My money is on Tannehill starting week 1...

[Spider-Dan]

MikeO, I presume you see no value to letting Tannehill sit back and observe the NFL game for a bit?

Remember, this is a guy who didn't get a lot of starts in college.  Regardless of how well he looks on the practice field, game speed is a different matter.  Tannehill, more than any QB Miami has acquired in the last 10 years, is a prime candidate for someone who can be ruined by rushing him out too soon.

I would say that Matt Moore doesn't even need to touch a ball in the offseason and he's already shown enough to say that he should start over Tannehill.  Let the rookie get some time holding the clipboard, and give him a chance to watch objectively and think about what he would do differently against real defenses.

[MikeO]

MikeO, I presume you see no value to letting Tannehill sit back and observe the NFL game for a bit?

Remember, this is a guy who didn't get a lot of starts in college.  Regardless of how well he looks on the practice field, game speed is a different matter.  Tannehill, more than any QB Miami has acquired in the last 10 years, is a prime candidate for someone who can be ruined by rushing him out too soon.

I would say that Matt Moore doesn't even need to touch a ball in the offseason and he's already shown enough to say that he should start over Tannehill.  Let the rookie get some time holding the clipboard, and give him a chance to watch objectively and think about what he would do differently against real defenses.

There is value in it  but if he is also ready then he is ready. That's the point. I don't know if he is ready, I am just saying let training camp play out before making these bold, set in stone statements. Like he shouldn't start a game all year or shouldn't start till they are eliminated from the playoffs....etc. If after training camp Tannehill clearly outplays Moore/Garrard then start Tannehill. If he doesn't, fine sit him. If its a close battle between Tannehill and Moore/Garrard then the tiebreaker does go to Tannehill.

He had more college starts than Newton and Sanchez and both of those guys started from day 1. That college starts thing is really overrated and has been totally over blown.

[fyo]

I think there's a fundamental difference in APPROACH when you are comparing "getting the rookie ready to start NOW" and "preparing the rookie to learn behind a starter". If you KNOW you have time, you can build more things up from the ground (everything from reads to footwork) instead of just tweaking from where he is. Of course, the underlying assumption is that the player actually has elements of his game that need to be reworked (as opposed to just gradually improved).

Tannehill is a young guy without a lot of starts (or even time at quarterback), so he's a prime candidate for reworking, but I don't know if he has aspects of his game that need it.

[EKnight]

Even if Tannehill is the best QB going into week one, unless they have a realistic idea that the team is going to have a shot at making the playoffs this year (and FWIW, no one in their right mind believes this to be the case), there's no upside to starting Tannehill. If you don't believe you have a contender right now, THIS YEAR, what do you gain by allowing a guy with such limited experience to get thrown to the wolves? Let him learn a year. Take a look at what Jax and Tenn did last year. Gabbert seemed to get as much praise as Tannehill coming out of college, but he wasn't ready to start. I think everybody knew that, but for whatever reason they put him in on a horrible team in the midst of a losing season and he looked just terrible. Tennessee was in a similar situation with Locker but they didn't let him start even when there were people who believed he was a much better option than Hasselbeck. That was the smarter move. There's nothing wrong with letting a guy sit for a year. Miami's not winning more than 7-8 games this year irrespective of who's under center. What's the rush? Since Garrard and Moorw are both free agents at the end of the year, let them fight it out for who we keep. -EK

[MikeO]

I think there's a fundamental difference in APPROACH when you are comparing "getting the rookie ready to start NOW" and "preparing the rookie to learn behind a starter". If you KNOW you have time, you can build more things up from the ground (everything from reads to footwork) instead of just tweaking from where he is. Of course, the underlying assumption is that the player actually has elements of his game that need to be reworked (as opposed to just gradually improved).

Tannehill is a young guy without a lot of starts (or even time at quarterback), so he's a prime candidate for reworking, but I don't know if he has aspects of his game that need it.

