Would you rather have a winning season with Moore or a losing one with Tannehill?

[LikeUntoGod]

IMO, Matt Moore gives us the chance to have a winning season. I think we should at least have a 10=6 year with him starting.

I think at best starting Ryan Tannehill could bring us 6 wins or less and risk getting him hurt.

So, would you rather see Ryan Tannehill get the experience now and have us lose for another season or have possible winning season with Matt Moore?

 

[Adam Strange]

First of all, I think you greatly overestimate the team's chances at a winning season, regardless of which QB starts (at least among those on the roster currently).

Second, what difference does it make to finish 9-7, no playoffs, and 6-10? For that matter, what good does it do to sneak into the wildcard and get humiliated in the playoffs yet again? I don't care about "winning seasons," in and of themselves. What good did 2008 do for the team? Nothing, since we've had three straight losing seasons since. Also, everyone thought that 2005's 9-7 record was an omen of things to come. Wrong again, since we followed it up with back to back losing seasons.

I want this year to be focused on installing the new systems, coaching up the rookies, deciding who can play, and what pieces are still needed. The record is irrelevant to me.

 

[DuderinoN703]

I'd rather go 9-7 or better with Moore this year and then supplant him with Tannehill in 2013. If it's a guarantee the Dolphins aren't going to finish above .500 this year, I want Tannehill in.

 

[Wildbill3]

10-6 um well, only way I care about "winning" seasons is if we are a serious threat for a superbowl. Does moore and this team = superbowl contender?

 

[Elliott 1]

Neither choice thank you.

This is the worst poll yet.

You play to win the game.

Only morons want their teams to lose.

It doesn't matter who starts. That is up to Philbin and he is responsible. Our job is to support our team, and that means wanting them to always win.

Why don't you poll guys ever give us a reasonable choice??????????? Why is it almost always dumb,dumber, and dumbest.

 

[Bumpus]

Just win, baby!

I'm so ****ing tired of losing.

 

[Aqua Shadow]

i wanna win if we can...

 

[72 Undefeated]

I've never been able to prefer the Dolphins lose and I doubt I ever will. I understand the logic behind that thinking but its not in my nature.

 

[Wildbill3]

Neither choice thank you.

This is the worst poll yet.

You play to win the game.

Only morons want their teams to lose.

It doesn't matter who starts. That is up to Philbin and he is responsible. Our job is to support our team, and that means wanting them to always win.

Why don't you poll guys ever give us a reasonable choice??????????? Why is it almost always dumb,dumber, and dumbest.

why this is nearly the same choice of ... should we suck for luck so we can be better long term? or should we win now and feel better about ourselves because we won a few games?

Starting Tannehill is a good thing IF it speeds up his development.

 

[LikeUntoGod]

I should add that I believe strongly that winning in the base for more winning . IT DOES matter to me, most fans and maybe even more important, to our players and other players in the NFL if we win football games. No one that really cares just wants to collect a pay check and lose.

A 9-7 season or better under Moore could bring about a 10-6 or better season under Tannehill next year.

Have to go to the Doctor, be back later. I consider this poll to be serious.

 

[stwingle]

I agree with adam strange

First of all, I think you greatly overestimate the team's chances at a winning season, regardless of which QB starts (at least among those on the roster currently).

Second, what difference does it make to finish 9-7, no playoffs, and 6-10? For that matter, what good does it do to sneak into the wildcard and get humiliated in the playoffs yet again? I don't care about "winning seasons," in and of themselves. What good did 2008 do for the team? Nothing, since we've had three straight losing seasons since. Also, everyone thought that 2005's 9-7 record was an omen of things to come. Wrong again, since we followed it up with back to back losing seasons.

I want this year to be focused on installing the new systems, coaching up the rookies, deciding who can play, and what pieces are still needed. The record is irrelevant to me.

It's more important to set the team up for the future than to worry about how many wins we have or when Thill starts.

 

[rob19]

I don't agree with the premise of the question because I don't understand why Tannehill starting necessarily guarantees a losing season, and inversely why Matt Moore is guaranteed a winning one. Ideally I'd think we'd all like to see a winning season with Tannehill. But if you're asking a vacuumed hypothetical, then I'd like to see a winning season with Matt Moore with sprinkled in minutes of Tannehill, because a winning season would mean the pieces around Matt Moore are better than maybe we thought they were, not because Matt Moore is a franchise quarterback.

 

[CANDolphan]

We don't live in a vacuum sorry guys. I'd take wins now... even though this is an outright silly hypothetical.

You take the winning season. Everyone who says "who cares about the playoffs if you're not going to win the superbowl" is a complete moron or just isn't paying attention. The Giants were NOWHERE near the Superbowl favorites last year going into the playoffs but hey guess what happened? They got there, they got hot at the right time and they beat the Patriots, everyone's darling.

Funny how that works, huh? If you want your team to lose, you're not a real fan. I understand the logic of it, but being illogical is what sports are all about. It's why people seem to think a guy sitting or playing makes a goddamn lick of difference. Tannehill doesn't have any mechanical issues. His issues are that of game speed and adjusting to reads. Guess how that improves? GAME PLAY.

 

[DphinBillkiller]

I'll take a winning season.

 

[AdamD13]

If we go 10-6 I think it will be with Garrard starting, not Moore.