That is not true. I think Moore is better then Tannehill when both are healthy.

I do like Tannehill and can see him as the future, but no way a injured Tanny is better then a healthy Moore.

depends how limited. I'd rather have Moore right now at 100% than RT at 70% if he can't move around and roll out

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Moore looked pretty good coming off the bench, into the game cold and especially against a perenial SB contender. He was ineffective in the no huddle plays but, that is to be expected. Mainly, he managed the game well, made some excellent throws and didn't turn the ball over. I want to see Tanny develop as much as anyone but, if he's not 100% then going with Moore is a no brainer. Newspaper columnists be damned.

Anybody who thinks Moore is better than Tannehill when both are healthy, you are absolutely insane and know very little about football.

Bottom line is, if Moore was better than RT, he we would have been Day 1 starter. He wasn't. RT was.

The coaching staff, yes, the same group of guys that evaluated both, even believe RT is a better QB than Moore.

If the coaching staff was to start a worse player over a veteran, they would lose the locker room.

But they haven't. And that's because even the players realize RT is better than Matt Moore.

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

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

That was the first time that anyone even mentioned " if both are healthy".

Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anybody who thinks Moore is better than Tannehill
> when both are healthy, you are absolutely insane
> and know very little about football.
>
Matt Moore had a higher passer rating then Tannehill in 5 of his six games. The passer rating he had against the Jets 96, was 2 points lower passer rating then Moore avg for the last 6 games of the season... WHich was the 6th highest passer rating in the NFL during that stretch.... So in Moore's last seven games he has about a 97.5 passer rating... Tannehill in his 6 games games has a passer rating of 75 or so.... So I wouldnt say that people dont know about Football or are insane if they differ opinions from you, there is stats to back up what Dolphin said....
I am not here to get in another Tannehill argument, but I dont think you are being completely fair or honest about your evaluation and I think the stats I just presented more then tell that story...

Rushing your rookie franchsie QB back and playing him hurt is not the smartest move you can make with the guy you think is your franchise, when you have a solid player like Matt Moore to step in... A limited Tannehill should sit on the bench risking his future is not worth playing him early...

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

Crowder: Did you actually read the article? The author acknowledges that Moore had a higher QB rating than Tanny, but that's not the point. Tanny has a prototypical frame and smarts to match. He's got natural talent that make him better than Moore.

quote dolfin : That is not true. I think Moore is better then Tannehill when both are healthy.


U FUll of it.

According to all beat writers, Tannehill took all first team snaps.

Tannehill will be the starter on Sunday.

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

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

dolfin you might know more than joe philbin and ireland put together.............I mean they started tannehill instead of matt moore at the beginning of the season.

They might be wrong and you might be right.

You should apply for a coaching job. Maybe you can get this team straighned out.

Maybe we can get to the same level kansas city is right now with you as head master of operations.

Sometimes I wonder how bright the people on this board are. LOL. I guess I got my answer in the results of the poll I ran about the difference in the exit interviews.

The question is not whether Moore or RT is a better quarterback. It's not even whether Moore is better than an injured RT.

THE QUESTION IS DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO RISK FURTHER, MAYBE EVEN PERMANENT, INJURY TO TANNEHILL!!!!!!!

None of the arguments above address that issue.

Chre i always said if tannehill is not at least 95 percent they should not start him.

No sense of risking an even bigger injury.

Now that's common sense.

And IMHO i believe 95 percent is as good as 100 percent anyways....At least in my book.

eesti Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You are such a hypocrite. This is the second post
> in a few days where you call EVERYONE out for
> being stupid. Not just me which I expect from you
> but EVERYONE. So in your delusion, anyone who
> disagrees with you is of inferior intelligence.
> Actually 14 out of 17 people disagreed with you.
> That tells me you may be the dull one. So much for
> presenting a good argument counselor. LOL

RESPONSE: LOL. Did it ever occur to you that when you look at the human race as a whole, the higher in intelligence you get, the fewer people there are? But perhaps the reason you don't see that is........

Hard to tell sometimes if folks are legit Dolphin fans or just adversarial positionalists.

Point of fact:

Moore = a great "backup" QB and we're lucky to have a quality dude like him in the #2 slot.

Thill = an emerging QB savant (or at least partially "gifted" NFL coitusback) with immense upside and the benefit of having someone like Moore in a support role.

Why don't you yard birds listen to Philbin???

Matt Moore is a legit NFL football player. He's an excellent team player! He's a real pro. He's dedicated. The troops love him. Et cetera and et cetera! Stop trashing on the dude because you're just an asshole by doing so.

Thill is exceeding all our expectations and has the look of a top-shelf long-term solution @ the preeminent rock-chucker position. He's also pure class. Incredibly dedicated. High IQ. And...(fill in your NFL coitusback wish list "everything else".

Bottom line. WTF is the problem???

Enjoy the results. Be happy.

BNF.

I see Tannehill has been on this board.

Quote from the article: "There are always going to be people rooting for you and people that doubt you."

it IS a lot easier to grade higher with fewer attempts. you can complete 66% of your passes if you just throw 3 and hit 2. or 100% if you throw one and complete it. pretty hard to complete 100% if you throw 10. I am not so good at math but I do get that.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

This a silly argument. If Tanny is at all limited , you bench him while we have the Luxury of Matt Moore to prevent further injury.

If Tanny can't roll out he shouldn't play . End of story. Wondering who is better is just silly and pointless.

No in statistics it isn't... The more attempts just leads to more accuracy in the stat... If you throw 6 attempts and only complete 2 as Tannehill did last week the fewer attempts actually lead to a lower score... It is just as easy to grade low as high with fewer attempts becaus you have less room to make mistakes... The more attempts leads to a more accurate stat but it can go low or high before it balances out... A smaller sample size doesn't make your stats better just less accurate.. Sure if you have 3 passes and complete them all you look like a stud but if you have 3 passes and miss them all, you look very bad stats wise...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 11/02/2012 08:00AM by Crowder52.

Thank you! Finally, someone with that fancy book learnin.

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