The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I'm torn on this issue...I've said I think he can do it,but I'm not sure I want it....

It get's brought up about recent successes of Qb's that start from week one.The thing I've noticed,most had good running games to protect them...

Sanchez - Jones,Greene,Washington
Flacco - Rice,Mcgehee,McClain
Ryan - Tuner,Norwood
Roethlisberger - Bettis,Staley,Haynes
Cam Newton -Williams,Stewart
Dalton - Benson,Scott
Palmer - Rudi Johnson,Watson

Stafford- Didn't
Gabbert - Did and still sucked :D

I'm not real sure about Bush,Thomas,Miller...I think this is what is what I'm torn about....Can Tannehill,not get killed, reamed by the fans,without a good running game..Those are my thoughts,and concerns...

Do you want Tannehill to be the starting QB week 1?

Modified to add, Palmer,and I couldn't remember Daltons name...

If the choice is between Tannehill and Moore, yes. I have not been impressed with Moore, I don't think Miami is going anywhere with him as the QB and I see nothing to be gained from him being the QB this year.

Let me ask you this, would you rather have Tannehill play the whole year, be 6-10 where we win the last 3 games of the year where Tannehill is actually starting to play pretty well or have Moore play the whole year where he's up and down, be 10-6 and get smoked in a wild card game? Personally I'd rather see Tannehill the whole year and watch him progress and hope that Miami can find him a stud WR in the 2013 draft.

I think in this day and age, if you draft someone with a top 10 pick and he isn't playing week 1, you had a horrible draft.  

Yes, I know... 30 years ago the Dolphins drafted a QB late in the first round and sat him a few games at the start of the season and it worked out for them.  

But:

1. He was drafted at the bottom of the draft not the top.
2. It was 30 years ago.
3. There is absolutely no reason to believe Danny would have been a bad QB had he started week 1, instead of waiting.

If he isn't ready to help the team week 1, than it was a mistake to draft him and you should have drafted a different position.  

I won't go that far. Rarely does a single player make/break an entire draft, however I do agree that if you are a top 10 pick you should be helping the team by at the very least the middle of the year. I don't think thats unreasonable at all. On the other hand, I don't expect anyone to be a pro-bowl player as a rookie even if you are a top 10 pick and if you're not it doesn't mean you were a bust and it was a bad pick. If in 2 or 3 years you are no longer on the team, THEN it was a bad pick. Yes I'm talking about you Tedd Ginn Jr.

Matt Moore hurt himself a bit this week with his mouth. When Matt Moore says  in an interview he is using this season as an audition for other teams around the league....he isn't exactly giving off the "team leader" vibe you want from your starting QB in August. Kind of a "ME-ME" vibe.

Now, I know what he meant and what he did say is 100% true because he isn't coming back to Miami next year. But you don't say it in the press. It just comes off as really really bad.

That's why if Garrard's knee is better by the final preseason game where he can play a bit then I think its Tannehill/Garrard this year. And you cut Moore or trade him for a 7th rounder or to a team like GB who is 7 deep at WR but has no backup QB.

Tonight will determine Matt Moore's future. While preseason games mean next to nothing, if Tannehill doesn't look god awful and just holds his own then Moore will either be our #2 or gone in a couple weeks.

I agree with that for EVERY position except QB. QB's are just different. You grade them different, you draft them different, you bring them along different. As was said at draft time, the league has changed so much that 2nd round graded QB's go in Rd 1 now. 3rd and 4th round graded QB's go in Round 2. And so on, the position is so friggin important that everyone has been pushed up the board over the past few years.

From what I saw (which is just one article) Moore is not quoted. Those were the authors words.

I just re-read the article and there is no direct quote from Moore. But no newspaper guy would risk is job if it wasn't said in some way and Moore never came out and said he didn't say it either after the article ran. Here is what the article said....

Either way, Moore knows this: If he has a future as a starting quarterback, it won’t be in Miami. Moore conceded Tuesday that he’s using whatever action he sees this year as an audition for his next team.

How would Moore "come out and say" that he didn't state something that was never presented as a quote?

It might be as simple as the reporter asking him, "Given that Tannehill was drafted to be the franchise QB, do you see this year as being a chance to show your skills to the rest of the league?"  If he says, "Sure, I mean, I've enjoyed my time here, but I think I have what it takes to be a starter in this league, if not here then somewhere else," why should he have to walk that back?

At the end of the day, when the Dolphins have plainly shown that Moore has no hope to be the franchise QB in Miami, why should he act like it's Miami Or Bust for him?  The NFL is a business, and loyalty is a two-way street.  If the front office expected him to be a "team leader," they shouldn't have brought in Garrard.

I'd rather be 10-6 with Moore than risk "damaging" Tannehill and going 6-10.

