When I think about Big Game, countless memories rush back from over the course of my thirty seasons watching Stanford football. There are the obvious ones, ranging from the John Hopkins field goal to clinch the miracle comeback in 1990 to Ty Montgomery's five-touchdown first half in 2013, but the game I've been thinking about the most is probably a loss.
In 2009, the first year that Stanford was consistently competitive under third-year coach Jim Harbaugh, the Cardinal entered Big Game with a 7-3 record and thoughts of reclaiming the Axe. Andrew Luck was in his first season, and although he certainly showed flashes of brilliance and gave hints of what was to come, that year's team revolved around Toby Gerhart and his Hesiman-runner-up season. Gerhart had a typical game against Cal, rushing for 136 yards and four touchdowns, but Luck had probably the worst game of his Stanford career, finishing 10 of 30 for just 157 yards and an interception that ended any hopes of a Cardinal win. Trailing by six in the final minutes of the game, Luck engineered a drive that looked like it would end with Stanford players hoisting the Axe in triumph. He scrambled to pick up one key first down, then from midfield he checked down to his third or fourth receiver and found Gerhart in the flat for what should've been a five-yard gain. Instead, Gerhart ran through four different Cal defenders and rumbled -- I think Gerhart probably even rumbled from class to class that year -- for a 29-yard gain to the Cal 13.
Listening to the radio feed at the time, I was certain of three things -- Gerhart would eventually get the ball and carry it the rest of the way for the touchdown, Stanford would win the Axe, and Heisman voters around the country would have no choice but to cast their votes for the man who had scored five touchdowns in his rivalry game. (I was young and naïve back then.) But he wouldn't touch the ball again. Two plays after Gerhart's long catch and run, Luck dropped back and threw one of the worst interceptions I can remember him throwing, and the game was over. No touchdown, no Axe, no Heisman.
In 2010 the Cardinal went into Cal's Memorial Stadium and came away with a resounding 48-14 victory that featured some rumbling from Luck, and the Axe was back in Stanford hands. Members of Cal's 2011 recruiting class who signed the following spring, who were no doubt regaled with stories of Big Games past, spent their entire time at Berkeley without ever touching the Axe.
Each year brings another Stanford win in this "rivalry" game, and my only concern at this point is for the Axe itself. I don't worry that Cal will win and take it away, I worry that Stanford's Axe committee will grow tired of the charade and might no longer bother bringing it to the game. While that would be completely understandable -- no one likes to be the guy who carries an umbrella around on what turns out to be a sunny day -- it would be a shame. I like the stare down between the opposing Axe Committees; I like watching the celebrating Stanford players streaking around the field with the Axe, the Axe Committee members desperately trying to keep up lest they be dragged to their deaths; I like the photos with freshmen holding the Axe for the first time and seniors gloating after never letting it go. I worry that as the wins pile up in this series, enthusiasm for the Axe will wane, and all this will disappear...
Perhaps that's Cal's plan, an interesting twist on the old axiom, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." In this case, the Golden Bears seem to be saying, "If you can't beat 'em, just keep losing until it doesn't matter anymore."
Saturday is the next step in their plan, and it will result in Stanford's seventh straight Big Game victory. If you haven't watched any Cal Football this season, the team will look familiar. In fact, in this fourth year under Coach Sonny Dykes, the Bears have become a caricature of themselves -- the offense continues to fire away, but the defense is a dumpster fire. That's not really accurate. It's what would happen if you tried to put out a dumpster fire with a mixture of grain alcohol and kerosene.
Here's a sampling of statistics:
- Yards per game: 540.5, 126th out of 128.
- Yards per play: 6.6, 123rd.
- Rushing yards per game: 283.4, 126th.
- Rushing yards per play: 6.2, 127th.
I could continue, but I don't have the time, and there's really no point. This isn't just one of the worst defenses in the country, it's quite possibly the worst defense in the history of Cal Football.
Yes, the offense is good. Cal dipped into the graduate transfer pool and pulled out Davis Webb from Texas Tech, and the results have been nice. He's thrown for over 3,600 yards and will likely have a career in the NFL, but the Cal defense renders him irrelevant.
Here's my bold prediction: Christian McCaffrey will break his own single-game Stanford rushing record and the Cardinal will score seven touchdowns on the way to a 51-17 win. Get your popcorn ready.
That's really all you need to know, but just for fun I reached out to the folks at California Golden Blogs to see if they had anything to add. I found a few things -- they don't have much hope for a win, and they're still clinging to their irrational hatred of Shayne Skov. Both of those things warm my Cardinal heart. So without further ado, I'll turn things over to atomsareenough and boomtho. (You read that correctly. No capital letters, no sense.)
GMC:
Stanford has left Big Game with the Axe six years in a row. How big a deal is that for Cal fans? What would a win on Saturday mean?
atomsareenough: It's a really big deal. A win on Saturday would be a minor, yet reassuring signal to beleaguered Cal fans that good does sometimes triumph over evil.
boomtho: It sucks for a whole lot of reasons, which I don't really need to go into. Suffice to say, if Sonny Dykes wants to pull himself off a rapidly warming hot seat, winning his first game against Stanford (and any CA school) would be a really good place to start.
GMC:
How are people feeling about Sonny Dykes? From an outsider’s perspective, it doesn’t seem like much has changed — his offense is still good, his defense is still bad. Are fans looking for improvements, or is this just Cal Football?
atomsareenough: We're looking for improvements, but at this point I think everyone agrees it will require major staff changes. Some folks want the changes to be up to the defensive coordinator level, others want to fire everybody.
boomtho: It's certainly not just Cal football, as the debt from the stadium retrofit has sharpened the focus on winning, or at least driving fan demand for season tickets and ESP tickets to start to pay down the debt. Outside of just the stadium debt, there's more financial pressure for Cal football to perform well as the AD's financials have taken a sharp downward turn in the latest FY.
