[SUBuddha]

Pulled this from Lombardi's twitter. Anyone else see it?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/17946...ms/page/16

[SUBuddha]

Pulled this from Lombardi's twitter. Anyone else see it?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/17946...ms/page/16

[washingtonismoney]

Wow, Bleacher Report puts out a dumb piece? They have such high editorial standards.

[washingtonismoney]

Wow, Bleacher Report puts out a dumb piece? They have such high editorial standards.

[stupac2]

We fail to force turnovers, but have the longest streak of forced turnovers in the nation and just came off a game with two pick sixes?

Uh, okay.

[stupac2]

We fail to force turnovers, but have the longest streak of forced turnovers in the nation and just came off a game with two pick sixes?

Uh, okay.

[fullmetal]

The only metric of success at Bleacher Report is eyeballs drawn to the article.  If people sign up for BR accounts just to trash an article, that's a successful article. 

[fullmetal]

The only metric of success at Bleacher Report is eyeballs drawn to the article.  If people sign up for BR accounts just to trash an article, that's a successful article. 

[Bruce Wang]

Hey newbie,

First rule of CARDboard Fight Club: We do not post articles from the Bleacher Report.

Publius

[Bruce Wang]

Hey newbie,

First rule of CARDboard Fight Club: We do not post articles from the Bleacher Report.

Publius

[FarmBoy]

I felt compelled to click on the link based on the discussion here (I guess B/R wins!) The comments are pretty funny. There are a handful of people blasting him over other predictions to which the author responds with something nearing substance in explaining his prediction. However, most of the comments focus on the idiocy of his Stanford prediction and his response is "Thanks for reading". Well played Mr. Lena. B/R must have done an analysis of the value per click of a Stanford fan and decided that the best way to get more eyeballs from this lucrative demographic is to talk out of its a$$ about our team.

Now I need to go wash out my eyeballs.

[FarmBoy]

I felt compelled to click on the link based on the discussion here (I guess B/R wins!) The comments are pretty funny. There are a handful of people blasting him over other predictions to which the author responds with something nearing substance in explaining his prediction. However, most of the comments focus on the idiocy of his Stanford prediction and his response is "Thanks for reading". Well played Mr. Lena. B/R must have done an analysis of the value per click of a Stanford fan and decided that the best way to get more eyeballs from this lucrative demographic is to talk out of its a$$ about our team.

Now I need to go wash out my eyeballs.

[yvonne]

Yep, it's clearly a ploy for eyeballs.

Look at this conversation. Note that Mr. Lena favorited my tweet poking fun at him.
https://twitter.com/CTcard44/status/385549095080718336

[yvonne]

Yep, it's clearly a ploy for eyeballs.

Look at this conversation. Note that Mr. Lena favorited my tweet poking fun at him.
https://twitter.com/CTcard44/status/385549095080718336

[SUBuddha]

Hey newbie,

First rule of CARDboard Fight Club: We do not post articles from the Bleacher Report.

Publius

My apologies, I will never do it again.  :(

[SUBuddha]

Hey newbie,

First rule of CARDboard Fight Club: We do not post articles from the Bleacher Report.

Publius

My apologies, I will never do it again.  :(

[wyattp]

Can someone send me the stuff he is smoking?  Must be phenomenal if he wrote an article like that

[wyattp]

Can someone send me the stuff he is smoking?  Must be phenomenal if he wrote an article like that

[Bruce Wang]

[quote author=Publius link=topic=8520.msg69855#msg69855 date=1380805708]
Hey newbie,

First rule of CARDboard Fight Club: We do not post articles from the Bleacher Report.

Publius

My apologies, I will never do it again.  :(
[/quote]

No worries.  ;)  I've committed the same sin, though I did it in full awareness and that particular post was the exception that proves the rule.  :D  It appears the BR is back to its old ways.  Why anybody would pay $200 million for a steaming pile is beyond me.

BTW a lot of newbies, do we need to repost the catechism for their benefit?

[Bruce Wang]

[quote author=Publius link=topic=8520.msg69855#msg69855 date=1380805708]
Hey newbie,

First rule of CARDboard Fight Club: We do not post articles from the Bleacher Report.

Publius

My apologies, I will never do it again.  :(
[/quote]

No worries.  ;)  I've committed the same sin, though I did it in full awareness and that particular post was the exception that proves the rule.  :D  It appears the BR is back to its old ways.  Why anybody would pay $200 million for a steaming pile is beyond me.

BTW a lot of newbies, do we need to repost the catechism for their benefit?

[Extra Point]

First rule of CARDboard Fight Club: We do not post articles from the Bleacher Report.

Much of the wisdom expressed in the Mercury, Chronicle, and Bleacher Report have been a source of humor here for years. I think you would be hard pressed to find a week where there weren't similar posts. I understand that it is not a good idea paste entire articles for copyright reasons. But, since when is it violation to post links to poor journalism? And who came up with this rule? I certainly don't remember a consensus of opinion on this. But, if posting links to Bleacher Report is a no no, then I will tow the line.

[Extra Point]

First rule of CARDboard Fight Club: We do not post articles from the Bleacher Report.

Much of the wisdom expressed in the Mercury, Chronicle, and Bleacher Report have been a source of humor here for years. I think you would be hard pressed to find a week where there weren't similar posts. I understand that it is not a good idea paste entire articles for copyright reasons. But, since when is it violation to post links to poor journalism? And who came up with this rule? I certainly don't remember a consensus of opinion on this. But, if posting links to Bleacher Report is a no no, then I will tow the line.

[stupac2]

[quote author=Publius link=topic=8520.msg69855#msg69855 date=1380805708]
First rule of CARDboard Fight Club: We do not post articles from the Bleacher Report.

Much of the wisdom expressed in the Mercury, Chronicle, and Bleacher Report have been a source of humor here for years. I think you would be hard pressed to find a week where there weren't similar posts. I understand that it is not a good idea paste entire articles for copyright reasons. But, since when is it violation to post links to poor journalism? And who came up with this rule? I certainly don't remember a consensus of opinion on this. But, if posting links to Bleacher Report is a no no, then I will tow the line.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure he's just joking, and that his point is that BR doesn't deserve the pageviews.

[stupac2]

[quote author=Publius link=topic=8520.msg69855#msg69855 date=1380805708]
First rule of CARDboard Fight Club: We do not post articles from the Bleacher Report.

Much of the wisdom expressed in the Mercury, Chronicle, and Bleacher Report have been a source of humor here for years. I think you would be hard pressed to find a week where there weren't similar posts. I understand that it is not a good idea paste entire articles for copyright reasons. But, since when is it violation to post links to poor journalism? And who came up with this rule? I certainly don't remember a consensus of opinion on this. But, if posting links to Bleacher Report is a no no, then I will tow the line.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure he's just joking, and that his point is that BR doesn't deserve the pageviews.

[washingtonismoney]

I actually would prefer not to link to BR at all, though with their continued hiring of legitimate writers and journalists that might change.

I strongly dislike BR for a couple reasons:
1) their editorial strategy is junk: it's to publish dumb, worthless junk. Clicking or linking to them only encourages them to publish more junk. Why would you want more idiocy inflicted on the world? Seems like the current worldwide supply is much more than is needed. The only way to deal with BR is to ignore them totally.

2) I also feel they play on the aspirations of the drudges who turn their content out. These guys are basically paid nothing to be content churners and advertise that this is a good stepping-stone into journalism. It's not. No useful skills, journalistic or otherwise, are acquired in this type of service to Bleacher Report.

3) their founder is a real dumb*ss who seems to think his "success" entitles him to make pronouncements on all sorts of fields; he's started up a women's website, for example. Some entitled people are born on third base and think they hit a triple; Bleacher Report was given a piggyback ride to third by Google (and think they hit a triple). The further success of BR (or its women's website) will only encourage the founder to be more of an idiot. (For longer version, see: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/...widdicombe)

So, a request: please don't link to Bleacher Report. You're only encouraging them.

(Alternatively, the BR catechism: http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=7554.0)

[washingtonismoney]

I actually would prefer not to link to BR at all, though with their continued hiring of legitimate writers and journalists that might change.

I strongly dislike BR for a couple reasons:
1) their editorial strategy is junk: it's to publish dumb, worthless junk. Clicking or linking to them only encourages them to publish more junk. Why would you want more idiocy inflicted on the world? Seems like the current worldwide supply is much more than is needed. The only way to deal with BR is to ignore them totally.

2) I also feel they play on the aspirations of the drudges who turn their content out. These guys are basically paid nothing to be content churners and advertise that this is a good stepping-stone into journalism. It's not. No useful skills, journalistic or otherwise, are acquired in this type of service to Bleacher Report.

3) their founder is a real dumb*ss who seems to think his "success" entitles him to make pronouncements on all sorts of fields; he's started up a women's website, for example. Some entitled people are born on third base and think they hit a triple; Bleacher Report was given a piggyback ride to third by Google (and think they hit a triple). The further success of BR (or its women's website) will only encourage the founder to be more of an idiot. (For longer version, see: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/...widdicombe)

So, a request: please don't link to Bleacher Report. You're only encouraging them.

(Alternatively, the BR catechism: http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=7554.0)

[Extra Point]

[quote author=Extra Point link=topic=8520.msg69888#msg69888 date=1380823455]
[quote author=Publius link=topic=8520.msg69855#msg69855 date=1380805708]
First rule of CARDboard Fight Club: We do not post articles from the Bleacher Report.

Much of the wisdom expressed in the Mercury, Chronicle, and Bleacher Report have been a source of humor here for years. I think you would be hard pressed to find a week where there weren't similar posts. I understand that it is not a good idea paste entire articles for copyright reasons. But, since when is it violation to post links to poor journalism? And who came up with this rule? I certainly don't remember a consensus of opinion on this. But, if posting links to Bleacher Report is a no no, then I will tow the line.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure he's just joking, and that his point is that BR doesn't deserve the pageviews.
[/quote]

OK! I got it now. Hope all the newbies got it too.

[Extra Point]

[quote author=Extra Point link=topic=8520.msg69888#msg69888 date=1380823455]
[quote author=Publius link=topic=8520.msg69855#msg69855 date=1380805708]
First rule of CARDboard Fight Club: We do not post articles from the Bleacher Report.

