Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Post New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

Good For Stanford.

Avatar

Posted: 01/01/2013 6:19 PM

Good For Stanford. Post Rating (2 votes)



They let Wisconsin hang around but they ultimately got the win.  Nice win for their team and the Pac-12.

 

Posted: 01/02/2013 6:10 AM

Re: Good For Stanford. Post Rating (5 votes)


this is a victory for evil and a sad day for every Cal fan.

Take off that red shirt.
Avatar

Posted: 01/02/2013 12:25 PM

Re: Good For Stanford. Post Rating (2 votes)



bearacious wrote: this is a victory for evil and a sad day for every Cal fan.

Take off that red shirt.
Funny.  I can understand why you used a fake moniker/identity to make such a silly comment.

 

Avatar

Posted: 01/02/2013 12:54 PM

Re: Good For Stanford. Post Rating (2 votes)


Nothing silly about his comment.  It doesn't benefit Cal in any way to see the 'furd win a Rose Bowl, and Real Cal fans never take delight in seeing a 'furd win.

Additional prestige for the Pac-12 pushing recruits toward Cal?  Not with a 3-9 record.  It helps the 'furd though.
Avatar

Posted: 01/02/2013 3:16 PM

Re: Good For Stanford. Post Rating (2 votes)


The only way it's "good" for us is to provide an example of why Cal's litany of excuses about why they can't win get holes shot in them when Stanford wins.
Avatar

Posted: 01/02/2013 3:29 PM

Re: Good For Stanford. Post Rating (3 votes)



mig1964 wrote: Nothing silly about his comment.  It doesn't benefit Cal in any way to see the 'furd win a Rose Bowl, and Real Cal fans never take delight in seeing a 'furd win.

Additional prestige for the Pac-12 pushing recruits toward Cal?  Not with a 3-9 record.  It helps the 'furd though.
So legit, he used his real ID.  You don't change monikers, do you?  LOL.

Thanks for defining what a "real Cal fan" is.  Did I sound delighted? Didn't realize we weren't allowed to be gracious, even while we're having a bad year.  Funny...most of the Pac-12 coaches and players are gracious with each other.  Guess its just the fans that are supposed to act like donkeys...

So tell me; is it better for the Pac-12 to gain prestige or for another conference to get it?  Does beating a stronger Stanford in the future help or hurt us?  Do we want to beat Stanford when they are weak?  

 

Avatar

Posted: 01/02/2013 8:00 PM

Re: Good For Stanford. Post Rating (3 votes)



jrsmithe wrote:
Thanks for defining what a "real Cal fan" is.  Did I sound delighted? Didn't realize we weren't allowed to be gracious, even while we're having a bad year.  Funny...most of the Pac-12 coaches and players are gracious with each other.  Guess its just the fans that are supposed to act like donkeys...

So tell me; is it better for the Pac-12 to gain prestige or for another conference to get it?  Does beating a stronger Stanford in the future help or hurt us?  Do we want to beat Stanford when they are weak?  
You're welcome!  I'm always glad to help when I see a fan struggle with his identity.

Gracious?  To 'the furd?  On a Cal fan site?  Riiiiight... I can see why that's important.

Whatever intangible benefit comes from whatever intangible "prestige" is gained from a 'furd victory is insufficient to overcome my desire to see our rivals defeated in every venue.

Posted: 01/02/2013 8:53 PM

Re: Good For Stanford. Post Rating (2 votes)


Lighten up Francis

---------------------------------------------
--- jrsmithe wrote:


So legit, he used his real ID.  You don't change monikers, do you?  LOL.

Thanks for defining what a "real Cal fan" is.  Did I sound delighted? Didn't realize we weren't allowed to be gracious, even while we're having a bad year.  Funny...most of the Pac-12 coaches and players are gracious with each other.  Guess its just the fans that are supposed to act like donkeys...

So tell me; is it better for the Pac-12 to gain prestige or for another conference to get it?  Does beating a stronger Stanford in the future help or hurt us?  Do we want to beat Stanford when they are weak?  

