Garrad had a knee surgery, could be out?

[MikeO]

You want to give the Dolphins the best chance at winning, but I'd rather be winning games in December with Tannehill than winning games in September with Moore.

Big Picture is I want to be going into next year with the dead weight gone, Tannehill as our guy, and a revamped offense. With a realistic shot at making the playoffs and being "contenders. " This is a Honeymoon year for Philbin as nobody expects much and with 20+ guys in the final year of their deals with only a few or a half at most coming back.

Fins schedule plays out nice so if they decide against starting Tannehill Week 1. You got Week 4 AT Arizona. HOME vs Rams Week 6. BYE week Week 7 (2 weeks to prepare for next opponent) . Indy Week 9. And a 10 days heading into Week 12 after the Thurs night game. Multiple places to insert Tannehill into the lineup in a "favorable" situation.

Garrard had his surgery today and "tweeted" that it went well (not that I expected him to tweet it went poorly).

[el diablo]

What is the rush? If Tannehill was #1 on the depth chart, then I would see no problem in starting him next week. If it's truly a process, then let it play out. He'll be starting some time in the second half anyways.

[MikeO]

What is the rush? If Tannehill was #1 on the depth chart, then I would see no problem in starting him next week. If it's truly a process, then let it play out. He'll be starting some time in the second half anyways.

Last couple years ROOKIE QB's who started from Day 1 and had no issues. Dalton, Cam, Flacco, Ryan, Sanchez. History is actually on the side of starting Tannehill here if he wins the job.

I would still like to not have him start week 1, but if he beats out Moore its tough to sit him.

[EKnight]

How far back is recent? You left out Joey Harrington, Alex Smith (good now, but 1TD and 11 INTs his rookie year), JP Losman, Matt Leinart, JeMarcus Russell, Blaine Gabbert, and Christian Ponder all in the past ten years. If anything, history may be split, but leaning toward rookies being busts. -EK

[fyo]

I've always been on the side of keeping the rookie on the bench for a year, but it's deceptively difficult to make sense of the data. On one hand, quarterbacks who start as rookies tend to be busts, but on the other hand, teams that start rookie quarterbacks are often BAD teams, desperate teams.

[MikeO]

I've always been on the side of keeping the rookie on the bench for a year, but it's deceptively difficult to make sense of the data. On one hand, quarterbacks who start as rookies tend to be busts, but on the other hand, teams that start rookie quarterbacks are often BAD teams, desperate teams.

I think that is the old NFL way though. The new NFL way is start rookies day 1 and they will succeed. I gave 4 or 5 names above. And let's be honest Baltimore did it with Flacco and they have been to the playoffs alot. Jets same. Atlanta same. Dalton was a 2nd round pick and turned around a bad team had them in the playoffs and he was a 2nd round pick. This is the recent trend. I ain't going back to the late 90's or 2004 or some 10 years ago, but the last couple years you start a rookie draft pick from day 1 more times than not it works. Blaine Gabbert is the only real bust I would say. Ponder/Locker didn't start from day 1 so they don't count. I'm talking about the Day 1 starters.

[Brian Fein]

Its situational for sure.  A rookie QB needs to have a good staff to prevent himself from being a bust.  Sadly, I don't think the Dolphins have the surroundings for Tannehill to be successful.

For this reason, I want Tannehill to sit.  I think you people who can't wait for him to start are just being impatient.  Its the right move.

This year should be Garrard and Moore.  The team's not going to make any waves this year.  There's realistically 1 playoff spot for 11 teams to grab (assuming Pitt/Baltimore will be a WC team).  I don't see the Dolphins being that team.  Have patience, take the pressure off, let the kid learn and rebuild some more next offseason.  Then hand him the reins when Moore's and Garrard's contracts are both expired.

[MikeO]

This year should be Garrard and Moore.  The team's not going to make any waves this year.  There's realistically 1 playoff spot for 11 teams to grab (assuming Pitt/Baltimore will be a WC team).  I don't see the Dolphins being that team.  Have patience, take the pressure off, let the kid learn and rebuild some more next offseason.  Then hand him the reins when Moore's and Garrard's contracts are both expired.

Easy for fans to say that. Coaches don't think that way of, well we suck lets give up in August and save him till next year. That's not how coaches think or the league works. That's unrealistic.

