[Hank 91]

I don't have my preview ready yet because I didn't receive answers to my questions until early this morning, but over on CBG they've got quite a selection of Cardinal bloggers responding to their questions. Pretty good stuff. I was able to get in a mention of Shayne Skov towards the end, which got the desired response.

http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/201...rd-writers

[Hank 91]

I don't have my preview ready yet because I didn't receive answers to my questions until early this morning, but over on CBG they've got quite a selection of Cardinal bloggers responding to their questions. Pretty good stuff. I was able to get in a mention of Shayne Skov towards the end, which got the desired response.

http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/201...rd-writers

[rudruff]

I may have to grab that Justin Timberlake gif replying to the Skov comment for later use.

[rudruff]

I may have to grab that Justin Timberlake gif replying to the Skov comment for later use.

[stupac2]

Do Cal fans hate Skov?

[stupac2]

Do Cal fans hate Skov?

[Hank 91]

I may have to grab that Justin Timberlake gif replying to the Skov comment for later use.

I know. That was pretty awesome.

Do Low APR U fans hate Skov?

They do, with a passion. They feel he's a dirty player, typical of all dirty Stanford players.

[Hank 91]

I may have to grab that Justin Timberlake gif replying to the Skov comment for later use.

I know. That was pretty awesome.

Do Low APR U fans hate Skov?

They do, with a passion. They feel he's a dirty player, typical of all dirty Stanford players.

[stupac2]

They do, with a passion. They feel he's a dirty player, typical of all dirty Stanford players.

They seem like a special bunch.

[stupac2]

They do, with a passion. They feel he's a dirty player, typical of all dirty Stanford players.

They seem like a special bunch.

[Hank 91]

I particularly like the comment about how we Stanford bloggers take the fun out of the rivalry. Back in 2011, the first full year of my site and Rule of Tree, the two of us did a Q&A exchange with California Golden Blogs. One of the questions asked how we felt about the rivalry, and both Scott Allen (Rule of Tree) and I independently said essentially the same thing: "It's great to win Big Game, but I don't have a blind hatred for C.al, I know people who went there, and I sometimes even root for them in certain situations."

Those benign comments infuriated folks on the board (just as it probably does some people on THIS board). My favorite comment -- "Another reason to hate Stanford -- they aren't even a decent rival because they don't hate us!"

[Hank 91]

I particularly like the comment about how we Stanford bloggers take the fun out of the rivalry. Back in 2011, the first full year of my site and Rule of Tree, the two of us did a Q&A exchange with California Golden Blogs. One of the questions asked how we felt about the rivalry, and both Scott Allen (Rule of Tree) and I independently said essentially the same thing: "It's great to win Big Game, but I don't have a blind hatred for C.al, I know people who went there, and I sometimes even root for them in certain situations."

Those benign comments infuriated folks on the board (just as it probably does some people on THIS board). My favorite comment -- "Another reason to hate Stanford -- they aren't even a decent rival because they don't hate us!"

[CTcard]

... over on CBG they've got quite a selection of Cardinal bloggers responding to their questions.

There are some odd questions and answers over there.

Kudos to you for some better answers.

- You're absolutely correct that the defense hasn't been great to dominant this year. And in noting that Stanford didn't do well in two of the main things we preach - tacking and not getting beat over the top.
[Though you overstate things to say we haven't seen this in the past 5 years. We have, of course. Usually against Oregon, but quite notably Whitfield had a similar missed assignment vs UCLA that gave them a 70 yd TD pass.]

- On Hogan. Outside of maybe the last three games, he's not running more. He is running more effectively; particularly more effectively than last year.  A certain amount of his 2014 slump was related to making relatively poor decisions about when to scramble to run vs scramble to pass.

His continuing weakness is that he still sprinkles in some surprisingly poor accuracy days compared to his average ability. For example, he has a very good PER of 162 overall, but had two games around half that value (Northwestern and WSU).

- I'm glad you avoided the silly answers on the Shaw vs Harbaugh bit, but it seems a bit much to say Harbaugh only won one big game just because he only won one bowl game.
I'd say some other big wins by Harbaugh's teams include: U$C 2007, c.a.l. 2007, Oregon 2009, U$C 2009, und 2009, und 2010, U$C 2010.

I do agree that Harbaugh actually has a rather conservative approach to in-game decisions that is completely forgotten in the mythology of his stint at Stanford. Though of course it is not so conservative as Shaw.

[CTcard]

... over on CBG they've got quite a selection of Cardinal bloggers responding to their questions.

There are some odd questions and answers over there.

Kudos to you for some better answers.