Much of the wisdom expressed in the Mercury, Chronicle, and Bleacher Report have been a source of humor here for years. I think you would be hard pressed to find a week where there weren't similar posts. I understand that it is not a good idea paste entire articles for copyright reasons. But, since when is it violation to post links to poor journalism? And who came up with this rule? I certainly don't remember a consensus of opinion on this. But, if posting links to Bleacher Report is a no no, then I will tow the line.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure he's just joking, and that his point is that BR doesn't deserve the pageviews.
[/quote]

OK! I got it now. Hope all the newbies got it too.

[JohnR34231]

Speaking for myself, I find some of the Bleacher Report articles fun reads. I think the key is to not go in with very high expectations.

This one I admit was pretty bad. He disses us by saying we give up too many points in garbage time, justifying it by saying the really good teams (like Oregon) don't.

[JohnR34231]

Speaking for myself, I find some of the Bleacher Report articles fun reads. I think the key is to not go in with very high expectations.

This one I admit was pretty bad. He disses us by saying we give up too many points in garbage time, justifying it by saying the really good teams (like Oregon) don't.

[ChicagoCard]

One specific thing I dislike about Bleacher Report is that their slide shows don't actually have the number of slides advertised. If it's a purported 25-item slide show, the 25th item is not the last slide, it's a whole new slide show.

[ChicagoCard]

One specific thing I dislike about Bleacher Report is that their slide shows don't actually have the number of slides advertised. If it's a purported 25-item slide show, the 25th item is not the last slide, it's a whole new slide show.

[FarmBoy]

Some info from ESPN Pac12 Blog clearly showing all of the holes in Stanford Defense:

Since the start of last season, Stanford has held its opponents to 17.7 points per game, 10th best in the nation. They held Oregon to 21 fewer points than any other team and Arizona was the only opponent to score more than 30 points.

The Cardinal rely on the front-seven to stop the run. Since the start of last season, they average 6.4 players in the box on running plays, tied for the second fewest by any AQ defense. They have brought an eighth man into the box on just 35 runs, 25 fewer than any other major conference team. More than a quarter of those runs (10) were against Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl when the Badgers used two or more tight ends in the formation.

From 1977 to 2003, Washington went 20-2 against Stanford. Since then, Washington is 2-6 against Stanford.
Stanford is one of six FBS teams since the start of last season that have held their opponent to under 100 yards rushing per game. During that time period, The Cardinal have allowed the fewest yards per rush (3.1) in the Pac-12 and have forced the seventh-most runs for a loss (191) by any FBS team.

Stanford’s 3-4 defense has been just as effective in the passing game. The Cardinal lead the FBS with 66 sacks since the start of last season. They have at least one sack in every game, except for when they played Army, which had only 10 dropbacks.

Stanford has an AQ-high 196 total pressures (hurries + knockdowns) from the start of last season. That means the Cardinal hit or hurried the quarterback on 23 percent of opponents’ dropbacks, including 25 percent of the time against Washington last season.

Stanford sends four or fewer pass rushers on 77 percent of opponents’ dropbacks. That is slightly more than the AQ average (73 percent). When sending four or fewer, the Cardinal have an AQ-high 48 sacks and have hit or hurried the quarterback on 21 percent of dropbacks, five percentage points higher than the AQ average.

[FarmBoy]

Some info from ESPN Pac12 Blog clearly showing all of the holes in Stanford Defense:

Since the start of last season, Stanford has held its opponents to 17.7 points per game, 10th best in the nation. They held Oregon to 21 fewer points than any other team and Arizona was the only opponent to score more than 30 points.

The Cardinal rely on the front-seven to stop the run. Since the start of last season, they average 6.4 players in the box on running plays, tied for the second fewest by any AQ defense. They have brought an eighth man into the box on just 35 runs, 25 fewer than any other major conference team. More than a quarter of those runs (10) were against Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl when the Badgers used two or more tight ends in the formation.

From 1977 to 2003, Washington went 20-2 against Stanford. Since then, Washington is 2-6 against Stanford.
Stanford is one of six FBS teams since the start of last season that have held their opponent to under 100 yards rushing per game. During that time period, The Cardinal have allowed the fewest yards per rush (3.1) in the Pac-12 and have forced the seventh-most runs for a loss (191) by any FBS team.

Stanford’s 3-4 defense has been just as effective in the passing game. The Cardinal lead the FBS with 66 sacks since the start of last season. They have at least one sack in every game, except for when they played Army, which had only 10 dropbacks.

Stanford has an AQ-high 196 total pressures (hurries + knockdowns) from the start of last season. That means the Cardinal hit or hurried the quarterback on 23 percent of opponents’ dropbacks, including 25 percent of the time against Washington last season.

Stanford sends four or fewer pass rushers on 77 percent of opponents’ dropbacks. That is slightly more than the AQ average (73 percent). When sending four or fewer, the Cardinal have an AQ-high 48 sacks and have hit or hurried the quarterback on 21 percent of dropbacks, five percentage points higher than the AQ average.