[thunder_chik]

I think it's premature to be negative about our chances for a W. Neither team is in a groove this early in the season. SC is playing with a backup, as are we. But, we always seem to be "up" for the SC game, especially at their house. I remember the November 8, 1975 game at the Coliseum vs a #9 Trojan team. We won, 13-10.
I think Mills will surprise in a positive way. I like his zing on the ball; with presumably a week of reps, he should be a little more confident. And the D seems to be playing well. Let's hope we can pull off another humiliating defeat tomorrow!

[thunder_chik]

I think it's premature to be negative about our chances for a W. Neither team is in a groove this early in the season. SC is playing with a backup, as are we. But, we always seem to be "up" for the SC game, especially at their house. I remember the November 8, 1975 game at the Coliseum vs a #9 Trojan team. We won, 13-10.
I think Mills will surprise in a positive way. I like his zing on the ball; with presumably a week of reps, he should be a little more confident. And the D seems to be playing well. Let's hope we can pull off another humiliating defeat tomorrow!

[BostonCard]

What I saw from Stanford against Northwestern was talented Stanford players operating as less than the sum of their individual parts and Northwestern players operating as greater than the sum of their individual parts. Northwestern didn’t make as many plays as Stanford, but were more crisp in their execution and more consistent in their performance in general.

That's certainly an interesting take. I won't claim that Stanford's execution was crisp, but if you think the Northwestern players were crisp in their execution, perhaps the heat got to you. Forget the 4 turnovers that Northwestern made. Forget blockers that stood like topiary as Stanford pass rushers blew by them. Forget the innumerable dropped passes and missed tackles. Don't take my word for it, take Fitzgerald's.

https://dailynorthwestern.com/2019/08/31...n-in-loss/

Missed tackles were the biggest weakness for the defense. Multiple times, especially outside the numbers, NU defenders were unable to bring their opponents to the ground. When these Stanford players got past the isolated Cats players, they found themselves in space.

Sometimes these plays resulted in first downs. Other times, they set up big plays. Junior safety Travis Whillock — who had a game-best 10 total tackles — recalled a 2nd-and-Long play where he came on a safety blitz and missed a tackle. Instead of keeping Stanford on a 3rd-and-Distance play, the Cardinal had a much more manageable third down.

Stanford converted the third down, and Willock said little things like that make the difference.

“If I tackle him and it’s third and long, we may give our offense an extra minute and a half or two minutes,” Whillock said. “That’s on me… I know I’m a player that can make those plays.”

In regards to the plethora of missed tackles, Fitzgerald referenced an old defensive saying during his post-game presser: “If you can’t make a tackle unblocked, you really hurt the defense.” He said there was a lot of that during the game.

And on offense, I really want what you are smoking if you even saw a scintila of execution on a team that scored 7 points and gave up 4 turnovers. Here's the tale of the tape:
First downs 21 - 15 Stanford
Total plays 73 - 60 Stanford
Total yards 365 - 210 Stanford
Yards/play 5 - 3.5 Stanford
Rushing yards 132 - 93 Stanford
Rushing yards per cary 3.4 - 2.8 Stanford
Passing rating 135 - 66 Stanford
Passing yards 233 - 117 Stanford
Third down conversions 44% (7/16) - 36% (5/14) Stanford
YPA 6.9 - 4.3 Stanford
Time of possession 38 - 22 Stanford
Turnovers 4-2 Northwestern
Interception 2-0 Northwestern
Sacks 3-1 Stanford (27 - 3 in terms of yards)
Tackles for loss 5-2 Stanford (29 - 5 in terms of yards)
QB hurries 5-1 Stanford

This wasn't a case where Stanford eeked out a win in a game it should have lost. Virtually every important stat would have predicted not just a Stanford win, but a very solid Stanford win. Let's look at the "five factors"
https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/1...ve-factors
* A 1.5 yards per play edge predicts is associated with an 86% - 89% chance of winning and an average scoring margin of +13 to +17.5 (1.5 ypp is right on the border)
* A +2 turnover margin is associated with a 79% chance of winning and an average scoring margin of 16 points

I can't calculate the other stats because they are derived, but I would be shocked if we didn't significantly outperform NW in terms of efficiency and explosiveness. Drive finishing might have been a push. Field position probably favored NW, see below.

Here is where Northwestern outperformed Stanford
Punting average 45 - 33
Punt return 28 to -1
Net punting, NW got 181 net yards on 4 punts (45.3/punt), while Stanford got 115 net yards on 5 punts (23/punt)
Penalties Stanford 8 for 78 yards, NW 8 for 67 yards (though I believe Stanford's negated a couple big plays)

Punting is clearly an issue that has been discussed, and could make a difference against USC.

