Game Balls- Colts

[Pappy13]

Anyone happen to have Moore's stats through 8 games last year? I'd be curious to see how they compare to the savior RT1    The W-L is the same at 4-4, unless you want to throw out the game that Tannehill only played a few possessions in and Moore shined this year. -EK

Moore was 138-220-1607-8-5 thru his first 8 games last year.
Tannehill is 142-241-1762-5-6 thru his first 8 games this year.

But one fact you're omitting is that these were not Moore's first 8 games in the NFL. He was NOT a rookie last year, he was a 4 year veteran with 22 games to his credit already. If Tannehill's stats don't improve after 4 years in the league, he will no longer be considered the savior either. In fact if you throw out just the very first game of Tannehill's career, his stats are comparable to Moore's. If we were to compare apples to apples in Moore's first 8 games his rookie year his stats were 63-111-730-3-5 well below that of Tannehill's numbers this year.

Furthermore you're wrong about their records. Moore was 3-5 in his first 8 games with Miami last year. He was 4-4 in his first 8 starts, but Miami lost the first game that Moore played extensively against SD 16-26. At the time that Moore entered the game the score was 0-0 so in effect it was his game to win or lose.

[Spider-Dan]

Spider I understand what you're saying and I just disagree. Players are drafted to improve the team at their position. I do not subscribe to "he's a rookie." So far, Tannehill has not been an upgrade over Moore.

Well, yes, if the Dolphins drafted Tannehill with the idea that he would never get any better than he is in his rookie year, he has certainly failed them.

And they are colossal idiots for expecting that to begin with.

[stealth3ltt]

EK is way off base here.  Tannehill went toe to toe with Luck.  The fins didn't lose because of a couple of missed throws.  They lost because the defense was abysmal!!!!!   Miami led most of the game from offensive scores.   the defense could not stop any 3rd down plays.  Tannehill did his job.   when was the last time two rookie's attempted that many throws in a game without a pick???   both qb's did their part.  it was the defense that was horrible.


my game ball   TANNEHILL.

[MikeO]

I would have thought last weeks ass beating would have been enough to keep even the biggest jet fan away for at least 6 weeks. 

ha ha ha ha

[Brian Fein]

Moore was 138-220-1607-8-5 thru his first 8 games last year.
Tannehill is 142-241-1762-5-6 thru his first 8 games this year.

But one fact you're omitting is that these were not Moore's first 8 games in the NFL.

for completion:

Matt Moore's first 8 NFL starts (with Carolina, 2007-2009):
128 for 205 for 1554 yds, 11 td's, 3 INT's

[Pappy13]

for completion:

Matt Moore's first 8 NFL starts (with Carolina, 2007-2009):
128 for 205 for 1554 yds, 11 td's, 3 INT's

Alas, again he was not a rookie for most of those starts, in fact he was a 2 year veteran by then.  His first 8 games AS A ROOKIE he was 63-111-730-3-5 well below that of Tannehill's numbers this year.

Let's not forget that Moore had a chance to beat out Tannehill in training camp and FAILED!

[Brian Fein]

For five of those 8 games, he did not start as a rookie.  What's the difference if he's a rookie or not, they're his first 8 starts in the league.   You going to count the game he came in in garbage time and went 0 for 1 with a pick?  Or the one where they lost 37-6 and he went 3 for 10 for 21 yards.

You can't count those games on his record when he entered a game in garbage time when it was out of hand.  Let's count starts, like you were before.

[EKnight]

Moore was 138-220-1607-8-5 thru his first 8 games last year.
Tannehill is 142-241-1762-5-6 thru his first 8 games this year.

But one fact you're omitting is that these were not Moore's first 8 games in the NFL. He was NOT a rookie last year, he was a 4 year veteran with 22 games to his credit already. If Tannehill's stats don't improve after 4 years in the league, he will no longer be considered the savior either. In fact if you throw out just the very first game of Tannehill's career, his stats are comparable to Moore's. If we were to compare apples to apples in Moore's first 8 games his rookie year his stats were 63-111-730-3-5 well below that of Tannehill's numbers this year.

Furthermore you're wrong about their records. Moore was 3-5 in his first 8 games with Miami last year. He was 4-4 in his first 8 starts, but Miami lost the first game that Moore played extensively against SD 16-26. At the time that Moore entered the game the score was 0-0 so in effect it was his game to win or lose.

If you're going to use that, then you're wrong about their records, too. The game Tannehill got injured in he had 5 attempts for 18 yards. Moore played "extensively" (your word) in that game, and the win should be to his credit, not Tannehill's. In fact- Moore played more minutes against the Jets (came in at 10:09 of the first) than he did against SD (came in at 5:51 of the first), so it would appear that Tannehill also only has three wins to his credit by your logic.

Again, I refuse to grade on a curve. The idea that a player is a rookie, so he gets cut slack doesn't fly with me. If he was good enough to beat out Moore in training camp and be expected to be the starter, he should be good enough to have an expectation that he actually puts up better numbers and more wins than Moore. If he can't or doesn't, then there's no point in noting that he beat Moore out. -EK

[fyo]

Does every thread have to degenerate into a Tannehill sucks/doesn't thread? It's pathetic.

