« Live blog of Dolphins preseason Game 1 | Main | Rewinding the game: Dolphins versus Tampa Bay »

Tannehill outplays Moore, deserves chance to start

I must admit I didn't think it would be a good idea for the Dolphins to start rookie Ryan Tannehill this year -- at least not early in the season -- because I figured David Garrard would be good enough and Tannehill would be better served learning behind a veteran quarterback.

Well, that's not in the cards now.

Garrard is out of the picture. Although coach Joe Philbin refused to acknowlege Garrard is having knee surgery, likely today, the truth is he's out for at least two weeks and probably twice that long. By then, the Dolphins will have named a starting quarterback.

So the competition for the Dolphins starting job is apparently now a two-man race between Tannehill and Matt Moore.

And if the competition will be decided by whomever is playing better, then that answer right now has to be Tannehill. Obviously, that can change. In fact, it can change on an almost daily basis because as Philbin said, the competition was very close before the game was played.

"I don't think it's huge," Philbin said. "I think it's relatively close, probably."

But the Dolphins have had a scrimmage. And then the first preseason game was played ...

And Tannehill played better.

Moore completed 7 of 12 passes for 79 yards with an interception. His rating was 43.4. He didn't get the team in the end zone, which is my ultimate measure of quarterback success. I grant you, Moore faced Tampa Bay's starters in the first quarter. But he also faced the second-team defense and still didn't score.

Tannehill got the Dolphins in the end zone once and obviously that does not count the TD pass that Roberto Wallace dropped. The pace of the game seemed to pick up when Tannehill was in. He didn't throw an interception. He completed 14 of 21 passes for 167 yards. And he seemed to have control of the game, changing the play two or three times to get to better plays.

"We had a fast-tempo run play designed into our boundry and they had blitz called and if had he handed the ball off it would have been a minus play -- minus 3, minus 4 yards," Philbin said. "But he made a quick decision, no hesitation, saw it clearly, got the ball out and we got a seven or eight-yard gain. Those are the kind of things we like to see from a rookie quarterback."

Me, too. Those are the kind of things I like from veterans, too.

Moore is capable of making those kind of changes at the line. He is capable of playing well at times. But let's face it, if Tannehill is this close to him now, if he played better than Moore Friday, what is the point of holding Tannehill back?

Play him. Start him!

The Dolphins are clearly not a Super Bowl caliber team. The idea of nursing the psyche of veterans by starting a veteran is not valid as a result. And it really isn't a factor if the rookie is nearly as good now.


Because he's the future. And I'm not talking about the future in a year or two. At this rate, Tannehill might be better than Moore in a couple of months.

Even Moore accepts his competition is supremely talented. "It's evident and very clear he can play .. I know he's good and talented."

So why wait? Play the kid.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Craig...I didn't even think we should draft Tannehill(time of the draft).

YG..Shouldn't the corner backs get a chance to be coached up before you bury them? I know that they are veterans and it seems like they should have figured it out by now. Is it out of the question that they will get coached up this week, and have a better showing next week? There is going to be mistakes with new technique..Cover 2 corner, and zone are totaly different

Fin77, again the TRUTH RT was in for 2 1/2 quarters. Come on man.

Lets not forget that Moore played against Tampa Bay's 1st string defense, however Moore is the veteran and should look better. Play Tannehill his time is now. Garrard and Moore are good solid backups and that's it

Burger 305, again he played 2 1/2 quarters, against 2 AND 3rd stringer, and yes I would vault him. I was against starting him, but I'm on the bandwagon now.


Sorry your description of Moore as a 'sleepy' player isn't accurate. I think you're confusing him with Henne. Moore took over this team halfway through the 3rd game of last season and immediately ignited the offence. It may be accurate to say he's nothing more than a backup but a 'sleepy player' he is not.

I hope he does start if he is truly ready but a couple
quarters against 2s is not enough to know.
Throw him against 1s in next couple preseason
games and then see.,,,Typical knee jerk media
and fans crowning way too early,,,


How dare you come on this blog posting COMMON SENSE....and SIMPLE LOGIC after seeing a rookie QB play in his first game....against the 2nd teamers....

