Miami Dolphins Talking Points: Keeping 3 QBs will take away someone else’s roster spo | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

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

KTOWNFINFAN said:
:lol:
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.
Click to expand...

i have to say i'm struggling with that one...barkleys got terrific feet and his arm is as good as matt moores...any day...not the same level move athlete as matt moore but better feel for the pocket better feel for pressure and like i said terrific feet...barkley side steps things in tight spaces a lot of other guys could never avoid...not to mention off the charts intangibles...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think Tannehill's floor is Matt Schaub and his ceiling is Aaron Rodgers (as crazy as that might sound right now). It took Schaub a while to get where he's at...sitting behind Vick, traded to Houston and a couple of rough years as a starter before actually starting to put up some very strong passing numbers. Of course Schaub has Andre Johnson, Owen Daniels and Arian Foster and we don't have anyone near as good as those three at their positions. A good reason I don't want Tannehill starting right now until we get some weapons he can grow with...maybe Charles Clay is one of those weapon...we'll see.

As for Barkley, yeah he's not the most athletically gifted kid and he doesn't have a strong arm but he throws with great anticipation, he's very accurate, he understands his limitations (physical) but he's also a leader and he can read defenses pre and post snap as well as anyone in the country on the college level. Not to mention he runs a pro style offense which would help his transition. However, if the mental aspect of the position comes to Tannehill like we all hope it does then I think Tannehill is the solution we all have been waiting for since Marino retired and left a gapping hole at the QB position on this team.
 
I haven't read through this whole thread, so I'm sorry if this has been said already.

The reason for GB keeping two QBs is because their #1 was Aaron Rodgers, a man who has established himself as a franchise QB and is very durable. Plus, he had a very capable backup in Matt Flynn.

We don't have that luxury. Yet. Tannehill is seen as the QB of the future, so he needs to stay. Moore had a strong finish last year and put up some good numbers, so he deserves a shot. Garrard is experienced in the WCO, similar to what Philbin runs, and he has had a few good years with some awful receivers (which many think we have), so he deserves a shot.

I think the three QBs is the way to go, at least until one really emerges head and sholders over the others.
 
Michael Fei said:
I haven't read through this whole thread, so I'm sorry if this has been said already.

The reason for GB keeping two QBs is because their #1 was Aaron Rodgers, a man who has established himself as a franchise QB and is very durable. Plus, he had a very capable backup in Matt Flynn.

We don't have that luxury. Yet. Tannehill is seen as the QB of the future, so he needs to stay. Moore had a strong finish last year and put up some good numbers, so he deserves a shot. Garrard is experienced in the WCO, similar to what Philbin runs, and he has had a few good years with some awful receivers (which many think we have), so he deserves a shot.

I think the three QBs is the way to go, at least until one really emerges head and sholders over the others.
Click to expand...
You're right in that Green Bay had a capable backup in Flynn but Rodgers is far from durable. The guy was hurt often early in his career backing up Brett Favre. He was also hurt the first time he ever took the field while playing mop up duty in a game to Brett Favre and he missed a couple of games two years ago which is when Matt Flynn got on the map. Early on it was foot injuries and a hamstring injury when he was backup to Brett Favre, his first year as a starter he had a left shoulder injury, in 2009 he had another foot injury, in 2010 he had a concussion which is why Matt Flynn got his first start against New England, then he's had ribs, and ankle injuries. He's only missed two starts (and parts of other games) in the last 4 years but he does get hurt often and while he picks up good yardage on scrambles any QB that runs is always susceptible to injury.
 
aaron rodgers looks pretty darn durable to me...if tannys low point is matt schaub and ceiling is aaron rodgers we are gonna be in so much better a position at qb over the next decade...year in year out contenders in a few years...

not sure i see the low point that way...
 
hooshoops said:
aaron rodgers looks pretty darn durable to me...if tannys low point is matt schaub and ceiling is aaron rodgers we are gonna be in so much better a position at qb over the next decade...year in year out contenders in a few years...

not sure i see the low point that way...
Click to expand...
Well the caveat with a Matt Schaub is you've got to put talent around him. During Schaub's early years at Houston whenever Andre Johnson got hurt Schaub would go in the tank (he didn't have Arian Foster then)...he's a little better now but still, if you took Johnson, Daniels and Foster away and made him play with the backup he wouldn't fair as well. Basically you give them Devone Bess, Fasano and Bush and we get Johnson, Daniels and Foster and both teams would look very different...we'd be contenders IMO.
 
datruth55 said:
Well the caveat with a Matt Schaub is you've got to put talent around him. During Schaub's early years at Houston whenever Andre Johnson got hurt Schaub would go in the tank (he didn't have Arian Foster then)...he's a little better now but still, if you took Johnson, Daniels and Foster away and made him play with the backup he wouldn't fair as well. Basically you give them Devone Bess, Fasano and Bush and we get Johnson, Daniels and Foster and both teams would look very different...we'd be contenders IMO.
Click to expand...

that's interesting...matt schaub with better wheels and durability is pretty darn solid...especially in the intermediate passing game...
 
If you're not convinced Garrard can stay healthy, you should keep all three. I believe we will see all 3 at some point this season
 
Im thinking we only keep one of the vets. I see the other sides point of view...but it is a risk I'm willing to take. Tannehill is the future, I think everyone can agree on that (or at least we hope he is). If you make the kid 3rd string throughout the year...that is certainly not beneficial to his learning curve. Let him be the 2nd string QB. If the starter goes down and he has to come in then so be it...that may never happen though..and if it does who is to say he won't come in and perform well? What I do know is that diminishing his reps because he is 3rd string will hurt his development
 
I don't see us only keeping 2 QB's at all, not when one of your top 3 QB's is a rook the FO, media, and teammates don't seem to think is even near starting material yet.

Good God just saying that, makes it feel like 2007 all over again.
 
They aren't going to cut any of the QBs, that's for sure. If anything they could trade one.

I think there's an underlying hope among a lot of people that maybe Miami will keep 6 WRs this year...and I don't think that's going to happen. I could be wrong. But you have to think about the fact that between Reggie Bush and Lamar Miller they have two fast backs that they're going to like to split out wide and use like receivers, and then also between Charles Clay and Michael Egnew they have two more fast tight ends they're going to split out wide and use like receivers. If you've got all that going on, why do you have 6 wide receivers?

I think they'll keep 5 wide receivers as seems normal. But the problem with that is, Hartline, Bess and Johnson are probably locked in, which means that between Legedu Naanee, Rishard Matthews, B.J. Cunningham and Roberto Wallace...two of them won't make it. My preference at this point would be for Rishard Matthews and Roberto Wallace to make it.

I'm going to kick myself for this I know, but I'm buying just a little bit into the Wallace hype. It's possible he's doing as well as they say. At the very least, he was decent on special teams in 2010. We made a big deal about the Supplemental pick Josh Gordon's physical ability...but Roberto Wallace has essentially the same dimensions. He came out of the Draft 6'4" and 223 lbs, ran a 4.48, 19 bench reps, 36.5 inch vert, 10'3" broad jump, 4.12 shuttle and 6.80 cone. Talent is about way more than that stuff, but still. You want some physical impressiveness on the roster, he's got some. Anyway all I'm saying is 5th WR roster spot, I can get with that. We'll see.
 
I like Rishard Matthews from before the draft and actually thought they would take him in the 5th but nevertheless he's on the roster. I'm not sold on any of the rest of the WR outside of the top three you mentioned ck and Matthews. I'm anxious to see what they all look like in the preseason though. Can't say I'm overly excited about the group as a whole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom