QB transfer?

[Griztrain]

So whats the word on a new transfer qb?
Since that was the original topic
Who's got the inside scoop?

 

[Bok_Choi]

There's no hurry now. Saviors are going to be in short supply for a while.

 

[WaGriz4life]

There's no hurry now. Saviors are going to be in short supply for a while.

In your opinion, who was our last good QB?

For me it’s Dave Dickinson. He set the standard and I am not lowering the bar for anyone. And anyone who is not from Great Falls or Butte or Anaconda or any class B or C school doesn’t have the toughness or strong family that Dave had.

I refuse to lower the bar.

 

[Griz Addict]

There's no hurry now. Saviors are going to be in short supply for a while.

In your opinion, who was our last good QB?

For me it’s Dave Dickinson. He set the standard and I am not lowering the bar for anyone. And anyone who is not from Great Falls or Butte or Anaconda or any class B or C school doesn’t have the toughness or strong family that Dave had.

I refuse to lower the bar.

:lol: :thumb: great work, unfortunately they probably agree.

 

[kemajic]

If they were on the team for 4 years, they experienced an NC. 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2008, 2009.

Ah, I thought you meant every player. I was sitting here wondering how I forgot that Jason Washington played in a NC game.

He may have suited up in the '04 game but he does not appear on the participation list.

 

[Jordan_20]

There's no hurry now. Saviors are going to be in short supply for a while.

In your opinion, who was our last good QB?

For me it’s Dave Dickinson. He set the standard and I am not lowering the bar for anyone. And anyone who is not from Great Falls or Butte or Anaconda or any class B or C school doesn’t have the toughness or strong family that Dave had.

I refuse to lower the bar.

Craig Ochs and Jordan Johnson we're pretty good.

 

[Griz Addict]

In your opinion, who was our last good QB?

For me it’s Dave Dickinson. He set the standard and I am not lowering the bar for anyone. And anyone who is not from Great Falls or Butte or Anaconda or any class B or C school doesn’t have the toughness or strong family that Dave had.

I refuse to lower the bar.

Craig Ochs and Jordan Johnson we're pretty good.

He was being sarcastic. Basically poking fun at certain egrizzers.

 

[Dillon]

Ah Yat

 

[kemajic]

Don Read was quoted as saying that had Ochs had the OL that DD had, it would be his number retired. Those Bob Beers-coached 90's OLs were nothing short of outstanding, '94 even better than '95. Scott Gragg may be the best Griz player of all time.

 

[SoldierGriz]

Don Read was quoted as saying that had Ochs had the OL that DD had, it would be his number retired. Those Bob Beers-coached 90's OLs were nothing short of outstanding, '94 even better than '95. Scott Gragg may be the best Griz player of all time.

+1 billion.

 

[Bok_Choi]

There's no hurry now. Saviors are going to be in short supply for a while.

In your opinion, who was our last good QB?

For me it’s Dave Dickinson. He set the standard and I am not lowering the bar for anyone. And anyone who is not from Great Falls or Butte or Anaconda or any class B or C school doesn’t have the toughness or strong family that Dave had.

I refuse to lower the bar.

Let me couch this a bit by saying that before it was a thing, I had a bucket moment for a nine year old, I got to go to Navy-Marine Corps Memorial and saw Roger Staubach play a game. He was the best I ever saw in person. But it wasn't because he was the greatest passer, runner or technician as the QB. He was a winner, and would put a pretty average team on his shoulders and will them to a win.

So I don't think of how they play as the only criterion and I look at football differently because I'm old and recognized early on that it was constantly changing. There were new concepts that were constantly making the game different, adding on to the fact that the athletes that play it were also getting faster and even more athletic. Guys like Cunningham, Vick and Jackson completely turned the role on it's head.

Now Montana. So like you, I love me some Double D, but Johnny Montana also won a title and that's the number one criterion I have for being the best. They played in offenses that were about as different as they could be, and while Dave was being Dave in the offense, Edwards did what was needed to beat Furman. And yes, they both had outstanding teams around them and were fortunate as such. Ah Yat could sling it, no doubt about it, Ochs was a joy to watch, Berquist and Selle fit the bill of system guys, and were winners for the most part. I'll always believe they fucked Johnson by changing offenses when Pops decided he didn't understand what was going on. And Sneed was exciting as hell to watch, loved his passion, but there were good and bad days.

They were all good in their own ways and won a hell of a lot of games. But being the best to me is leading or willing a team on to the colleciton of the hardware. Being the QB on any team is a hell of a lot more than a 1/11th proposition, no matter what you hear. They need skill guys and an O-Line or they're not going to be the heroes we'd all like them to be. Not the answer you were probably looking for but they were all the guys needed for their slot in Griz history.

 

[GrizMania]

Don Read was quoted as saying that had Ochs had the OL that DD had, it would be his number retired. Those Bob Beers-coached 90's OLs were nothing short of outstanding, '94 even better than '95. Scott Gragg may be the best Griz player of all time.

Facts!

 

[Griz2k]

So whats the word on a new transfer qb?
Since that was the original topic
Who's got the inside scoop?

Chance Nolan, Oregon state QB, is in the portal and I believe has some interest from some Griz folks. Other than that, I have zero clue anymore.

 

[kemajic]

In your opinion, who was our last good QB?

For me it’s Dave Dickinson. He set the standard and I am not lowering the bar for anyone. And anyone who is not from Great Falls or Butte or Anaconda or any class B or C school doesn’t have the toughness or strong family that Dave had.

I refuse to lower the bar.

Let me couch this a bit by saying that before it was a thing, I had a bucket moment for a nine year old, I got to go to Navy-Marine Corps Memorial and saw Roger Staubach play a game. He was the best I ever saw in person. But it wasn't because he was the greatest passer, runner or technician as the QB. He was a winner, and would put a pretty average team on his shoulders and will them to a win.

So I don't think of how they play as the only criterion and I look at football differently because I'm old and recognized early on that it was constantly changing. There were new concepts that were constantly making the game different, adding on to the fact that the athletes that play it were also getting faster and even more athletic. Guys like Cunningham, Vick and Jackson completely turned the role on it's head.

Now Montana. So like you, I love me some Double D, but Johnny Montana also won a title and that's the number one criterion I have for being the best. They played in offenses that were about as different as they could be, and while Dave was being Dave in the offense, Edwards did what was needed to beat Furman. And yes, they both had outstanding teams around them and were fortunate as such. Ah Yat could sling it, no doubt about it, Ochs was a joy to watch, Berquist and Selle fit the bill of system guys, and were winners for the most part. I'll always believe they f###[#] Johnson by changing offenses when Pops decided he didn't understand what was going on. And Sneed was exciting as hell to watch, loved his passion, but there were good and bad days.

They were all good in their own ways and won a hell of a lot of games. But being the best to me is leading or willing a team on to the colleciton of the hardware. Being the QB on any team is a hell of a lot more than a 1/11th proposition, no matter what you hear. They need skill guys and an O-Line or they're not going to be the heroes we'd all like them to be. Not the answer you were probably looking for but they were all the guys needed for their slot in Griz history.

A well written and entertaining post. But for the life of me, I failed to find a point.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Let me couch this a bit by saying that before it was a thing, I had a bucket moment for a nine year old, I got to go to Navy-Marine Corps Memorial and saw Roger Staubach play a game. He was the best I ever saw in person. But it wasn't because he was the greatest passer, runner or technician as the QB. He was a winner, and would put a pretty average team on his shoulders and will them to a win.

So I don't think of how they play as the only criterion and I look at football differently because I'm old and recognized early on that it was constantly changing. There were new concepts that were constantly making the game different, adding on to the fact that the athletes that play it were also getting faster and even more athletic. Guys like Cunningham, Vick and Jackson completely turned the role on it's head.

Now Montana. So like you, I love me some Double D, but Johnny Montana also won a title and that's the number one criterion I have for being the best. They played in offenses that were about as different as they could be, and while Dave was being Dave in the offense, Edwards did what was needed to beat Furman. And yes, they both had outstanding teams around them and were fortunate as such. Ah Yat could sling it, no doubt about it, Ochs was a joy to watch, Berquist and Selle fit the bill of system guys, and were winners for the most part. I'll always believe they f###[#] Johnson by changing offenses when Pops decided he didn't understand what was going on. And Sneed was exciting as hell to watch, loved his passion, but there were good and bad days.