I would much rather laugh @ the knee-jerk reactions...and lol fans crowning with NOTHING to base it off of.....

Craig M

You didn't see the game last night so you can't possibly have an opinion between Moore and Tannehill. That is what my statement is relative to. Moore was sleepy out there, the whole offense was sleepy under Moore except for Reggie Bush. Tannehill was alive and the whole offense sparked up under him.

Hey, I hope Tanny passes Moore. But right now its not even close IMO.

Posted by: Fin 77 | August 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM

really? not even close? so far they both had 2 chances to play competition. last night and the team scrimmage. both times tannehill did better. so to say your opinion is that tannehill is not even close kinda sounds moronic.


I have to agree. This fanbase is incredibly knee jerk. Can't we evr just have a game and sit back and take it in without drawing multiple conclusions? Tannehill had a good start. Can't we just leave it at that. Last week guys were convinced Garrard was the answer and Moore should be traded and now one week later everyone is convinced that Tannehill is the guy. Life doesn't work that way. I think a lot of this guys need to cut back on their caffeine intake and take up yoga....geez!

That was a pretty sound beating Tampa handed us.

That is exactly what I am saying Craig M.....

It appears that Moore is probably close to his peak in potential. It appears that Tannehill is nowhere near his peak and that he is already better than Moore.

Some will say I am jumping the gun after one preseason game. Ok. At this point though, it looks to me the starting job is Tannehills until Moore can show much better than last night. I want to see Tannehill with the starters now. You can see he already has great chemistry with Clay and Wallace.


I think I misunderstood what you were getting at with your rookie QB stats. I thought you were showing the poor stats to make the case that Tannehill shouldn't start. My mistake man.


I want Tenne to start too....NOT because I believe he is the 2nd coming....but because I want to find out if he can play....and not waste two years to find out in year 3 and 4 he isn't the real deal...

Craig at 11:42

That comment makes no sense at all. Last week Garrard was healthy, this week he is injured and can't play. That is not a knee jerk reaction. It is down to Moore and Tannehill now for the week 1 start. Watch a game before sounding off an opinion based on nothing.

craig m, "immediately ignited the offense" and we lost that game and the next 3. i just don't get the love-fest for matt more. he is an average QB. he has always been at best an average QB. i'd like more out of the most important position. tannehill hasn't won the starting job based on last nights game, BUT he certainly earned time with the starters. tannehill was in his very 1st preseason game as a pro. moore has started how many game? played how many years? seen how many different systems? yet he could not outplay a kid with 19 college starts playing in his 1st preseason game???

all miami needs is marino, polite, csonka, fryar, duper, clayton, keith jackson, keith byers, keith sims, richmond webb, larry little, kim bokamper, louis oliver, troy vincent, patrick surtain, zack thomas, jason taylor, baumhower, brudnski, betters, duhe, kick, and cefalo in their prime. LOL.

last night a 5 year vet with many starts in many different systems did not play as well as a kid with 19 starts in college playing in his 1st preseason game yet so many of you wanna stick with the average vet and not give the kid with endless room for growth a chance?? that sounds pretty crazy to me!!


You're missing the point TOTALLY. Last week it was Garrard and Moore was trade bait. Today it's Tannehill and some guys are saying get rid of Garrard. I don't need to watch the game to know the situation. It's TWO quarters! You don't win a starting job based on TWO quarters of football. That's not how this works. What if Tannehill struggles in the next game. Is he now thrird string again? The whole thing is ridiculous!

I'm a Tannehill fan. I wanted the team to pick him at 8. I think he's got a great skill set and I think he's going to get better. But life in the NFL changes REALLY quick. The time is going to come when he's going to struggle. Happens to everyone. Doesn't mean he's not a good QB. Sometimes you learn more from your struggles.

And again, I didn't watch the game last night but Matt Moore is not a 'sleepy' QB. He may have been 'sleepy' last night but I'm basing my opinion on the 13 games I watched him play last year and his time in Carolina. Because he played like that last night doesn't mean that's who he is. Guys have offnights and there are a number of reason why he had an offnight, perhaps because the rest of the offence has trouble keeping up. Who knows. Point is that one quarter does not define a guy, as is the case with Tannehill.

