ps- and any advantage you think Gaffney gave to Moore performing better, is surely taken away by the amount of reps RT has taken in comparison to Moore. Philbin said Moore maybe got ten reps total all 2 weeks with the first team prior to the jets game...
Add that with the fact RT has over 3 years in this offensive system while Moore has a few months... I think it is hard to say Moore was in the advantage in any way, but maybe I am wrong.

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

Truth- I am sorry my opinions and facts dont live up to your standards... I will try harder....lol... RT is our future, our starter, Moore played well yesterday... Why does it have to be any more then that? That is all I have said from the get go. A&O made a statement and I said it was up for debate and then provided the facts why I thought it was up for debate... Not sure why you are so dramatic about what I said but to each his own, maybe it is the pressure change up north..

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2012 01:42PM by Crowder52.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ps- and any advantage you think Gaffney gave to
> Moore performing better, is surely taken away by
> the amount of reps RT has taken in comparison to
> Moore. Philbin said Moore maybe got ten reps total
> all 2 weeks with the first team prior to the jets
> game...

Gaffney makes the WHOLE offense better. He hadn't played before this week.

Every QB who played yesterday was going to benefit from Gaffney and a more wide open offense.

Tannehill got to try 5 pass attempts with Gaffney available to play (not sure he was even on the field for any of them).

Moore threw 19 passes under the same circumstances. I'll leave it to you to figure out who benefited more from Gaffney's presence and the 3/4 wr sets we were able to employ.


Heck, wasn't there even a thread talking about our using an empty backfield on Moore's TD pass?

How many times, if ever, have we run that formation from a two WR set?

And yes...Gaffney was an important part of that play. He ran the underneath in route that drew the defense up and opened Fasano up.



> Add that with the fact RT has over 3 years in this
> offensive system while Moore has a few months...
> I think it is hard to say Moore was in the
> advantage in any way, but maybe I am wrong.


haha. Moore has 6 years of experience reading NFL defenses and he's played in that building before. I suppose that counts for nothing.

Sure, RT is more familiar with the 65% of the offense that Sherman brought from Texas A&M. So what?

Moore is a seasoned vet with some ability. He's had 9 months to learn the new offense. You make it sound like they signed him off the street on Friday.

Like I said in another post. Moore played really well. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Tannehill's production to date.

Its incredible to me that some of you...some of the same people who said Tannehill would need 2 years on the bench to be ready to play in the NFL (in THIS offense)... are now belittling his progress and production by implying that his development is now in someway DUE to his familiarity with Sherman's offense.

If someone had told me it was possible to be completely wrong arguing both sides of a point I'd have said "I'd need to see it to believe it."

You've made me a believer.

It seems some people like to build things up so big before they get there and then can't take anyones point of view that doesnt add to this mythical status they have built up in their minds... The myth is better then the reality... So keep reality they hell way from here... To each their own...

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2012 02:08PM by Crowder52.

Like I said before..........WELCOME BACK "THE TRUTH"

Like I said before...........WELCOME BACK TRUTH!

Gaffney made the whole offense better? LMAO... THe guy caught one pass..... Thats right one pass... How many snaps do you think he was actually on the field? But he somehow transformed the whole offense to make it easier on Moore then Tannehill.... LMAO... Like I said the Myth is always better then reality..... one pass ..smh

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2012 02:12PM by Crowder52.

The Truth is the real deal!!

To be honest RT had 5 passes. That's it. It's not even comparable to compare Moore and RT yesterday.

Tannehill has outplayed Moore from day 1 he stepped on the practice field, if he hasn't, Moore would be the starter and Tannehill would be the backup.

But it's not that way. You and DK can keep on talking rubbish, but that's all it is..... Rubbish. It amounts to nothing.

Tannehill is our starter and it will remain that way for the next decade.

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

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

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gaffney made the whole offense better, LMAO. THe
> guy caught one pass..... Thats right one pass...
> How many snaps do you think he was actually on the
> field? But he somehow transformed the whole
> offense to make it easier on Moore then
> Tannehill.... LMAO... Like I said the Myth is
> always better then reality..... one pass ..smh


I read he was on the filed for something like 15 or maybe it was 19 plays. That's 1/4 to 1/3 of our offensive snaps.

If you don't think having a legitimate receiving threat out there, who can get open and who can catch, makes it easier for hartline and Bess to get open then I don't know what to say.

If that's your contention, and its right, then we might as well have kept Naanee...right? What's the difference?



