Miami Dolphins Talking Points: Keeping 3 QBs will take away someone else’s roster spo

[MDFINFAN]

Philbin’s past history as the Packers’ offensive coordinator doesn’t reveal many answers, other than that he’s willing to get creative. Here are his previous opening day roster breakdowns for the past three seasons, thanks to the indispensable website OurLads.com:

Packers 2011 (24 players)
QB – 2
RB – 3
FB – 1
WR – 5
TE – 5
OL – 8

Green Bay 2010 (26 players)
QB – 2
RB – 2
FB – 3
WR – 5
TE – 4
OL – 10

Green Bay 2009 (25 players)
QB – 2
RB – 3
FB – 3
WR – 5
TE – 3
OL – 9



http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/thed...qbs-will-take-away-someone-elses-roster-spot/

 

[jim1]

Then again, keeping three QBs is the smart thing for us to do.

 

[cuban_refugee]

it just depends on the talent on your roster....in our case we have a rookie QB, a vet with back issues, and a vet with poor practice record....thus, we'll most likely keep 3. Same with the other positions. I see us possibly keeping 6 WRs and only 3 TEs

 

[Crump]

yeah we have to keep 3 qb's IMHO, UNLESS and a BIG UNLESS, tannehill shows out in training camp and preseason to the point we feel he is capable of starting or being able to go in the event of injury. OTA's didnt show this but we'll wait til pads come on and we play real competition (if you call preseason that) before i pass judgement. i say moore/garrard or vice versa 1/2 and tannehill holding clipboard. if tanne shows he can handle his own then we release the loser between garrard and moore and say we keep devlin on PS. if we carry 3 then i say let devlin go and have tanne take all the practice reps devlin will get. either way i see keeping 3 QB's on roster in some degree with tanne being emergency QB on gameday roster so we can still have his spot available.

 

[claytonduper]

I would expect to see our roster more like the 2009 roster. 3 TE's, 1 FB who can also play the TE position. We need 9 OL, 5 receivers, and 3 QB's. Unfortunately, David Garrad, like Peyton Manning, may be one solid hit away from the injury llist.

 

[Zounds]

Well Ive said before I think we only keep 2 QB's, and I still stand by that

 

[jim1]

Well Ive said before I think we only keep 2 QB's, and I still stand by that

It's a tricky situation. Garrard is a 2010 Pro Bowler with a big arm who fits the offense. Moore had a pretty damn good season last year, but to borrow a phrase from another poster, does he flatter to deceive? I don't know. Personally I'd like to see more (of Moore?) but not at the expense of Garrard if Garrard outplays him. But- I just don't see how the team risks keeping two and Tannehill forced to play when he's obviously not ready, way too risky. Dude was fairly raw for a college QB much less the NFL. he has to bake in the oven for a while.

 

[Zounds]

It's a tricky situation. Garrard is a 2010 Pro Bowler with a big arm who fits the offense. Moore had a pretty damn good season last year, but to borrow a phrase from another poster, does he flatter to deceive? I don't know. Personally I'd like to see more (of Moore?) but not at the expense of Garrard if Garrard outplays him. But- I just don't see how the team risks keeping two and Tannehill forced to play when he's obviously not ready, way too risky. Dude was fairly raw for a college QB much less the NFL. he has to bake in the oven for a while.

I understand that point, but even if we keep 3 QB's, we would only have 2 QB's active on gameday. Its rare that teams now bring 3 QBs to games with them. I certainly dont want Tannehill playing, but he needs to be active and taking mental reps.

 

[hoops]

cut one of the vets...maybe you can trade matt moore...maybe...you'll get nothing for david garrard

 

[Mr. Day]

They should not waste a roster spot on three quarterbacks. Does it make sense to potentially go through all three quarterbacks in a season? Let one of the veterans start. If that veteran gets hurt or sucks, it is time for the rookie to learn. If the rookie looks like he does not have potential and the team is stinking out the joint, there is always Matt Barkley. I wanted Matt Barkley more than Tannehill anyway.

 

[hoops]

we're in kind of a tough spot cause if you cut david garrard i'm pretty sure he stays on the street for a good while i just don't think there's much interest and that one year contract at the money he signed for is more indicative to me of that also...probably depends on how he looks in preseason as to whether or not anyone would scoop him up...i still say he's on the street a while unless there's a injury to a legit starter somewhere...

you cut matt moore and i'm pretty sure someone scoops him up and cuts their backup qb...both of these guys money as short term fix's will not deter anyone...heck i'm sure teams love the only 1 year commitment at minimal money if they bring on either...i just think garrard the league doesn't really care about anymore

 

[jim1]

They should not waste a roster spot on three quarterbacks. Does it make sense to potentially go through all three quarterbacks in a season? Let one of the veterans start. If that veteran gets hurt or sucks, it is time for the rookie to learn. If the rookie looks like he does not have potential and the team is stinking out the joint, there is always Matt Barkley. I wanted Matt Barkley more than Tannehill anyway.

The FO knew what they were getting into. The chances of Tannehill starting the season are slim and none, with none being the heavy favorite imo. If they wanted to take the bull by the horns and end the discussion they could have, and obviously did not, take Brandon Weeden. Tannehill has a solid arm, smarts and loads of athletic ability, but it remains to be seen how that will pan out in the NFL. People can say what they will, but I look at Tannehill as a far riskier pick than Weeden. Imo they'll keep three, and bring along Tannehill slowly. Whether you like it or not, he has been anointed and will be treated as such.

 

[Njphinsfan]

As much as I like Moore, if everything goes well during camp and Garrard clearly beats out Moore and Tannehill shows that he is capable of being on the field, I think we can get something for Moore. I wouldn't cut him. If nobody wants him, we keep 3 QBs. He has proven himself to be a great back-up quarterback and his contract is up at the end of the season, so we will most likely lose him anyway. I think there are a few teams in the league that would give up a late draft pick or maybe a player to fill a need for us in order to ensure themselves a solid backup QB.

In order to do this though, I think all of the pieces need to fall into place during camp. If Garrard is not the clear front-runner or Tannehill does not show he is ready, then we have to keep 3 QBs. Either way, Tannehill has to be on the sidelines during games, holding the clipboard or doing something else important, in order to groom him for the future. Cutting Garrard is always an option if Moore is the clear starter, but I don't think there will be many teams that would be interested. I would say hold on to him as insurance if Moore, in fact, is our starter.

 

[hoops]

personally i think we keep 2 but garrards health concerns could mean 3 i guess...

 

[KTOWNFINFAN]

They should not waste a roster spot on three quarterbacks. Does it make sense to potentially go through all three quarterbacks in a season? Let one of the veterans start. If that veteran gets hurt or sucks, it is time for the rookie to learn. If the rookie looks like he does not have potential and the team is stinking out the joint, there is always Matt Barkley. I wanted Matt Barkley more than Tannehill anyway.

so you think we are going to go all season without a win?? If we couldn't suck for Luck what makes you think we are going to have the #1 overall pick next year. It will criple your franchise for a couple years to trade up to the #1 overall pick and if we were going to do that we would have done it THIS year.

Look, I like RT's POTENTIAL but I also understand that is all it is. He may end up being a top 5 QB in 3 years, or he may be out of the league in 4 years, but either way I see him being better than Barkley. There is nothing Matt Barkley brings to the table that screams NFL star. Barkley's ceiling equals a weak armed Matt Moore. I really don't see Barkley being much better than Sanchez or Leinart and you would have to be as ignorant as the jets to build your team around one of those two.