Exactly. Nobody knows. That's my entire point! Maybe he will sit a few games, or a month, or he should sit all year. Nobody knows, let's just let training camp play out and if he is the best QB in camp, he wins the job and starts day 1. I don't see what harm there is letting training camp play out and having an open competition for the job. How is that a bad thing? Why don't people want that? If he isn't ready or doesn't win the job, so be it and its Garrard or Moore.  That's fine too! But to make an blanket statement on May 12th that Tannehill needs to ride the bench all year "just because" when there is no justifiable "just because" is foolish and silly.

To sit here on May 12th and to make outlandish statements that Tannehill shouldn't start this year no matter what, or that they won't make the playoffs and give up on that in MAY is lunacy. The NFL is a league where teams go from worst to first all the time and make playoffs runs. SF did it last year with Alex friggin Smith at QB! Cincy went from 4-12 to a Wild Card team with a rookie 2nd round QB under center! Denver went from last place in the AFC West to division champs with god awful Tim "can't throw a forward pass further than 15 yards to save his life" Tebow at QB. Hell the Dolphins franchise just did it in 2008 from 1-15 to 11-5 running a wildcat!!! I'm not saying Miami will do that this year, not by any means. BUT, if they did it wouldn't be shocking or some rare feat that never happens. It happens all the time. So for fans to say, bench him, don't start him no matter even if he is the best QB in training camp, just let him ride the pine, we suck anyway (without playing a game yet) so keep him on the bench; with that logic why even have training camp? And what does training camp mean if the QB's play and results in camp don't matter but every other position does? That's silly.

There are positive and negative reviews for going both ways. Having guys sit and not rushing them out and having guys thrown out there and play. Not EVERY QB who is rushed out there is the next Blaine Gabbert. Andy Dalton wasn't, he led a team to the playoffs in probably the toughest division in the NFL!!! So for those who say Tannehill if he plays from Day 1 is the next Gabbert....well he could also be the next Dalton too! Works both ways!

Every situation is unique and different. With Tannehill having his college coaches and essentially most of his college playbook in front of him on the NFL level in Miami it makes it even a more unique situation. And to make blanket statements on May 12th to me is foolish. They hold training camp for a reason, just let it play out. Just like there is NO RUSH to play the guy, there is also NO RUSH to bench the guy all year for no good reason!

[EKnight]

And yet, nearly EVERY scout, former coaches in the media, and NFL guy you hear from says he's not anywhere near ready to start for at least a year- some say more. Are they all wrong?? -EK

[MaineDolFan]

Even if Tannehill is the best QB going into week one, unless they have a realistic idea that the team is going to have a shot at making the playoffs this year (and FWIW, no one in their right mind believes this to be the case), there's no upside to starting Tannehill. If you don't believe you have a contender right now, THIS YEAR, what do you gain by allowing a guy with such limited experience to get thrown to the wolves? Let him learn a year. Take a look at what Jax and Tenn did last year. Gabbert seemed to get as much praise as Tannehill coming out of college, but he wasn't ready to start. I think everybody knew that, but for whatever reason they put him in on a horrible team in the midst of a losing season and he looked just terrible. Tennessee was in a similar situation with Locker but they didn't let him start even when there were people who believed he was a much better option than Hasselbeck. That was the smarter move. There's nothing wrong with letting a guy sit for a year. Miami's not winning more than 7-8 games this year irrespective of who's under center. What's the rush? Since Garrard and Moorw are both free agents at the end of the year, let them fight it out for who we keep. -EK

Agreed. 

I personally really want to see Garrard round back into form.  I have nothing against Moore (actually like the kid a lot), but there Garrard is only a couple years removed from a really nice run.  Now, of course, he also had weapons people seem to forget (Stewart and Taylor at RB, WRs we could only dream of)...but he still needed to deliver the ball.  He has a strong arm, he reads defenses well.  I would love to see Tannehill sit his rookie butt on the sidelines for the entire year with a clip board, for more than one reason - most of which EK outlined above & there is no reason to repeat. 

All of that said, it won't shock me if Miami rushes this kid into the line up.  It will greatly disappoint me, however, unless he is more ready than I know.

[Doc-phin]

Anyone else think this whole scenerio makes the upcoming preseason more interesting?  I have a genuinely high level of anticipation for it this year!