Well Kris that is another valid reason. I don't see that we have a chance in hell to win it this year so lets get him experience and know what we got sooner than later. From what I saw, Tannehill is unquestionably a better talent than Moore.

Some of the younger or novice fans may go wild over one good quarter from Tannehill but the experienced fans know better. Heck, even Beck, White and Henne had good quarters in preseason. LOL

The real focus should be the team as a whole performance. Which IMO was pi$$ poor.

We all want a top QB and we just might hve one finally. But if you can't block, if you can't tackle, it won't matter what QB you have.

I like Philbin and I want him to suceed. But we weren't ready to play last night and Philbin didn't have them ready. Hope he learns quick.

Getting rid of nolan will come back to haunt us. Coyle is not the answer. He's a good secondary coach but our secondary is the defenses liability right now. Our defense will not be a top 10 defense this year.


I am not missing your point. Maybe you are just stupid. Garrard got injured, so if he can't play, that isn't the fans getting off the bandwagon.

I don't care if you saw 100 games of Moore. You never saw Moore compared to Tannehill in the same game. That is where my comparison comes in. Opinions are a dime a dozen, mine too, but so far it looks like all the local writers as well are now behind giving Tannehill a chance to start after last nights game, so just maybe we all saw the same thing? And of course you saw nothing of it.


Breathe man! It's ONE friggin' preseason game. Can we maybe watch and learn before drawing all these conclusions? Some of you guys are ridiculous! It's like wanting to know who the murder is five minutes into the movie. RELAX.....enjoy! Let's see how it all plays out. Manning was nothing special in his debut. Does that mean he's all done as an NFl QB? Of course not. It's preseason guys....let's let some things play out first. Foot of the gas....please.

jaison, I like you as a poster and I respect a lot of what you have to say on here but your comments are way overboard here. My guess is you're a young guy in your 20's and like a lot of guys your genearation have ZERO patience for anything. It's not a criticism, just an observation. The NFL is a marathon, not a sprint. We're going to need all of these guys before the season is over, so let's ease up on the need to appoint a starter quite so early in the process.


Sean Smith and Vontae Davis have been coached up0 for going into thier th season now. Hel yeah, its time to bury them.

Vontae's now beginning to build a track record of no knowing which Vontae you're getting on the playing field or coming into camp. He now seems to think trainng camp and the 1st four regular season games are made for getting yourself in shape. The "underachiever label" he had in college is pannig out to be true.

Sean Smith isnt physical enough for hs size, a very soft tackler, and not nimble-footed enough to be agreat db in coverage. He doent seem to be able to break o the ball very well either.

Smith and Davis were viewed as the next Surtain and Madison. Right now that comparison isnt even close, and a downright insult to the Madison/Surtain dynamic corner duo.

But in the case of Davis, its even worse than Smith, on his best day Smith will never be ore than slightly above average. If Davis ever got his head out of his asss, on his worst day, he would still be at least slightly aboe average. Davis seems to be just as lazy as he is talented.


You just backed up my point exactly at 11:58 am. Well said.

Philbin is a joke of a HC. He was lost in space last nite.


In my mind the only bright spot last night was Tannehill and maybe to see Clay and Wallace looking like players. Otherwise I'm with you, the whole team looked really bad. It's not like they were going against a top team. Also Reggie Bush still looked like the player he was last year.


Seems to me we should be able to have a disagreement on here without you calling me 'stupid'. Because I didn't see the game last night or agree with you I'm 'stupid'. Yeah OK, that makes a lot of sense.

ks, I have no issues with Tannehill getting first team snaps but to make comments that 'Tannehill is 'clearly' better than Moore based on 30 mins of football makes no sense. Should I come back on here and stomp all over you when Tannehill struggles in the next game or the one after? Makes no sense bud.

