Loser of Garrard-Moore battle could be cut | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Loser of Garrard-Moore battle could be cut

As long as we win with either i'm ok with it. I dont want to see us cut one then have the starter get hurt then have to put Tannehill out there if he isnt ready. Dont want to john beck him. But then again he could be like dalton.
 
If we trade one of them, and the other gets hurt midway through the season we could start Tannehill and bring Devlin up from the practice squad since it's been said he's playing well.
 
It has been clear for weeks that if Garrard does not win the starting job, he will be released.

As far as trading Moore or Garrard, no one is going to trade anything for a older QB who lost out on a 3 way QB completion and is only signed for one season.
 
I just don't get the whole idea that we have to keep both incase one gets injured and Tanny has to be 3rd string. It is borderline ridiculous to keep Tannehill as a 3rd stringer...and I don't think he will be.
 
LikeUntoGod said:
It has been clear for weeks that if Garrard does not win the starting job, he will be released.

As far as trading Moore or Garrard, no one is going to trade anything for a older QB who lost out on a 3 way QB completion and is only signed for one season.
Click to expand...
I dunno, if I'm looking at playing Charlie Whitehurst, Kevin O'Connell or Jarrett Lee, I would definitely consider it...
 
LikeUntoGod said:
It has been clear for weeks that if Garrard does not win the starting job, he will be released.

As far as trading Moore or Garrard, no one is going to trade anything for a older QB who lost out on a 3 way QB completion and is only signed for one season.
Click to expand...

Actually, last time I checked everyone who has attended practice from Rich Gannon to Peter King to Profootball Focus has said Garrard looks like the clear cut starter. Moore is struggling in this offense, he is not accurate, has int & fumble issues & holds on to the ball for too long. Before you use the excuse that Moore is a bad practice player, these are all things that hunted him last year, during the season. So if anything has been clear for weeks dating back to OTAs is that Garrard is consistently better than Moore & if someone is going to be cut or traded it could be Moore. By the way I have rooted for Matt Moore since day 1.
 
I could see them holding on to whomever loses for at least 4 or 5 weeks... as insurance.
 
Denver has been the trade I've been calling since even before the Draft. Lots of good reasons.

However, I spoke with Cecil Lammey of ESPN Radio Denver about it and he's convinced they have no Plan B, everything is balls to the wall Peyton and Osweiler.
 
ckparrothead said:
Denver has been the trade I've been calling since even before the Draft. Lots of good reasons.

However, I spoke with Cecil Lammey of ESPN Radio Denver about it and he's convinced they have no Plan B, everything is balls to the wall Peyton and Osweiler.
Click to expand...
CK do you think it would be more beneficial to keep both? I just can't see how keeping Tannehill as a 3rd string QB is beneficial. Im trying to see both sides...but this fear of Ryan Tannehill being a 2nd stringer is just blowing my mind a little bit.
 
Ya I like Cecil's takes a lot CK. Text him from time to time. I think timing is key for when they would need a replacement should Manning go down. If they are close to playoff contention I think it makes sense otherwise I agree they play Osweiler. Denver's schedule is brutal too.
 
MiamiDolphin618 said:
CK do you think it would be more beneficial to keep both? I just can't see how keeping Tannehill as a 3rd string QB is beneficial. Im trying to see both sides...but this fear of Ryan Tannehill being a 2nd stringer is just blowing my mind a little bit.
Click to expand...

My take on it is you keep good players around, especially if they're affordable. Trade deadline is later now. Keep Moore around, who knows who comes calling?

---------- Post added at 10:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 PM ----------
Da Phinishisher said:
Ya I like Cecil's takes a lot CK. Text him from time to time. I think timing is key for when they would need a replacement should Manning go down. If they are close to playoff contention I think it makes sense otherwise I agree they play Osweiler. Denver's schedule is brutal too.
Click to expand...

I think playing Osweiler would be a huge mistake for both his development and for their season. But Elway threw caution to the wind once already, figuring he might get Lucky.
 
ckparrothead said:
My take on it is you keep good players around, especially if they're affordable. Trade deadline is later now. Keep Moore around, who knows who comes calling?

---------- Post added at 10:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 PM ----------
.
Click to expand...
I do see the point...but I think its a tricky situation. If you keep Moore...I would still give Tannehill 2nd team reps. I don't want them hindering his development by him barely getting any practice reps.
 
Moore to KC. Book it. (I hope we keep him)
 
Unless you are over the cap, you don't cut valuable assets. This is the NFL and QBs get hurt all the time. I would hold on to both as long as i could in case another team comes calling about a trade. It doesn't matter if Tannehill is #2 of #3, he shouldn't be playing. He's not ready.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom