Just for you, Daisy...

When I grew up, the dominance of the rivalry was on the opposite side (Washington's) and Don James was 15-3 against them. Since then, its swung the other way, 14-5 in favor of the Ducks, with the majority of the thumping coming during the Husky dark days post-Slick Rick.

The Huskies seem to be turning the corner on having a quality program again. Can the Dawgs pull off the upset this year?

Geez Benji. You must be old.

This year? No. Next year when DAT, Mariota, Lyerla, Ifo are in the NFL. Maybe.

The Huskies are better this year. They're a damn good team. Their problem is that the Ducks are better too. This is the best Ducks team I've seen, both offensively and defensively. I love the fact that your offense is going up tempo. That means even if you guys score, the Ducks offense gets extra possessions. And that can only be a good thing.

To be honest I was more nervous about the match up last year. I expect the Ducks to beat the Dawgs by a larger margin this year then they have the last couple years. Next year might be your year though because I really like Cyler Miles, and UO will likely be losing a lot of talent (although we have a lot of young talent coming up too, so if you do win next year, you better enjoy it while you can!).

The team that scares me the most in the Pac 12 is UCLA and Stanford.

Haha, Benji... Good one, Emilio Estevez.

I predict a shootout in this game. It is in Seattle, sold-out, and you know what those pesky Seattle fans are capable of doing, especially in our brand new crib. I think this one will be close, not a large blowout like the game in Eugene last year.

We'll see Marley.

As a Duck fan, a shoot out, against any team in the country sounds good to me. Ducks won't lose a scoring contest too often.

UW offense looks good, but they're still in the first year in the system. UO has been running it for years. You guys remind me of Arizona last year. They came to Autzen all confident because they had this brand new, shiny high paced, spread offense under Rich Rod. And they left on the wrong end of a 49-0 beat down.

Plus, we all know (Husky and Duck fans alike) that if you put some pressure against Price he's good for a few "wtf" type interceptions a game. And the Ducks d'line is the strength of their team this year.

its not impossible that UW wins this year, and if they do i'll tip my cap and say good game. I just don't see it. If I had to predict the game right now i'd say something like 58-28 Ducks.

I still need to see Washington play a quality opponent.

You bet, Bert's Bath Partner.

My issue is that while they have impressive numbers... Nichols State, Virginia, and Tennessee make it hard to gauge Oregon this year. When I saw they had a bye, I was a bit disappointed as I wanted to see them in conference play. Cal and Colorado are not likely to put up much of a challenge either, so I guess we'll just have to see how things shake out come game day.

I am happy UW plays Stanford before Oregon. If they play fast and physical football and leave the farm with a win - I am confident that they can play well at home versus Oregon. The problem UW has had in the past is not related to their 1's per se, it was the lack of depth the team had, the massive amount of line injuries they were facing, and the fact that they just could not play that GREAT husky D that was a trademark during the Don James era.

I see more skill players and depth on this husky team than I have seen since 2001.

Keith really needs to take Russell's advice on avoiding mistakes. Last year I said "Really Keith? Really?!!" too many times.

cesame - I think that goes for all teams in the Pac12, minus WSU, and ORST.

CallMeADawg wrote:My issue is that while they have impressive numbers... Nichols State, Virginia, and Tennessee make it hard to gauge Oregon this year.

Its not like UW has played Stanford, LSU and Alabama.

JSeahawks wrote:

CallMeADawg wrote:My issue is that while they have impressive numbers... Nichols State, Virginia, and Tennessee make it hard to gauge Oregon this year.

Its not like UW has played Stanford, LSU and Alabama.

Agreed. I was speaking from the perspective of evaluating Oregon and Oregon alone. Same issue exists on the Dawgs side - thus why I commented on playing Stanford before the Oregon game.

Oregon is a known commodity. We already know they're elite as these players have already proven it over the past 2-3 years. They don't really have to prove it THIS season to know that they are elite.

Maybe they can cap their elite play with a National Championship. The Dawgs did during their time in the spotlight. (did not want to go there, but some Duck fan always makes it happen..)

Back to what I actually said, versus inference - I personally wanted to see Oregon play a good team to see how they fared (from my own personal perspective) this year. Nothing wrong with that is there?

cesame wrote:I still need to see Washington play a quality opponent.

Same with Oregon

fenderbender123 wrote:

cesame wrote:I still need to see Washington play a quality opponent.

Same with Oregon

Sadly the next quality opponent Oregon plays IS Washington. The Dawgs play Arizona, Stanford, then Oregon; The Ducks play Cal, Colorado, then Washington.

CallMeADawg wrote:

fenderbender123 wrote:

cesame wrote:I still need to see Washington play a quality opponent.

Same with Oregon

Sadly the next quality opponent Oregon plays IS Washington. The Dawgs play Arizona, Stanford, then Oregon; The Ducks play Cal, Colorado, then Washington.

Some might say the next quality opponent Oregon plays is Stanford.

I kid, I kid.

Awfully arrogant to look past UW and UCLA... but that's the Duck way. Good thing you are a Hawks fan, at least you have an avenue to look at things objectively. Your college lenses need some cleaning.

It didn't take Oregon fans long to turn into the "elitists" they always chastised us for being. Not badmouthing that, or them, just an observation. I guess an elitist attitude is in reality just the bi-product of winning in dominant fashion. In which case "elitist" isn't very derogatory at all. It's a compliment.

Fans around the league will be using this same term to describe everything Hawks...real soon now. I'm OK with that.

Getting into a shoot out with Oregon is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

fenderbender123 wrote:

cesame wrote:I still need to see Washington play a quality opponent.

Same with Oregon

You really don't, though. They're a known commodity. The players have proven they're elite over the course of a couple seasons. There's really nothing left to prove other than beating a top ranked SEC team in the NCG.

Washington has more to prove than Oregon.

I continue to be amazed at the lack of respect UO d is getting. UO has two corners who are both better than Trufant was. UW better become real good between the tackles, because you aren't beating oregon around the edges.

The day I see an Oregon product that dominates and destroys teams like the 1991 Huskies did, then I might agree with them on being "elite". And when I say dominates and destroys, I mean in the games and not just on the scoreboard. Those Dawgs were something else... I still wish they would have allowed Miami to play UW that year! Don James asked, and they declined!

Back to Oregon - for all of their recent dominance... what do they have to show for it? 1 Rose Bowl Win, and a random assortment of non-Rose bowl appearances and wins. I wont get into the UW list of accomplishments during the reign of the Dawgfather... but the list is long, and includes 3 national championships (2 arguable: 1984, 1990, 1 split with Miami: 1991).

That is why Husky fans are smug about the whole Oregon thing. IMO. Great you guys are awesome! Do something with that awesome.

CallMeADawg wrote:The day I see an Oregon product that dominates and destroys teams like the 1991 Huskies did, then I might agree with them on being "elite". And when I say dominates and destroys, I mean in the games and not just on the scoreboard. Those Dawgs were something else... I still wish they would have allowed Miami to play UW that year! Don James asked, and they declined!

Back to Oregon - for all of their recent dominance... what do they have to show for it? 1 Rose Bowl Win, and a random assortment of non-Rose bowl appearances and wins. I wont get into the UW list of accomplishments during the reign of the Dawgfather... but the list is long, and includes 3 national championships (2 arguable: 1984, 1990, 1 split with Miami: 1991).

That is why Husky fans are smug about the whole Oregon thing. IMO. Great you guys are awesome! Do something with that awesome.

I suppose you're really impressed when the 49er fans come to our board and talk about all their old championships, huh?

CallMeADawg wrote:The day I see an Oregon product that dominates and destroys teams like the 1991 Huskies did, then I might agree with them on being "elite".

Oh. My. God.

Back to Oregon - for all of their recent dominance... what do they have to show for it? 1 Rose Bowl Win, and a random assortment of non-Rose bowl appearances and wins. I wont get into the UW list of accomplishments during the reign of the Dawgfather... but the list is long, and includes 3 national championships (2 arguable: 1984, 1990, 1 split with Miami: 1991).

4 straight BCS games (won last two)
3 straight Pac 12 Championships
NCG appearance

Yes, nothing to celebrate

JSeahawks wrote:

CallMeADawg wrote:The day I see an Oregon product that dominates and destroys teams like the 1991 Huskies did, then I might agree with them on being "elite". And when I say dominates and destroys, I mean in the games and not just on the scoreboard. Those Dawgs were something else... I still wish they would have allowed Miami to play UW that year! Don James asked, and they declined!

Back to Oregon - for all of their recent dominance... what do they have to show for it? 1 Rose Bowl Win, and a random assortment of non-Rose bowl appearances and wins. I wont get into the UW list of accomplishments during the reign of the Dawgfather... but the list is long, and includes 3 national championships (2 arguable: 1984, 1990, 1 split with Miami: 1991).

That is why Husky fans are smug about the whole Oregon thing. IMO. Great you guys are awesome! Do something with that awesome.

I suppose you're really impressed when the 49er fans come to our board and talk about all their old championships, huh?

Apples to Oranges comparison dude. They are coming here saying... ok you guys are good now- do something with it. I am saying, great that you guys have been so dominant over the course of the last 9 years - what have you done during that time?

See the difference?

CallMeADawg wrote:

JSeahawks wrote:

CallMeADawg wrote:The day I see an Oregon product that dominates and destroys teams like the 1991 Huskies did, then I might agree with them on being "elite". And when I say dominates and destroys, I mean in the games and not just on the scoreboard. Those Dawgs were something else... I still wish they would have allowed Miami to play UW that year! Don James asked, and they declined!

Back to Oregon - for all of their recent dominance... what do they have to show for it? 1 Rose Bowl Win, and a random assortment of non-Rose bowl appearances and wins. I wont get into the UW list of accomplishments during the reign of the Dawgfather... but the list is long, and includes 3 national championships (2 arguable: 1984, 1990, 1 split with Miami: 1991).

That is why Husky fans are smug about the whole Oregon thing. IMO. Great you guys are awesome! Do something with that awesome.

I suppose you're really impressed when the 49er fans come to our board and talk about all their old championships, huh?

Apples to Oranges comparison dude. They are coming here saying... ok you guys are good now- do something with it. I am saying, great that you guys have been so dominant over the course of the last 9 years - what have you done during that time?

See the difference?

Well, if this were the same era that UW won their stuff in the Ducks would have at least one shared National Championship. They wouldn't have had to play Auburn in the title game but would have played Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl instead and likely would have gone undefeated and gotten a share of a title.

They might have another shared championship from last year when they and Alabama both ended up with 1 loss.

Truth is, its harder to win a national championship these days then it was in those UW glory days.

The DAwgs have won just as many titles on the field as the Ducks have.

cesame wrote:

CallMeADawg wrote:The day I see an Oregon product that dominates and destroys teams like the 1991 Huskies did, then I might agree with them on being "elite".

Oh. My. God.

Back to Oregon - for all of their recent dominance... what do they have to show for it? 1 Rose Bowl Win, and a random assortment of non-Rose bowl appearances and wins. I wont get into the UW list of accomplishments during the reign of the Dawgfather... but the list is long, and includes 3 national championships (2 arguable: 1984, 1990, 1 split with Miami: 1991).

4 straight BCS games (won last two)
3 straight Pac 12 Championships
NCG appearance

Yes, nothing to celebrate

You won one Rose Bowl and lost the other. You lost the national championship to Auburn. The rest of the bowls you won/lost are consolation prizes and cash grabs for the schools involved (and the conference of course).

Golfclap on the "new" Pac 12 championship game wins. Its the game AFTER that one that matters.

Apples and oranges? You both make up your history as you go! 84 uw didn't even win the conference give it up. In 90 you also had two losses.

JSeahawks wrote:Well, if this were the same era that UW won their stuff in the Ducks would have at least one shared National Championship. They wouldn't have had to play Auburn in the title game but would have played Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl instead and likely would have gone undefeated and gotten a share of a title.

They might have another shared championship from last year when they and Alabama both ended up with 1 loss.

Truth is, its harder to win a national championship these days then it was in those UW glory days.

