I think it makes sense to extend Moore for another season. First, it probably wouldn't cost too much. Second, I don't like having both our vet QBs on the final year of their deal, puts way to much pressure on RT to HAVE to be the week 1 starter in year 2. Now we all hope he will be regardless, but it's good to have a contingency plan. Third, if Moore has an excellent year, we have the ability to trade him, since teams know he won't be a FA next year. This is way to proactive for this team to consider so it probably will never happen, but I think it should.

thoughts?

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

I think it's a good idea to extend Moore or Garrard depending on who wins the job and how well they are performing in the early stages of the season. It's too early to extend either one, a) have to make sure Garrard is healthy and b) have to see how Moore adapts to our offense.

Once they are confident Garrard is healthy enough, Moore will be traded. His skills do not fit the WCO, and his presence means reduced practice time for Tannehill. And they need the salary cap relief.

I have serious doubts if Moore is even on the team this year, Garrard could beat him out and I see the loser getting cut, isn't Moore set to make 6 mil this year? That'd be a nice chunk of change to put down on Wake or Long.

I agree with trading or cutting Moore if he doesn't look cut out for this offense in OTA's and Garrard is healthy. But, can you imagine the media firestorm if we trade away or cut our surprisingly productive QB from last year? They would have a field day dumping on the "incompetence" of Ireland.

dolphin1423 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with trading or cutting Moore if he
> doesn't look cut out for this offense in OTA's and
> Garrard is healthy. But, can you imagine the
> media firestorm if we trade away or cut our
> surprisingly productive QB from last year? They
> would have a field day dumping on the
> "incompetence" of Ireland.


That's why Ireland should never read the papers or blogs, keeping Moore around for a 6 mil insurance policy is bad buisness with todays CBA. Hopefully like d-mark said, we can get something for him.

I don't think it's a bad idea but I see a few potential problems with it:

1- if you are Matt Moore why would you signa 1 year extension? You had a good year last year might start this year. You could be Matt Flynn on the free agent market next off season.

2- what if Tannehill wins the starting job next year? You just threw away cap space on a guy who could be 3rd on the depth chart.

Best case scenario for us is Tannehill impresses through the end of camp, garrard wins the starting job and somebody loses their starting qb in camp and wants Moore for a 2nd round pick.

I think I'd wait on any extension offer until we see what garrard brings to the table.

Moore and Gerrard are way to similar in abilities for one to outshine the other by very much. The slight edge to Moore b/c of recent success and familiarity with our offensive players.

They have similar games. Both fairly mobile with a decent TD to Int ration and QB rating just under 90. Similar numbers when it comes to TD's and ints per season and yards. Both benefitted from offenses known for having smash mouth successful running games.

I think RT will benefit more from Gerrard just based on his years of experience.

.....................................................................................
“I'm here" You're welcome!" - Kenny Powers

eesti Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Moore and Gerrard are way to similar in abilities
> for one to outshine the other by very much. The
> slight edge to Moore b/c of recent success and
> familiarity with our offensive players.

I agree. My only concern is his health.

Best scenario for us is if garrard plays well enough to start. Tannehill plays well enough to be the backup and we are able to trade Moore for a draft pick or two.

It's probably too much to hope for, but you never know.

I don't know. I am sure we can extend Moore to a cap friendly deal which pays him additional up front money.
if not then we need to trade him and get value in return. who knows if gerrard can even stay healthy though. it's risky, I'd rather keep him-- worst case scenario is Moore is a good backup next year for RT.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Too early for different reason, and I'm not assuming Morre can't do the WCO thing. Re-sign him or Garrard after training camp ... we'll need a backup even when RT takes the reighs.

Cut Gerrard instead of Mat Moore

I don't think that there is much of a chance that either

1) We give up Moore

or

2) that Garrard beats him out.


Those who don't agree basically take that position because they cannot see why, otherwise, we got Garrard in the first place.

I have a two word answer to that question. Pat Devlin.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think that there is much of a chance that
> either
>
> 1) We give up Moore
>
> or
>
> 2) that Garrard beats him out.
>
>
> Those who don't agree basically take that position
> because they cannot see why, otherwise, we got
> Garrard in the first place.
>
> I have a two word answer to that question. Pat
> Devlin.


I believe we got Garrard as veteran insurance in case Moore struggles in the WCO, which is very possible. Also, Garrard provided insurance in case we didn't land Tannyhill in the draft.

It's unlikely we keep Garrard and Moore because they would eat up too many reps that we need to give to Tannyhill. One will be gone by the season opener.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think that there is much of a chance that
> either
>
> 1) We give up Moore
>
> or
>
> 2) that Garrard beats him out.
>
>
> Those who don't agree basically take that position
> because they cannot see why, otherwise, we got
> Garrard in the first place.
>
> I have a two word answer to that question. Pat
> Devlin.

Matt Moore is not a quick decision maker. He holds on to the ball too long. His accuracy is inconsistent. He is very poor at sensing the pass rush, and he is not particularly good on the run. Moore was signed because of his familiarity with the New England offense that Daboll ran (and Moore was used to under Jeff Davidson in Carolina). He is not a good fit in the WCO. Garrard is a much more proven and consistent talent. He gets rid of the ball quickly, is more accurate, and is better with his mobility.

Moore is given way too much credit. We were 6-7 in the games where he was the primary QB. We did not beat a single team with a winning record. The defensive turnaround is the main reason we won those 6 games. He is a decent backup, but that is it. I really do believe he will be traded to a team in need of a backup. We have just enough money to sign our rookies, and not enough money to bring in any additional veterans (unless they take minimum deals), and not enough money to sign Cam Wake to an extension. The players that we would get the most cap savings from are:

Reggie Bush, $4.7M
Randy Starks, 3.8M
Richie Incognito, 2.7M
Anthony Fasano, 3.7M
Tony McDaniel, 3.0M
Matt Moore, 3.0M

So, any cap savings are going to come from that list of players. The only other way to significant savings would be to extend Dansby and give him more guaranteed money in future years. But, Dansby has no real incentive to give up the guaranteed $12M he gets this year. And I don't believe the Fins have any interest in extending Dansby, and in fact would love to unload him. If Garrard is healthy, Moore is the most expendable player on that list.

That's why I respect your opinion, Mark. You give facts that put the matter in the proper light.

Yeah, Moore will be gone either via trade or cut.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, Moore will be gone either via trade or cut.


I'm not sure how its going to play out.

The only way I see us keeping Moore and Garrard is if Tannehill shows nothing over the summer.

If Tannehill is going to be the number 3 QB and be inactive each week then there's room for the other two.

If tannehill shows he can handle the two then its unlikely we pay a lot of money for a 3rd string QB.

But I agree with you and Mark, if one of the vets is getting shown the door its Moore. He has trade value and the least experience in this system.

Yep.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

Sorry,,,,I completely disagree!

Garrard has been out of football for almost 2 years!
He might/could be damaged goods!

Why would you put your faith in garrard when u have an excelling qb in Moore...

Garrard will and should be dumped! Unless they want a 3rd qb for depth!

keep both, extend moore for 1 season.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

steviec13 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry,,,,I completely disagree!
>
> Garrard has been out of football for almost 2
> years!

Not true. He was released last year during the last week of the preseason in a salary cap saving move. He's been out of football for all of 7 months. And he was a Pro Bowl QB in 2010.

Garrard ws pretty bad last time he played, very Culpepper like when we got him. Moore is a better QB. If Egnew , Miller and a few WR become weapons, this could be interesting.If Garrard is are starter, we are going for Barkley!


Funny if you think of it, Marshall threw him under the bus at the pro bowl and the phins jettisoned the cancerous , ball droppin fool!

jlyell13 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Garrard ws pretty bad last time he played, very
> Culpepper like when we got him.

When he last played, Garrard completed 64.5% of his passes, with 23 TD and 15 INT, and a 90.8 passer rating. And he made the Pro Bowl. With basically no WR talent on his roster.

But Mark, one thing you did say has to be reviewed in context. You said that Moore went 6-7. True. But it was when the team was 0-3.

We lost the next 4 games but 3 of them by 10 points or less.

But then we went 6-3. With losses to Dallas, New England and Philadelphia. 3 points to New England, 1 point to Dallas and 16 points to the Eagles.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But Mark, one thing you did say has to be reviewed
> in context. You said that Moore went 6-7. True.
> But it was when the team was 0-3.
>
> We lost the next 4 games but 3 of them by 10
> points or less.
>
> But then we went 6-3. With losses to Dallas, New
> England and Philadelphia. 3 points to New England,
> 1 point to Dallas and 16 points to the Eagles.

Who did we beat? All teams who finished at .500 or below. In our 6 wins, the defense allowed 12 points per game. In our first 3 wins, the defense allowed a total of 20 points. There was a lot less to Matt Moore's play than meets the eye. We were 20th in the league in points scored. We were 6th in points allowed. We won 6 games because of our defense, not the offense. And we beat the weakest teams on our schedule.

It's way too early to determine which vet QB should stay or go.

They both still need to be thoroughly evaluated to see who actually performs better than the other with this offensive scheme. Preseason performance will most likely dictate that unless one of them totally stinks in training camp. It's not a given that the two vets will outperform the rookie either.