[BostonCard]

What I saw from Stanford against Northwestern was talented Stanford players operating as less than the sum of their individual parts and Northwestern players operating as greater than the sum of their individual parts. Northwestern didn’t make as many plays as Stanford, but were more crisp in their execution and more consistent in their performance in general.

That's certainly an interesting take. I won't claim that Stanford's execution was crisp, but if you think the Northwestern players were crisp in their execution, perhaps the heat got to you. Forget the 4 turnovers that Northwestern made. Forget blockers that stood like topiary as Stanford pass rushers blew by them. Forget the innumerable dropped passes and missed tackles. Don't take my word for it, take Fitzgerald's.

https://dailynorthwestern.com/2019/08/31...n-in-loss/

Missed tackles were the biggest weakness for the defense. Multiple times, especially outside the numbers, NU defenders were unable to bring their opponents to the ground. When these Stanford players got past the isolated Cats players, they found themselves in space.

Sometimes these plays resulted in first downs. Other times, they set up big plays. Junior safety Travis Whillock — who had a game-best 10 total tackles — recalled a 2nd-and-Long play where he came on a safety blitz and missed a tackle. Instead of keeping Stanford on a 3rd-and-Distance play, the Cardinal had a much more manageable third down.

Stanford converted the third down, and Willock said little things like that make the difference.

“If I tackle him and it’s third and long, we may give our offense an extra minute and a half or two minutes,” Whillock said. “That’s on me… I know I’m a player that can make those plays.”

In regards to the plethora of missed tackles, Fitzgerald referenced an old defensive saying during his post-game presser: “If you can’t make a tackle unblocked, you really hurt the defense.” He said there was a lot of that during the game.

And on offense, I really want what you are smoking if you even saw a scintila of execution on a team that scored 7 points and gave up 4 turnovers. Here's the tale of the tape:
First downs 21 - 15 Stanford
Total plays 73 - 60 Stanford
Total yards 365 - 210 Stanford
Yards/play 5 - 3.5 Stanford
Rushing yards 132 - 93 Stanford
Rushing yards per cary 3.4 - 2.8 Stanford
Passing rating 135 - 66 Stanford
Passing yards 233 - 117 Stanford
Third down conversions 44% (7/16) - 36% (5/14) Stanford
YPA 6.9 - 4.3 Stanford
Time of possession 38 - 22 Stanford
Turnovers 4-2 Northwestern
Interception 2-0 Northwestern
Sacks 3-1 Stanford (27 - 3 in terms of yards)
Tackles for loss 5-2 Stanford (29 - 5 in terms of yards)
QB hurries 5-1 Stanford

This wasn't a case where Stanford eeked out a win in a game it should have lost. Virtually every important stat would have predicted not just a Stanford win, but a very solid Stanford win. Let's look at the "five factors"
https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/1...ve-factors
* A 1.5 yards per play edge predicts is associated with an 86% - 89% chance of winning and an average scoring margin of +13 to +17.5 (1.5 ypp is right on the border)
* A +2 turnover margin is associated with a 79% chance of winning and an average scoring margin of 16 points

I can't calculate the other stats because they are derived, but I would be shocked if we didn't significantly outperform NW in terms of efficiency and explosiveness. Drive finishing might have been a push. Field position probably favored NW, see below.

Here is where Northwestern outperformed Stanford
Punting average 45 - 33
Punt return 28 to -1
Net punting, NW got 181 net yards on 4 punts (45.3/punt), while Stanford got 115 net yards on 5 punts (23/punt)
Penalties Stanford 8 for 78 yards, NW 8 for 67 yards (though I believe Stanford's negated a couple big plays)

Punting is clearly an issue that has been discussed, and could make a difference against USC.

[d4cohn]

I agree BC. Stanford was unlucky against NW, based on the stats, not to win by more (such as a FG bouncing off
the upright etc.)

[d4cohn]

I agree BC. Stanford was unlucky against NW, based on the stats, not to win by more (such as a FG bouncing off
the upright etc.)

[Langdude]

Another thing that I don't think people have talked about much is that our two fumbles were mishandled RPOs by Mills. Either he was undecided and held the ball in Scarlett's gut too long before deciding to keep it, or he was simply not well enough trained on how to run the play. I am assuming that coaches have now drilled into him how to do it properly, not to mention the fact that, as a smart kid, he is probably done extra work on it himself this past week so as to correct his errors.

