Remember, Tannehill has only had 26 starts at QB and in the pros. How many has Fitzgerald has? Tannehill's stat line after first 4 career starts is below, followed by the elites and their stats after their first 4 career starts: Tannehill: 55.9%, 1046 yds, 7.3 YPA, 2-6 TD-INT Peyton Manning: 55.5%, 992 yds, 6.8 YPA, 3-11 Eli Manning: 38.6%, 450 yds, 4.5 YPA, 1-6 Aaron Rodgers: 61.9%, 961 yds, 7.6 YPA, 6-3 Drew Brees: 59.4%, 608 yds, 6.3 YPA, 4-2 Philip Rivers: 66.7%, 730 yds, 7.0 YPA, 5-2 Ben Roethlisberger: 71%, 761 yds, 8.2 YPA, 5-2
I don't think anyone is saying that Tannehill is obvious and utter dogshit. We're just suggesting that no one without green and orange blinders thinks that he is far and away a better quarterback to Fitzpatrick. Personally, I think the AFC East QB stable right now is Tom Brady plus three guys who struggle to be average on any given day. At least that's acceptable for Tannehill, given his youth. Compared to expectations and the situation with Miami's roster, he's done a passable job. And of those ones you listed, 4 out of the 6 have stats that are clearly superior to Tannehill's. Throwing three picks for every touchdown is a pretty huge mark against a quarterback. Also, looking at those 6 QB's listed, only the Mannings had losing records. If you add in Brady, that'd give you a fifth guy with better stats and record. Let's not get out of hand here.
I had not seen this yet. I suppose I may be late to the show. Either way it made me giggle. I want to be Ed Hochuli.
Still think it would have been in Miami's interest to start Matt Mooore who was just slightly above average, have him play a few games, have Tannehil learn some basics and the speed of the game. Then if that didn't work toss him in. That way Matt Moore is carrying the stink, and Tannehil can be a savior as opposed to this exact argument being a possibility. I watched Matt Moore play, he wasn't that bad.
I was all on board the let Tannehill slow cook and Garrard start til Garrard got hurt. I liked Matt Moore. I still like Matt Moore. I think Matt Moore can be a starter in the NFL. But not in a West Coast offense. His decision making isnt quick enough and his accuracy is not where it needs to be. Watching the 2 in preseason and in training camp, it was obvious that Tannehill was the better QB, rookie or not. This year is a lost cause. You cant change the whole team in 1 offseason. I know people like to bad on Jeff Ireland, and he's mad some bad moves, but he has also made some decent moves. And he has also not panicked and overpaid for some crappy stopgap to appease the ignorant fans (i.e. Kyle Orton or Plaxico Burress).
If Moore can't play in a WC offense what type of offense can he play in? If he can't make decisions quick to throw short, how is his decision making going to get better when throwing deep? If you can't make it as a WC QB in the NFL, you have to have something special to offer, i.e. RGIII, Vick 2 years ago, Newton last year, for example. But Matt Moore is decidedly average to below average at everything.
Disagree. Matt Moore is mediocre to above average. On a scale from 1-9 (because there has to be a middle, which is 5) Matt Moore was consistently 5 (average) to 5.5 (slightly above average). He never lost anyone any games. Just saying, better than Tannehill. Also, you're talking about training camp Gator. You're talking 'bout PRACTICE! PRACTICE? PRACTICE MAN? YOU ARE TALKING 'BOUT PRACTICE!
It's hard to say whether this opinion or what Parker said is more accurate because it involves making untestable assumptions in either case. If we go by Matt Moore's actual 2011 statistics, it is an open and shut case: he is an average NFL starting quarterback. He completes passes at an average to above average rate, takes slightly more sacks that average, has a favorable TD-to-INT ratio, and gets an average YPA. He also won a surprising number of games with a roster that most people considered to be a trash heap. His DVOA numbers at Football Outsiders aren't good but they're not astronomically bad. There not much statistically that you can point at and say, "See? Matt Moore can't start in the NFL. Out of town with ye!" But as to whether that is representative, I can't say. Prior to last year, there was nothing to suggest that Matt Moore was any good, so maybe we should expect a Derek Anderson style regression to the mean. There's also all these claims that are being thrown out that are absolutely impossible to do anything with. What does "can't make decisions to throw short quick" even mean? If he's not able tyo make decisions, why isn't he throwing more incompletions and interceptions? Why did Reggie Bush do as well as he did last year? It's hard to tell whether there is something to these sorts of claims that counteracts the numbers, because they're barely more testable than Madden-like claims of "He's a real football guy!"
The white courtesy phone is for factual information only. Someone is not watching enough football. Am I the only Niners fan on the board?
The Niners had the third most rushing attempts in the NFL last year, and the second fewest passing attempts. The only team to attempt more rushes as a percentage of all plays last year was Denver, which obvious ran a very peculiar offense with Tebow. The 49ers were also pretty close to playing for a Super Bowl. Under what definition of ground and pound would they NOT qualify as a successful example? Or am I somehow reading you as saying the opposite of what you mean?
I think my attempt at humor was misunderstood. I was giving a nod to Jimmy James with the courtesy phone comment. I completely agree that the Niners are probably the best example of ground and pound working in the NFL today.
Guys leave Gator alone. If you realized you wouldn't have a football team, (and haven't had one actually) for the next 1-2 years, you'd be getting facts wrong too.
Matt Moore went 6-3 as a starter last year for the Dolphins. Thats above average to me. What else can you go by in the preseason? I mean it wasnt even close. Tannehill moved the ball and Moore didnt.
The WC offense is designed on short quick passes like slants and outs that Moore had trouble diagnosing and then getting the ball where it needed to be. Moore never ran the WC offense in the pros and still has not. His skills are better suited for a more traditional pro-style offense of 5 & 7 step drops. In the WC offense you need to read and react quickly and that is not Moore's strong suit. Tannehill's familiarity with the offense also helped him a great deal and you could see it in the check downs and audible calls he made during preseason games. Not everything can be inferred from statistics, especially when you are comparing stats in a different offense under a different coaching staff implementing a new philosophy. Reggie Bush did well last year because of Tony Sparanos ground and pound offense and Miami's 3 first round draft pick offensive lineman. Their pass protection was spotty, but they were good run blockers. And Bush never got the opportunity in NO to be the feature back, so it's hard to say if it was the offense or the opportunity that allowed him to rush for more than 1000 yards.
An interesting fact that I did not know, not having watched the Dolphins-Arizona game: in a game so close, there were six fumbles on the ground in the game (4 Miami, 2 Arizona) and Arizona somehow managed to pick up all six of them. Arizona has to have some kind of voodoo spell. Wilson can't score despite an extra timeout and two PI penalties, then they get potentially the most reliable QB and K to turn in anomalous results, followed by Vick completing less than half his passes and now this. All while averaging under 3 yards per rushing attempt and having Kevin Kolb and John Skelton seemingly unable to locate Larry Fitzgerald for long stretches of time.