Seriously, if you don't know that 3 WR's sets and 4 wr sets are staples of the west coast offense...that they spread out defenses and open up passing lanes. If you don't understand that legitimate WR's demand attention from DB's who can't cheat to shut down other areas of the field like they can when the scrub they are covering poses no threat to make a play...even one play...then what are we talking about?

I know you love to argue with me for the sake of arguing but are you seriously going to suggest that having a former 1,000yard WR on the field is no different for the rest of the offense than having Naanee, or Armstrong, or matthews, or clay or Javorskie?

Really?

You do realize Gaffney dropped a pass that SHerman said could have been a TD... Gaffney blocked well so that is a positive..... But Gaffney's contribution was hardly critical as the mythical's would like to push..lol.. Marlon Moore played just as well... I just think Matt Moore spread the ball out well. Fasano, Moore, Bess, Hartline and Gaffney were all involved a solid sign of how well Moore played... But of course since RT didnt have Gaffney his play is the myth to defend your weak position...

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

Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Truth is the real deal!!
>
> To be honest RT had 5 passes. That's it. It's not
> even comparable to compare Moore and RT
> yesterday.
>
> Tannehill has outplayed Moore from day 1 he
> stepped on the practice field, if he hasn't, Moore
> would be the starter and Tannehill would be the
> backup.
>
> But it's not that way. You and DK can keep on
> talking rubbish, but that's all it is.....
> Rubbish. It amounts to nothing.
>
> Tannehill is our starter and it will remain that
> way for the next decade.


I like Tannehill as much as the next guy but crowder/DK, in their perverse way, are right about one thing....he has a ways to develop before he's as good as we all hope he will be.

There are no guarantees he reaches that elite level but there are ZERO reasons right now not to project him getting there other than the fact that he hasn't gotten there yet.

if that's not reason for some optimism, even excessive optimism in some cases, why are we rooting for this team?

I am fine with Tannehill, I am just not fine with overstating his achievements. I think Moore did well, I am fine with that... I think our success is the team and coach more then RT solving all of our problems.. A sign of a good team is when a crucial starter gets knocked out and the guy behind him steps up and the team doesnt miss a beat... This team success is more then RT, it is the team and Matt Moore and the rest of the guys proved that this weekend...

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2012 03:03PM by Crowder52.

THE Truth Wrote:

> The only guy I know who didn't think Tannehill
> would spend at LEAST one full year on the bench
> was Dolphinmark. Most of you who panned the pick
> thought it would be TWO years (or more) before he
> was ready to contribute.
>

Hey, thanks for remembering!

THE Truth Wrote:

> The only guy I know who didn't think Tannehill
> would spend at LEAST one full year on the bench
> was Dolphinmark.
>

Hey, thanks for remembering!

You can say that again

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You do realize Gaffney dropped a pass that SHerman
> said could have been a TD...

Well there you have it, he dropped a pass so he's the same as Naanee.


> Gaffney blocked well
> so that is a positive..... But Gaffney's
> contribution was hardly critical as the mythical's
> would like to push..lol.. Marlon Moore played just
> as well... I just think Matt Moore spread the ball
> out well. Fasano, Moore, Bess, Hartline and
> Gaffney were all involved a solid sign of how well
> Moore played... But of course since RT didnt have
> Gaffney his play is the myth to defend your weak
> position...

Dude. Moore completed 11 passes. He played a good game. Managed it well. He didn't set the world on fire.

But that doesn't change the fact that having a healthy Gaffney on the field made his job easier. Nor does it change the fact that RT hasn't had that luxury yet so comparing the production of the two isn't exactly apples to apples.

If you don't see what a healthy, experienced 3rd WR does to open up any offense, let alone a west coast offense then we just aren't talking the same language.

YOu do realize we have a third WR named Marlon Moore that has been playing since Naanee was cut..... He caught a pretty impressive pass on sunday.. He also caught a TD pass from Tannehill in our last game against the Rams as the number 3 WR...

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2012 03:20PM by Crowder52.

dolfanmark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
>
> > The only guy I know who didn't think Tannehill
> > would spend at LEAST one full year on the bench
> > was Dolphinmark. Most of you who panned the
> pick
> > thought it would be TWO years (or more) before
> he
> > was ready to contribute.
> >
>
> Hey, thanks for remembering!

You do realize Marlon Moore caught 3 passes for 47 yards for a TD in one game his first real chance in the offense this year last game against the Rams and actual has 83 yards for the season, in really only the last 2 games. Since your boy Naanee was cut and Moore was promoted to the number 3 position he has made some plays with a 29 and 37 yard completions in the last 2 games...
You are trying to sell me Gaffney's one completion changed our offense but Moore's contributions are minimal...lol..ok.. at least Marlon Moore caught a TD...lo... I guess that is part of the mythical approach towards backing ones theory...

