• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Jensen

Mick Belker said:
KEALI'I is not his dad's clone. Fans should recognize that fact. The coaches should recognize that fact. Maybe he will be much better than dad. Maybe he'll play like his mom.
Click to expand...
Brian had 2 years in the Don Read system before he started a game. Had LOTS of mop up duty playing behind Dave D his redshirt year, many times after one or two series in the third quarter. He became a starter his sophomore season, playing behind a very experienced offensive line, throwing to a future hall of fame receiver and overall playing on a team that was better than the’95 national championship team. He became elite quickly as a result. Kay had limited opportunities his true freshman year and six starts his redshirt year. He played behind an average offensive line. If one wishes to compare him to his father, all of these points are important, not to mention their comparative preparation coming out of high school, which I am not aware. I think this is the year we truly know what we have in K and the people who are with him every day seem to feel confident in the end game will be. I personally believe by the end of the season, baring injuries, he will be a top tier BSC quarterback.
 
alabamagrizzly said:
If you don’t have the cake to begin with, it’s not yours to eat😁.
Click to expand...

I know you’re poking fun at the use, but
you certainly can have a cake and eat it, but if you eat a cake you can’t therefore have it (at least not in cake form). Ironically, it was this proper use of the idiom that gave Ted K. away as the unabomber so many years ago over in Lincoln.

Apparently I’m not the only one that thinks the Duke of Norfolk was incorrect with his phrasing that became a colloquially accepted idiom. Paul Brians, Professor of English at Washington State University, points out that perhaps a more logical or easier to understand version of this saying is: “You can’t eat your cake and have it too”. Professor Brians writes that a common source of confusion about this idiom stems from the verb to have which in this case indicates that once eaten, keeping possession of the cake is no longer possible, seeing that it is in your stomach (and no longer exists as a cake). Alternatively, the two verbs can be understood to represent a sequence of actions, so one can indeed "have" one's cake and then "eat" it. Consequently, the literal meaning of the reversed idiom doesn't match the metaphorical meaning.

Regardless, maybe at Montana we can say you can’t yearn to develop a quarterback then get mad at said quarterback for not being developed whilst in the process of developing.
 
Wolf777 said:
I know you’re poking fun at the use, but
you certainly can have a cake and eat it, but if you eat a cake you can’t therefore have it (at least not in cake form). Ironically, it was this proper use of the idiom that gave Ted K. away as the unabomber so many years ago over in Lincoln.

Apparently I’m not the only one that thinks the Duke of Norfolk was incorrect with his phrasing that became a colloquially accepted idiom. Paul Brians, Professor of English at Washington State University, points out that perhaps a more logical or easier to understand version of this saying is: “You can’t eat your cake and have it too”. Professor Brians writes that a common source of confusion about this idiom stems from the verb to have which in this case indicates that once eaten, keeping possession of the cake is no longer possible, seeing that it is in your stomach (and no longer exists as a cake). Alternatively, the two verbs can be understood to represent a sequence of actions, so one can indeed "have" one's cake and then "eat" it. Consequently, the literal meaning of the reversed idiom doesn't match the metaphorical meaning.

Regardless, maybe at Montana we can say you can’t yearn to develop a quarterback then get mad at said quarterback for not being developed whilst in the process of developing.
Click to expand...
This..... this was not what I expected to see on Egriz today. And now I need to go read about the idiom giving Ted K away, I had no idea.
 
Wolf777 said:
I know you’re poking fun at the use, but
you certainly can have a cake and eat it, but if you eat a cake you can’t therefore have it (at least not in cake form). Ironically, it was this proper use of the idiom that gave Ted K. away as the unabomber so many years ago over in Lincoln.

Apparently I’m not the only one that thinks the Duke of Norfolk was incorrect with his phrasing that became a colloquially accepted idiom. Paul Brians, Professor of English at Washington State University, points out that perhaps a more logical or easier to understand version of this saying is: “You can’t eat your cake and have it too”. Professor Brians writes that a common source of confusion about this idiom stems from the verb to have which in this case indicates that once eaten, keeping possession of the cake is no longer possible, seeing that it is in your stomach (and no longer exists as a cake). Alternatively, the two verbs can be understood to represent a sequence of actions, so one can indeed "have" one's cake and then "eat" it. Consequently, the literal meaning of the reversed idiom doesn't match the metaphorical meaning.

Regardless, maybe at Montana we can say you can’t yearn to develop a quarterback then get mad at said quarterback for not being developed whilst in the process of developing.
Click to expand...
Just great! I was trying to go all day w/out learning anything today and you gone and ruined it for me. Thank you.
 
Wolf777 said:
I know you’re poking fun at the use, but
you certainly can have a cake and eat it, but if you eat a cake you can’t therefore have it (at least not in cake form). Ironically, it was this proper use of the idiom that gave Ted K. away as the unabomber so many years ago over in Lincoln.