- You're absolutely correct that the defense hasn't been great to dominant this year. And in noting that Stanford didn't do well in two of the main things we preach - tacking and not getting beat over the top.
[Though you overstate things to say we haven't seen this in the past 5 years. We have, of course. Usually against Oregon, but quite notably Whitfield had a similar missed assignment vs UCLA that gave them a 70 yd TD pass.]

- On Hogan. Outside of maybe the last three games, he's not running more. He is running more effectively; particularly more effectively than last year.  A certain amount of his 2014 slump was related to making relatively poor decisions about when to scramble to run vs scramble to pass.

His continuing weakness is that he still sprinkles in some surprisingly poor accuracy days compared to his average ability. For example, he has a very good PER of 162 overall, but had two games around half that value (Northwestern and WSU).

- I'm glad you avoided the silly answers on the Shaw vs Harbaugh bit, but it seems a bit much to say Harbaugh only won one big game just because he only won one bowl game.
I'd say some other big wins by Harbaugh's teams include: U$C 2007, c.a.l. 2007, Oregon 2009, U$C 2009, und 2009, und 2010, U$C 2010.

I do agree that Harbaugh actually has a rather conservative approach to in-game decisions that is completely forgotten in the mythology of his stint at Stanford. Though of course it is not so conservative as Shaw.

[GoodGrief]

Wow, did not know that somebody vandalized Brennan Scarlet's car after the news broke that he was transferring to Stanford. Classy.

[GoodGrief]

Wow, did not know that somebody vandalized Brennan Scarlet's car after the news broke that he was transferring to Stanford. Classy.

[stupac2]

I particularly like the comment about how we Stanford bloggers take the fun out of the rivalry. Back in 2011, the first full year of my site and Rule of Tree, the two of us did a Q&A exchange with California Golden Blogs. One of the questions asked how we felt about the rivalry, and both Scott Allen (Rule of Tree) and I independently said essentially the same thing: "It's great to win Big Game, but I don't have a blind hatred for C.al, I know people who went there, and I sometimes even root for them in certain situations."

Those benign comments infuriated folks on the board (just as it probably does some people on THIS board). My favorite comment -- "Another reason to hate Stanford -- they aren't even a decent rival because they don't hate us!"

There are a lot of tics of theirs that I find amusing. Probably the most so is the elements stuff, which is just great for a few reasons:

1) For the most part it's just stamp collecting. Who cares?
2) The only element of any use to come out of Seaborg's lab was plutonium. Crossing into Berkeley from neighboring towns you're greeted with these hilarious "Berkeley is a nuclear-free zone" signs. So are you proud of this legacy or not?
3) It's not like Stanford hasn't ever discovered anything, SLAC found a number of interesting particles, some of which (like the charm and strange quark) are important for fundamental physics in ways that Seaborg's elements never will be for chemistry.
4) The name "Berkelium" (or whatever it is) is apparently considered something of an embarrassment in chemistry communities, at least in Europe. According to a book about the history and cultural significance of the elements that I just read, it was considered pretty gauche to name an element after a location that narrow, or even at all (most of the other elements named after places were in Europe's nationalist heyday, not exactly something you want to emulate).

I'm always curious if that's one of those things that they say reflexively without thinking about it at all, or if they've actually engaged it and decided it's a barb that can sting. Because to me it's like their misspelling of Stanford, it's only insulting to the person saying it.

[stupac2]

I particularly like the comment about how we Stanford bloggers take the fun out of the rivalry. Back in 2011, the first full year of my site and Rule of Tree, the two of us did a Q&A exchange with California Golden Blogs. One of the questions asked how we felt about the rivalry, and both Scott Allen (Rule of Tree) and I independently said essentially the same thing: "It's great to win Big Game, but I don't have a blind hatred for C.al, I know people who went there, and I sometimes even root for them in certain situations."

Those benign comments infuriated folks on the board (just as it probably does some people on THIS board). My favorite comment -- "Another reason to hate Stanford -- they aren't even a decent rival because they don't hate us!"

There are a lot of tics of theirs that I find amusing. Probably the most so is the elements stuff, which is just great for a few reasons:

1) For the most part it's just stamp collecting. Who cares?
2) The only element of any use to come out of Seaborg's lab was plutonium. Crossing into Berkeley from neighboring towns you're greeted with these hilarious "Berkeley is a nuclear-free zone" signs. So are you proud of this legacy or not?
3) It's not like Stanford hasn't ever discovered anything, SLAC found a number of interesting particles, some of which (like the charm and strange quark) are important for fundamental physics in ways that Seaborg's elements never will be for chemistry.
4) The name "Berkelium" (or whatever it is) is apparently considered something of an embarrassment in chemistry communities, at least in Europe. According to a book about the history and cultural significance of the elements that I just read, it was considered pretty gauche to name an element after a location that narrow, or even at all (most of the other elements named after places were in Europe's nationalist heyday, not exactly something you want to emulate).

I'm always curious if that's one of those things that they say reflexively without thinking about it at all, or if they've actually engaged it and decided it's a barb that can sting. Because to me it's like their misspelling of Stanford, it's only insulting to the person saying it.

[Hank 91]

- I'm glad you avoided the silly answers on the Shaw vs Harbaugh bit, but it seems a bit much to say Harbaugh only won one big game just because he only won one bowl game.
I'd say some other big wins by Harbaugh's teams include: U$C 2007, c.a.l. 2007, Oregon 2009, U$C 2009, und 2009, und 2010, U$C 2010.

Yes, those were all important games, and I'd even argue that the '09 win over U$C was perhaps the most important win in the history of the program -- or at least this current history. My thought in singling out the Orange Bowl was that that was the one "big stage" game of Harbaugh's tenure. I think Shaw operates in a different reality with different expectations. How many alums went to that Orange Bowl with the thought that it might never happen again? We don't hear that anymore. Things are different.

[Hank 91]

- I'm glad you avoided the silly answers on the Shaw vs Harbaugh bit, but it seems a bit much to say Harbaugh only won one big game just because he only won one bowl game.
I'd say some other big wins by Harbaugh's teams include: U$C 2007, c.a.l. 2007, Oregon 2009, U$C 2009, und 2009, und 2010, U$C 2010.

Yes, those were all important games, and I'd even argue that the '09 win over U$C was perhaps the most important win in the history of the program -- or at least this current history. My thought in singling out the Orange Bowl was that that was the one "big stage" game of Harbaugh's tenure. I think Shaw operates in a different reality with different expectations. How many alums went to that Orange Bowl with the thought that it might never happen again? We don't hear that anymore. Things are different.

[CTcard]

I think Shaw operates in a different reality with different expectations.

That is true ... by a bajillion miles.

[CTcard]

I think Shaw operates in a different reality with different expectations.

That is true ... by a bajillion miles.

[CrazedZooChimp]

I particularly like the comment about how we Stanford bloggers take the fun out of the rivalry. Back in 2011, the first full year of my site and Rule of Tree, the two of us did a Q&A exchange with California Golden Blogs. One of the questions asked how we felt about the rivalry, and both Scott Allen (Rule of Tree) and I independently said essentially the same thing: "It's great to win Big Game, but I don't have a blind hatred for C.al, I know people who went there, and I sometimes even root for them in certain situations."

Those benign comments infuriated folks on the board (just as it probably does some people on THIS board). My favorite comment -- "Another reason to hate Stanford -- they aren't even a decent rival because they don't hate us!"

One of my favorite things about the rivalry is how pissed off Cal fans get about the fact we don't really care all that much about Cal.  It's my favorite way to irritate Bears.

[CrazedZooChimp]

I particularly like the comment about how we Stanford bloggers take the fun out of the rivalry. Back in 2011, the first full year of my site and Rule of Tree, the two of us did a Q&A exchange with California Golden Blogs. One of the questions asked how we felt about the rivalry, and both Scott Allen (Rule of Tree) and I independently said essentially the same thing: "It's great to win Big Game, but I don't have a blind hatred for C.al, I know people who went there, and I sometimes even root for them in certain situations."

Those benign comments infuriated folks on the board (just as it probably does some people on THIS board). My favorite comment -- "Another reason to hate Stanford -- they aren't even a decent rival because they don't hate us!"

One of my favorite things about the rivalry is how pissed off Cal fans get about the fact we don't really care all that much about Cal.  It's my favorite way to irritate Bears.

[SamAtoms1980]

It's not even like it's just us.  Who really does care all that much about Cal?  Having us give a ***** about you, let alone being an object of hate, depends on doing something that keeps our attention (like U.S.C).  Cal did earn our hate when they won 7/8 from us and we have responded (see below).

Because to me it's like their misspelling of Stanford, it's only insulting to the person saying it.

A handful of letters.  They think they're throwing the kitchen sink at us, and are bewildered when all we do is snicker.  In the South Bay we prefer to let numbers do our talking:

38-17
63-13
21-3
31-28
48-14

[SamAtoms1980]

It's not even like it's just us.  Who really does care all that much about Cal?  Having us give a ***** about you, let alone being an object of hate, depends on doing something that keeps our attention (like U.S.C).  Cal did earn our hate when they won 7/8 from us and we have responded (see below).

Because to me it's like their misspelling of Stanford, it's only insulting to the person saying it.

A handful of letters.  They think they're throwing the kitchen sink at us, and are bewildered when all we do is snicker.  In the South Bay we prefer to let numbers do our talking:

38-17
63-13
21-3
31-28
48-14

[French Rage]

I think it's funny that the comment regards the size of our fanbase, coming from the fanbase that had to return tickets for their rivalry game.

[French Rage]

I think it's funny that the comment regards the size of our fanbase, coming from the fanbase that had to return tickets for their rivalry game.

[jacketree]

I don't know.  When you can't spell your rival's name and team name without a lot of effort, you probably care about your rival.


Some of this sounds suspiciously woofingish.  California wins tomorrow to keep Stanford out of a potential Rose Bowl and you bet your boots they are a rival you care about.

[jacketree]

I don't know.  When you can't spell your rival's name and team name without a lot of effort, you probably care about your rival.


Some of this sounds suspiciously woofingish.  California wins tomorrow to keep Stanford out of a potential Rose Bowl and you bet your boots they are a rival you care about.

[terry]

Who really does care all that much about C.al? 

Well, I care about beating C.al. I care about keeping the Axe. I care about the bragging rights. I care about our Big Game win streak. I care about our dominance in the all-time Big Game series. I care about the long history. I care about the thrilling finishes (1974, 1982, 1988, 1990, 2000). I care about the blow-outs. I care about the routine butt-kickings. I care about Langford and Nelson and Milburn and Hopkins and Tuan Van Le and Casey Moore and Ty Montgomery. I care about my personal streak of attending 40 consecutive Big Games. And I really, really, really hate losing to those guys.


Give 'em the Axe!

[terry]

Who really does care all that much about C.al? 

Well, I care about beating C.al. I care about keeping the Axe. I care about the bragging rights. I care about our Big Game win streak. I care about our dominance in the all-time Big Game series. I care about the long history. I care about the thrilling finishes (1974, 1982, 1988, 1990, 2000). I care about the blow-outs. I care about the routine butt-kickings. I care about Langford and Nelson and Milburn and Hopkins and Tuan Van Le and Casey Moore and Ty Montgomery. I care about my personal streak of attending 40 consecutive Big Games. And I really, really, really hate losing to those guys.


Give 'em the Axe!

[Leftcoast]

[quote author=SamAtoms1980 link=topic=13689.msg142487#msg142487 date=1448061115]
Who really does care all that much about C.al? 

Well, I care about beating C.al. I care about keeping the Axe. I care about the bragging rights. I care about our Big Game win streak. I care about our dominance in the all-time Big Game series. I care about the long history. I care about the thrilling finishes (1974, 1982, 1988, 1990, 2000). I care about the blow-outs. I care about the routine butt-kickings. I care about Langford and Nelson and Milburn and Hopkins and Tuan Van Le and Casey Moore and Ty Montgomery. I care about my personal streak of attending 40 consecutive Big Games. And I really, really, really hate losing to those guys.


Give 'em the Axe!
[/quote]

+1000

[Leftcoast]

[quote author=SamAtoms1980 link=topic=13689.msg142487#msg142487 date=1448061115]
Who really does care all that much about C.al? 

Well, I care about beating C.al. I care about keeping the Axe. I care about the bragging rights. I care about our Big Game win streak. I care about our dominance in the all-time Big Game series. I care about the long history. I care about the thrilling finishes (1974, 1982, 1988, 1990, 2000). I care about the blow-outs. I care about the routine butt-kickings. I care about Langford and Nelson and Milburn and Hopkins and Tuan Van Le and Casey Moore and Ty Montgomery. I care about my personal streak of attending 40 consecutive Big Games. And I really, really, really hate losing to those guys.


Give 'em the Axe!
[/quote]

+1000

[Hank 91]

Here's my preview, with responses from California Golden Blogs.

http://www.gomightycard.com/2015/11/blog...bears.html

[Hank 91]

Here's my preview, with responses from California Golden Blogs.

http://www.gomightycard.com/2015/11/blog...bears.html

[winflop]

I find it a little unbelievable - and pretty arrogant - for writers who cover a team that gave up 777 yards of offense against Oregon to question the performance of the Stanford defense.  I really hope our boys go out there tomorrow night and beat the living snot out of the Weenies.

And I'd pay good money to be the guy standing next to you punching Larry Scott.

[winflop]

I find it a little unbelievable - and pretty arrogant - for writers who cover a team that gave up 777 yards of offense against Oregon to question the performance of the Stanford defense.  I really hope our boys go out there tomorrow night and beat the living snot out of the Weenies.

And I'd pay good money to be the guy standing next to you punching Larry Scott.

[BostonCard]

Here's my preview, with responses from California Golden Blogs.

http://www.gomightycard.com/2015/11/blog...59ers.html

No "opposing blogger" score?

BC

[BostonCard]

Here's my preview, with responses from California Golden Blogs.

http://www.gomightycard.com/2015/11/blog...59ers.html

No "opposing blogger" score?

BC