Good grief! The receiver hunt is starting to resemble the QB fiasco of the last 10 years.

They will never admit it but I think that move can be read as a sign that the staff and front office are now focused on next year.

I mean you could really go back to their selection of Tannehill as the starter, or the Vontae Davis trade, and make that argument but this sort of seals the deal.

If they made the decision to play Gaffney behind Moore and Matthews to further their development it makes sense to dump him and see if you can find a young player on the waiver wire or another practice squad that has upside .....provided of course that the focus is now on next year and not on trying to get back into the playoff picture this year.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They will never admit it but I think that move can
> be read as a sign that the staff and front office
> are now focused on next year.
>
> I mean you could really go back to their selection
> of Tannehill as the starter, or the Vontae Davis
> trade, and make that argument but this sort of
> seals the deal.
>
> If they made the decision to play Gaffney behind
> Moore and Matthews to further their development it
> makes sense to dump him and see if you can find a
> young player on the waiver wire or another
> practice squad that has upside .....provided of
> course that the focus is now on next year and not
> on trying to get back into the playoff picture
> this year.


Good point, but one would think that, in order to develop Tannehill, one would like him to have a couple receivers that could get open for him to throw to. Instead, they get him a long snapper.

I agree with the truth that the staff is now focused on next year.

Also GBO is right..........because we are short at the receiver position.

GBOFinFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They will never admit it but I think that move
> can
> > be read as a sign that the staff and front
> office
> > are now focused on next year.
> >
> > I mean you could really go back to their
> selection
> > of Tannehill as the starter, or the Vontae
> Davis
> > trade, and make that argument but this sort of
> > seals the deal.
> >
> > If they made the decision to play Gaffney
> behind
> > Moore and Matthews to further their development
> it
> > makes sense to dump him and see if you can find
> a
> > young player on the waiver wire or another
> > practice squad that has upside .....provided of
> > course that the focus is now on next year and
> not
> > on trying to get back into the playoff picture
> > this year.
>
>
> Good point, but one would think that, in order to
> develop Tannehill, one would like him to have a
> couple receivers that could get open for him to
> throw to. Instead, they get him a long snapper.


I think the decision wasn't to bring in a long snapper just to replace Gaffney.

I think the decision was to play Moore and Matthews ahead of Gaffney so accelerate their development so you have a better idea at the end of the season if they are improving enough to be part of our longterm plans.

Once that decision is made and Gaffney is buried on the bench as the 5th wr...he doesn't need to be here. It makes sense to use that spot to try to find a young player that has some chance to make the roster next year rather than to carry an older guy who isn't playing.

If a WR gets hurt you promote Fuller from the practice squad.

The downside to that is you take away an experienced WR which could have an impact on the rate of Tannehill's development.

I think the risk of that is probably minimal since Gaffney has only been here a month but who knows for sure...

Not to mention, we need a TE to give us some big play ability and a consistent saftey blanket for RT.

Fasano is very average, Clay dosen't make enough plays, and Egnew is a complete unknown.