---------------------------------------------
  • EGbear
  • Special Teamer
  • Rating: 3.5/5 this site
  • 790 posts this site

Posted: 01/03/2013 8:34 AM

Re: Good For Stanford. Post Rating (1 vote)


It's good for the conference. Why not leave it at that.  I'm still not sold on Shaw as a coach or Stanford being all that.  The Rose Bowl was so exciting I feel asleep during the 3rd quarter.  Shaw went into a prevent offense and defense after the first quarter which left them one big play or bad call away from getting beat for the second year against a team who lost their head coach for the game and wasn't the best team coming out of that conference.
Avatar

Posted: 01/03/2013 10:41 AM

Re: Good For Stanford. Post Rating (5 votes)


More sour grapes coming from berkeley. Love it. I was bored in the Big Game when Stanford won big behind their crappy (and replaced) QB.

Looking forward to some entertaining games next year when you guys score 55 and give up 65.
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."

Groucho Marx
  • EGbear
  • Special Teamer
  • Rating: 3.5/5 this site
  • 790 posts this site

Posted: 01/03/2013 11:21 AM

Re: Good For Stanford. Post Rating (1 vote)



topcamera wrote: More sour grapes coming from berkeley. Love it. I was bored in the Big Game when Stanford won big behind their crappy (and replaced) QB.

Looking forward to some entertaining games next year when you guys score 55 and give up 65.

You scored 21 points in the BG against a Cal team with banged up defense and an erratic offense.  One whole point more than you scored with your savior QB in the RB (who looked very ordinary) against a quasi-conference champion.  Big wow bored1  About as thrilling as that thing you still call a band.

I love it how you assume that circumstances never ever change.  Cal's new DC was part of a coaching staff that held y'all to that 20 point limit in the RB.  Or was it Shaw's coaching, odd game plan, or the OC's timid play calling that did???
Avatar

Posted: 01/03/2013 11:35 AM

Re: Good For Stanford. HEY EGBEAR, WTF DO YOU KNOW ABOUT ROSE Post Rating (4 votes)


BOWLS?  YOU NEVER GO TO ANY.  YOUR PROGRAM IS A CONSISTENT CHOKE JOB AND STAIN TO THE CONFERENCE ON AND OFF THE FIELD.  

NOW YOU'RE WHINING ABOUT THE BIG GAME?

YOU'RE BETTER OFF SHUTTING DOWN YOUR CRITICISM'S OF STANFORD SUCCESS, IT JUST MAKES YOU SOUND LIKE ANOTHER ONE OF THE USUAL KAL PIN HEADS ON THIS BOARD.

Last edited 01/03/2013 11:42 AM by STANFORDTALIBAN

Avatar

Posted: 01/03/2013 11:43 AM

Re: Good For Stanford. @SMITHE YOU'RE RIGHT ON ALL COUNTS Post Rating (2 votes)


RARE DISPLAY OF SANITY AND INTROSPECTION ON THIS BOARD.

Last edited 01/03/2013 11:44 AM by STANFORDTALIBAN

Avatar

Posted: 01/03/2013 1:02 PM

Re: Good For Stanford. @SMITHE YOU'RE RIGHT ON ALL COUNTS Post Rating (2 votes)


Problem for you guys is that Andy Buh isn't bringing any studs from the Wisconsin defense. He has to play the same losers.
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."

Groucho Marx
  • EGbear
  • Special Teamer
  • Rating: 3.5/5 this site
  • 790 posts this site

Posted: 01/03/2013 1:11 PM

Re: Good For Stanford. HEY EGBEAR, WTF DO YOU KNOW ABOUT ROSE Post Rating (1 vote)



STANFORDTALIBAN wrote: BOWLS?  YOU NEVER GO TO ANY.  YOUR PROGRAM IS A CONSISTENT CHOKE JOB AND STAIN TO THE CONFERENCE ON AND OFF THE FIELD.  

NOW YOU'RE WHINING ABOUT THE BIG GAME?

YOU'RE BETTER OFF SHUTTING DOWN YOUR CRITICISM'S OF STANFORD SUCCESS, IT JUST MAKES YOU SOUND LIKE ANOTHER ONE OF THE USUAL KAL PIN HEADS ON THIS BOARD.

How soon they forget the Teevens/Harris years.


Check your reading comprehension, as it was bottomcamera that brought up the BG for no apparent reason.  Sorry, but your every post proves without a doubt who the biggest "PIN HEAD" is on this board. 

  • EGbear
  • Special Teamer
  • Rating: 3.5/5 this site
  • 790 posts this site

Posted: 01/03/2013 1:16 PM

Re: Good For Stanford. @SMITHE YOU'RE RIGHT ON ALL COUNTS Post Rating (1 vote)



topcamera wrote: Problem for you guys is that Andy Buh isn't bringing any studs from the Wisconsin defense. He has to play the same losers.
And yet those same "losers" held your juggernaut offense to 21 points even with a substantial advantage in time of possession.  I guess Shaw went into his prevent offense and defense that day also.
Avatar

Posted: 01/03/2013 1:54 PM

Re: Good For Stanford. @SMITHE YOU'RE RIGHT ON ALL COUNTS Post Rating (2 votes)


Hey Egbear, I think you're Amy.

Thanks Amy.
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."

Groucho Marx
  • EGbear
  • Special Teamer
  • Rating: 3.5/5 this site
  • 790 posts this site

Posted: 01/03/2013 3:32 PM

Re: Good For Stanford. @SMITHE YOU'RE RIGHT ON ALL COUNTS Post Rating (1 vote)



topcamera wrote: Hey Egbear, I think you're Amy.

Thanks Amy.

LOL........I'm the one who named "amy" way back when.  However, your buddy Mrs. TALIBAN sure fits the billing.
Avatar

Posted: 01/03/2013 4:01 PM

Re: Good For Stanford. @SMITHE YOU'RE RIGHT ON ALL COUNTS Post Rating (2 votes)


Thanks Amy.
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."

Groucho Marx

Posted: 01/03/2013 4:07 PM

Getting this back on track... 


Let me take issue with the whole "it wasn't an impressive enough victory" meme.

Stanford went up 14-0 on the strength of the passing game and an unconventional run.  On the 43 yd pass to Ertz Hogan took a monster hit, and Stanford wasn't getting any "body shots" in by running the ball up the middle early in the game, and had to run the ball to be in position to win late.

In the second quarter Stanford started running  the ball with not a lot of success.  Wisconsin is no push over, but Stanford's philosophy is that if they keep with the run, eventually they will be able to get longer gains with the run in the 4th quarter.  

So they continued to pound the run with little success in the 3rd quarter.  But by this time, the defense, which had given up some yards in the first half, was starting shut down Wisconsin, on their way to a second half shutout.

Lo and behold, look what happened.  Stanford started to make bigger gains with the running game in the 4th quarter.  You can argue with the fact Stanford didn't open it up more, but Hogan is a RS Frosh and was starting only his 5th game - in the Rose Bowl.  If Taylor busted a long run, Stanford wins by 10+.  It didn't happen.  Give Wisconsin credit for holding Taylor to a long run of 10 yards.  But also acknowledge he averaged 4.4 YPC, suggesting there was reason to believe he would, that the run would eventually pop a big gain for a score.

But none of this would have been possible had Stanford not kept on landing "body blows" as they say, with the run game earlier in the 3rd quarter.  So no, Stanford didn't score as many points as it might have, or win by as as large of a margin as it could have, but the fact is they won the game and that is all that matters.  It's frankly pathetic for any Cal fan to criticize ANYTHING Stanford does in a Rose Bowl or other BCS game, considering Cal hasn't been to one in over 50 years.

Last edited 01/03/2013 4:09 PM by NoQuestionRox

Post New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >