According to Ben Volin of the Palm Beach Post, a league source told him that it could be possible that either Moore or Garrard is "expendable" if they don't perform well enough to win the starting job. That would leave Miami with one of the two veterans, rookie Ryan Tannehill and last year's undrafted signee Pat Devlin.
On a quick side note, Devlin has actually looked pretty good. Originally, I figured that he would just be cut or put on the practice squad, but he's shown tremendous development since last year. It's possible that Miami sees him as a viable third option and doesn't feel the need to hold on to two veterans.
So, would it make sense for the Dolphins to cut whichever veteran loses out on the quarterback battle? I think it would. Should Miami do it? That I'm not so sure about.
One of the nice things about having two veterans like Garrard and Moore is that you have excellent depth. In the case of an injury, whoever is the backup would be able to play at a very similar level. If we only had one veteran, we might have to put in Tannehill.
Tannehill has come along really nicely so far, but do we want him under a lot of pressure this year? Is it worth throwing him in there to learn?
Honestly, as I'm typing this, I am becoming more and more convinced that cutting or trading the losing quarterback could be a good idea. Not only will it save the Dolphins' cap money and eliminate any fan-driven controversy of who Miami should start, it will also allow us to put Tannehill in there.
He really has looked good so far in camp, and I think that after a little more time (which he would get as a backup) he could do well. We wouldn't expect the world from him his first year, but we could still see some flashes.
Who will win the Miami Dolphins QB battle?
Cutting the losing QB would allow the Dolphins to focus more on Tannehill and Devlin, and it would give them more reps in practice. Sure, it would be nice to have a lot of depth at quarterback, but that won't be too important.
Whichever quarterback does end up winning the starting job should only start for a year or two, so it seems like overkill to keep two of them.
And one last point I'd like to expand upon: Fan-driven controversy.
Let's say (just for kicks) that David Garrard wins the starting job. As you all know, Matt Moore is a very popular guy in South Florida nowadays. Wouldn't every Matt Moore fan be calling for Garrard to be benched after his first interception? They don't care who performed better.
You have a potential controversy brewing in that situation. It probably wouldn't be on the same scale as it was for Tim Tebow last year, but it would be a pretty big controversy nonetheless.
The same thing would happen if Matt Moore won the starting job. As soon as he started doing poorly, Garrard's fans would be calling for him to be benched. It wouldn't be as big of a controversy, but it would be enough to cause some problems.
Cutting the losing veteran would eliminate any controversy that might arise. It seems like the best option to me.
What do you guys think? Let me know.