I think we may have a good potential trade partner for Moore.
I'm watching the Broncos game and even though it's only one series, and not enough to judge by, Peyton Manning did not inspire a ton of confidence with his velocity. His one possession ended with an INT and most of his throws looked weaker than usual.
Haynie came in and was even worse, missing his throws and being soundly booed by the Bears crowd, for whom he lost four straight last year. I want a look at Osweiler before the game ends, but overall if I'm the Broncos front office I am starting to short list emergency QB trade targets. You don't want to leave that until opening weekend. It takes time to learn an offense.
Are there any other obvious teams who could use Moore, if we deal him?
(of course, we may keep him, or he may shine in preseason and start, and we try to trade a damaged-goods Garrard, but for now I am operating from the assumption Moore is the most likely guy to go)
Page 1 of 3
-
-
Maybe some Michael Vick insurance in Philly?
-
I feel like Philly could wait a few weeks on that. No urgency.
-
Matt Moore could lead a team like KC to the playoffs IMO
-
How about keeping him, just for insurance reason.
-
Matt Moore will be our starter this year, wait and see.
-
I'd be comfortable going with Garrard and Tannehill if it meant an extra third round pick or player this year. DE, WR, TE, OL would all be helpful depth.
Anyone in KC or Denver who are likely trade bait?ToddPhin likes this. -
Maybe. If he lights it up in preseason games. But he is already number two so he'd have to significantly outplay Garrard in the games.
-
-
Pretty soon we're gonna have to start worrying about the backup QB of the future, especially if we have to groom him.
I'd guess as early as the 3rd or 4th round in next year's draft if we can't pick another Matt Moore off someone else's roster. -
Unfortunately, I think so too. I think the whole putting Garrard ahead of him on the depth chart right now is really just a motivator for Moore. See if the coaches can get more out of him in practice, and push him to be more as a leader going into the season. I think the coaches see the team trusts him more, and he has more respect of any QB in that locker room right now because of how he finished last year, even though it wasnt too spectacular really. We won't start that debate though. I do agree with you though, I feel like he's going to be the starter. He'd really have to have an awful preseason for them to not name him the starter. Either that, or Tannehill really blows everyone away. Ideally, that's what I'd like to see.
-
So, let's say Garrard wins the job, and we trade Moore. And let's just say Tannehill isn't quite ready yet. Garrard's injuries problems creep up early in the year and he misses time. It sure would be nice to still have Matt Moore, wouldn't it?
I rather trade Garrard, to be honest. But let's just see how the preseason and rest of camp plays out. Moore may win the job, or Tannehill might.MrClean likes this. -
I really like all 3 of our QB's (sorry Devlin). Obviously Tannehill is the future and I'd love to see him win the job, but if he doesn't, I rather see Moore because of the work he did for us last season. No one should be handed the job based on past performances, but it definitely counts for something in the locker room.
-
might depend on how Devlin develops...I can't believe I just typed that
VanDolPhan, BlameItOnTheHenne, smahtaz and 1 other person like this. -
I'm just not confident Moore plays as well in this system. It's very fast paced, timing oriented and requires precision. That means a lot of quality practice reps to get in sync with receivers. If he practices poorly we'll be out of sync on game day and the offense sputters.
This isn't an offense built to run on improvising plays and running hot and cold, or just winging the ball from the ip... All sales I think that suit Moores disposition and approach.
Garrard seems the most consistent and predictable, so ideal for a precision execution offense.ToddPhin likes this. -
-
No... It doesn't.
And Sorry Pat Devlin may as well be our slogan this year, because we just need to realize he is not in the mix at all. -
-
I see your point, but Garrard is going to be rusty in live game action. All though, Pennington did pretty damn well in a similar position in 2008. We shall see.
Hopefully Tannehill blows them away anyway. That would be awesome.Bpk likes this. -
-
4th or more I'm game. He is the best backup qb in the game IMO, starter is a different story.
-
Why wouldn't just barely outplaying Garrard move him up? Philbin said the only reason they even made a published depth chart was because they were required to. The distance between Garrard and Moore is not significant, yet he needs to significantly play better to be the starter?
-
I really doubt we'd get a 3rd or better. What the heck is wrong with keeping our solid depth now that we finally have solid QB depth for the first time in over a decade?
I just don't get all the enthusiasm to trade Moore, and IMO any thought we'll get a 3rd or better is delusional.Pandarilla likes this. -
-
I was simply thinking it b/c he'll be a free agent next year and might prefer to sign with a team that provides a better chance to start. If that's the case, I might rather get something for him now while we can <if it's no lower than a 4th>.Bpk likes this.
-
IMO, if we trade either Moore or Garrard it sends a message that we chose to go into the season with a roster that is weaker at QB depth than was necessary, and therefore acquiescing that we do not consider ourselves seriously capable of competing for the playoffs. To me, that would be a negative to the veterans on the team especially those who are in a contract year and playing for a bigger contract next year.ToddPhin likes this.
-
That sounds plausible, MC.
I think it'll depend on how things shape up by end of preseason.
For instance, I think it's fair to say that Moore likely won't re-sign with Miami next year knowing he'll be a backup.
So, hypothetically, let's say Garrard is still the #1 by preseason's end, and a rookie like Jeff Fuller has a great preseason but is 6th on the depth chart.
If not trading Moore means having to sending Fuller to the PS and risk losing him, then I'd trade Moore b/c I simply couldn't risk taking away 2 potential weapons from Tannehill (Fuller & the pick for Moore).
However, if Moore beats out Garrard, I wouldn't stick with Garrard just to reap a draft pick for Moore.Bpk likes this. -
Because if he barely outplays hi m in games it's negated by him practicing significantly worse than Garrard.
-
Fair enough, maybe a 4th or 5th is what we'd be offered but in that case I agree, I'd rather keep him. The only exception is a player for player trade if we have apposition of need due to unforeseen circumstances (not saying it, don't wanna jinx us)
-
I agree that Moore is a poor fit for this system. It just doesn't fit his skill set. I don't think it's a coincidence that just about every camp report we see has Garrard as significantly better than Moore. That being said, the injury concern with Garrard is also significant. IMO it will depend on how RT looks. If he also passes Moore as some reports are hinting he may then I think you may see a trade. I don't think Moore would be happy as the third guy and he'd welcome that.
Bpk likes this. -
I wasn't suggesting we make sure we get rid of him before Friday. Obviously you see how he does in the game, but as I said... I'm not confident he'll be the best of the three QBs in an offense this timing and precision execution oriented. He doesn't strike me as consistent and attention to detail oriented compared two Garrard.
I would love to discover that he transforms on game day but this is a new offense for everyone and as such sync with the blocking and receivers is key... And where do you develop that if not in practice? Solely on game day? Maybe, but that kind of a cross your fingers approach.
Now it's not like he hasn't practiced at all, I mean he's there every day like Garrard, but reports are more frequently of him missing receivers than Garrard. -
Unless we do it for a player who can contribute. Perhaps a Dline, LB or some such that will rotate in and be on all special teams units. That might make more impact on wins than having two spare QBs.
-
Was it me, or did Garrard and his wife have the same speech dialect?...Kinda Bubba from Forest Gump yet subtler.
-
Yes. Unless they planned on giving Moore very few reps even as the primary backup. I'm sure he'd love that.
Then again, he's the kind of guy that doesn't seem to prioritize practice habits, and prefers to just 'show it on gameday' so maybe that's a great plan. Start Garrard, have Moore #2, but split most practice snaps between Garrard and Tannehill.
Obviously I'm kidding.
I'd like Tanny to get lots of practice to develop him this year and getting Moore or Garrard out of 2nd spot is necessary, assuming Tannehill EARNS that in preseason.ToddPhin likes this. -
Fully agree.
What do you think we should look for in exchange for a QB like Moore, assuming he isn't great or terrible in preseason? -
I'd be surprised if we can pull a 4th, more likely it would be a 5th. But trading him isn't about what we could get. It would be a about getting rid of a player who is no longer in our future plans. I like Moore. I was one of the few that applauded his signing last season. But I just don't think he'll fit in this system and I expect that by the end of the preseason he'll be passed by Garrard and RT who are better fits. At that point, he'll be unhappy and frustrated. We could keep him since he's signed for one more year, but that would be a disservice to him. The right thing to do would be to send him to a team where he has a chance to be the top guy.Bpk likes this.
Page 1 of 3