Reporters continue to stir the pot at Dolphins camp

[Brian Fein]

I'm sick of reading these stories hyping up Tannehill.  These guys couldn't write a bad article about Tannehill if they had to.

The drama and the story is there, and they're writing it.  The media is doing their best to set up the QB controversy.  So that as soon as Matt Moore/David Garrard throws their first INT, the fans will commence clamoring:

"all those article i read during training camp said how awesome Tannehill is!  Let's start him and see what he's got!"

And when the coaching staff refuses to agree:

"these guys are bums, I hate Joe Philbin.  They need to start Tannehill.  They need walking papers!"

This is how every single Dolphins season goes.  This is the demise of the regime, and they haven't even stepped on the field yet.  And its all perpetuated by the media and their eagerness to anoint Tannehill as the next Dan Marino.

If the Dolphins don't come out and win 2 or 3 games out of the gate with Moore at QB, the fans will quickly turn on the new regime.  And I have no doubt Armando Salguero will be the first guy in the angry mob lighting his torch.

Don't believe the hype.

[Cathal]

I thought they were saying Tannenhill is clearly in 3rd place and it's only between Garrad and Moore. Could be wrong though.

[Brian Fein]

I thought they were saying Tannenhill is clearly in 3rd place and it's only between Garrad and Moore. Could be wrong though.

Originally, yes - and the coaching staff has said so as well, but every day there's a new article in the local papers and tweets from beat writers about how great Tannehill looks in camp.  What's the purpose of publishing those articles if not to create fan buzz around him?

[Cathal]

Ah, I see. I guess I only really get my news from here during the offseason.

[BigDaddyFin]

Has Philbin even decided if he's going to play this year? 

[Dolphster]

He who creates the most controversy gets the most readership.  Unfortunately, sensationalism sells.

[Pappy13]

If the Dolphins don't come out and win 2 or 3 games out of the gate with Moore at QB...

If he even gets the chance. I'm still seeing from almost everyone that is watching the practices that it's Garrard that is winning the QB battle. Unless Moore really turns it up a notch in the preseason games and outplays Garrard, Garrard is going to be starting QB week 1.

[Pappy13]

I thought they were saying Tannenhill is clearly in 3rd place and it's only between Garrad and Moore. Could be wrong though.

Actually it's Garrard that is clearly #1, but I don't think it's clear anymore that Tannehill is #3. Tannehill is doing better in practice than what was expected and he's closed the gap on Moore. The only thing that is really saving Moore is that he's considered a "gamer", so he'll be given a chance to show in the games what he has, so he still has that, but remember that the regime really wants Tannehill to succeed, so if he's pretty close to Moore coming out of pre-season, there's a very real possibility they could cut Moore and go with Garrard, Tannehill and Devlin as the emergency QB/practice squad/scout squad QB.

[MikeO]

I don't know. You might be reading too much into it. Maybe Tannehill is just playing really well at camp thus far and is the most impressive in the eyes of some. It's not like he is competing with Montana/Young. Would it be that shocking IF he outplays Garrard and Moore?

I mean in April there were a few guys, respected guys who cover the draft, who said the difference between RGIII and Tannehill was slim and they were very close and RGIII was getting over hyped. And a few people even said Tannehill threw better on the run out of the pocket than both Luck and RGIII and that's where a lot of the NFL game is now, moving the pocket. If they were right and the majority who said Tannehill went to high at 8 were wrong, it wouldn't be surprising them to hear Tannehill is doing well in camp. I think its far too early to tell, but maybe Tannehill is the real deal. Who knows.

I still think at the end of the day no way in hell does Tannehill start Week 1 vs Houston. If they were playing St.Louis or Indy week 1, maybe. But on the road, vs a good to great defense, against maybe the best team in the AFC. It's Lose-Lose to start him Week 1. Let one of the vets take that game and they can bring Tannehill in at a better situation vs a better opponent down the road.

[Brian Fein]

Tannehill is doing better in practice than what was expected and he's closed the gap on Moore.

Where did you hear this?  Did you go to camp and witness it yourself, or are you reading the exact articles I am posting about and falling victim to the hype?

[Pappy13]

Where did you hear this?  Did you go to camp and witness it yourself, or are you reading the exact articles I am posting about and falling victim to the hype?

What makes you think that I'm any better at evaluating the QB's then anybody else? You're absolutely correct that I'm listening to what I have read and heard, but it's not from 1 source, it's from multiple sources and they ALL say the same thing when it comes to Garrard, he's looked the best. If one person says it, I take it with a grain of salt. When 6 or 8 people say it, I start to assume it's true.