[Brian Fein]

^^ yes, I agree, and the coaches are always trying to win games.  But in reality, if he's not ready (and based on what I saw, he's not) then why feed him to the wolves?  I don't see the rush.

[bsfins]

I read this the other day,from Ben Volin through twitter,on sulia..2 days ago...
Twitter link,to the Sulia page]https://twitter.com/BenVolinPBP/status/234301645234769920]Twitter link,to the Sulia page

Source close to the #Dolphins QB competition shed an interesting light on David Garrard, who had been leading the battle after 2 weeks.

While Garrard looked the best of the three QBs, he also had some trouble grasping the playbook. When the Dolphins run their no-huddle, up-tempo offense in practice, Garrard would sometimes need QB coach Zac Taylor to call in the play two or three times, or have a teammate explain the play to him, before recalling the play and everyone's responsibility.

Then the Chad Johnson stuff broke,I took it with a grain of salt,unnamed source thing...But it made me think about Garrarrd's comments about Tannehill,knows this stuff beter than anyone comment...when asked about Tannehill holding out...

[Pappy13]

Its situational for sure.  A rookie QB needs to have a good staff to prevent himself from being a bust.  Sadly, I don't think the Dolphins have the surroundings for Tannehill to be successful.

It's situational for sure, but I think it has more to do with the QB than anything else. Some QB's fold under pressure and others strive to get better. Look at Peyton and Eli Manning and Troy Aikman, they all struggled in their 1st years, didn't seem to hurt their progress at all. Yes for every success story, there's a Ryan Leaf, but that's why I think it just depends on the QB. Perhaps if Ryan Leaf wasn't thrust into the starter role from the beginning things would have turned out differently for him, but do we know that for sure? Maybe the only thing that would have changed is that it would have taken 2 or 3 years to find out what they did in 1 year?

For this reason, I want Tannehill to sit.  I think you people who can't wait for him to start are just being impatient.  Its the right move.

I'm all for being patient if the situation dictates that you are. GB didn't rush Aaron Rogers, San Francisco didn't rush Steve Young, but in my opinion that was because GB had Brett Favre and San Fran had Joe Montana. In those cases it made sense to wait and have them learn from the vet, but how much can Ryan Tannehill really learn from watching Matt Moore play? I was prepared to let Tannehill sit and watch behind David Garrard because he seemed to have a command of the west coast offense and was playing at higher level then Tannehill. Matt Moore on the other hand has NOT displayed that command as of yet, in fact if anything Tannehill has looked more comfortable running the offense than Moore has. So what is the point of having Tannehill sit and wait? To protect him from being Ryan Leaf and crumbling when the chips are down? Well let's examine that for a second shall we?

What evidence is there that Tannehill doesn't deal with adversity well? In college Tannehill was told that he wasn't good enough to play QB, so instead Tannehill switched to WR and became possibly the best WR on the team, all the while he continued to sit it on all the QB sessions just waiting for his chance. When that chance came he played very well, so it wouldn't appear that Tannehill really has a problem with adversity at least not that I'm aware of.

I'm not being impatient, I'm just being realistic. With Garrard seemingly out of the picture, I see no reason to have Tannehill on the bench behind a QB that he really can't learn much from. Perhaps struggling a bit will help him work that much harder at his craft and perhaps, just perhaps he won't struggle at least not any more than Matt Moore might have.

[Brian Fein]

Disagree that Garrard is out of the picture.  He's injured.  He may be back for opening day.  No one from the team has written him off, not once.

[Pappy13]

Disagree that Garrard is out of the picture.  He's injured.  He may be back for opening day.  No one from the team has written him off, not once.

He's not out of the picture and he may very well be back for game 1, but you can't deny that Philbin has already said that he would like to name his starter before the 3rd preseason game and give that guy the most reps in that game and it doesn't appear that Garrard will be healthy enough for him to be the starter for the 3rd preseason game. Now Philbin didn't rule anything out either, so of course Garrard could be back in time for week 1 and he could be named the starter of game 1, but I think the odds are against him right now.

[Brian Fein]

^^ you're right about that.  But the question is - has Philbin seen enough of Garrard already to see that he's better (or worse) than the other guys.

I'm hoping Garrard is back in time for the last preseason game, but I think that's optimistic.

[MikeO]

Kim Boakamper reported last night he thinks Garrard's time in Miami may be over.

Boakamper reporting that so take it for what its worth.