i don't get the names being thrown out on this thread. jake delhomme, greg camarillo? really? talk about 2 washed up players we don't need at all...

____________________________________________
It's never necessary to tell me that you think I'm right. We'll just... assume it.

Phinjim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > We should be focusing on developing our young
> wr's with that 6th wr spot guys (moore, gates,
> fuller, hogan, etc) not looking to recycle a guy
> who had 29 total receptions the last two seasons.
>
>
>
> Young uys arent showing much so far.




Wallace and Pruitt have shown plenty so far.

They were in the same boat last year as guys like Gates, fuller, cunningham, matthews and Hogan are in this year.

Moore has by all accounts had a good camp.

Fuller had 2 catches, Cunningham 3, Hogan had 1... and Matthews was very good on kick returns...all in very limited action on Friday night.

Not sure what you are expecting them to see from them at this point.

*****************************************************************


"The Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."


- Winston Curchill

Back to QBs. My first question is a real question and not an argument. That question is "How is everybody SO SURE that Garrard will only be out for a short time and not most of the season?"


Secondly if he is out for a substantial time, I say we go out and get a used car. We're not depending on Jake Delhomme to take us to the SuperBowl but we have a plan for Ryan Tannehill (I'm guessing) that does not include throwing him in as a starter until, at least, late in the season.

I don't want to just burn this season. I'd like to make the playoffs if possible. If Moore goes down, I don't want to throw Tannehill in or rely on Pat Devlin.

Get Delhomme or anybody else with starter experience if Garrard is out for the year or the long haul of this season.

Phinjim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DK -Now that Chad Johnson is probably gone they
> may want to look at the menu and consider bringing
> UFA Greg Camarillo back, since according to the
> list he's still available. He's no diva receiver
> and might fit well in the West Coast offense.
> That's IF he's able to still play.
>
>

I like Camarillo. He saved us from having the anti-perfect season.

He has a good attitude, good hanges. Bring him in.


> Not sure I agree about Jake Delhomme, but I like
> this idea.
>

I don't think we need another QB. Go into the season with Moore as the starter, RT as the backup and the third stringer on the roster.

With this loss of Garrard and 85, I think this will absolutely be a "rebuilding year".

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

Miami Dolphins. Always Perfect.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Back to QBs. My first question is a real question
> and not an argument. That question is "How is
> everybody SO SURE that Garrard will only be out
> for a short time and not most of the season?"
>
>

I'm not making that assumption. The knee injury is weird. I would think Garrard would want to get as much time behind center as he could, so this isn't just an elective scope. Something is wrong.


> Secondly if he is out for a substantial time, I
> say we go out and get a used car. We're not
> depending on Jake Delhomme to take us to the
> SuperBowl but we have a plan for Ryan Tannehill
> (I'm guessing) that does not include throwing him
> in as a starter until, at least, late in the
> season.
>

I wouldn't be surprised if we rent a vet for this reason.


> I don't want to just burn this season. I'd like
> to make the playoffs if possible. If Moore goes
> down, I don't want to throw Tannehill in or rely
> on Pat Devlin.
>

This depends on the O-Line. One thing that didn't happen against TB was a first team sack. If the O-Line is OK, then Moore, RT, and Delvin may be OK.

I'm not worried, because I have ZERO expectations for the year.

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

Miami Dolphins. Always Perfect.

Gerrard is a bust people. Iam glad he is gone. Iam not glad he is hurting or whatever but iam glad he is gone because he was cut from the jags for a reason.

He is injured prone.

And now Dannyboy.....OOPS i mean Ryan Tannehill is going to get more reps....And might have a chance to start with the first team in the next couple of weeks in pre season.

Just hoping the OL improves and we are able to run the ball well and watch Tannehill flourish.

BTW who would you rather have?

Ryan tannehill or Weede'n?

Just been sarcastic thats all.

GO PHINS.

I Nominate The Real Deal Tannehill For President.....The Next MONTANA-ELWAY-MARINO-AIKMAN- YOUNG-UNITAS Clone( in no particular order )

JC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> samsam3738 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > gerards career is over folks.
>
>
> Because of arthroscopic surgery? Maybe his career
> as a *starter* is over, but if he didn't rip up
> the ligaments in his knee he'll probably be back
> in one role or another.

Exactly...as a starter...And im glad this burden is over.

I never liked the idea of signing gerard in the first place.

The only positive thing i saw from the signing of gerard was that tannehill was going to have a savy veteran to learn from as opposed to matt moore.....Yes if healthy gerard is better than moore.