What's the rush? He's going to play in the future. Why do you need to rush him to the field?

If/when Tannehill outplays Moore, you have to start him week 1.

Unless, Garrard is healthy and ready to go by that point. (then they can battle for that #1 job)

Tannehill just had a very good drive that resulted in a touchdown! That is big.  I don't care what the final score of the game is, unless Tannehill comes out for another series and is god awful that is the story of the game. He led a touchdown drive and converted passes and at least 1 on 3rd down to keep the drive alive.

Tannehill won over Trent Dilfer with that last TD drive lol

His Tweet: https://twitter.com/TDESPN/status/236629467492130816

Oh, I don't know 10 years worth of futility? Why wait?

That's hindsight 20/20,spilled milk scenario,has nothing to do with starting week one....We're 10-6 making the playoffs,I'm not whining that we didn't play the Rookie...it wasn't all on the QB,alot of things really worked for us to be 10-6 IMO..That's a whole different discussion...

I think it's about expectations,and mine are pretty low..

Mike mentioned in the  Hard knocks thread about the coaching staff...I think it's a great point,The coaching staff isn't talking running the ball,playing good defense grinding out 13-10,17-14 wins...

Modified to finish my thought...I'm confident that the Coaching staff will do what's best for the Miami Dolphins,and Ryan Tannehill.

The best thing For me so far, watching the game online...The scoring drive..Tannehill,saw the blitz,changed the protection, audibles then ran the play...Hurry up most of that drive...Unfortunately we were down 17-0... Tons of dump offs early,very little running holes.Still hasn't changed my opinion really,but I liked seeing that out of the rookie..

Agree on most of the points. Look its preseason football, and its Week 2 and once again there is no gameplanning for this game.  The Fins sat a lot of guys on defense for injuries and such so it is impossible to judge anything about the defense. No Wake, Burnett, and Dansby makes it impossible to gauge anything on that side of the ball. So no sense in even judging anyone on that side of the ball.  Like I said its a glorified practice (at least on defense) when the Fins rolled that unit onto the field tonight.

On offense,  Fasano had a bad drop. Jonathan Martin was terrible tonight, needs work. The O-line overall was sloppy. But Tannehill knows what to do but has little help right now.  He converted 3 THIRD downs on his touchdown drive. He had pressure all night in his face. 

The fact Tannehill played the entire first half tells me the coaches have probably made up their mind. Start Tannehill this year. Let him take his lumps. It will be very ugly at times but the long-term payoff will be worth it!

I don't think it is. If Tannehill doesn't play the whole year and the Dolphins go 10-6 and are out of the playoffs after the wildcard game, what did you accomplish? Moore won't be coming back in 2013 and you'll be starting from scratch again with Tannehill with absolutely no experience under his belt. And that's really expecting a LOT out of Moore. The more likely scenario with starting Moore game 1 is that Miami is around 2-3 or 2-4 to start the season and people are SCREAMING for Tannehill to play and Philbin is forced to play him. What's the point? To prove that Moore isn't the QB of the future? Most everyone already knows that including Matt Moore.

But the conversation is pretty much moot at this point because even if Moore is like 18-20 for 3 TD's in the 2nd half, I don't think it would make a difference because it would be against 2nd and 3rd string. I thought the fact that they stuck with Tannehill for the whole first half was VERY telling. I'd be willing to bet that Moore only gets about a quarter and then they turn the ball over to Devlin again. Miami is prepared to start the season with Devlin as the 3rd string QB. I'm with MikeO. Barring an injury, Tannehill is starting next week and probably game 1. Would take a minor miracle at this point to change that.

1 Final point after watching the 1st half, don't be shocked when Jeff Fuller makes the roster and either Wallace and/or Marlon Moore don't.

You asked a hindsight question...Sorry if you don't like my answer...You asked How I'd feel in January in August...

I think so.  I mean if Ryan throws 3 INT's in 3 quarters of play next Friday night that might change! But taking the temperature as of tonight it sure looks like Ryan is very close to locking up the job. Sure he made his mistakes but he wasn't awful and to me is no worse than Matt Moore. And let me be the FIRST to say this now because I have a feeling at some point in the next few months it might be an issue.

IF Ryan Tannehill starts Week 1 of the regular season it doesn't mean he has to start EVERY week this year. Come Week 8 or 9 if Miami is "for all purposes" out of the playoff picture and having a rough year and Tannehill is having issues. They can sit him for a week or two and let him collect himself and just watch. There is no rule that once you start Week 1 you have to start them all. If the lack of offensive talent is hurting him and his play,  there is no sense to see him get beat up week in and week out and sitting him for a couple games isn't the end of the world. Then maybe bring him back late in the year.

