Gsmack_42
Active Roster
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,768
- Reaction score
- 8,972
So I take it you want Moore to be the starter.The 10 is in the red zone. Closer we got more Tannehill sucked while Moore was 7 for 7 4 TDs
So I take it you want Moore to be the starter.The 10 is in the red zone. Closer we got more Tannehill sucked while Moore was 7 for 7 4 TDs
No he's just much better in the red zone. Tannehills red zone cautiousness has always been his biggest weakness needs to improve
Whatever. I'm sure if/when he does improve this there'll be plenty of you looking for something else to be 'concerned' about.
Exactly. I love how these myths of Tannehill's weakness are constantly debunked with his deep ball concerns being the most prevalent among the less informed, but there's still someone out there with a sticking point of, "Oh yeah, well within this 10 yards of space, Matt Moore . . ." GTFOH.
I don't think anybody claimed it was elite but I certainly would put him in the top 10 as far as deep passers goWhen people claimed tannehill had the worst deep ball of all time I said it was BS as he was pretty good at it
Now he is suddenly elite at it? No. Pretty good
At least it's not that he has zero pocket awareness anymoreExactly. I love how these myths of Tannehill's weakness are constantly debunked with his deep ball concerns being the most prevalent among the less informed, but there's still someone out there with a sticking point of, "Oh yeah, well within this 10 yards of space, Matt Moore . . ." GTFOH.
I don't understand the argument. Tannehill was the best red zone QB in the NFL. Unless you have an agenda what's the problem? You can't refute that
At least it's not that he has zero pocket awareness anymore