Its just great that tannehill is going to get more reps now.

I Nominate The Real Deal Tannehill For President.....The Next MONTANA-ELWAY-MARINO-AIKMAN- YOUNG-UNITAS Clone( in no particular order )

chrisnnavarre Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DolfanKing Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > DelHomme? Seriously?
>
>
> Yes, I don't like eating a sh*t sandwich either
> but if you look at the menu of available free
> agent veteran QBs that's what's out there, sh*t
> sandwiches. If Garrard is done they need to look
> at a veteran QB other than Matt Moore to stand
> behind the rookie this season. At least DelHomme
> has Super Bowl experience.
>
> Now that Chad Johnson is probably gone they may
> want to look at the menu and consider bringing UFA
> Greg Camarillo back, since according to the list
> he's still available. He's no diva receiver and
> might fit well in the West Coast offense. That's
> IF he's able to still play.

What an incredibly stupid post...one of many.

For all of you who missed it, M MOORE was rated the 12th best QB in the NFL last season, despite playing on a for-shit team, w/an unready HC, and w/COLUMBO-CAREY protecting (ha!) his right side. And in case you can't grasp the meaning of the number 12, it means that 20 other STARTING NFL QBs were worse than MOORE.

MOORE is no back-up QB: he's a legit NFL starting QB. DELHOMME??? Don't make me laugh. Talk about a "has-been", there's the textbook example, rivaled i/m/o only by GARRARD, a 34 year old QB who had surgery for a herniated disc not too long ago!!! DELHOMME? GARRARD? Really?

I liked Moore's performance last year but Gerrard was kicking his *ss before his surgery. I have not been impressed by what I have read about Moore in camp. I am sorry Gerrard is out really thought he was our best chance of beating some teams. I am willing to watch Tannehill figure things out this season.

Garrard was injury prone, He is a 3rd stringer for us, Ryan will be number 1

dolfan1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Garrard was injury prone, He is a 3rd stringer for
> us, Ryan will be number 1


Ryan Mallett?

____________________________________________
It's never necessary to tell me that you think I'm right. We'll just... assume it.

I agree with Philbin. He "loves" Matt Moore in terms of being a PRO and working within the TEAM framework – and the kid is a gamer. He shows up to practice with a smile, he works hard, contributes productively, and produces when it counts. What’s the “problem” with that? Simple answer – there ain’t one.

IMO anyone who craps on THAT or discounts a dude like Matt Moore doesn't have a clue as to what winning football teams are all about.

We're lucky to have a trio like Moore Thill and DG. If we were that deep elsewhere we’d be “The Balls” as they say in Yankee land.

Ha!

BNF.

Matt Moore said it best himself. he is a relief pitcher. Good at coming off the bench. We are good all around at QB.

.....................................................................................
“We have been taught to believe that negative equals realistic and positive equals unrealistic.”

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dolfan1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Garrard was injury prone, He is a 3rd stringer
> for
> > us, Ryan will be number 1
>
>
> Ryan Mallett?

You know, berk. I'm not kidding but when I saw it was dolfan1 posting the comment really I ASSUMED he WAS talking about Ryan Mallett until I read your comeback and had to think, "Hey, Tannehill's first name is Ryan too!"

But had it been any other poster, I would not have undergone that thought process.

Say Garrard is out 4 weeks but ok'd to play in the opener. Will he play without practicing?

Philbin will have a tough decision to make come week 1. So many scenarios that could play out...Sure looks like it screws up the plan for Garrard to start which was probably the easiest/best scenario.

1 Ryan Tannehill outplays Moore in practice and PS games.

2 Moore outplays Tannehill

3 Both are about equal.

So who do you start?

What if DG is out for 5 weeks?

I guess the answer will come next week before PS week 3. I think Tannehill has to clearly outplay Moore and look like a stud to win the week one start.

.....................................................................................
“We have been taught to believe that negative equals realistic and positive equals unrealistic.”

eesti Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Say Garrard is out 4 weeks but ok'd to play in the
> opener. Will he play without practicing?
>
> Philbin will have a tough decision to make come
> week 1. So many scenarios that could play
> out...Sure looks like it screws up the plan for
> Garrard to start which was probably the
> easiest/best scenario.
>
> 1 Ryan Tannehill outplays Moore in practice and PS
> games.
>
> 2 Moore outplays Tannehill
>
> 3 Both are about equal.
>
> So who do you start?
>
> What if DG is out for 5 weeks?
>
> I guess the answer will come next week before PS
> week 3. I think Tannehill has to clearly outplay
> Moore and look like a stud to win the week one
> start.