[Spider-Dan]

There is value in it  but if he is also ready then he is ready. That's the point. I don't know if he is ready, I am just saying let training camp play out before making these bold, set in stone statements. Like he shouldn't start a game all year or shouldn't start till they are eliminated from the playoffs....etc. If after training camp Tannehill clearly outplays Moore/Garrard then start Tannehill. If he doesn't, fine sit him. If its a close battle between Tannehill and Moore/Garrard then the tiebreaker does go to Tannehill.

I'm saying that outplaying them in training camp doesn't particularly matter, because in training camp you are wearing a red jersey.  No matter what happens in training camp or the preseason, I think Tannehill should get a chance to observe at least 3 full-speed regular-season games from the sidelines.

He had more college starts than Newton and Sanchez and both of those guys started from day 1.

Perhaps if Sanchez had sat a year behind Pennington, he would have made some real year-over-year progression by now.

[Spider-Dan]

Even if Tannehill is the best QB going into week one, unless they have a realistic idea that the team is going to have a shot at making the playoffs this year (and FWIW, no one in their right mind believes this to be the case), there's no upside to starting Tannehill.

The playoffs this year has nothing to do with it.  The point of starting Tannehill in 2012 would be to prepare him for 2013, where the expectations might be somewhere along the line of a wild-card berth.

If Tannehill does not start at all in 2012, it is unreasonable to expect the Dolphins to hit the ground running with him in 2013 and make the playoffs that year.

[MikeO]

All of that said, it won't shock me if Miami rushes this kid into the line up.  It will greatly disappoint me, however, unless he is more ready than I know.

It's not about rushing a guy out there. But if he clearly is better than Moore or Garrard in training camp there is little to no damage done in playing him.

And you said it yourself with your last line...."unless he is more ready than I know." That is my entire point, that  none of us know! That's why we need to let it play out in training camp. This doesn't have to be decided on May 12th! They hold training camp for a reason, let's see how everyone does and if Tannehill happens to be more ready than any of us know, then great and he is the guy who should start! If he isn't ready and needs a year to sit, that's fine too. Let him sit! We have Moore and/or Garrard to play. I still don't understand why that's a bad thing and why letting the actual play on the field in training camp decide things is the wrong way to go. Let the play speak. Let the results on the field speak. Nothing else matters!

[EKnight]

The playoffs this year has nothing to do with it.  The point of starting Tannehill in 2012 would be to prepare him for 2013, where the expectations might be somewhere along the line of a wild-card berth.

If Tannehill does not start at all in 2012, it is unreasonable to expect the Dolphins to hit the ground running with him in 2013 and make the playoffs that year.

Completely disagree. If they go 8-8 this year without him and he is that much of an upgrade in 2013, 9-7 or 10-6 is reasonable, and that's a playoff spot. -EK

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Something to remember. Tannehill holds all tiebreakers if its close. 

Close but not quite. It is further in his favor than that.

Unless one of the other QBs are clearly and undeniably superior to Tannehill, than Tannehill will start.   He doesn't have to be the best QB, the others have to be OBVIOUSLY and UNDENIABLY better to get the starting gig. 

[MikeO]

Close but not quite. It is further in his favor than that.

Unless one of the other QBs are clearly and undeniably superior to Tannehill, than Tannehill will start.   He doesn't have to be the best QB, the others have to be OBVIOUSLY and UNDENIABLY better to get the starting gig. 

I would agree with that

[Pappy13]

And yet, nearly EVERY scout, former coaches in the media, and NFL guy you hear from says he's not anywhere near ready to start for at least a year- some say more. Are they all wrong?? -EK

Possibly. They ARE only guessing aren't they? Or do they have some kind of crystal ball that predicts the future? Those guys have not seen him play a single snap on an NFL team. If they were saying that after having watched him all training camp and pre-season, then maybe you have a good case, but MikeO is right about that. You don't know what's going to happen in training camp. Maybe Tannehill proves all those guys wrong. They aren't right yet, it's only their best guess.