-m.

[Langdude]

Another thing that I don't think people have talked about much is that our two fumbles were mishandled RPOs by Mills. Either he was undecided and held the ball in Scarlett's gut too long before deciding to keep it, or he was simply not well enough trained on how to run the play. I am assuming that coaches have now drilled into him how to do it properly, not to mention the fact that, as a smart kid, he is probably done extra work on it himself this past week so as to correct his errors.

-m.

[Goose]

Another thing that I don't think people have talked about much is that our two fumbles were mishandled RPOs by Mills. Either he was undecided and held the ball in Scarlett's gut too long before deciding to keep it, or he was simply not well enough trained on how to run the play. I am assuming that coaches have now drilled into him how to do it properly, not to mention the fact that, as a smart kid, he is probably done extra work on it himself this past week so as to correct his errors.

-m.

No to mention that they simply don't need it. Mills may be a good runner, but with his injury history I think it is a bad play to call. We really don't want Mills intentionally running the ball, IMHO. This is especially true when we are already down a QB. I hope the staff has realized that and just forgets the RPO.

[Goose]

Another thing that I don't think people have talked about much is that our two fumbles were mishandled RPOs by Mills. Either he was undecided and held the ball in Scarlett's gut too long before deciding to keep it, or he was simply not well enough trained on how to run the play. I am assuming that coaches have now drilled into him how to do it properly, not to mention the fact that, as a smart kid, he is probably done extra work on it himself this past week so as to correct his errors.

-m.

No to mention that they simply don't need it. Mills may be a good runner, but with his injury history I think it is a bad play to call. We really don't want Mills intentionally running the ball, IMHO. This is especially true when we are already down a QB. I hope the staff has realized that and just forgets the RPO.

[CompSci87]

Were those really run/pass options or just read options? I.e., did the play give Mills a possibility of passing after he pulled the ball, or only to run it himself?

[CompSci87]

Were those really run/pass options or just read options? I.e., did the play give Mills a possibility of passing after he pulled the ball, or only to run it himself?

[CardinalSagehen]

Another thing that I don't think people have talked about much is that our two fumbles were mishandled RPOs by Mills. Either he was undecided and held the ball in Scarlett's gut too long before deciding to keep it, or he was simply not well enough trained on how to run the play. I am assuming that coaches have now drilled into him how to do it properly, not to mention the fact that, as a smart kid, he is probably done extra work on it himself this past week so as to correct his errors.

-m.

No to mention that they simply don't need it. Mills may be a good runner, but with his injury history I think it is a bad play to call. We really don't want Mills intentionally running the ball, IMHO. This is especially true when we are already down a QB. I hope the staff has realized that and just forgets the RPO.

Everyone seems to be in agreement that it's the QB's fault on those read options, except the noble Cameron Scarlett himself. He took more than his share of the responsibility and showed class in his comments at this week's presser, saying, "the running back is responsible for the mesh in that play...." Of course, he also said they'll get it cleaned up. Great leadership.

Scarlett's comments here: https://youtu.be/rEOThj4fezo?t=2186

[CardinalSagehen]

Another thing that I don't think people have talked about much is that our two fumbles were mishandled RPOs by Mills. Either he was undecided and held the ball in Scarlett's gut too long before deciding to keep it, or he was simply not well enough trained on how to run the play. I am assuming that coaches have now drilled into him how to do it properly, not to mention the fact that, as a smart kid, he is probably done extra work on it himself this past week so as to correct his errors.

-m.

No to mention that they simply don't need it. Mills may be a good runner, but with his injury history I think it is a bad play to call. We really don't want Mills intentionally running the ball, IMHO. This is especially true when we are already down a QB. I hope the staff has realized that and just forgets the RPO.

Everyone seems to be in agreement that it's the QB's fault on those read options, except the noble Cameron Scarlett himself. He took more than his share of the responsibility and showed class in his comments at this week's presser, saying, "the running back is responsible for the mesh in that play...." Of course, he also said they'll get it cleaned up. Great leadership.

Scarlett's comments here: https://youtu.be/rEOThj4fezo?t=2186

[Spiny_Norman]

Also Booker, who may or may not be playing, though he is not draft eligible after this year.

