Gase contacted Peyton Manning last season after Tannehill's injury

Matt Moore is such a waste of a roster spot and money. They literally could have any developmental guy there carrying the chart and then going in and going 1-4 in Tannehill's absence. I'd rather have a guy in there learning, or a GOOD (do they make these anymore?) backup vet.

As far as Manning, good on him to stay away. He was physically finished, and no reason to (further) taint an otherwise great career.

JMP wrote:

Yep.  Kinda refreshing to see an athlete that knows when to walk away.  I know it's hard to turn down big money, but at some point health has to come first.

His family life plays a big role in that as well. Plus, what the hell is left to prove?

JMP wrote:http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/barry-jackson/article157999004.html

Dolphins coach Adam Gase reached out to retired quarterback Peyton Manning in the immediate aftermath of Ryan Tannehill’s knee injury last December.

That’s according to Peyton’s father, Archie, who revealed that nugget in an interview with The New Orleans Times Picayune on Friday.

Archie Manning said Friday that he witnessed a text-message exchange between Peyton and Gase.

“He said, ‘Hey 18, [Ryan] Tannehill went down,'” Archie said. “[Gase] said, ‘I think he’s going to miss some time. The first question I’m going to get at the press conference in the morning is if I’m going to try to bring you to Miami. What do you want me to tell them?'”

That phrasing allowed Gase to gauge Manning’s interest in a comeback without asking in so many words.

Said Archie: “The text message came back from Peyton, ‘You tell them I could probably come play, but there’s no way I can miss carpool the next two weeks.’ So, he was done.”

VERY interesting. I tend to think that Peyton was done and wouldn't have made any difference against the Steelers, but it would have been cool to see him in a Dolphins uni for a few weeks.

And...what does this say about Gase's faith in Matt Moore???

IDK, just the Moore fumbling was devastating. I think Manning would have dinked and dunked and the game would have been close.

I don't think it has anything to do with Matt Moore. If you can get Peyton Manning you do it, regardless of your back up.

Degarmo wrote:Matt Moore is such a waste of a roster spot and money. They literally could have any developmental guy there carrying the chart and then going in and going 1-4 in Tannehill's absence. I'd rather have a guy in there learning, or a GOOD (do they make these anymore?) backup vet.

As far as Manning, good on him to stay away. He was physically finished, and no reason to (further) taint an otherwise great career.

I've always believed your back up QB should be more athletic than your starter. This way the D at least has too worry about the QB escaping the pocket.

Birdmond wrote:

Degarmo wrote:Matt Moore is such a waste of a roster spot and money.  They literally could have any developmental guy there carrying the chart and then going in and going 1-4 in Tannehill's absence.  I'd rather have a guy in there learning, or a GOOD (do they make these anymore?) backup vet.

As far as Manning, good on him to stay away.  He was physically finished, and no reason to (further) taint an otherwise great career.

I've always believed your back up QB should be more athletic than your starter.   This way the D at least has too worry about the QB escaping the pocket.    

That's a great point, and it also makes it a tough matchup if he comes in the game because the other team really didn't have a chance to prepare for that attack.

Degarmo wrote:Matt Moore is such a waste of a roster spot and money. They literally could have any developmental guy there carrying the chart and then going in and going 1-4 in Tannehill's absence. I'd rather have a guy in there learning, or a GOOD (do they make these anymore?) backup vet.

I have to agree but he is reliable when needed. So i feel like as long has he is serviceable then keep him until they find something better.

He's a reliable 1-3 for every four-game stint.

How quickly we turn on the QB that actually got us into the playoffs!

I know Tannehill did his part to position us ultimately for a playoff run, but that game in Buffalo was a real challenge and we found a way to win.

I honestly think there are probably ten teams who have a QB WORSE than Matt Moore. In other words, he could start for them. The Jets come to mind immediately, but there are others I'm sure in a similar situation.

I just don't understand the hate. The stats bear out just how good he was down the stretch for us, and in no way do they support the rhetoric I'm reading in these posts. 105.6 QB rating. 8 touchdowns and 3 INT. Those stats are better than coveted starters like Derek Carr and Kirk Cousins.

Sure he's not the future in Miami. But he's a damn good backup, who performed really well in our offense last season, winning games and getting us into the playoffs. What else do you want from your backup QB? Because he gave us exactly what we needed.

Pivoting to Pittsburgh for the last piece of this post. Do you guys remember that game? Our defense, in its injury depleted state, had no prayer of stopping that offense. None. They scored at will and the game could have been worse if they didn't let up when it was clearly out of reach. Our offense, in the best case scenario, would have lost in a shootout if they played better. That's the ceiling. Watching Bell have his way with our running defense was pathetic. And no one on our roster had a shot at covering Antonio Brown. We pissed them off with that beating in Miami, and they took it to us. Moore, or anyone else we could have started that day INCLUDING Manning was in for a long game.