I wouldn't start Tannehill week one only to bench him for Garrard in week two.

If I start him over Moore it's because he outplayed him and Im going with him for the season.

If its close and I plan on going to GARRARD when he's ready then I play Moore for a week or two.

*****************************************************************


"The Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."


- Winston Curchill

I honestly think Gerrard's injury takes him out of the picture. tannehill gets the start. If he faulters Moore steps in but Tannehill will get back in there before the season ends.

Naw, I think the Truth has the order right. You go with Moore and only go to Tannehill if you have to. That way you go from 2 to 3. You don't go to 3 back to 2 if 3 screws up and then back to 3 if 2 screws up. When you put Tannehill in to start, it should be forever. You should not ever expect to have anyone replace him.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When you put Tannehill in to start, it
> should be forever. You should not ever expect to
> have anyone replace him.


That is quite true.

Some people think we should put him in now and play him forever. They have no concept of the risks involved.

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

Miami Dolphins. Always Perfect.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> berkeley223 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > dolfan1 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Garrard was injury prone, He is a 3rd
> stringer
> > for
> > > us, Ryan will be number 1
> >
> >
> > Ryan Mallett?
>
> You know, berk. I'm not kidding but when I saw it
> was dolfan1 posting the comment really I ASSUMED
> he WAS talking about Ryan Mallett until I read
> your comeback and had to think, "Hey, Tannehill's
> first name is Ryan too!"
>
> But had it been any other poster, I would not have
> undergone that thought process.


You just are ignorant

Tannehill gets the start as I thought. Its his job to lose.

Most likely, dolfan1, that I am. Everybody is ignorant (meaning lack of knowledge) about something, dolfan1. We are all "ignorant" to one extent or another.

However to be a Patsie fan who wastes his time posting on another team's chatboard just to try to demoralize their fans, fans that don't control the team in even the most minute way, now that is "dumb." And there's only one way to take that word. And I'll throw in "juvenile" as well.

But it seems that "ouch" I got a reaction out of you. Usually we don't. You just laught it off. Whatsamatter You? Your Patsies fighting about Giselle and Welker????

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most likely, dolfan1, that I am. Everybody is
> ignorant (meaning lack of knowledge) about
> something, dolfan1. We are all "ignorant" to one
> extent or another.

In dolfan1s case......He is antiknowlegable about everything dolphins related.

>
> However to be a Patsie fan who wastes his time
> posting on another team's chatboard just to try to
> demoralize their fans, fans that don't control the
> team in even the most minute way, now that is
> "dumb." And there's only one way to take that
> word. And I'll throw in "juvenile" as well.

He cant be over 15. Mimas basement is where he does all his postings. Might be a she though.

I Nominate The Real Deal Tannehill For President.....The Next MONTANA-ELWAY-MARINO-AIKMAN- YOUNG-UNITAS Clone( in no particular order )

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most likely, dolfan1, that I am. Everybody is
> ignorant (meaning lack of knowledge) about
> something, dolfan1. We are all "ignorant" to one
> extent or another.
>
> However to be a Patsie fan who wastes his time
> posting on another team's chatboard just to try to
> demoralize their fans, fans that don't control the
> team in even the most minute way, now that is
> "dumb." And there's only one way to take that
> word. And I'll throw in "juvenile" as well.
>
> But it seems that "ouch" I got a reaction out of
> you. Usually we don't. You just laught it off.
> Whatsamatter You? Your Patsies fighting about
> Giselle and Welker????


He's not a Patsie fan, for the millionth time.

LOL. If he ain't, then he's the next best thing.

I mean, I know people have accused DolfanKing of being negative but dolfanking is a Cheerleader in comparison. [footnote]. Why, Dolfan1 has once even posted that the team should be disbanned.

He, at the same time, is always praising the Patsies for what they have.

Like I said, if not then the next best thing.

[footnote: I think DolfanKing is a great fan of the team that, just like me, has a different opinion on how the team should be run.]

mizzou15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tannehill gets the start as I thought. Its his job
> to lose.

Not really. They are trying to get him reps against a first team D to evaluate him. The starter next week has a leg up, and by the looks of RTs first quarter. He isn't going into the season as the starting QB.

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

Miami Dolphins. Always Perfect.

Behind the OL... No way you throw in a rookie with NO WRs to throw to?

OMG. Make it stop,