And I think it's naive to think that USC won't have someone in the top 100

Palaie Gaoteote IV likely a first rounder in the 2021 draft.
Austin Jackson may be a third rounder this year.
Jay Tufele is predicted as a top-15 pick in 2021 (http://walterfootball.com/draft2021.php but as a redshirt sophomore, could leave after this year).
Amon Ra St. Brown is predicted as a first round pick in 2021 (http://walterfootball.com/draft2021_1.php)
Michael Pittman Jr. has fallen in some draft boards due to injury (he missed 6 games last year), but the dude is a 6'4" wide receiver and if he's healthy he will get a ton of catches in the air raid. Where he goes this year is dependent on health.

Other guys who are likely future NFLers but whose draft position may be out of the top100:
S Talanoa Hufanga
DE Christian Rector
WR Tyler Vaughns
TE Josh Falo
DT Marlon Tuipulotu
RB Stephen Carr

BC

Drake Jackson, a true frosh DL, sounds like the 2nd coming of Leonard Williams. He may be their top talent - https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story...ke-jackson

[Spiny_Norman]

Also Booker, who may or may not be playing, though he is not draft eligible after this year.

And I think it's naive to think that USC won't have someone in the top 100

Palaie Gaoteote IV likely a first rounder in the 2021 draft.
Austin Jackson may be a third rounder this year.
Jay Tufele is predicted as a top-15 pick in 2021 (http://walterfootball.com/draft2021.php but as a redshirt sophomore, could leave after this year).
Amon Ra St. Brown is predicted as a first round pick in 2021 (http://walterfootball.com/draft2021_1.php)
Michael Pittman Jr. has fallen in some draft boards due to injury (he missed 6 games last year), but the dude is a 6'4" wide receiver and if he's healthy he will get a ton of catches in the air raid. Where he goes this year is dependent on health.

Other guys who are likely future NFLers but whose draft position may be out of the top100:
S Talanoa Hufanga
DE Christian Rector
WR Tyler Vaughns
TE Josh Falo
DT Marlon Tuipulotu
RB Stephen Carr

BC

Drake Jackson, a true frosh DL, sounds like the 2nd coming of Leonard Williams. He may be their top talent - https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story...ke-jackson

[Langdude]

Were those really run/pass options or just read options? I.e., did the play give Mills a possibility of passing after he pulled the ball, or only to run it himself?

Hard to know since he fumbled before he could make his next football move, but, yes, you are probably right that they were straight read-run options; I tend to call any option play that a quarterback makes based on a playtime read an RPO since he is determining to either to make it a run play by the RB or make it his own play (run or pass). I first remember watching Tim Tebow march down the field using only that play. Does anyone remember if there was someone else to use it effectively before him?

-m.

[Langdude]

Were those really run/pass options or just read options? I.e., did the play give Mills a possibility of passing after he pulled the ball, or only to run it himself?

Hard to know since he fumbled before he could make his next football move, but, yes, you are probably right that they were straight read-run options; I tend to call any option play that a quarterback makes based on a playtime read an RPO since he is determining to either to make it a run play by the RB or make it his own play (run or pass). I first remember watching Tim Tebow march down the field using only that play. Does anyone remember if there was someone else to use it effectively before him?

-m.

[BostonCard]

Baker mayfield at Oklahoma was pretty good running the RPO...



BC

[BostonCard]

Baker mayfield at Oklahoma was pretty good running the RPO...



BC

[ADPinWDC]

But for the Kickoff Return TD, Troy might have lost to FRES, with the Dogs driving late as it was down just a score, 31-23.
Sagarin Ratings: #55 FRES put up 460 yards on #31 U$C. #24 Stanford can do better than that, even with Little out.
And as FRES QB Reyna showed, the Troyen secondary is young and inexperienced.

Put pressure on the youngling Slovis, rattle the freshman, get some hurries and picks as we did with NORW.
I think this could be a breakout game for the D-Line: Swann, Williams, DWP need to Party in the Backfield.
Gotta keep U$C off rhythm, conduct some mis-direction, and play keep away with a mix of run and short pass, not just 23-power-up-the-gut.
Mills has all the throws; let him use them with as good a Receiving Corp 5 or 6 deep as we have ever had.

[ADPinWDC]

But for the Kickoff Return TD, Troy might have lost to FRES, with the Dogs driving late as it was down just a score, 31-23.
Sagarin Ratings: #55 FRES put up 460 yards on #31 U$C. #24 Stanford can do better than that, even with Little out.
And as FRES QB Reyna showed, the Troyen secondary is young and inexperienced.

