T1B

Posted: **Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:59 pm**

Seriously. If your name is Michael and you're over the age of 11, you have no business going by the name of Mikey. Mike or Michael are both fine (although when someone calls me the latter, I feel like I'm in trouble with my mom). But Mikey? C'mon. This is real life, not a Life cereal commercial. How a grown man can be expected to be taken seriously with a name like Mikey is beyond me. I would imagine that anyone so inclined would probably root for a football team that employs foliage as a mascot. Do you know what the primary diet of the buffalo is? That's right. Foliage. I feel genuine pity for these infantile, tree-hugging losers who go by the name of Mikey. Surely they must know we're all laughing behind their backs, right?

I'm posting this here as a public service. If any of you have an adult Mikey in your lives, it's not too late to stage an intervention. Please tell them that there is still hope to be taken seriously. All they need to do is drop the "y" and stop rooting for teams with arboreal mascots. Real men go by Mike. They're angry. They're drunk. And they root for fucking Buffaloes. That is all.

Posted: **Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:12 pm**

Ducksfan would appreciate a team that is represented by a great American icon dealing a loss to the Fighting Mikeys.

Posted: **Sat Nov 07, 2015 7:05 pm**

Somehow I get the Pac 12 Network and this is the best game going right now, so I'm in. Although the feed is not in HD which is... weird. I can't believe we used to watch TV this way.

Posted: **Sat Nov 07, 2015 7:06 pm**

Rector? Damn near killed her.

i'll be here all week...

Posted: **Sat Nov 07, 2015 7:28 pm**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:this is the best game going right now

Yeah, nevermind.

Now I'm watching one of the SEC's finest struggle with the mighty Commodores. Never a week off in the 'Grinda.

Posted: **Sat Nov 07, 2015 8:10 pm**

Never underestimate the Nashville Nasties.

They're a threat to win 2 games in any given year.

Posted: **Sat Nov 07, 2015 9:03 pm**

LOL. It takes a real man to live up to a name like Mikey. Actually most people don't call me Mikey - more often it's Hey You, or Dumbfuck.

That being said, the fighting Trees aren't having too much trouble with the Nuffaloes.

(Hahahaha that "Nuffaloes" was a pure fat-thumb but actually kind of apt)

Fuck DirecTV and the PAC12 Network, BTW. I have to follow this game on my damn phone.

Posted: **Sat Nov 07, 2015 9:24 pm**

Fuck Clemson and Dabo Swinney, BTW. As much as I despise AyFayShoe I hope they kick Clemson's ass and buttfuck Swinney in the mouth.

Posted: **Sat Nov 07, 2015 9:35 pm**

Funny, I watched the entire game on the PAC12 network. :?

Posted: **Sat Nov 07, 2015 9:39 pm**

Oof. No "moral victories" in this one. Just a good, old fashioned ass-whipping. Props to Mikey and Stanford, even if their respective names and mascots are still lame as fuck. :grin:

Posted: **Sat Nov 07, 2015 9:41 pm**

Mikey wrote:I have to follow this game on my damn phone.

You should make good use of that phone by calling and switching cable providers.

Posted: **Sat Nov 07, 2015 10:03 pm**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Mikey wrote:I have to follow this game on my damn phone.
You should make good use of that phone by calling and switching cable providers.

I'd rather drive to Berkeley and drown in a vat of patchouli oil than switch back to TWC.

Posted: **Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:59 pm**

Mikey wrote:I'd rather drive to Berkeley and drown in a vat of patchouli oil

You'd get no argument from me.

Posted: **Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:13 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:
Mikey wrote:I'd rather drive to Berkeley and drown in a vat of patchouli oil
You'd get no argument from me.

You're just too easy.

Posted: **Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:05 pm**

What kind of man goes by the name of Mikey?

One who will be sobbing, after watching his CFP dreams gfo right down the drain.

That's who.

Posted: **Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:48 pm**

Hell, after Week 1 I thought bowl eligible would be a pretty good season.

Right now I'm pretty confident about Saturday afternoon, though anything is possible in this rivalry. I don't think it's going to be a particularly close game in the end. Either Oregon will run circles around Stanford, or they'll go home with Cardinal sized tire tracks up one side of their unis and down the other.

I think I posted a month or so ago that, as far as I'm concerned, there are three main goals each season:

1. Beat Cal
2. Beat SC
3. Win the PAC12

Anything else is gravy.

Still 1/3 of the way there with the other two firmly in sight. CFP would be nice but there are still four games left to win first, and at least three of them are not sure things. Even then who knows what The Committee will think.

At least we don't have to depend on Cal for a back door route into the CCG.

Posted: **Fri Nov 13, 2015 11:03 pm**

With the quality of "defense" both teams have played this season, the O/U should be around 199.5, although both teams' young guys are starting to play a bit better than the early going.

Oregon has 3 veteran studs up front, with not much going on to round out the front 7. And the secondary has improved greatly through the season -- now they're just garden-variety suck, rather than their previous jaw-dropping suck.

Both teams are going to look to run the ball down the others' throat... and they will -- both put up gaudy rushing numbers, and neither is great at stopping the run.

Both teams have good QBs, but Oregon has much more talent and speed at WR.

Oregon has 4 stud RBs... Furd has 1.5.

Both punters will be spending little time plying their craft.

QQMF wins this one, 89-81. Higher if it goes to OT.