Sorry you didn't like my question. Speculation isn't usually a problem around here in fact I'd say that's about 75% of the conversations here.

I'm 99% Tannehill is gonna start this season,and atleast 25-40% of the fans screaming how bad he sucks,and we're doomed the first INT he throws... :D

There are idiot fans everywhere. Just gotta block them out and ignore them.

He has no business starting yet. He stared down all of his receivers, predictably threw to the exact same spot of the field and had at least four balls batted down at the line. I don't care how many third downs he converted on a meaningless TD drive, you can't ignore the fact that the team had zero first downs for most of the half. You can't ignore he started three for ten. Why is it that you consistently say how these preseason games shouldn't be counted or considered except when the events in them back up your particular point of view? -EK

Mike these are public forum message boards. The advice was not to never respond, it was to stop attacking personally and getting off topic (you know, like you just did there). If you post something I disagree with, I'm not going to muzzle myself simply because YOU are the one who posts it. I disputed your points. I was at the game. I saw what you saw. For most of the half, Tannehill looked bad. You can't ignore that, but rave about one drive. The drive didn't happen in a vacuum. -EK

Well I'll tell you right now that's not happening. I was respectful and concise in my post. As usual you took this off topic. I think the whole board can see who the problem really is here, and it's not me debating, it's you always looking for an angle to attack. I'm sure you'll have a response here because you can't NOT have the last word. Prove me right. I'm done debating who's the bigger baby. If you want to debate football and only football that's why I'm here. -EK

1) I never used anything from last night OR last week to come to my opinion. I have said for over a year Matt Moore sucks. I stand by it. Nothing has changed. Therefore I say start Tannehill considering Garrard is hurt currently. Now, if Tannehill throws 3 or 4 INT's next week vs Atlanta, then yeah keep him as the backup and that 3rd perseason game (the important one) might change things for me. But if that doesn't happen next week and he plays like he did last night,  I say start Tannehill. I NEVER USED ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED LAST NIGHT IN A PRESEASON GAME AS A BASIS FOR ANY OPINION I HAVE!


2) Carolina looks great so their TD drives in the first half aren't meaningless but Tannehill's 2nd quarter TD drive is meaningless? Don't understand the logic.  Makes NO sense! A TD drive is a TD drive. Either they all count or all are meaningless. If it's "meaningless" then don't get worked up over the good  OR the bad! Which has been my stance when it comes to preseason football which I have made over and over again. See we actually agree. EVERYTHING is meaningless in these games. There fore time for all Dolphins fans to back off the ledge!

So should we start Devlin because Moore was WORSE than Tannehill and that was against backups?

I'd start Moore or Garrard when he's healthy. Let Tannehill get used to the speed of the NFL, whxih he clearly is not used to yet. -EK

^^^^ Agreed.

Garrard is not going to be healthy and Moore is CLEARLY less used to the offense than Tannehill. Let's face it EK you just don't want Tannehill to start, you don't have a good reason why or at least you still haven't said what it is.

I certainly DID say what it was. He looked down all of his passes last night- badly. He got sacked three times with some lead feet; Moore appears more mobile. Tannehill's reaction to the speed of NFL play is slow. It doesn't matter how well he knows the offense if he can't read the D and get the ball to the open receiver in time- and he can't. Three three and outs last night. Only one drive in the half that ended in a score against the starters. He didn't look any better to me than Moore did last week. Unless he is a clear and obvious upgrade, there's no need to rush him starting, especially with the team having problems at offensive line, wide receiver, and secondary. What benefit comes from throwing him in to captain a 5-11 or 6-10 season? If he's not ready, he's not ready, and from what I've seen he's not. Moore isn't going to play lights out by any means, but unless Tannehill shows he's vastly superior, why rush it? -EK

Why do you say 10 years?

If your metric is the last playoff appearance/division win it is only three years of futility.

If you consider anything less than a playoff win than it is 11 years of futility not 10.

And if you are going with the unlitimate metric -- a Superbowl win -- about 30 years.

The TD was meaningless because Carolina was already up 17-0, was pulling their starters, and had dominantly shown that Tannehill had no business against first teamers- four batted balls, sacked because of indecision every bit as much as because of the line, and 4-13 on the five other drives makes the TD drive meaningless. If ever week, your QB completes less than 50% of his passes for 200 yards per game and no passing TD's (Tannehill's projected stats for a full game last night), and you're down by 17 before you get on the board because 3 and out is all you can do, the TD's scored at that point will also be meaningless. I know you love Tannehill and were over the moon with the pick, and he may be a great player one day, but he's clearly not ready yet. Nothing he has done has separated him from Moore in the eyes of the coaches (they've flat said they still have no indication of who is starting the season) or any media I've read. In fact, outside of some unrealistic Miami fans, I haven't heard ANYONE raving about how Tannehill has outplayed Moore- from what I've read, it's still a pretty close race, which should be troubling if you're solidly behind Tannehill, since you've said for over a year Moore sucks. -EK

Now Tannehill should be vastly superior to be starting? I'm sorry but almost everyone including Joe Philbin disagrees with you. The QB that gives the Dolphins the best chance to win should be starting and right now that's Tannehill, despite his flaws.

Really? Philbin disagrees? Funny, because he said after the game that they still had no idea who the starter would be. So, where exactly does he disagree? Depth chart still has Moore ahead of Tannehill. Until that changes, no one "disagrees" with me. Tannehill did not do enough to win the job Friday, despite what you're promoting. From Rotoworld.com:
"Coach Joe Philbin may not name a starting quarterback until after the Dolphins' third preseason game.
Philbin had been planning to name a starter this week. "I don’t know that, to be honest with you," Philbin said after Friday night's preseason loss to Carolina. "I really don't."

So.... How's he disagree with me again? More importantly, even if he starts Ryan 16 games this year, that's besides the point. This thread wasn't "Will Tannehill start?" It was "Do you want Tannehill to start week 1?" I said no. I explained why I felt that way. It's my opinion and it's every bit as valid as yours. And whether he actually DOES start or not is irrespective to that opinion- I still don't want him to for the numerous reasons I've already stated. -EK

Yes, he does. He's already said that whomever gives the Dolphins the best chance to win will start. You may think that Tannehill should be vastly superior to Moore to start, but I don't know of a single person that agrees with you.

Agree Pappy! All of Tannehill's "flaws" currently of not stepping up in the pocket and locking in on a WR are mistakes every rookie QB makes and very minor issues that will be worked out over time. Easily correctable. Anyone who expected a rookie QB to be damn near perfect in his first every start and 2nd ever NFL game (preseason or not) is just holding an unrealistic expectation. These are very minor things that are easily worked out in time.

Trust me there could be worse flaws to have currently and Tannehill's are common and nothing to be concerned with as of now. The quickest way to fix Tannehill's mistakes is just to keep playing more. Yeah he will have some bad games and bad plays but the payoff in the long-run is worth it. Fixing these mistakes in actual games is the best way to go. Trying to fix it in practice is a longer process once the season starts.

P.S...and saying Tannehill has "lead feet" when he was a college WR for a pretty big program and  a damn good athlete overall is just an incorrect statement to make and just 100% false. Getting sacked because the o-line can't block isn't a sign you have "lead feet"

Once again putting words in my mouth and making stuff up out of thin air. I was NOT over the moon with the pick or cheer-leading for it. I said it a millions times back in April, but I will go for a million and one to set the record straight for the last time. I said I TRUSTED Philbin/Ireland/Sherman when it came to drafting a QB. That if they passed on Tannehill I was fine with that. If they took him I was fine with that also. That's what I said. And there are probably close to 200 posts archived on this site that back it up!  And I was FOR Garrard starting Week 1 until he got hurt. Once again, "OVER THE MOON?" I think not!


Also for Moore to be named the starter shouldn't he at least outplay Tannehill? Cause he hasn't in 2 games in fact all he has done is turn the ball over and NOT lead a touchdown drive. Things Tannehill has done thus far. Now I don't judge preseason results, but if you and others are then you gotta stick by them and the results are obvious that Tannehill HAS outplayed more. No turnovers and 2 TD drives compared to Moore's NO TD drives and 1 INT.

If he's so clearly outplayed Moore, why is Philbin struggling with naming a starter? Why hasn't he been able to comfortably say, "Ryan's our guy"? The difference between the two is much closer than you think. Once again, you're cherry picking. Against only starters, Tannehill looked like crap Friday night. By the time he led the TD drive, Carolina was up 17 and already subbing. And those sacks? Did you even watch the game? Definitely NOT all on the O line. Tannehill had time to move, time to throw it away, do something other than stand there with lead feet. Philbin saw it him self: "A couple of times there were definitely protection issues,” Philbin said. “Once I thought that he could have stepped up in the pocket and avoided the rush a little better.” And what about getting the ball batted down four times? What about three three and outs to start the game. THAT'S how he outplayed Moore? Face it- neither of them has been very good against the first team so far. You just can't admit that because then you'd have to admit that Tannehill is no better than the QB you deemed to suck for a year now. I love these debates with you though. Preseason games are meaningless when the defense gets torched, but they're completely meaningful when the QB you hope is starting plays well- as long as it's only the part of the game he's playing well in, and not the part of the game he went 4 for 12 or the fact he posted a 60.1 QB rating. -EK

When did Philbin say he was "struggling to name a starter?"  Maybe he has even picked Moore to be the starter and just wanted to see Tannehill last night vs the first teamers. I don't know. You don't know. Nobody knows! Just because he hasn't told the press anything doesn't mean he is struggling. Want him to tell you the offensive gameplan for Week 1 vs Houston as well? He is playing his hand close to his vest.