Put pressure on the youngling Slovis, rattle the freshman, get some hurries and picks as we did with NORW.
I think this could be a breakout game for the D-Line: Swann, Williams, DWP need to Party in the Backfield.
Gotta keep U$C off rhythm, conduct some mis-direction, and play keep away with a mix of run and short pass, not just 23-power-up-the-gut.
Mills has all the throws; let him use them with as good a Receiving Corp 5 or 6 deep as we have ever had.

[OutsiderFan]

I think my comments were a bit misconstrued and my word choice was poor to describe execution. Let me be more clear.

Stanford has a more talented roster than Northwestern and Stanford was playing at home. Northwestern played poorly, yes, but the margin was way closer than it should have been. Stanford should have won that game by at least two TDs, and probably 17. My score prediction was 34-20.

What I saw in that game was a Stanford team that had the talent to win by that margin or greater, but found ways not necessarily to lose, but certainly to keep the other team in the game. I’m not saying that because they made me look bad I’m gonna hate on the team. But it’s clear from the comments my post sussed out that most of y’all also thought Stanford should have won by 14+ points. Though it was ultimately 10, we all know it was really a 3 pt game with under 30 secs to play. Stanford will not beat USC with as many self-inflicted wounds. All teams make mistakes, but the best coached ones don’t make as many as Stanford did.

Northwestern managed to be within 3 pts in the penultimate seconds of a game it was virtually dominated. Stanford managed to keep a team it dominated much closer than it had any right to be. This concerns me greatly. USC is better than Northwestern. Stanford will be playing on road with a lot of inexperienced players who in general perform better at home. If they are so sloppy at home, how can they be expected to improve in their first road game of the season? Now throw in a first time starting QB and a True Frosh LT.

Again, I hope to be dead ass wrong, Stanford plays a minimal mistake game up to the potential the roster has, the defense carries the day and walks off United Airlines Field with a close victory that keeps the wolves away from Helton’s door. I just don’t believe this will be the case based on what my eyes saw in week 1.

[OutsiderFan]

I think my comments were a bit misconstrued and my word choice was poor to describe execution. Let me be more clear.

Stanford has a more talented roster than Northwestern and Stanford was playing at home. Northwestern played poorly, yes, but the margin was way closer than it should have been. Stanford should have won that game by at least two TDs, and probably 17. My score prediction was 34-20.

What I saw in that game was a Stanford team that had the talent to win by that margin or greater, but found ways not necessarily to lose, but certainly to keep the other team in the game. I’m not saying that because they made me look bad I’m gonna hate on the team. But it’s clear from the comments my post sussed out that most of y’all also thought Stanford should have won by 14+ points. Though it was ultimately 10, we all know it was really a 3 pt game with under 30 secs to play. Stanford will not beat USC with as many self-inflicted wounds. All teams make mistakes, but the best coached ones don’t make as many as Stanford did.

Northwestern managed to be within 3 pts in the penultimate seconds of a game it was virtually dominated. Stanford managed to keep a team it dominated much closer than it had any right to be. This concerns me greatly. USC is better than Northwestern. Stanford will be playing on road with a lot of inexperienced players who in general perform better at home. If they are so sloppy at home, how can they be expected to improve in their first road game of the season? Now throw in a first time starting QB and a True Frosh LT.

Again, I hope to be dead ass wrong, Stanford plays a minimal mistake game up to the potential the roster has, the defense carries the day and walks off United Airlines Field with a close victory that keeps the wolves away from Helton’s door. I just don’t believe this will be the case based on what my eyes saw in week 1.

[CTcard]

Stanford managed to keep a team it dominated much closer than it had any right to be. This concerns me greatly.

On the scale of things, if Stanford is in a close game I'd much rather it be because they are making "finishing" errors than simply not being better than the opposing team - especially if it is game one of the season.

False starts, holding calls, dropped passes, mesh miscues - these are easier to fix than being slow, weak, having mismatched talents, no effective schemes on offense or defense, etc.

Look across the country. Most of the teams who blew out opponents were in games so mismatched they should not have been played. The dominant theme everywhere else was "what a mess". Florida-Miami was described by both sides as a slop-fest (5 TOs, 23 penalties), Oregon-Auburn was tough but a mess (how exactly did Oregon let that 21-6 lead evaporate to a team that had the #124th best pass completion percentage in the country over game 1), even Alabama fans were irate at the sloppiness in the first half versus Duke (with first half drives that ended in a fumble, missed FG, and two three and outs).

So, of course everyone would be happier had last week been the 20+ point win it appeared was within the grasp of the team. And if all the penalties/drops/fumbles are still happening after games 2,3,4 that will be a problem (it's the sort of thing that defined the 2014 season, Shaw's worst). Still, on balance I take Stanford's week one performance as a pretty strong positive, though that is dependent upon Northwestern being approximately as good a team as it was last year.

[CTcard]

Stanford managed to keep a team it dominated much closer than it had any right to be. This concerns me greatly.

On the scale of things, if Stanford is in a close game I'd much rather it be because they are making "finishing" errors than simply not being better than the opposing team - especially if it is game one of the season.

False starts, holding calls, dropped passes, mesh miscues - these are easier to fix than being slow, weak, having mismatched talents, no effective schemes on offense or defense, etc.

Look across the country. Most of the teams who blew out opponents were in games so mismatched they should not have been played. The dominant theme everywhere else was "what a mess". Florida-Miami was described by both sides as a slop-fest (5 TOs, 23 penalties), Oregon-Auburn was tough but a mess (how exactly did Oregon let that 21-6 lead evaporate to a team that had the #124th best pass completion percentage in the country over game 1), even Alabama fans were irate at the sloppiness in the first half versus Duke (with first half drives that ended in a fumble, missed FG, and two three and outs).

So, of course everyone would be happier had last week been the 20+ point win it appeared was within the grasp of the team. And if all the penalties/drops/fumbles are still happening after games 2,3,4 that will be a problem (it's the sort of thing that defined the 2014 season, Shaw's worst). Still, on balance I take Stanford's week one performance as a pretty strong positive, though that is dependent upon Northwestern being approximately as good a team as it was last year.

[Mick]

I'm not sure there is a CFB team who over the last 10 years has so consistently failed to play to the level of its talent more than U$C

To mimic this, I am not sure there is a CFB team who over the last 10 years has so consistently played above its means/above expectation
than Stanford.

I posted the statistics elsewhere, but Stanford's performance against the spread is one of the best in the nation.

[Mick]

I'm not sure there is a CFB team who over the last 10 years has so consistently failed to play to the level of its talent more than U$C

To mimic this, I am not sure there is a CFB team who over the last 10 years has so consistently played above its means/above expectation
than Stanford.

I posted the statistics elsewhere, but Stanford's performance against the spread is one of the best in the nation.

[OutsiderFan]

Well, it was just about double as bad as I feared it would be. Instead of 24-10, it was 45-20.

My worst fear was the offense would be bad, and the only thing you had to hang your hat on in the defense, was totally exposed. This is what appears to have happened. Ugh.

[OutsiderFan]

Well, it was just about double as bad as I feared it would be. Instead of 24-10, it was 45-20.

My worst fear was the offense would be bad, and the only thing you had to hang your hat on in the defense, was totally exposed. This is what appears to have happened. Ugh.

[yvonne]

Isn't it about time for you to go back to the Cal board?

[yvonne]

Isn't it about time for you to go back to the Cal board?

[stupac2]

Isn't it about time for you to go back to the Cal board?

He was pretty much exactly right. I'd rather have this board populated with realists than a bunch of blind homers. Coming into this year we didn't have very high expectations, and that's turned out to be pretty justified.

[stupac2]

Isn't it about time for you to go back to the Cal board?

He was pretty much exactly right. I'd rather have this board populated with realists than a bunch of blind homers. Coming into this year we didn't have very high expectations, and that's turned out to be pretty justified.

[JohnR34231]

Isn't it about time for you to go back to the Cal board?

He was pretty much exactly right. I'd rather have this board populated with realists than a bunch of blind homers. Coming into this year we didn't have very high expectations, and that's turned out to be pretty justified.

Going into the year, I thought if we were going to have any success we would have to avoid injuries to key players. That is exactly what hasn't happened.

[JohnR34231]

Isn't it about time for you to go back to the Cal board?

He was pretty much exactly right. I'd rather have this board populated with realists than a bunch of blind homers. Coming into this year we didn't have very high expectations, and that's turned out to be pretty justified.

Going into the year, I thought if we were going to have any success we would have to avoid injuries to key players. That is exactly what hasn't happened.

[AlbanyCardinal]

Isn't it about time for you to go back to the Cal board?

Is this post for real? Pathetic if so.

[AlbanyCardinal]

Isn't it about time for you to go back to the Cal board?

Is this post for real? Pathetic if so.

[yvonne]

This is coming from Yvonne the fan, not Yvonne the webmistress. . It feels like he's taunting

[yvonne]

This is coming from Yvonne the fan, not Yvonne the webmistress. . It feels like he's taunting