This I would agree with, but the same logic could apply to UW whipping up on their competition as well. If we actually had a chance to play a team for undisputed rights to the national championships, its entirely possible that UW would have 3 solid, and 2 being back-to-back. That Miami one I wanted a game for SO bad. they would have been ripped to shreds by that UW D.

Back out of fantasy-land - I really hope Oregon does win the NC this year (IF they beat UW!) as it has been a long time coming and they have put in a lot of work to get there.

CallMeADawg wrote:

cesame wrote:

CallMeADawg wrote:The day I see an Oregon product that dominates and destroys teams like the 1991 Huskies did, then I might agree with them on being "elite".

Oh. My. God.

Back to Oregon - for all of their recent dominance... what do they have to show for it? 1 Rose Bowl Win, and a random assortment of non-Rose bowl appearances and wins. I wont get into the UW list of accomplishments during the reign of the Dawgfather... but the list is long, and includes 3 national championships (2 arguable: 1984, 1990, 1 split with Miami: 1991).

4 straight BCS games (won last two)
3 straight Pac 12 Championships
NCG appearance

Yes, nothing to celebrate

You won one Rose Bowl and lost the other. You lost the national championship to Auburn. The rest of the bowls you won/lost are consolation prizes and cash grabs for the schools involved (and the conference of course).

Golfclap on the "new" Pac 12 championship game wins. Its the game AFTER that one that matters.

I love how you just dismiss wins in BCS games.

CPHawk wrote:Apples and oranges? You both make up your history as you go! 84 uw didn't even win the conference give it up. In 90 you also had two losses.

I am not going to do the work for you. The two arguable ones I mentioned are noted in the records from an NCAA perspective, and the 1960 and 1991 titles are the ones the college actually recognizes. If you really want to know the story, go read it.

cesame wrote:
I love how you just dismiss wins in BCS games.

Rose Bowl, National Championship, and the occasional Orange Bowl. That is what the Pac12 plays for, and the others are just consolation prizes.

CallMeADawg wrote:

cesame wrote:
I love how you just dismiss wins in BCS games.

Rose Bowl, National Championship, and the occasional Orange Bowl. That is what the Pac12 plays for, and the others are just consolation prizes.

Last year Oregon's win in the Fiesta Bowl (Kansas State) was more impressive than Stanford's win in the Rose Bowl (Wisconsin).

Context is everything. It was an emphatic win over one of the top 10 teams in the country. Wisconsin wasn't even ranked in the BCS.

Why did Oregon not go to the Rose Bowl? Oh... that's right... Stanford won the Pac 12 Championship game (and beat you guys last year).

Context is everything.

CallMeADawg wrote:Why did Oregon not go to the Rose Bowl? Oh... that's right... Stanford won the Pac 12 Championship game (and beat you guys last year).

Context is everything.

Yet about 5 posts up you say this

Golfclap on the "new" Pac 12 championship game wins. Its the game AFTER that one that matters.

Way to contradict yourself. Best part is I set you up for it, knowing you wouldn't be able to keep your b.s. straight.

I suggest sticking to one story.

Its inline with my "story" as you put it, let me explain:

1. Stanford beats Oregon and as a result, plays in the Pac12 Championship.
2. Stanford wins the Pac12 Championship Game
3. Stanford wins the Rose Bowl.

See the game AFTER that one that matters?
Answer: The Rose Bowl.

What happened in 2011? Oregon won the Pac12 Championship, and won the Rose Bowl. Job well done!

So tell me again about this Fiesta Bowl? Consolation prize dude. Just as my "story" stated.

CallMeADawg wrote:Its inline with my "story" as you put it, let me explain:

1. Stanford beats Oregon and as a result, plays in the Pac12 Championship.
2. Stanford wins the Pac12 Championship Game
3. Stanford wins the Rose Bowl.

See the game AFTER that one that matters?
Answer: The Rose Bowl.

What happened in 2011? Oregon won the Pac12 Championship, and won the Rose Bowl. Job well done!

So tell me again about this Fiesta Bowl? Consolation prize dude. Just as my "story" stated.

Do you disagree with Oregon's Fiesta Bowl win being more impressive than Stanford's Rose Bowl win?