By the way starters WERE playing in the 2nd quarter of that game for the Panthers when Tannehill led that TD drive. I am sorry they were. That's a fact. I won't go in circles with you about it. They just were. I don't know what else to say

I said a million times I am NOT judging the QB battle off of preseason games. I have given a bunch of reasons why Tannehill should start mainly to do with where the franchise is heading and the future And IF Garrard's knee heals this week in time for him to play on Friday (doubtful) I stand by that I want HIM starting over Tannehill Week 1. What  I did  said though is "IF SOMEBODY WERE BASING THINGS OFF PRESEASON RESULTS..." like you are and others are, then the data backs up Tannehill  beating out Moore as the numbers back that up. Making your very Anti-Tannehill stance confusing to many of us. That's what I said! I am not using preseason stance but some of you are and if you are then the decision is really very simple honestly based off 2 games.

So you are saying Art Hicks and Jonathan Martin played good last night? WOW! Tannehill's sacks were all on him? WOW! Ok, gonna be civil and let that statement you made speak for itself.

Longtime NFL writer Pete Prisco of CBS wants Tannehill to start and feels if the Fins don't start him they are making a huge mistake

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/19824612/dolphins-camp-report-philbin-right-man-to-get-miami-back-on-track

Also for the first time in about a decade he said something nice about the Dolphins overall. Maybe there is hope for world peace! lol

Which numbers back that up though Mike? The reason I believe you're so pro-Tannehill is because you're so convinced he's outplayed Moore to a significant degree. He hasn't. I've brought up the fact that he had three three and outs to start the game. You ignore it. He went 4-12 for the rest of the half. You won't comment on that either. His own coach said one of the sacks was on him. You ignored that. He had four balls tipped at the line in only a half of play, and telegraphed a number of his throws. You ignored that as well. EVERY valid point I made about him that doesn't coincide with your view you ignore. The offense couldn't generate 100 yards in the entire half under him. He simply doesn't react quickly enough to be starting yet. Especially if the o line is going to be such a problem. Do you really want a young QB developing while he's getting killed the entire season (a season the team as a whole will likely not win more than 6 or 7 games?). How does that help anything? Let Moore start the year while the line gets some stability and put Tannehill in after he's had more than a month of practice with NFL players. There's no downside to letting the guy hold a clipboard for a while. There's massive downside to putting him in too soon, especially in a season where the team is expected to finish last in the division again. -EK

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/sports/football/greg-stoda-miami-dolphins-right-in-accelerating-ry/nRD4k/

Greg Stoda on the start Tannehill train

And vice versa.  Every positive point about Tannehill you ignore. He knows the offense because it's the same one he ran in college. He has a great arm and shows excellent accuracy on the outside throws placing it where only his man can get it. He shows nice anticipation on throws and doesn't wait till the receiver gets open. He's shown a nice touch on the ball on dump offs to the RB's. He throws the ball on the run extremely well. He seems to have a command of the huddle. He's had 3 long drives that were pretty much just him throwing the ball, 2 resulted in TD's and the other would have too if Wallace would have caught a catchable ball in the endzone. He hasn't thrown an interception or fumbled in about 4 quarters of pre-season work. 

I can live with 3 and outs and batted balls because of the above and as he gets more playing time, those things will get ironed out.

I'm not ignoring them. I think he's a good player with a ton of upside; what he did against second Nd third stringers for Tampa is not impressive though. Posting a 60 QB rating against the starters for Carolina should tell you he's not ready. I just don't get what the rush is to get him in there if we all agree it's a losing season no matter who is under center. -EK

We are not rushing him into anything, we just don't have anyone else to put in there that's better. He has earned the job based on the fact that Garrard is injured and can't start and Moore and Devlin aren't any better than him. How is that rushing him into it? Please explain.