I like what I see out of Tannehill. We know what we're gonna get out of Moore. 8-7 or something. Tannehill could go 4-11 or 12-3.. why not start him and let him get some reps he missed in college. He wants it, and he knows the risks. His ego and confidence will be fine. Trust me on that. And run Lamar Miller as the #2 HB. Thomas can't run against High School D's.

To annoint Tanny the starter after one quarter in preseason is PREMATURE EJACULATION

OK guys, I'm out. I'll let everyone else fight it out for who our starting QB is going forward. I'm encouraged by what I hear and see and for me that's all that matters right now.

Anyone have any opinions on how coach Philbin looked last night? Did he do a good job? Make any questionable calls at times?

Craig M for me last night was more of the same with moore. up and down. last year he was 6-6 as a starter. the very definition of average. he beat no playoff team. i don't think he beat a team with a winning record. he is average. what is tannehill going to learn from him? how to be average??? you guys are like dogs chewing a bone with matt moore. guess what! there is no meat on a bone!!! there's no meat on matt moore!! ut you guys started chewing it and started liking the taste and now you won't let go of it even if you see a yet to be cooked juicy t-bone steak in front of you! you're so worried about the chef burning it that you'd rather have it stay in the fridge and keep chewing a tasteless bone!!!

if you name moore the starter what does tannehill learn?? in practice he continues to play with the second string. on game day he's a spectator and looks at polaroids. i just don't get why you guys wanna sit him behind freakin' matt moore!! at least garrard was a proven starter. maybe behind him of behind another quality experienced vet. but matt moore????

Craig I called you stupid because you said it was a knee jerk reaction for fans to be off the Garrard bandwagon. Sorry, that is just plain stupid. Garrard got hurt. Should we still want him to play on crutches? I explained that clearly.

Secondly you keep forming a opinion based on nothing the rest of us saw last night. That is stupid too.

Tannehill like Luck and RG3 will have his growing pains. I'm convinced though that he is a superior qb than Moore.

And if I am wrong on that, come back and throw it at me to your hearts content.

Those of you say sit Tannehill, beware, Matt Moore will have much say in that beginning with the 1st practice this week.

First practice Moore's probably given every opportunity to hold onto the starter job he's now "penciled in" for. It probably begins with Moore getting at least 60-65% of 1st team snaps to Tannehill's 35-40%.

Now, if this practice week ends with Tannehill/Moore splitting 1st team snap 50/50, T-hill most likely becomes Preseason game 2 starter. A 50/50 1st team snap split means T-hill has totally caught up to Moore.

So with all things being equal, Tannehill clearly looks to be the better field general of the two. That clearly showed in last night's game, working against Bucs 2nd-3rd team defense or not.

I agree you have to start Tannehill. Even from a business stand point. Are fans going to come back this year to watch Matt Moore play? Are the Colts and the Redskins holding their rookie QB's out this year to learn?
Throw Tanne in there and let him learn trial by fire.
It speaks to the fan base that Philbin is here to stay, it says we are a team in rebuilding which the Fins are.
Better to keep expectations realistic than to go 7-9 with Matt Moore and have Tannehill still be a unknown.
Stop trying to make this team look like a possible playoff team, only to be exposed as a lower tier team. We wasted 3 years on Parcells and Sparano playing 1980's football, and gimmicks etc.
Build a winner for the long term.


Again I don't need to see the game last night to have an opinion. One game doesn't give us all the answers we need. You fell for the big tease last night and that's dangerous. Your basing your decision off of 2 quarters of football for Tannehill and 1 quarter for Moore. To me THAT'S stupid. I need to see a lot more before I make a decison and I'm sure Philbin does too.
So why don't you tell him HE's stupid too.

My comments about Garrard and 'knee jerk' are in reference to fact that people wanted to trade Moore just a few days ago when it was very clear that Garrard wouldn't make it through the season. That's 'knee jerk'. That's a decision with no planning.

Do you follow?


One thing about premature ejaculation is, it still feels good. Not that I have in recent memory. :)

Craig, are you hallucinating? How was it very clear that Garrard wouldn't make it through the season a few days ago??? He was penciled in to start yesterday a few days ago. Is it clear to you when Luck or RG3 will get injured too? Will it be a knee jerk reaction if the Washington fans chant for the back up if RG3 breaks a leg?

You have a bias towards Moore. That will change soon enough once you see what the rest of us saw.


One thing about premature ejaculation is, it still feels good. Not that I have in recent memory. :)

Posted by: incendiary | August 11, 2012 at 12:18 PM

I wouldnt know how it feels. I'm an all night long guy myself!!!!!!!!!!


I honsestly believe it's a READING comprehension with you. At no point have I said Moore is a superior talent to Tannehill. At no point have I said Moore is anything more than a solid guy to have on your team. Tannehill is the guy I wanted. I honestly believe he's the guy that will lead us to success. My point on being caution with annnointing him as starter has nothing to do with my thinking Moore's a better talent. But it takes a lot more than talent to be successful at QB in the NFL. It takes experience and leadership and poise and smarts and hard work and lots of other things....most of which I think Tanehill has. But I don't believe you just hand the guy the job, especially after 2 quarters of football. There's a lot that goes into that decision. So I'm prepared to say I'm encouraged and I'll leave it at that.

You can't make QB decisions based on 1 pre-season game. Understand that Garrard is injured and QB #1 by default fell on Moore who hasn't been able to separate himself from the competition. I don't think anyone, specially the new training staff, cares about the silly notion that Moore is a game time QB, not a practice QB. Tannehill shows superior performance overall at a younger age than Moore. But Tannehill is a rookie. And he has the rest of pre-season and practice to leap over Moore. But even then, coaches might be still be tempted to start Moore, and let Tannehill marinate on the sidelines until Moore either sustains an injury or just tanks.
People keep using many NFL QBs as an example of why Tannehill should or shouldn't start now. That to me is absolutely irrelevant. Each QB has an individual story, all QBs have different learning curves, different teams; thus, different WRs, coaches, etc. Some QBs take longer to shine. Some seem prepared from day 1.
Let the rookie show what he can do. Let him win the QB race every week, cleanly. And let the coaches make a decision before week 1 of the regular season. But don't ask them to make a rush decision after 2 weeks of training and 1 pre-season game.

Given a choice, I rather see this team go 5-11 with Tannehill, than 7-9 with Matt Moore.

Clearly last night indicated this team can use a infuse of more quality players. 5-11 under Tannehill gives us the better draft opportunity to do just that.

Lastnight indicated, even though Tannehill shined, we're still far from a finished product. 5-11 under Tannehill would help this team far more than 7-9 to 8-8 under Moore. It puts us in better position via the draft to add far more potent pieces. Lastnight proved we need this.

Craig M, i wish i was 20 again but i'm 44.

my posts have little to do with rushing tannehill and everything to do with matt moore not being some one i want tannehill to "learn" behind. matt moore's resume is at best a triumph of mediocrity. 6-6 here, in carolina he was even worse. what is tannehill going to learn?? how to beat bad teams but lose to good teams?? how to fold in the 4th quarter?? i was fine with him being behind garrard. garrard has been a winner, a pro bowler, beaten good teams. but he is not going to be a factor in the actual QB competition if he's out 4 weeks. even with his injury i'd rather he stay and moore go if we only kept one of the vets. he could teach tannehill more being the back-up and going over the polaroids on the bench and going over film in practice than matt moore could ever teach him by watching moore play.


AGAIN, a reading comprehension with you....

It was clear that getting rid of Moore would have been a STUPID move. Why? Because Garrard is 34 years old, is coming off back surgery and has been out of the league for over a year. To have gotten rid of Moore would have been too risky. That's 'knee jerk'. RGIII and Luck? Why are we talking about them? Are they 34 years old and have a history of injuries? I'm not getting your point.

Also Craig, go ahead and throw being realistic to the wind. Do you really think after one preseason game Philbin is just going to boldly announce the starter before even reviewing the tape of the first preseason game? No way. He needs to keep the competition alive for obvious reasons. It is still close, this isn't Marion against Cleo Lemon. So again, you go off suggesting things that are totally unrealistic.