[MikeO]

Does every thread have to degenerate into a Tannehill sucks/doesn't thread? It's pathetic.

Only reason why EK comes to this message board. To trash Tannehill.

[MikeO]

Alas, again he was not a rookie for most of those starts, in fact he was a 2 year veteran by then.  His first 8 games AS A ROOKIE he was 63-111-730-3-5 well below that of Tannehill's numbers this year.

Let's not forget that Moore had a chance to beat out Tannehill in training camp and FAILED!

If Garrard doesn't get hurt Moore might not even be on Miami right now. Let's also point that out.

[Brian Fein]

Its possible that "other factors" were involved in naming Tannehill the starter, including (but not limited to) getting him some snaps in a "no expectations" season to prepare him for next year.  Of course if Moore and Tannehill are about equal, or I'd say even if they are close but Moore is slightly better, Tannehill will get the nod because (a) you spent a #8 overall pick on him and (b) he's the future of your franchise and needs to be evaluated.

Its not always as cut and dry as "he's starting so he must be better."  I still think Matt Moore offers more poise and leadership for the team, but understand the investment the team has made in Tannehill and they need to "break him in" for future success.

[MikeO]

Its possible that "other factors" were involved in naming Tannehill the starter, including (but not limited to) getting him some snaps in a "no expectations" season to prepare him for next year.  Of course if Moore and Tannehill are about equal, or I'd say even if they are close but Moore is slightly better, Tannehill will get the nod because (a) you spent a #8 overall pick on him and (b) he's the future of your franchise and needs to be evaluated.

Its not always as cut and dry as "he's starting so he must be better."  I still think Matt Moore offers more poise and leadership for the team, but understand the investment the team has made in Tannehill and they need to "break him in" for future success.

Agree 100%. I can't believe that Miami is at 4-4 with Tannehill playing well and people are still upset he is starting and attacking him.

When you list the problems on this Miami team right now, Tannehill is near the bottom of the list. Tannehill isn't an issue. The QB play has been good this year.

[Dolphin-UK]

Again, I refuse to grade on a curve. The idea that a player is a rookie, so he gets cut slack doesn't fly with me. If he was good enough to beat out Moore in training camp and be expected to be the starter, he should be good enough to have an expectation that he actually puts up better numbers and more wins than Moore. If he can't or doesn't, then there's no point in noting that he beat Moore out. -EK

I completely understand your point but fundamentally disagree with what can only be flawed logic...

I think what you're saying is that because Tannehill vs Moore stat wise is fairly equal, right now Tannehill is not an improvement over Moore, but the counter to that is that your argument essentially says that experience (or gaining of it) is not beneficial in a quaterback which is clearly a ridiculous statment.

For me to even consider taking your argument seriously, you need to state clearly that you believe that experience is not a valid trait to judge a QB on and that gaining experience does not make a QB better otherwise for Tannehill and Moore to be fairly equal stat wise with Tannehill having less experience shows that Tannehill can develop into a better QB than Moore if he gains experience.

If you can't do that then your own argument falls over. Go on, tell me that experience is not a useful trait in a QB.

[Pappy13]

For five of those 8 games, he did not start as a rookie.

Or in his second year in the league either. 5 of those 8 starts were in his 3rd year in the league. That's 2 full years of being taught how to run the offense, working with his receivers on timing and adjustments, knowing the playbook, studying defenses, game planning etc etc etc. 2 FREAKING YEARS!!!

Have you NEVER played competitive sports? I don't mean pick up games in the back yard with your buddies, I'm talking about a sport where you practice all week to try to get everyone to know their assignments on each and every play no matter what the other team throws at you. When you get the highest levels in sports, that doesn't happen in a week or a month, it happens over years. Why do you think it is that Gaffney couldn't get on the field for 3 weeks? It's because playing WR for 1 team is not the same as playing WR for another. The plays are different, the timing is different, your assignments are different and that's just for the WR position. The QB position is 10 times HARDER than that because a WR pretty much just has to know what the WR's and the QB are gonna do, the QB has to know what him, the WR's, the TE, the RB's and line are going to do. They have to make the decisions when they come to the line of scrimmage what adjustments need to be made and make sure that everyone gets set properly to run the play and then make the decisions during the play on where to throw the ball based on what the defense gives him, etc.

What's the difference if he's a rookie or not

It's a HUGE, GIGANTIC, FREAKING DIFFERENCE!!! Have you not paid ANY attention to what people who KNOW football are saying? They have raved about how Tannehill is doing things that you don't expect a ROOKIE to do? These are not just some random people off the street saying this. These are guys who have PLAYED in the NFL or COACHED at the NFL level. THEY know the difference and they are impressed by what he's done. So I'm sorry that you don't understand the difference and are not impressed, but I am and so is just about ANYONE who knows anything about what it takes to play QB in the NFL.

You and EK are in DENIAL so bad it's not even entertaining anymore, it's just sad.