For the last time, it is my opinion that he has NOT outplayed Moore to the degree that he should unseat him as the starter. That is my opinion. You are free to disagree but stop asking me why when the why is that I don't believe he's going to make a difference in game play over Moore or that starting him is going to speed up his development. I don't know of ANY QB's whose development was hindered by holding a clipboard for a year, but the list of guys who started as rookies who turned out NOT to be ready and whose careers suffered for it is substantial. First round QBs over the past ten years who start at any point their rookie year are more likely to suck than flourish. Look at the data- Leftwich, Sanchez, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Matt Leinart, JaMarcus Russell, Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder. I'm supposed to ignore those names- who were all better college QBs than Tannehill because Cam Newton or Joe Flacco played well as rookies? Sitting for a while didn't seem to hurt Aaron Rodgers development or Tom Brady's. Favre or Brees either. I simply don't believe Tannehill is ready based on what I've seen. I believe it's a rush. -EK

Half of those names WEREN'T better college QB's than Tannehill. That is a statement that is made by someone who clearly doesn't watch college football and is laughable to those that follow the college game. David Carr played at Fresno and his best year was like 2,500 yards and that was vs lesser competition EDIT: Messed up on Carr's stats, still doesn't change the fact he played vs lesser talent than Tannehill got in the Big 12. Joey Harrington at Oregon most yards was like 2,300 or so and most TD's in a year was like 20. Ponder at FSU was barely breaking 2,000 yards most years and was lucky to get between 15-20 TD's. And some of the other names were marginal college football players who NEVER came close to years Tannehill had where he threw for 3,700+ yards and 29TD's in 13 games. NFL players would cut off their left big toe for those numbers in 16 games!! Not to mention MOST if not ALL of those guys didn't play in an "NFL READY" offense in college preparing them for the next level like Tannehill did.

Also, by this logic the Redskins should be benching RGIII this year because he has been brutal in camp and in preseason games. He has made Tannehill look like Montana. Oh wait, the Skins AREN'T benching RGII because they want him to take his lumps in games and not hold a clipboard. And Mike Shannhan knows a thing or two about QB's.

Harrington, Carr, Leftwich?  Why not go all the way back to the 1970's and 1980's for some examples, jees! Cam, Ryan, Flacco, Dalton, Bradford, Sanchez. All QB's who started from day 1 in the last couple years who had success individually or team success because of their play. The QB's who didn't start from day 1 Locker, Ponder and such struggled a lot when they did get playing time. Proof is there that you ACCELERATE the learning curve and playing the kids is best. And the Jamarcus Russell example is weak. He was a fat turd who didn't care. Whether he played day 1 or sat a year or two years he was gonna be a bust. The guy didn't care. Horrible example.

WITH THAT SAID, I have no problem if Moore starts Week 1 vs Houston. I "TRUST" Sherman and Philbin. But these blanket statements of why Tannehill can't start day 1 are just incorrect and some of them are just flat out false.

Fair enough, but then lets be clear about what your reasons are, you are scared to start him. You don't care what he shows in preseason or who the QB of the Dolphins is as long as it's not Tannehill. You would rather play Moore and let him get hammered then give Tannehill the chance. I just wanted you to say it.

I think his position is clear, in that Tannehill hasn't outperformed Moore enough in preseason (or what Moore did at the end of last year) to start the regular season. I would think he would be OK with Tannehill starting if he didn't stare down receivers, have so many 3 and outs in the 2nd preseason game, etc... He obviously cares what Tannehill does in preseason or else he wouldn't keep saying that he doesn't think he's done enough in preseason to start.

I think you all might be making this much more difficult than it really is.

The 70s? Grab a pen, he of less football knowledge than he professes- those guys were drafted within the past ten or so years. Harrington in 2002 and he was fourth in the Heisman voting his senior year. How many votes did Tannehill get? Harrington was a Pac 10 player of the year with 2 Bowl game wins. Tannehill did what? 19 starts. Wrong on that one Mike. And Carr? Also 2002 and his best year was nearly 5000 passing yards and 46 TDs. You must have missed that season altogether? You clearly don't know enough about what you're saying to continue this. Stop embarrassing yourself. -EK

Thank you. Someone gets it! And I'm obviously not the only one who sees this. The Sun Sentinal ran an article after the game that characterized Tannehill's performance in the following way:
"And for all but one solid drive resulting in the Dolphins' only score of the first half, Tannehill's first start resembled a project in chaos, far from being complete.

The numbers were telling.

Tannehill was 11-of-23 passing for 100 yards. Moore worked with the second-half reserves going 5 of 15 for 57 yards.

Neither quarterback threw a touchdown or an interception.

Tannehill led six drives and four of them resulted in three-and-outs. He was constantly harassed by the Panthers' overpowering pass rush.

And there were times Tannehill's indecision proved costly. He was sacked three times and had four tipped passes that never reached intended targets."
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-08-17/sports/fl-miami-dolphins-carolina-panthers-0818-20120817_1_qb-ryan-tannehill-dolphins-fans-carolina-panthers

A project in chaos- that's not an NFL-ready QB. -EK

EK you gotta problem. Seek help.

I've been against Tannehill starting Week #1, mainly because I thought it might hurt his pysche if he started off by losing a couple games and the fans started screaming for his ouster.  However, I'm leaning more towards it being okay becuase of the grasp he has on the offense, and the confidence he seems to show.  Whoever starts at QB, if the defensive secondary doesn't step it up it won't make a difference.