Yes there is a lot that goes into being a successful NFL qb and the way to build up to that is by playing. Sitting on the bench is not even half as valuable.

I never expected or said Philbin should name a starter so fast. All I said was that from what I see, Tannehill is easily the better talent to nurture. My opinion is that his upside is well beyond Moore's, so soon enough we will see what the opinion of the coaching staff is.

Matt Moore is no slouch. He could be a top 10 QB in this league. He played great for the Fins last year in 10-11 real games. There is no reason to rush Tannehill.


I apologize then about the 20's comment. I'm 44 also, so we're coming from the same place.

I think you're wrong about Moore. He didn't play a llot in Carolina and I think he went 5-2 one year on a bad Carolina team. The year they went 2-14 he only played 3-4 games. So his won/loss record is not nearly as bad as you might think. I think Tannehill could learn lots from Moore. How to prepare every week, some of the pitfalls. Moore's a key who' been around a few years and he's a pretty smart QB. IMO, there's room on this tam for all three. Can never have enough QB's IMO and the chemistry between all three seems good.

I'll repeat, I'm a Tannehill fan. But that doesn't mean he's earned the job simply playing two quarters against 2nd and 3rd string guys.


yeah sure, that's what they ALL say. lol

I was 17, and she was hotter than hell, and like I said, it still felt great.

Where are you guys getting the"making a qb decision based on one game" or based on "Tanne playing 2qtrs against backup defenders" from?

Have you guys not been paying attention in camp? Moore's been steadily losing ground to Garrad since camp begin. Tanne has steadily been gaining ground on Moore since coming to camp "3 days late".

Tanne outshined Moore in the team scrimmage game. He outshined Moore lastnight. He's outshined Moore in every practice. Where the hell have you guys been? This this about far more than just last night's game.

If its any consolation to you naysayers. Right now Moore is the penciled in starter for preseason game 2. The starter job is his to "LOSE" right now. If Tanne starts preseason game 2, its because "HE TOOK" it from Matt Moore. He didnt have it handed to him.

A month from now you won't remember a single thing about these completely meaningless, stupid exhibition games that the NFL should be ashamed of making fans pay good money for.

Yet right now you will attach ludicrous amounts of meaning to them because as obsessive fans you simply cannot help yourselves.

Marv Levy was the ONE coach honest enough to call out these games for the useless crap they truly are, and the NFL wound up fining him for his honesty.


I have a bias towards, Moore? How do you figure? I'm a Tannehill guy. He's the guy. He's the future. At this point in time I'm not convinced the team will win more with Tannehill than Moore at the controls. I'm not convinced that Philbin is. Amazing to me that you cna make a decision like that sitting at home watching from your living room on your TV. You're a better man than me or Philbin, obviously.

Craig I think you are confused at who you are discussing what with. I never mentioned a word about trading Moore. I've been commenting on what I saw last night, not last year, not anything else.

The post at 12:23 and the one by someone else earlier are as well in line with my reasoning.

Try to focus on who is debating what and not jumble them all together.


strangely enough...good post....


Last week CraigM was confused about when posters were talking trade Moore. No one was talking trade Moore per say. It was about possibly trying to trade the loser of the Garrard/Moore qb battle.

CraigM with his dull comprehension skills, turned it into to trade Matt Moore. The subject was possibly seeking to trade the loser of the qb battle. Which at the time happened to be Matt Moore.


You are very difficult to talk to. I came here on the blog to state my opinion as to what I saw. Isn't that what a blog is for?

Did I say I can make a decision better than Philbin? I have no decision to make. I have no idea what Philbin really thinks no matter what he tells the media at this point. You didn't see the game, you did not see the two QB's juxtaposed against each other at the same time. I did and commented on it.

You say you are not convinced Tannehill will be better at the controls. Well how could you be? You didn't even see the game! Some of us have, and are convinced already. If you've followed the training camp reports, they have consistently said Moore has under performed.

Not one.....

Good points as well.....and true....nobody will remember this game in even 2 weeks....

« 1 2 3 4 5 »

The comments to this entry are closed.