I'm not sure Tannehill could've done much better last night, unless the gameplan would've called for a great deal more passing that resulted in just as good a performance on Tannehill's part with that degree of an offensive imbalance. If the gameplan would've called for just as much offensive balance with Tannehill, it would've been difficult for him to play any better than Moore. The difficulty in making this evaluation of Moore versus Tannehill is that neither of them is the kind of game-winning QB that has proven he can carry a team. Both are largely game manager types, and so when the game plays out like it did last night, which involved a game manager role for Moore in which he played very well, it's difficult to distinguish Tannehill from him. Imagine for example if we were comparing Matt Moore's performance last night, within a game manager role, to the typical Aaron Rodgers (or Dan Marino) type game where the team is down relatively big on the scoreboard and he brings them back with his arm and mobility. Then obviously the distinction between Moore and Rodgers would be readily apparent (the game manager versus the game-winner). It's nowhere near as apparent when you're comparing Moore to Tannehill (both are game managers), and that's what people seem to be tuning in to here.