And Ducksfan, as opposed to New Ducks Fan (yeah, that's actually a phrase used around here), has 2 benchmarks for a good season -- beat UDub, and beat the Sheepfuckers... the rest is icing on the cake. Big time bowl games don't hurt, either. Already ran the streak on UDub to 12 (sorry, I had to grin while typing that), and the Beavs would have a hard time beating Southern Oregon (reigning NAIA champs) right now.

Let's get it on.

Posted: **Sat Nov 14, 2015 8:56 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:With the quality of "defense" both teams have played this season, the O/U should be around 199.5, although both teams' young guys are starting to play a bit better than the early going.

Not sure you've been paying attention. Stanford doesn't have the killer defense they had last year but it's still one of the two best in the PAC12. #1 in total defense, #2 in scoring defense. The secondary is young, but fast and talented. They've been getting better each game.

Oregon has 3 veteran studs up front.

Stanford has five veteran studs on the OL. Should be interesting.

Both teams are going to look to run the ball down the others' throat... and they will -- both put up gaudy rushing numbers, and neither is great at stopping the run.

Stanford gives up 121.3 ypg in the conference, 123.6 in all games. Oregon is at 185.5 and 170.4. Of course Stanford hasn't played Oregon yet. But Oregon hasn't played Stanford either. Stanford has one of the best LB corps in the FBS, BTW.

Both teams have good QBs, but Oregon has much more talent and speed at WR.

Stanford throws to their TEs a lot, so the WRs don't get that much attention. Prolly because they have some of the best TEs in the country.

That being said...

Rector is one of the fastest WRs in the conference. Cajuste is pretty fast and about 6'4" and 230. Owusu is very fast, and made that behind the back catch a couple of weeks ago. Trent Irwin has only gotten into a few plays but is an up and coming freshman.

Oregon has 4 stud RBs... Furd has 1.5.

McCaffrey gets most of the reps, but Bryce Love is the fastest player on the field when he's in. Barry J Sanders has had some big runs as well.

QQMF wins this one, 89-81. Higher if it goes to OT.

Stanford controls the ball for 40+ minutes and wins 45-28.

Third down conversions and/or turnovers will decide this game.

Let's get it on.

Can't wait.

Posted: **Sat Nov 14, 2015 9:06 pm**

Did you just

to

?

Posted: **Sat Nov 14, 2015 9:13 pm**

Mikey wrote:

Let's get it on.
Can't wait.

Not really a whole lotta hate in this rivalry, is there.

Posted: **Sat Nov 14, 2015 9:22 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
Mikey wrote:

Let's get it on.
Can't wait.
Not really a whole lotta hate in this rivalry, is there.

Competition but not hate. I think Duckfan and Treefan's hate is mostly channeled elsewhere.

Which is cool. I can watch this game without making my family leave the house, and without a bottle of Pepto by my side.

Posted: **Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:14 pm**

Mikey wrote:
Competition but not hate. I think Duckfan and Treefan's hate is mostly channeled elsewhere.

Both groups have much better teams on which to focus their hate... both targets being quite worthy.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2015 12:41 am**

Cajuste has pretty good hands.
Thanks
MA

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2015 12:54 am**

Well that looked too easy.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2015 1:19 am**

Dinsdale wrote:With the quality of "defense" both teams have played this season, the O/U should be around 199.5

$$$

Went to the fridge to grab (another) beer, and missed Charles Nelson Reilly's run.

Mikey wrote:
Stanford gives up 121.3 ypg in the conference, 123.6 in all games.

I think that went up... already.

Like you said, they hadn't played Oregon yet. Usually hurts a team's rushing YPG defense stats... since they average 300 coming in.

I'm sticking with my "two awesome offenses against two shitty defenses" take.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2015 1:25 am**

This is not going well.

Plus I can't stand all the FOX commercial breaks. I may turn this off and watch it later.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2015 1:28 am**

BTW -- Charles Nelson (Reilly) wasn't part of my "4 stud RBs," since he plays DB primarily.

There's more of them coming, buddy.

And if there was a debate about "best RB in the PAC," I think it's being settled. And it's not the guy with all the Heisman hype.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2015 1:42 am**

Dinsdale wrote:
And if there was a debate about "best RB in the PAC," I think it's being settled. And it's not the guy with all the Heisman hype.

Still early.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2015 1:48 am**

The guy from Cal is having a good game.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2015 1:50 am**

Good freaking game.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2015 1:56 am**

FUCK!!

Good half of football. I may have to take back my prediction. This could go down to the wire.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2015 2:28 am**

If Stanford loses a close game you can go ahead and blame "settling for FGs" (along with not tackling). Any FG in this game counts as a win for the defense.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:24 am**

WHOA!!!

Mikey wrote:If Stanford loses a close game you can go ahead and blame "settling for FGs" (along with not tackling).

Add "shitty play calling."

And "not tackling"? Puhleez -- for at least a decade, Oregon has written the book on "not tackling."

Tremendously entertaining game.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:34 am**

DOUBLEWHOA!!!!!!

Ball game, beyotches!

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:36 am**

Nice game. Oregon's offense has been pretty much as expected. Their defense won the game. And Stanford mistakes.

Well, not quite over yet.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:38 am**

Not so fast, Fliend.

I haven't heard the Fat Lady yet (except on my phone).

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:42 am**

Damn that was close.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:45 am**

PAC12 refs

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:47 am**

Dinsdale wrote:PAC12 refs

If anything, the Stanford WR got a handful of jersey. But otherwise there was no penalty. Unreal.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:47 am**

Dinsdale wrote:PAC12 refs

T1B

What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?

Re: What kind of man goes by "Mikey"?