With that context, people are getting... antsy about Sonny's status. Like I do every time I answer this question, I'll start with the good: Sonny inherited an absolute mess of a program, with really poor academics, team and culture problems, and a pretty bare talent pipeline. He's worked wonders on the first few problems, building an incredibly strong team culture (even in the face of some really tough seasons), totally turned around the academic performance, and appeared to have galvanized fan interest before last year.
Now to the bad: the result on the field has frequently been tough to watch (especially on the defensive side of the ball despite two defensive coordinators in Sonny's tenure), Sonny has yet to beat an in-state rival despite having the #1 overall pick in the NFL on his roster, and his teams have frequently struggled in the second half of seasons (though you can probably chalk that up to scheduling quirks). Given how noncompetitive our losses to USC and UW have been, Sonny is starting to feel the pressure from fans.
GMC:
Quarterback Davis Webb has put up some staggering numbers this season. Is that just a byproduct of the system, or is he that good? How does he compare to Jared Goff? What are his strengths and weaknesses, and what do you expect to see from him against Stanford?
atomsareenough: Webb is very good, and the system allows him to put up big numbers, both. Webb hasn't been as good as he was early in the year, though. He's been dealing with an injury to his throwing hand, and the wide receiver corps has been depleted as well. Webb doesn't have the same footwork and pocket awareness as Goff, and he's not quite as deadly accurate on short-to-medium throws as Goff, but when he's healthy he has a stronger arm and a better deep ball actually.
boomtho: Like most truths, the answer is a combination of both. The system is designed to help him put up big numbers with a lot of yards after catch from talented receivers, as well as creating easier throws and throwing windows. On the other hand, Davis Webb, at least before he hurt his throwing hand against Oregon State, really is that good. He came into the season with some hype (I think he was Kiper's #1 Senior QB prospect) and has delivered. He's got a ton of arm talent, which sometimes seems to help him overcome less than stellar footwork. Webb struggles to make his way through his progressions (like... pretty much every college QB, ever) and can lock onto receivers and miss underneath defenders at times. Goff was kind of the opposite - impeccable footwork, OK arm strength but great touch, and great vision.
Hard to say what to expect from the Stanford game. Webb, and much of the offense, are really banged up. I doubt we'll get an early-season performance (like his gem against Texas) from Webb, but I'm hoping that Webb can make the basic throws and keep the chains moving.
GMC:
Not surprisingly, there are a ton of receivers with big numbers. Which guys stand out?
atomsareenough: Demetrius Robertson. Our other two top receivers, Chad Hansen, and Melqise Stovall, are both dinged up. I don't think Stovall will play at all, and Hansen is noticeably less than 100%.
boomtho: Chad Hansen, first and foremost, stands out among a pretty talented group of wide receivers. He was lost on the depth chart behind 6 future NFL players last year, but he emerged this year and grabbed the #1 job pretty ferociously. Behind him, 5* speedster Demetris Robertson is a threat to beat you over the top pretty much every play, and fellow freshman Melquise Stovall is a threat between the hashes and has great agility. It's a pretty deep group even behind those 3 guys, though: expect to see contributions from Bug Rivera, Jordan Veasy, and Vic Wharton just to name a couple other guys.
GMC:
Who’s your favorite Stanford player of all time? Who’s your least favorite? (It’s okay if you don’t have a least favorite. I understand.)
atomsareenough: This is probably a blasphemous minority opinion, but I dislike Richard Sherman less probably than any other Cardinal player. He's an ass, but he's real and has a colorful personality, which is more than you can say about most. Least favorite? Shayne Skov. Screw that dude.
boomtho: Least favorite: Shayne Skov, who somehow got away without a penalty for targeting Jared Goff and then was later arrested for DUI. He gets cut a lot, though, especially from the 49ers - so that makes me smile.
GMC:
So what’s going on with the defense? Why has that unit struggled so much this season?
atomsareenough: We didn't have a ton of talent and experience to begin with, and then we unexpectedly lost a bunch of talent and experience at linebacker and safety before the season even started. And then a bunch more guys got hurt after the season started. We need to learn from you guys how to keep our players healthy, because we're simply not able to do it.
boomtho: It's hard to pinpoint a single reason. The defense was hit pretty hard by unexpected defections (grad transfers Hardy Nickerson and Michael Barton, Jake Kearney retiring) and injuries (I still don't know exactly which people he's referring to, but at one point Sonny mentioned 7 of our 8 safeties in the Spring have missed time). The defensive line hasn't been hit as hard but is devoid of true upper-end talent, except for tackle James Looney.
GMC:
If I set the over/under for Christian McCaffrey’s rushing yardage at 200, which are you taking?
atomsareenough: I reflexively take the over with Cal at this point, regardless of the question.
boomtho: I'll take the under, I guess. Though I expect him to hurt him through the air as well.
GMC:
Finally, what’s your prediction for the game. Give me a final score and your explanation for how we get there.
atomsareenough: Stanfurd 41, California 20.
Explanation? It's the standard formula: Broken Cal defense can't stop the run, we connect on a couple of big plays, kick a couple field goals to make the score look less ugly than it actually is, voila.
boomtho: Stanford win, Cal cover. I get home before 12:30AM for once, get a day-game in Berkeley, so am happy nonetheless. Go Bears.