Now as far as Tannehill goes, it's not quite as clear that he's closing the gap on Moore, but more just talk that he's not as far behind as some people thought he would be at this point and that's coming straight out of Sherman and Philbin's mouth. Now you can believe whatever you want and believe that Philbin and Sherman are just saying that, but Philbin in particular doesn't strike me as someone that holds things back, he tells it like it is. I think they are very happy with where he is.

And some of it just has to do with me reading the reports and thinking they aren't quite as happy with where Moore is. Moore has consistently had trouble with turning over the ball, not just INT's but fumbles as well. Go look at his stats last year, he was a fumbling machine and he's already had about a half dozen fumbles in training camp (not OTA's, training camp, 5 practices) and that's working with a center that he's had the most snaps with of any of the QB's. Sherman was seen to be visibly upset with one such fumble and kicked the air. Maybe I'm reading too much into things, but you can't tell me that there aren't signs. Like I said, he's KNOWN to not be a great practice guy, so you have to take some of that with a grain of salt too, but he's going to have to produce in games to make up for that. I have read that Moore has the best deep ball of all the QB's which he can hang his hat on, but that's about all he has at this point.

[EKnight]

OF COURSE Tannehill looks good right now. He's playing against a the second string defense of a team that couldn't cover anyone with their first stringers last year. Duh! Garrard is going to be starting week 1. I pointed out back when mini-camp took place (April?) that he looked stronger than previously and he was out-playing Moore. -EK

[Pappy13]

OF COURSE Tannehill looks good right now. He's playing against a the second string defense of a team that couldn't cover anyone with their first stringers last year. Duh! Garrard is going to be starting week 1. I pointed out back when mini-camp took place (April?) that he looked stronger than previously and he was out-playing Moore. -EK

He's also playing with the 2nd string offense of a team that isn't exactly an offensive juggernaught. I don't know anything that none of ya'll don't know, I'm just calling it like I see it. I think they are very happy with where Tannehill is right now and suspect they aren't as happy with where Moore is.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong...and it could ALL change when the pre-season games start.

[MikeO]

He's also playing with the 2nd string offense. I don't know anything that none of ya'll don't know, I'm just calling it like I see it. I think they are very happy with where Tannehill is right now and suspect they aren't as happy with where Moore is.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong...and it could ALL change when the pre-season games start.

Yeah, I agree. And you can't judge "OTA's" and "MINI CAMPS"  in early May either. Bunch of guys in shorts and no pads doing drills. Especially with a new offense and new coaching staff. What happens in training camp is all that matters.And as of today Garrard seems to be winning the battle. But the reports all can't be wrong and Tannehill is coming on strong. He might not beat out Garrard but he sure as hell could be the #2 and win that job easily.

[Pappy13]

I don't know. You might be reading too much into it. Maybe Tannehill is just playing really well at camp thus far and is the most impressive in the eyes of some. It's not like he is competing with Montana/Young. Would it be that shocking IF he outplays Garrard and Moore?

No, but he really doesn't even necessarily have to outplay them. If he's close, then he's really ahead because he's the future. Remember that this regime did not sign Matt Moore. They signed both David Garrard and Ryan Tannehill. That doesn't mean a lot, but it's something.

I still think at the end of the day no way in hell does Tannehill start Week 1 vs Houston. If they were playing St.Louis or Indy week 1, maybe. But on the road, vs a good to great defense, against maybe the best team in the AFC. It's Lose-Lose to start him Week 1. Let one of the vets take that game and they can bring Tannehill in at a better situation vs a better opponent down the road.

I don't believe that Tannehill is going to start game 1 either, I have said all along that it will be either Garrard or Moore, whichever wins the QB battle, however that doesn't mean that they have to keep both of them. Pick one and go with him for this year. But if that guy gets hurt or doesn't produce in the first 4 or 5 games, then if Tannehill is pretty close why not put him in at that point? You have nothing to lose at that point. Now if 4 or 5 games in Miami is playing pretty well, then he continues to watch and learn from the vet, but if the starter goes down, then you have no choice but to start Tannehill, so you couldn't even be criticized for playing him at that point.

If Garrard wins the starting role, what role is Moore really there for? If Garrard doesn't play well? You're not going to pull Garrard after 2 games, you're going to give him at least 3 or 4 to see if he can get it straigthened out. If he doesn't, you're now gonna switch to Moore? Why? Why not just put in Tannehill at that point and give him some starts and playing time. The only possible scenario I can think of to really keep Moore is if you are afraid that Garrard could be knocked out of game 1 or 2 and you don't think that Tannehill will be ready yet. Then I can see you putting in Moore to give Tannehill a little more time, but is it worth it to keep 3 QB's on the active roster for that situation? I don't know. Maybe I take my chances and only keep 2 QB's on the active roster and keep another unproven WR or someone who can help you on special teams or something instead of a 3rd QB.