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2012 03:44PM by Crowder52.

Where Tannehill is the best QB in the league against the blitz....

Matt Moore is statistically the worst.


- Allowed a league high 27.3% of pressure to turn to sacks

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

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

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You do realize Marlon Moore caught 3 passes for 47
> yards for a TD in one game his first real chance
> in the offense this year last game against the
> Rams and actual has 83 yards for the season, in
> really only the last 2 games.

You do realize that you just regurgitated the same information I posted don't you?

That You just agreed with me that Moore hadn't been involved in the offense in the first 5 games...don't you?



> Since your boy
> Naanee was cut and Moore was promoted to the
> number 3 position he has made some plays with a 29
> and 37 yard completions in the last 2 games...


I have been away to long. You do realize that my references to Naanee...all references to Naanee...are sarcastic in nature.... That he was such an EPIC failure here in every conceivable way that his presence in the discussion is merely to highlight how much better the WR's we had the last two games are than the ones we used the first 5....right?



> You are trying to sell me Gaffney's one completion
> changed our offense but Moore's contributions are
> minimal...lol..ok..

Still misreading my posts.

to clarify:

1- I didn't say that Gaffney's one reception and near reaction changed our offense. I said his presence on the field for 15-19 plays changed our offense. There's a difference. Its not fantasy football. Its not about the stats. One piece of the puzzle affects the others. Gaffney is a far better price than what Tannehill had to work with in Naanee and Armstrong. That's just a fact.

2- I said Moore played very well. Never said his contributions were "minimal" just that he didn't set the world on fire. But I get it. Correctly stating my position wouldn't have made it easy for you to dismiss them as nonsense. Its much easier to dismiss made up statements as such. Well done.


> at least Marlon Moore caught a
> TD...lo... I guess that is part of the mythical
> approach towards backing ones theory...

Lol...from tannehill!!

.......absolutely priceless......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2012 03:59PM by THE Truth.

Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where Tannehill is the best QB in the league
> against the blitz....
>
> Matt Moore is statistically the worst.
>
>
> - Allowed a league high 27.3% of pressure to turn
> to sacks

Well on sunday, he didnt seem to have that problem... And Tannehill got knocked out of the game on a pressure that turned to a sack... SO in the Jets game Moore had a better stat then Tannehill as far as that category went...

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

My post calling Naanee your boy was sarvastic as well, I guess that point was lost in my post some time things get lost in translation in this type of communication as we both know...lol...
And yes my point was that Tannehill had Marlon Moore a third WR who he threw a TD pass to .. SO the myth that Gaffney was some type of savior to the offense that gave Matt Moore some type of advantage in the offense Tannehill didnt have was not exactly correct.

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

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aqua&Orange Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Where Tannehill is the best QB in the league
> > against the blitz....
> >
> > Matt Moore is statistically the worst.
> >
> >
> > - Allowed a league high 27.3% of pressure to
> turn
> > to sacks
>
> Well on sunday, he didnt seem to have that
> problem... And Tannehill got knocked out of the
> game on a pressure that turned to a sack... SO in
> the Jets game Moore had a better stat then
> Tannehill as far as that category went...


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
What total bullshit, Crowder. That comment proves you are against the starting QB for the Miami Dolphins.

Unfuckingbelievable.

Everybody with eyes seen that RT got injured very similar to how Marino did, basically untouched.

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

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

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My post calling Naanee your boy was sarvastic as
> well, I guess that point was lost in my post some
> time things get lost in translation in this type
> of communication as we both know...lol...
> And yes my point was that Tannehill had Marlon
> Moore a third WR who he threw a TD pass to .. SO
> the myth that Gaffney was some type of savior to
> the offense that gave Matt Moore some type of
> advantage in the offense Tannehill didnt have was
> not exactly correct.


Actually, its not a myth amd it is correct. Gaffney's presence turned Tannehill's new (for 1 game) #3 into Moore's #4 this week. His being on the field for 15 or 19 plays changes the way you have to defend us for those plays.

I don't get this argument at all. Moore vs RT? There is no contest in terms of natural ability and upside, even command of the offense, RT has it all over Moore. Even now, after just a few games RT is a better QB than Moore is as a seasoned vet. This doesn't mean that RT is a Pro Bowler, or that Moore is crap. It just means that our more-talented rookie QB is already at the level of Matt Moore, and it's just been 6 games. Why everyone can't agree that this is a GOOD thing is beyond me.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

I agree Berk.

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

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