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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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...

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

It's not short-sighted in my view because regardless of who starts, we're going to be picking a QB in the 1st round next year. So you might as well go with the best man right now. And I think that's Matt Moore.

It's not just a 'spark' really. I think Moore is better suited to lead this team, this offense.

He may be considered a career backup, but what has Tannehill done to warrant 'starter' designation? Be given the job as a rookie? Granted, Moore is a notoriously poor practice player. But is that the major difference between the two players? Just 'not suck' in practice? Ryan is the superior physical talent but that isn't amounting to much right now. If all I can go on is recent performance, Moore performed better in preseason.

 

He beat out Matt Moore.

Also Moore's performance in preseason wasn't with starters or against starters.

 

I didn't feel like anybody really won or lost in 2011.

They were basically even, neither guy was good. Ryan knew the playbook. Both guys were behind David Garrard before he got hurt.

If you play well with an inferior supporting cast, how is that a demerit?

 

Starting Moore should signify to ownership that Philbin has failed at the development of his QB of choice in Ryan Tannehill. Which all but signals he should be let go at the end of the season. We know what Moore is. A Backup. We should be still finding out what Tannehill is only 3 games into him learning a new offense for the first time in his career.

Btw... I think threads simply posting a link only with no content of substance is incredibly useless.

 

Also keep in mind Hickey has no ties to T-hill or Philbin, which would make it easier to blow it all up like Ross should have done at the end of last season.

 

Wouldn't that be nice..rollout, bootlegs, a run up the gut for a first down, then followed by a fist pump in the middle of the field.

I've seen a few keeper options where he doesn't keep it.

 

People dont learn. Moore gets us to 8-8 and then what? Philbin stays.... common sense

 

Nah... nothing to do with it. Moore just isn't seen as a clear cut upgrade over Tannehill. The lingering memory of him is that when he came in last season against Buffalo, he had a chance to make something positive happen and instead went 6 attempts, 2 INTS... trying to force the ball downfield. He has had opportunities to improve and beat out Tannehill each season and hasn't done so.

I'm not opposed to a change as SOMETHING needs to happen to get these guys back on focus... Tannehill lacks certain tangibles, intangibles, and game instincts, but the drops are inexcusable and almost every time it seems as though the receivers are looking away as it happens. Footsteps?

 

8-8 SHOULD get Philbin fired. Inexcusable after all this time and with all the personnel decisions he has been involved in.

 

He had open field in front of him several times times against the Chiefs in which he could have ran for positive yards and 1st downs and instead opted to throw. If any of that is going to happen, Lazor will have to call it for him ahead of time. He simply isn't going to do it on his own.

 

Nope, I think someone has to get in his ***...like really get in there and shake some things up.

 

Think the word you're looking for is consistent. He wasn't consistent as a starter. He was however very productive in a handful of the games from that 11' season.

 

Maybe so, but that's kind of idiotic if you think about it. "Let's hate the guy who played too good and kept us from getting Andrew Luck. But since we can't have Luck, then let's start the young, inaccurate guy over the one who's already proven that he can win with this team."

 

OH, he was the thing people complain about Tannehill about?

 

Moore lost to both Tannehill and Garrard.

It is like saying, "he did well in Arena football."