Matt Moore's Most Recent Season as a Starter | Will He Start this Week?

He's not starting. It's still Tannehill's team. The coaches are trying to motivate him and light a fire under his ass.

Matt Moore was not very productive as a starter...that's why he's not starting now. He's a journeyman QB and should be treated as such. It's time to either prove, once and forall that Tanny is not who we thought he'd be or prove that he is...MM is injury protection only.

Gee couldnt see this one coming

no desire to see Moore start at QB. absolute zero desire.

No trolling rules on this forum, eh?

Although it has not gone well I have to think they have let Tannehill start this week.If he can't do it they all leave anyway next year.

If Tannehill is terrible against Oakland IMO you give him the bye week and the next game. If he still shows no improvement at all, I think it may be time to move on. If Matt Moore is worse or no better it will just help our draft position. Moore may not be better overall but there are certainly things he does better which may help this offense.

I'm still for Tanny starting. Im giving him this season, only because i've seen him play well before and its a new offense. Moore is not the answer but if tanny goes into halftime in london with 3 points, maybe bench him for a half to send a very loud message.

"Alex44 wrote:

If Tannehill is terrible against Oakland IMO you give him the bye week and the next game. If he still shows no improvement at all, I think it may be time to move on. If Matt Moore is worse or no better it will just help our draft position. Moore may not be better overall but there are certainly things he does better which may help this offense.

I wouldn't the Bye is the perfect time to make a change at Qb, if one is going to be made at all

I very much want Tannehill to succeed, hard to risk a season on him at this level of play

I think Tannehill is very aware of how he is playing. I don't think he needs to receive a message from the coaches.

I think he needs more time in the system and for the time being a very large emphasis on the running game. Get him going early by moving him around, bootlegs, keeper options....get the blood pumping and keep the early nerves at bay.

I think Moore ought to start and eventually will this season.

Tannehill has not been able to elevate his supporting cast. I believe Moore plays better with the same group.

"Muck wrote:

I think Moore ought to start and eventually will this season.

Tannehill has not been able to elevate his supporting cast. I believe Moore plays better with the same group.

Agreed. Moore is solid but unspectacular, which would be a step up from what we've witnessed so far this year from Tannehill.

"Muck wrote:

I think Moore ought to start and eventually will this season.

Tannehill has not been able to elevate his supporting cast. I believe Moore plays better with the same group.

Agreed, though the supporting cast certainly hasn't done anything to elevate Tannehill.

They lead the league in drops, can't create separation and are the worst in the NFL at drawing PI.

Not sure how Moore alleviates that...

"padre31 wrote:

I wouldn't the Bye is the perfect time to make a change at Qb, if one is going to be made at all

I very much want Tannehill to succeed, hard to risk a season on him at this level of play

Hard to risk a season on any of these bums

Moore isnt the answer and its clear we are going nowhere with these coaches so might as well play every young player and find out is a keeper and who isnt and then start planning the offseason and what coach we want to replace Philbin

"HardKoreXXX wrote:

Agreed, though the supporting cast certainly hasn't done anything to elevate Tannehill.

They lead the league in drops, can't create separation and are the worst in the NFL at drawing PI.

Not sure how Moore alleviates that...

I think Hartline and Gibson lost a step with their leg injuries.

"Serpico Jones wrote:

I think Hartline and Gibson lost a step with their leg injuries.

Yup, which is why before the season I thought one or both shouldve been cut/traded. You're gonna see it happen next year anyway. Sell high. Then Kelvin Benjamin was there for the taking.

I'm not a GM though.

"HardKoreXXX wrote:

Yup, which is why before the season I thought one or both shouldve been cut/traded. You're gonna see it happen next year anyway. Sell high. Then Kelvin Benjamin was there for the taking.

I'm not a GM though.

I think they should give Rishard Matthews some more playing time.

"HardKoreXXX wrote:

Agreed, though the supporting cast certainly hasn't done anything to elevate Tannehill.

They lead the league in drops, can't create separation and are the worst in the NFL at drawing PI.

Not sure how Moore alleviates that...

We've got one guy that creates gobs of separation.

When he's creating it over the top, I think Moore connects on those shots more often than Tannehill. And that, in turn, creates space in the intermediate area for those guys with lesser separation skills. Moore attacks the middle of the field and also realistically puts the fade back into the playbook.

I just think guys would rally behind Moore. Not expecting a wildfire. Just a spark. Sometimes that's all you need. Mike Wallace talks about the team's lack of intensity. When good things start happening, guys elevate their game. Witness the 3rd quarter of the Pats game. Guys were out of their minds. Imagine if we (finally) connect on a bomb to Wallace. At home? The roof would come off.

I think Moore is more capable of providing sparks and capitalizing on big play opportunities. He plays unafraid. That carries more risk but also more reward. This team is too talented to be struggling this badly IMO.

"Muck wrote:

We've got one guy that creates gobs of separation.

When he's creating it over the top, I think Moore connects on those shots more often than Tannehill. And that, in turn, creates space in the intermediate area for those guys with lesser separation skills. Moore attacks the middle of the field and also realistically puts the fade back into the playbook.

I just think guys would rally behind Moore. Not expecting a wildfire. Just a spark. Sometimes that's all you need. Mike Wallace talks about the team's lack of intensity. When good things start happening, guys elevate their game. Witness the 3rd quarter of the Pats game. Guys were out of their minds. Imagine if we (finally) connect on a bomb to Wallace. At home? The roof would come off.

I think Moore is more capable of providing sparks and capitalizing on big play opportunities. He plays unafraid. That carries more risk but also more reward. This team is too talented to be struggling this badly IMO.

I dunno. Personally I think the whole "spark" thing is overstated. Maybe Moore wins a game against a bad team, but then what? Does he carry that through the rest of the season and to a playoff appearance?

That's the problem with making a change; it's short-sighted. ESPECIALLY when that change involves inserting a career backup.

Honestly, I don't think the team was planning on starting Moore this week until Philbin blundered at the press conference and let a little too much slip out. They are unhappy with the offense as a unit and changes have to be made though, so we may see Moore sooner rather than later.

While he's definitely not a long-term answer, neither was Pennington during our 11-5 season or Moore's last starts going 6-3. Nobody was screaming for those QB's heads when they were winning, and that's the stat everyone keeps overlooking. Our last QB with a winning record is sitting on the bench behind a QB that's ranked bottom 3 of the entire league.

Everyone loves the backup QB until he's no longer the backup.

"Muck wrote:

We've got one guy that creates gobs of separation.

When he's creating it over the top, I think Moore connects on those shots more often than Tannehill. And that, in turn, creates space in the intermediate area for those guys with lesser separation skills. Moore attacks the middle of the field and also realistically puts the fade back into the playbook.

I just think guys would rally behind Moore. Not expecting a wildfire. Just a spark. Sometimes that's all you need. Mike Wallace talks about the team's lack of intensity. When good things start happening, guys elevate their game. Witness the 3rd quarter of the Pats game. Guys were out of their minds. Imagine if we (finally) connect on a bomb to Wallace. At home? The roof would come off.

I think Moore is more capable of providing sparks and capitalizing on big play opportunities. He plays unafraid. That carries more risk but also more reward. This team is too talented to be struggling this badly IMO.

This I think is the key, because if you can't hit on the longball with at least some regularity, defenses shrink down into the short area, which makes them play better against the dink-and-dunk, as well as against the run game. At that point you have no offense. There has to be a QB out there who poses at least the threat of that game.

Well, Muck is right, Tannehill is not elevating anyone or anything atm, when the Henne argument starts being made "oh, it's the Wr's!" the outline of the writing on the wall becomes a bit more legible.

I do think Lazor has to take some of the focus off of Tannehill and run the ball a bit more, tho the offense itself is one where the run works off of the pass

"KeyFin wrote:

Honestly, I don't think the team was planning on starting Moore this week until Philbin blundered at the press conference and let a little too much slip out. They are unhappy with the offense as a unit and changes have to be made though, so we may see Moore sooner rather than later.

While he's definitely not a long-term answer, neither was Pennington during our 11-5 season or Moore's last starts going 6-3. Nobody was screaming for those QB's heads when they were winning, and that's the stat everyone keeps overlooking. Our last QB with a winning record is sitting on the bench behind a QB that's ranked bottom 3 of the entire league.

I think people don't want Moore to start because he took us out of the suck for Luck.