And that's a resonable stance to take and one I really agree with (although I think the fans are pretty smart and wouldn't call for his ouster if it was a rocky start). I am leaning towards starting Tannehill this week but if Moore starts the first half of the year I got no problem with that either. As I have stated I TRUST Sherman/Philbin.  But the breaking out of Heisman results of who finished 4th in the Heisman voting from a decade ago and bringing up QB's drafted some 10 years ago like Joey Harrington as a reason not to start Tannehill is just ludacris. I underastand being Anti-Tannehill like some are and all but openly rooting for him to fail so they can come and say "I told you so", but the off the wall reasons and grasping at strawman arguments to NOT play him is just confusing.  It's OK to be on the Matt Moore bandwagon but just say he is better. Bringing up Joey Harrington, Jamarus Russell, and Byron Leftwich as reasons not to start Tannehill is just downright silly and can't be taken seriously.

And once again, when Mike is wrong he changes the argument. Wrong about how long ago these QBs were drafted, wrong about Carr and Harrington in college. How is anyone supposed to take what you say seriously when every time you're shown you're incorrect you refuse to acknowledge it? I brought up those names because you've said in previous threads that rookie QBs should start and are expected to and pointed at the success of the limited few who have done well as proof. The fact is most rookie QBs are asked to start before they're ready and the names I have should indicate that. But just as you won't acknowledge you were wrong about Harrington and Carr, I'm sure you'll find a way to change your argument and my words on this too. -EK

That is a horrible reason to oppose starting a QB. 

What is he five years old?

Matt Cassel said the single best piece of advice he got from Brady during the 2008 season was to NOT read the sports pages or watch the sports news.  Just focus on playing. 

That's just it though, Mike. I DO consider 10 years a reasonable amount of time. Just because we disagree on that, doesn't mean you're correct. Using ridiculous hyperbole about the 70s or the start of the league doesn't make you look more correct, it makes your argument look weaker because you have to find something non-related to attack. Further, you can't say, "those guys weren't as good as Tannehill in college," and then when you're proven flat 100% WRONG about one, and shown the other was a Heisman finalist, suddenly ignore the facts and change the argument. Your first stance was, "Half of those names WEREN'T better college QB's than Tannehill. That is a statement that is made by someone who clearly doesn't watch college football and is laughable to those that follow the college game. David Carr played at Fresno and his best year was like 2,500 yards and that was vs lesser competition than Tannehill got in the Big 12. Joey Harrington at Oregon most yards was like 2,300 or so and most TD's in a year was like 20." Now that you're wrong, you change the argument to "Where Joey Harrington finished in the Heisman results means nothing on whether Ryan Tannehill should start Week 1 or not." What's that you're always saying- you can't make this stuff up? -EK

So...come December 1, I can expect you to admit you were wrong about Carr, and that you don't know as much about college football as you profess? Got it! I'll mark the calendar. -EK

For a dozen posts, you refuse to acknowledge that you are completely wrong about Carr and Harrington, and you started again with the insults when you thought you were correct, yet I'm not being rational? Your credibility goes down with every post. Just man up and admit you were wrong. I doubt you can. -EK

I "harped" on it because you're wrong much more frequently than you will admit to being. It's a constant theme with you, consistent as gravity- if someone disagrees with you, you jump from one foot to the other changing your argument to try and look correct. It's old. -EK

No one cares who's right and wrong by the way. You know what we (or at least me) care about?  Reading a thread that isn't post after post about who is right and who is wrong.

Back on topic, I would like to see Tannehill start week 1, but I too trust the coaches decision.

Can someone please find the "Citizen Kane" slow clap gif for me, please??   :D

My sentiments exactly.

Not that I am arguing for Tannehill week 1 (I just want the best guy in there) but this is a little difficult to prove isn't it? On one hand you can point to guys who became successful (Rodgers) but you really do not have any to point to on the other because you just don't know how they would have developed if they had played earlier. You have the stats skewed to your favor with this. For example you can argue that they were not hampered by not playing because they were never good enough to begin with, but you have no idea how they would have developed on the field because there is no evidence of it.

Completely agree, but it's a bigger risk to start them when they're not ready than it is to sit them. That was my point. There really is no way to "measure" it, but it's hard to find guys who did sit for a while and then start who were as liekly to fail. -EK

I'd rather see him work out his "issues" on the practice field and hand him the reins next year, than have him get demolished this year just to give him experience.  Give him experience when games are out of hand - fine.

I want Garrard to start, as I still believe he likely gives us the best chance to win games.   I'm not looking for instant turnaround.  Everyone says they trust the coaches - then trust the process.  10 years of futility is not a reason to rush things in year 11.

