating would be somewhere around the 50s had we played against the Jets in all 9 games. Fact is, Moore's QB ratings weren't so good against some of the better defenses. He had a good rating against Dallas, but other than that, I believe all were below mediocre. So far, Tannehill is doing the same. Against Elite Defenses, not good. Against the one mediocre-bad defense we played.....very good
The Jets defense is far from elite. I would call them average at best. And without Revis, I would call it be below average. Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
That defense forces any non top 10 QB into a bad passer rating. So they're doing something right in that respect.
Who's making a big deal? Tannehill played better than Moore did in either of his starts against the Jets. The OP claimed that the stats show that we win with Moore, because of the stats that Moore put up last year. I was pointing out that Moore's stats against the Jets specifically don't bear that out. Nor, does the most important offensive team stat, that being points. As for the gift, Moore gifted the jets a 100yrd pick six last year. A Football game is won or lost as a team. The Dolphins had plenty of opportunities to win last week. Suggesting that not going with the QB that lost the preseason competition, (when the coaches clearly wanted him to win) as the reason we lost is not correct.
Come back to the bigger picture though. In no game in his last nine did Matt Moore do as poorly as Ryan Tannehill's current average. Ryan Tannehill's current QB rating overall (his average) is 58. Matt Moore didn't have a single game in his last nine that was that low, and in fact his average was 97. All quarterbacks are going to play moore poorly on average against good defenses, but the question is, what kind of play are they giving you overall? Like I said, IMO there's going to be a theoretical point in the future, and it may not be far away, where Tannehill's average performance isn't good enough to keep him out there over Moore. Both quarterbacks may in fact play worse than their average against good defenses, but if Ryan Tannehill's average is 60, and Matt Moore's (theoretically) is 80, you lose your team keeping Matt Moore on the bench IMO.
Way to cherry-pick. 2 of his first 3 games were and we lost all 3 (41.8, 92.6, 58.5) - which is not far off from Tanny's first 3 (39, 91, 50.2) and in 6 starts in 2010 Moore's rating was 55.6.
So then don't cherry-pick. Moore's overall QB rating last year was 87. Tahnnehill's so far is 58. The point still remains that if Tannehill's average remains significantly lower than Moore's likely would be, you have a potential problem on your hands, and in the not-too-distant future IMO.
How can you possibly project that his average will remain significantly lower? I'm pretty sure we all though Moore was a big ol' turd sandwich after his first 3 games last year. His ridiculously bad pre-season didn't do anything to help his case. You gotta ride with the rook..good or bad. If some players have a problem with that, well, I guess that's tough ****.
Right, but that tough **** will be for Joe Philbin and for anybody who roots for this team. When a team is lost, the results aren't good.
This team was lost before Philbin got here. If anyone expected playoffs or for Tanny to have a 90+ rating at seasons end, well sorry for your expectations. That doesn't mean I'm giving up on them...I hope they win every single game..but the reality is we're rebuilding and these eggs gotta be broken to make the omelet. Lumps will be taken, and we'll be better off for it (I hope).
When I say "lost" I mean devoid of morale or motivation. The team is nowhere near lost in that way right now IMO. They appear very motivated and energetic to me. But a few more games of realizing that no matter how well they play, they can't surmount the play of their QB, and that may change, especially when a better alternative may be on the bench and isn't being played. And that wouldn't be such a big deal if we were rebuilding with Bill Belichick, for example, but we have a first-year head coach who needs to establish credibility with his players.
I don't agree with the thread's original idea that we should switch to Moore, based on Tannehill's first 3 games, but Moore's performance in week 17 last yr was just as good as Tannehill did on Sunday. Had Moore started the game on Sunday there is no reason to believe the outcome would have been any different, other than someone else's speculation. I just didn't think the difference of 20 points compared to 19 in week 17 was any sort of evidence that makes a stronger case for Tannehill.
That statement implies these losses fall squarely on Tannehill's head, which couldn't be further from the truth. If our secondary was worth a bag of rocks we're 2-1 easily. It's week 3 FFS
Which is why this topic should be brought up after Tannehill has a chance to go through Cincy, St. Louis, Indy, Tennessess, and Buffalo. I suspect by November 16 we could have a QB with a 75-82 rating. If not, and the rating is still lower than 75, then I'll be in full agreement that it is possible, maybe even probable that Moore could have done better. But based on what I know of Moore: How he performed against the Jets. How he performed against other top Defenses. How he performed in his first few starts in that offense. How he performed in the preseason in this offense. I see no reason why his rating would be significantly higher than Tannehill's at this moment against Houston, NYJ, and OAK.
When the season ends, take a look at the records of the teams whose QB ratings are about 65 or below. I guarantee not a one of them will be a winning one.
I didn't expect a winning season. I expected them to be competitive, and show some growth in positions that are anchored by young players with some promise for the future.
And I didn't expect one either, but right now IMO it's looking like this team has the talent, other than at QB, to be competitive with any team in the league. I'm not saying it's a Super Bowl team by any means, but I think these players are correct if they think they can play with any team in the league if they can manage to get even just average QB play. If the only guy who can provide even just average QB play is on the bench, I suspect at some point they may become demoralized.
