Fiedler won because of the defense... Moore is not doing that.

Jay Feilder had a top 5 defense keeping his ass in the game.

And he had the league leading rusher in 2002. He had Lamar Thomas rushing for 1,000 yds, he had Ricky Williams.

Jay Feidler was the cancerous mole under Dave Wannestedt's porn 'stache.


I hate reading his name...and I hate typing it too.

No comparison.

dolphin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fiedler won because of the defense... Moore is not
> doing that.

Really? You're saying our Defense hasn't played great in the last 4 games? I think it has.

Damn. You don't like Jay Fiedler, do you. Guess I hit a sore spot there.

matt moore=jay feidler

Disagree, berk. Moore has more talent and less of a brain. Fiedler had more of a brain and less talent.

But YOUR point is that we need to draft a top QB, with which I now agree.

hooray!!

I changed the second Henne went down.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> But YOUR point is that we need to draft a top QB,
> with which I now agree.

I knew you'd see the light chren...Sooner or later.

LOL @ "Dave Wannestedt's porn 'stache."

IMO there’s a big difference between having a few decent outings when the games no longer matter and proving you can win when the pressure is on in big games when the season is on the line.

Moore is certainly a better player than Henne, but that by itself is an irrelevant, laughable conclusion. In addition, winning “junk games” is no to be confused with winning when it matters, and Moore hasn’t proven he’s that kind of pressure player. Granted, maybe he can be, but this entire team is a choke fest in so many ways.

Year in and ear out, this team lays down when the going gets tough and the competition in on their game. So BFD we won a few meaningless games, IMO that just makes the entire mess stink to the rotten core.

Like I said last year and blah blah – the basic architecture of this team is out of step with the current NFL game. And the “culture” is a mess with underachievers, injury prone BIG DUDES, and inconsistent sloppy players with poor fundamentals and an obvious lack of professionalism and/or dedication to being “winners.”

So there you have it. A half-ass roster chock full of holes, a daft coaching staff incapable of winning when it matters, and a front office dominated by a punk who wears his mommy’s panties to bed at night.

What’s needed is a HUGE overhaul with 35-40% roster turnover and a complete new staff and front office. After that, we have just have to get lucky and score a legit NFL GM and find a young, hungry, creative, intelligent HC.

Considering this owner, fulfilling the above may require divine intervention.

BNF.

I actually liked Jay Fiedler for what he was...a gritty talented athlete.

The problem is that Dave Wannstache saw him as a franchise QB and passed over opportunities to upgrade.

Wanny is the one I hate. I feel badly for Jay because all he did was play his journeyman best and Wanny kept him there years!

Maybe....we'll see.

but Moore the last 4 weeks is playing better than Fiedler ever played.

Moore doesn't have a 1,500 yd rusher forcing 8 in the box. How good could he be if he did?

realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I actually liked Jay Fiedler for what he was...a
> gritty talented athlete.
>
> The problem is that Dave Wannstache saw him as a
> franchise QB and passed over opportunities to
> upgrade.
>
>


That pretty much sums up my opinion. Especially after his thumb injury, Fiedler just couldn't throw the long ball well. But he was intelligent, determined, and a good leader overall. His victories against Oakland and Denver were especially memorable.

BNF, you are so spot on.

But, BNF, they may be "junk" games for us but they are very serious for our opponents who are not all "out of it" like we are.

Our 4-1 record is compiled against the Chiefs, Redskins, Bills, Cowboys and Raiders.

So although we may be playing loosy-goosy with nothing to lose, our opponents were not in our position.

For them it was and is "serious business."

Therefore, when you evaluate Moore's performance, you just cannot consider the pressure being off him but you have to consider the seriousness of the opposing teams and the gravity with which they have been treating the games.

Bottom lines, if his opponents are good enough to still be in the playoff hunt, then necessarily they are confronting him with stiff opposition and therefore you just can't chump off Moore's performance by noting that we are already "out of it."

Yeah, we may be "out of it" but the teams we have been playing "ain't" and therefore, Moore's performance is something to be considered.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2011 06:24PM by ChyrenB.

Chyren, I hadn't thought of it that way but it is so. Dallas, KC and Oakland were each riding multi-game win streaks when we played them.

Teams don’t get “UP” to play losers – hence the classic “trap games” of good teams playing junk and taking the junk lightly. The snare is also supported by the fact that sometimes the junk team gets a splinter up its collective ass and comes out playing inspired football – effectively ambushing the opponent.

Or, I could just say it this way, real WINNING TEAMS win games when the games matter. And just for the record, winning players do the same.

some of the talk out of the players mouths is really disconcerting. I think Dansby said "it doesn't matter how you start it's how you finish." Huh? I though the goal was to make the playoffs---when you start 0-7, it TOTALLY matters how you start.
That, plus the players talking about how great the team is, etc. I mean, I get it, I am glad they are having "fun" and feel confident, but it would be good to hear someone say that this isn't good enough, the goal is to win it all and they blew it by playing so bad early on---instead of being so self-satisfied with how the year has gone.
this ties in to BNF's point about how losers turn it on only when it no longer matters. I'd hate to have the team think it is "close" and just stick with the status quo---as in the wanny years....

They may not 'get up'....but good teams don't lose to bad teams. And bad teams usually don't dominate anybody.

We have been dominant in a couple games. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the games go.

Right, Realist.