This football team is going to take years to build.  Just have patience, and leave the last 10 years worth of baggage at the door.

^^ 100% agree. I'm not anti-Tannehill. I'm anti-wasting yet another draft on a QB that get's thrown out there to be crushed because his O line and receivers suck, and his defense puts him in a position to HAVE to try to throw to win games. For a guy who only started 19 games in college, that's a lot of pressure. -EK

I can't say it any better than this so I'll just let Armando (http://miamiherald.typepad.com/dolphins_in_depth/2012/08/todays-depth-chart-may-not-determine-week-1-starter.html) do it for me.

It's clear Tannehill should be the starter

Dolphins coach Joe Philbin has been deliberate and coy about his quarterback decision this preseason. He doesn't give a lot of clues. And he has taken a systematic approach to getting the right player on the field with the first-team offense. This week appears to be no different. Philbin wanted to name a starter for Friday's Atlanta game this week and that's very important because that player is probably going to be the starting QB in the regular-season opener against Houston. But Philbin has tapped the brakes on the idea of making a final decision. "We may have a decision soon, but we may not until, we may play it out another week," Philbin said. "That’s still up in the air. We certainly haven’t come to any decision on that." Well, my question would be why not?

It is clear as day to anyone with eyes that Ryan Tannehill has so far gotten the better of Matt Moore in the quarterback competition. Tannehill has looked better than Moore when you compare their starting assignments this preseason. Tannehill also looked better than Moore when each played with the backups this preseason.

The statistics show more definitively what we've seen on the field: Tannehill is 25 of 44 (56.8 percent completion) for 267 yards with 1 TD and 0 INT. He has an 82.3 quarterback rating. Moore is 12 of 27 (44.4 percent completion) for 136 yards with 0 TD and 1 INT. He has a 44.7 quarterback rating. The competition has been closer in practice, but Tannehill has generally been as good if not better than Moore in that venue. Beyond that, Moore has not led a TD drive yet this preseason. Tannehill has.

So what decision is there to make? Ryan Tannehill should start against Atlanta Friday night. And he has done more to win the regular-season starting job than Moore.

Again, Armando is the most biased pot-stirring "reporter" out there, his blogs and columns aren't worth the kilobytes they're written on.  All he does is stir the pot to create waves and generate hits for his pages.

Wonder why Tannehill has 17 more attempts than Moore?  Each has started one game.  Tannehill's problems can't be shown in stat lines.  If you're OK with a starting "franchise" QB who throws for 56% completions, then great.  I'm not.

None of these conversations include Garrard, so the entire conversation is about who will be the backup once he is healthy.

Brian, I get that you weren't on the Tannehill bandwagon from the get go...

http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=20009.0

And I get it that you still aren't on the bandwagon, but you're gonna have to forgive those of us that have been on the bandwagon from the beginning a little. I don't know any more than you do and neither does Armando, but just because we disagree with you doesn't mean that Armando is stirring the pot. That's his honest opinion and it's mine too. There are others that also agree like Bob Griese and other highly respected individuals that are all saying the same thing, that it appears that Tannehill is gonna be able to play in the NFL. We might all be wrong, but at least so far it doesn't appear the Dolphins made a mistake with the 8th pick in the draft and if they did we'd rather find out sooner rather than later. Sitting him on the bench for a year isn't gonna tell us squat.

FWIW, I think Tannehill will be great- not just good- if given the right coaching and time. I'm just of the opinion that there's no rush to get him in this year. -EK

Precisely.  Henne sat for a year and he ended up sucking.  Is that because he didn't get on the field immediately, or just because he was no good?

You can wash/rinse/repeat for any QB in the league that didn't start the first year and ended up a failure.

^^That's actually a really great example and I didn't consider it at all. Henne clearly lacked the talent, and obviously sitting or starting wouldn't have made a difference. Nice point. -EK

Not to diverge off the topic but it seems like Tannehill took all of the 1st team reps. You all follow the writers/sites more than I do so I dunno if what is said is correct or not.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000052337/article/dolphins-ryan-tannehill-takes-starter-snaps?module=HP11_headline_stack

He took all of the 1st team snaps last week too in preperation for him starting against Carolina.

I don't know that I would say that Henne lacked the physical talent to be a good QB.  It seemed to me that he had the tools, and just couldn't make the correct decisions.  Therefore, one could argue that if he had been thrown into the fire, he might have been forced to think for himself on the fly.

Obviously, you can never know for certain; that's the nature of this hindsight evaluation.  But there's a difference between players like Pat White (who are just not physically up to the position) and Chad Henne.  And it's impossible to know whether starting earlier (or sitting another year, for that matter) would have made a difference.