They were all good in their own ways and won a hell of a lot of games. But being the best to me is leading or willing a team on to the colleciton of the hardware. Being the QB on any team is a hell of a lot more than a 1/11th proposition, no matter what you hear. They need skill guys and an O-Line or they're not going to be the heroes we'd all like them to be. Not the answer you were probably looking for but they were all the guys needed for their slot in Griz history.

A well written and entertaining post. But for the life of me, I failed to find a point.

He buried the lede in the last paragraph. :lol:

 

[grizfan1984]

Quite a few coaches following this guy https://mobile.twitter.com/tphommachanh_7

 

[Bok_Choi]

Let me couch this a bit by saying that before it was a thing, I had a bucket moment for a nine year old, I got to go to Navy-Marine Corps Memorial and saw Roger Staubach play a game. He was the best I ever saw in person. But it wasn't because he was the greatest passer, runner or technician as the QB. He was a winner, and would put a pretty average team on his shoulders and will them to a win.

So I don't think of how they play as the only criterion and I look at football differently because I'm old and recognized early on that it was constantly changing. There were new concepts that were constantly making the game different, adding on to the fact that the athletes that play it were also getting faster and even more athletic. Guys like Cunningham, Vick and Jackson completely turned the role on it's head.

Now Montana. So like you, I love me some Double D, but Johnny Montana also won a title and that's the number one criterion I have for being the best. They played in offenses that were about as different as they could be, and while Dave was being Dave in the offense, Edwards did what was needed to beat Furman. And yes, they both had outstanding teams around them and were fortunate as such. Ah Yat could sling it, no doubt about it, Ochs was a joy to watch, Berquist and Selle fit the bill of system guys, and were winners for the most part. I'll always believe they f###[#] Johnson by changing offenses when Pops decided he didn't understand what was going on. And Sneed was exciting as hell to watch, loved his passion, but there were good and bad days.

They were all good in their own ways and won a hell of a lot of games. But being the best to me is leading or willing a team on to the colleciton of the hardware. Being the QB on any team is a hell of a lot more than a 1/11th proposition, no matter what you hear. They need skill guys and an O-Line or they're not going to be the heroes we'd all like them to be. Not the answer you were probably looking for but they were all the guys needed for their slot in Griz history.

A well written and entertaining post. But for the life of me, I failed to find a point.

Clearly, it was meant to amuse. And I'm glad the retired stem professor at least found that within it.

 

[CatGrad-UMGradStu]

In your opinion, who was our last good QB?

For me it’s Dave Dickinson. He set the standard and I am not lowering the bar for anyone. And anyone who is not from Great Falls or Butte or Anaconda or any class B or C school doesn’t have the toughness or strong family that Dave had.

I refuse to lower the bar.

Let me couch this a bit by saying that before it was a thing, I had a bucket moment for a nine year old, I got to go to Navy-Marine Corps Memorial and saw Roger Staubach play a game. He was the best I ever saw in person. But it wasn't because he was the greatest passer, runner or technician as the QB. He was a winner, and would put a pretty average team on his shoulders and will them to a win.

So I don't think of how they play as the only criterion and I look at football differently because I'm old and recognized early on that it was constantly changing. There were new concepts that were constantly making the game different, adding on to the fact that the athletes that play it were also getting faster and even more athletic. Guys like Cunningham, Vick and Jackson completely turned the role on it's head.

Now Montana. So like you, I love me some Double D, but Johnny Montana also won a title and that's the number one criterion I have for being the best. They played in offenses that were about as different as they could be, and while Dave was being Dave in the offense, Edwards did what was needed to beat Furman. And yes, they both had outstanding teams around them and were fortunate as such. Ah Yat could sling it, no doubt about it, Ochs was a joy to watch, Berquist and Selle fit the bill of system guys, and were winners for the most part. I'll always believe they f###[#] Johnson by changing offenses when Pops decided he didn't understand what was going on. And Sneed was exciting as hell to watch, loved his passion, but there were good and bad days.

They were all good in their own ways and won a hell of a lot of games. But being the best to me is leading or willing a team on to the colleciton of the hardware. Being the QB on any team is a hell of a lot more than a 1/11th proposition, no matter what you hear. They need skill guys and an O-Line or they're not going to be the heroes we'd all like them to be. Not the answer you were probably looking for but they were all the guys needed for their slot in Griz history.

Excellent analogies. The first quarterback I paid any attention to was also Staubach. Brandt and the rest of the scouts were pretty good at what they used to measure the intangibles of what makes a winning quarterback, and for that matter, football players.

Recall when Glenn stated something to the effect "We're going to win a championship but it won't be with the quarterback you think." For what seems like just yesterday I drove up over the hill to Choo Choo from north Georgia for that game that ended 13-6. A championship. The Wing-t waggle play was some kind of beauty that game, don't you think? (As was the fake punt).

I've sat and listened to Sunday morning quarterbacks from the school I received my bachelors from wish Dakota Pukop could have played with the kids now! His freaking record was 11-10 as a starter yet they'd rather watch that kind of shit show than Tommy Mellot! Honestly, they remind me of the yo yos that like watching the air raid...

Anyway, scoreboard is the only real measure of a quarterback as you clearly state. Who coined the phrase "Stats are for losers?"

 

[Bok_Choi]

Let me couch this a bit by saying that before it was a thing, I had a bucket moment for a nine year old, I got to go to Navy-Marine Corps Memorial and saw Roger Staubach play a game. He was the best I ever saw in person. But it wasn't because he was the greatest passer, runner or technician as the QB. He was a winner, and would put a pretty average team on his shoulders and will them to a win.

So I don't think of how they play as the only criterion and I look at football differently because I'm old and recognized early on that it was constantly changing. There were new concepts that were constantly making the game different, adding on to the fact that the athletes that play it were also getting faster and even more athletic. Guys like Cunningham, Vick and Jackson completely turned the role on it's head.

Now Montana. So like you, I love me some Double D, but Johnny Montana also won a title and that's the number one criterion I have for being the best. They played in offenses that were about as different as they could be, and while Dave was being Dave in the offense, Edwards did what was needed to beat Furman. And yes, they both had outstanding teams around them and were fortunate as such. Ah Yat could sling it, no doubt about it, Ochs was a joy to watch, Berquist and Selle fit the bill of system guys, and were winners for the most part. I'll always believe they f###[#] Johnson by changing offenses when Pops decided he didn't understand what was going on. And Sneed was exciting as hell to watch, loved his passion, but there were good and bad days.

They were all good in their own ways and won a hell of a lot of games. But being the best to me is leading or willing a team on to the colleciton of the hardware. Being the QB on any team is a hell of a lot more than a 1/11th proposition, no matter what you hear. They need skill guys and an O-Line or they're not going to be the heroes we'd all like them to be. Not the answer you were probably looking for but they were all the guys needed for their slot in Griz history.

Excellent analogies. The first quarterback I paid any attention to was also Staubach. Brandt and the rest of the scouts were pretty good at what they used to measure the intangibles of what makes a winning quarterback, and for that matter, football players.

Recall when Glenn stated something to the effect "We're going to win a championship but it won't be with the quarterback you think." For what seems like just yesterday I drove up over the hill to Choo Choo from north Georgia for that game that ended 13-6. A championship. The Wing-t waggle play was some kind of beauty that game, don't you think? (As was the fake punt).

I've sat and listened to Sunday morning quarterbacks from the school I received my bachelors from wish Dakota Pukop could have played with the kids now! His freaking record was 11-10 as a starter yet they'd rather watch that kind of shit show than Tommy Mellot! Honestly, they remind me of the yo yos that like watching the air raid...

Anyway, scoreboard is the only real measure of a quarterback as you clearly state. Who coined the phrase "Stats are for losers?"

Thank you for the kind words, but please, Kem has already deemed it pointless. I do however, agree with all the points you made.

 

[mthoopsfan]

The Cats offense has some elements-concepts of the Triple Option.