Apparently I’m not the only one that thinks the Duke of Norfolk was incorrect with his phrasing that became a colloquially accepted idiom. Paul Brians, Professor of English at Washington State University, points out that perhaps a more logical or easier to understand version of this saying is: “You can’t eat your cake and have it too”. Professor Brians writes that a common source of confusion about this idiom stems from the verb to have which in this case indicates that once eaten, keeping possession of the cake is no longer possible, seeing that it is in your stomach (and no longer exists as a cake). Alternatively, the two verbs can be understood to represent a sequence of actions, so one can indeed "have" one's cake and then "eat" it. Consequently, the literal meaning of the reversed idiom doesn't match the metaphorical meaning.

Regardless, maybe at Montana we can say you can’t yearn to develop a quarterback then get mad at said quarterback for not being developed whilst in the process of developing.
Click to expand...
One must have talent before it can be developed:
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
So BH is starting a nontalent at QB?
Click to expand...
He hasn't been named starter, now has he.

There is a reason that Pease/Hauck took Jensen out of the portal--actually reasons, and those reasons are probably in case of injury to the often-injured Keali and also because they are not convinced, at least not yet, that Keali is indeed the starter.

I hate to say it and I hope that I am wrong because I hate the idea, but we could even possibly see the two quarterback system from '23-24 at least the first 2-3 games if either Jensen or AhYat doesn't clearly separate himself in fall camp from the other !!!
 
billingsgriz said:
He hasn't been named starter, now has he.

There is a reason that Pease/Hauck took Jensen out of the portal--actually reasons, and those reasons are probably in case of injury to the often-injured Keali and also because they are not convinced, at least not yet, that Keali is indeed the starter.

I hate to say it and I hope that I am wrong because I hate the idea, but we could even possibly see the two quarterback system from '23-24 at least the first 2-3 games if either Jensen or AhYat doesn't clearly separate himself in fall camp from the other !!!
Click to expand...
As complicated as our system is said to be, unless Jensen has a super high football IQ, Ah Yat must really not be even close if we see a QB rotation at the beginning of the season to establish a starter. Ah Yat is now in year three. Keelan White in his GFP interview said he didn’t feel comfortable (maybe not the same word he used) in the offense till half way through ’23. When Jensen is in, they’re gonna have to slim down the playbook. If the two QB’s are anywhere near the same level, they should just go with AY because the playbook should be greatly expanded and AY should improve as time goes on…in theory anyway.
 
billingsgriz said:
He hasn't been named starter, now has he.

There is a reason that Pease/Hauck took Jensen out of the portal--actually reasons, and those reasons are probably in case of injury to the often-injured Keali and also because they are not convinced, at least not yet, that Keali is indeed the starter.

I hate to say it and I hope that I am wrong because I hate the idea, but we could even possibly see the two quarterback system from '23-24 at least the first 2-3 games if either Jensen or AhYat doesn't clearly separate himself in fall camp from the other !!!
Click to expand...
there was a discussion earlier this month about a 3 QB system. Could this possibly be the way it is.Imagine Bobby talking to the press trying to explain that one. :ROFLMAO:
 
alabamagrizzly said:
As complicated as our system is said to be, unless Jensen has a super high football IQ, Ah Yat must really not be even close if we see a QB rotation at the beginning of the season to establish a starter. Ah Yat is now in year three. Keelan White in his GFP interview said he didn’t feel comfortable (maybe not the same word he used) in the offense till half way through ’23. When Jensen is in, they’re gonna have to slim down the playbook. If the two QB’s are anywhere near the same level, they should just go with AY because the playbook should be greatly expanded and AY should improve as time goes on…in theory anyway.
Click to expand...
Shaun Rainey was just on the local news about peeing his pants with excitement praising a drive apparently for a TD led by Jensen--I believe from memory Shaun was praising Jensen and his offense for " crisp" execution.

Notwithstanding the fact that I didn’t watch our spring game--too busy shoveling prime rib into my pie hole 🕳 in Downtown Billings @ Jake's, I perked up when I saw Shaun on the news singing the praises of Jensen. Shaun, at least, sounds like our USC transplant QB impressed him !!!
 
oldngrizzly said:
there was a discussion earlier this month about a 3 QB system. Could this possibly be the way it is.Imagine Bobby talking to the press trying to explain that one. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
I've been trying to convince the Griz coaches to run this formation for the last 20 years with no luck :). Instead of running it with four WRs or 3 WRs and 1 RB, I would run it with four TEs or 3 TEs and 1 RB and turn it into a quasi sweep or bubble screen like what Don Read used to run with the O-line going out to the perimeter to block and the RB coming back into the middle the of the field to catch and follow the blockers.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top