Just doesn't make any sense to take the chance, even if Garrard is cleared by the doctors. Devlin is playing good. Albeit it is against inferior competition, the kid looks nice.

Moreover, why dump him for someone who couldn't make the Bears squad.

Of course, Ireland is in charge of personnel so hold on to your hats.

I think Devlin is ready for the regular roster. If we take Blanchard, it will be for the practice squad.

chren we are a week away and gerard cant even jog....he cannot put pressure on his knee.

IMO he is done.

I think Garrard will be cut, but there is a chance, that he will be resigned if and when he heals up. If Garrard is on the opening day roster his full salary is guaranteed. I am imagine he couldnt just be cut, some type of injury settlement might have to take place. I am not entirely clear about this... I think the contract Garrard signed is over valued for a guy that might not come back...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

It was said in at least one article I read that Matt Blanchard is just being used to throw to receivers.

Not sure I've ever heard of that before but that's what the article said.

Seems like one of our existing QBs could handle the workload for the tryouts, but maybe they are busy doing other preparations.

If they keep gerard and he makes team injured and all.....you have to pay him guaranteed money? While injured?

No wonder this team is so messed up salary cap wise....

For all the mistakes this organization has made in the past i still dont think they are that dumb.

And yes I wish Ryan Tannehill had a mentor or a veteran qb who could help him................

There is nothing that can be more valuable than that.

Montana and young?

samsam3738 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> chren we are a week away and gerard cant even
> jog....he cannot put pressure on his knee.
>
> IMO he is done.


You must have mis-read me. You are saying exactly what I suggest we do.

You didn't intend it, SamSam, but you had me spitting coffee and ROTFLMAO with your ending sentence, "For all the mistakes this organization has made in the past I still dont think they are that dumb."

But then I have a wicked sense of humor.

Pat Devlin might take the 2nd. I am no longer a believer in Moore. I might cut Moore and keep Gerrard just to tutor Tanne. Moore has stunk this preseason.

Let the record show i didnt say anybody here was dumb........LOL


Just this dumb phins management and organization. haha

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> samsam3738 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > chren we are a week away and gerard cant even
> > jog....he cannot put pressure on his knee.
> >
> > IMO he is done.
>
>
> You must have mis-read me. You are saying exactly
> what I suggest we do.

Yeah i did my bad.

mizzou15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pat Devlin might take the 2nd. I am no longer a
> believer in Moore. I might cut Moore and keep
> Gerrard just to tutor Tanne. Moore has stunk this
> preseason.


I disagree with cutting Moore. Not saying anything about your suggestion that Pat Devlin be kept or even be no. 2.

You have to remember Moore is playing behind an extremely poor line.

In fact, I have made the radical suggestion that with the exception of Pouncey and Long, the rest of the line SHOULD be made up of those rookies.

Don't be so hard on Moore. He doesn't have the mobility of Tannehill or Devlin but he neither sucks at passing nor decision making.

And he is a far better mentor. You only have to watch Hard Knocks to see that he is the most affable guy on the team. He is buddies with everyone and showed real class throughout the process when he was put behind, successively, Garrard and then Tannehill.

I can't believe it would be a better move to have a Garrard on injured reserve on the sidelines coaching Tannehill rather than a Moore suited up and ready to go.

I think we shouldnt cut moore either....

I think moore was playing behind 2nd or 3rd string OL...

tannehill didnt looked too good either behind them last week when he played like almost 3 quarters. He got sacked and hurried quite a few times.

EXACTLY!

-Tannehill 1st rd pick, age 24, Healthy
-Moore NFL Veteran who has started for two teams, age 28, Healthy
-Devlin Second year in NFL, age 24, healthy
-Garradrd age 35, hasn't played in over a year and a half, rehabbing from second major surgery in less than a year.

Moore may not be a barn burner but he has leadership, is a decent passer and (most of the time) makes good decisions. Size and strength keep him from being a solid starter. IMO that's EXACTLY the kind of guy you want as a backup. If our 'rebuilding' team chooses Garrard over Moore OR Devlin...well that may tell us ALOT.

Wow. Does anyone here really have to read suff like that to realize he's NOT gonna make the team????

Really???????????????

I catch your irony, BNF.

Didn't want him in the first place...I dont know why we got him.

Just football talent you are probably right, Mark. But what about susceptibility to injury. I mean, I know we ALL are including non-football players but what if we cut Moore, who is picked up, and Garrard goes down while walking across the street?

It's not a question of football skills but the injury angle. And it's not even a question of whether he's healed, it's ALSO a question of when will the NEXT injury come.

Now you could say that about anybody but the "I TOLD YOU SO" will be a lot louder when it comes to him. I say keep Matt Moore while we can.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just football talent you are probably right, Mark.
> But what about susceptibility to injury. I mean,
> I know we ALL are including non-football players
> but what if we cut Moore, who is picked up, and
> Garrard goes down while walking across the
> street?
>
> It's not a question of football skills but the
> injury angle. And it's not even a question of
> whether he's healed, it's ALSO a question of when
> will the NEXT injury come.
>
> Now you could say that about anybody but the "I
> TOLD YOU SO" will be a lot louder when it comes to
> him. I say keep Matt Moore while we can.

Some of it depends on how much faith they have in Pat Devlin as the #3. And some of it depends on who they think is more valuable in the QB meeting room, Moore or Garrard. And some of it depends on who has more trade value.

If they are comfortable that Devlin can play, and that Garrard will be healthy enough to play in a week or two, and that Garrard is better in the meeting room, and they could get a 4th rd pick for Moore, I think they would do it.

When all 3 QBs were healthy, Moore was clearly running 3rd. And he didn't play well enough in the preseason to ease any concerns about his fit in the WCO.

And, they only save $2.3M by cutting Garrard, but they save $3.0M by cutting/trading Moore.

Yeah, Mark but your post is very heavy on who plays better, who's a better WCO coach for RT, and very light on the injury risk.

That's predominant with me, ole boy. If Tannehill goes down, and Garrard is out for injury, then we're really relying on Pat Devlin. Had we cut Garrard instead of getting rid of Moore, we'd have two healthy back ups to Tannehill.

I think like a banker, not like a gambler.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, Mark but your post is very heavy on who
> plays better, who's a better WCO coach for RT, and
> very light on the injury risk.
>
> That's predominant with me, ole boy. If Tannehill
> goes down, and Garrard is out for injury, then
> we're really relying on Pat Devlin. Had we cut
> Garrard instead of getting rid of Moore, we'd have
> two healthy back ups to Tannehill.
>
> I think like a banker, not like a gambler.

So you would rather have a worse player, because he might be more durable? Garrard had minor knee surgery, a scope that guys get done all the time.

If we let Garrard go, he may very likely be the starting QB for the Arizona Cardinals.