They can have that Rose Bowl win over an unranked Wisconsin team. I'll take the emphatic win over a ranked top 10 team. That is a better win.

Man, we've been sucked into the Washington 49ers vortex of history that doesn't matter.

Wisconsin beat #14 Nebraska 70-21 in the Big 10 championship game, for the right to play in the Rose Bowl. Major upset, and a blowout at that. Stanford beat them in the Rose Bowl. Sorry dude, winning Rose Bowls > winning Fiesta Bowls. Feel free to put all the lipstick you want on it, you did not win the Pac12 last year, you did not play in the conference title game, and the conference foe that bested you did, and won the granddaddy.

Advantage: Cardinal.

JSeahawks wrote:Man, we've been sucked into the Washington 49ers vortex of history that doesn't matter.

Wrong. I explained how my points were quite different.

CallMeADawg wrote:Wisconsin beat #14 Nebraska 70-21 in the Big 10 championship game, for the right to play in the Rose Bowl. Major upset, and a blowout at that. Stanford beat them in the Rose Bowl. Sorry dude, winning Rose Bowls > winning Fiesta Bowls. Feel free to put all the lipstick you want on it, you did not win the Pac12 last year, you did not play in the conference title game, and the conference foe that bested you did, and won the granddaddy.

Advantage: Cardinal.

It's just silly that you say this:

Golfclap on the "new" Pac 12 championship game wins. Its the game AFTER that one that matters.

And then try to say Stanford beating an unranked team means is more impressive than the Ducks beating the #5 ranked team in the country. It's just foolish, and it's certainly no consolation prize.

If it's the game AFTER the Pac 12 Championship game that matters (as you say), Oregon's emphatic win over the #5 ranked team in the country is more impressive. I'm not really sure how that's even debatable, but a Husky Honk will find a way.

Ugh... why are Duck's fans like this?

Think about it in terms of progression, if that helps you comprehend what I am saying. Step one - earn the right to represent the North/South in the conference title game. Step two win that game. Step three win the Rose Bowl (or national championship game, which has other dependencies).

Oregon failed at step one, but had a great year and got to play in one hell of a consolation game as a result. (i.e. NOT the Rose Bowl, and NOT the National Championship game).

The reason you think that specific Rose Bowl was lackluster was due to the fact that both Ohio State and Penn State were ineligible for conference title games or bowl games, which is why Wisconsin played the Big 10 Championship instead.

Does the system make more sense to you now? I hope so. Rose Bowl > Fiesta Bowl.

Note: Ohio State would have toasted Nebraska and Stanford, and would have given you chaps a strong run for your money as well. Don't look now, they are AP #3.

CallMeADawg wrote: Note: Ohio State ...... Don't look now, they are AP #3.

Maybe you should look more closely. Clemson is number 3 in the AP. Ohio State is 4.

JSeahawks wrote:

CallMeADawg wrote: Note: Ohio State ...... Don't look now, they are AP #3.

Maybe you should look more closely. Clemson is number 3 in the AP.

Thanks for the catch there, Coaches Poll #3, AP #4. Won their cash donation game 76-0 today.

You've really said nothing to refute my argument. You're too caught up on the name of the Bowls and not the actual opponents.

How they got there? Ok..... but you basically laughed at Pac 12 championships, saying it was the game after that matters. If that's the case, again, Oregon clearly played against a more quality opponent. They didn't win the PAC 12? That's fine. Alabama didn't even win their division when they beat LSU for the title, let alone their conference. It's the game after that matters!

You still refuse to stick to a single side of it, wanting to have both side for your argument. It's not going to work. Just admit the Fiesta Bowl win was more impressive, because you certainly haven't made the case for the last years Rose Bowl.

The Dawgs were the best team in the country in 84. Period.

We got caught overlooking an unranked USC team and it apparently pissed the writers off. Then in the post season, While a well rested BYU (who did they play all year?) beat a terrible, 5 loss Michigan team, we beat #2 Oklahoma as the #4 team in the country. Considering the schools schedules, we should have been *awarded the Natty. Why? Simply because we were the best team in the country.

* JSea....this idea of winning the title on the field works both ways. We were not given the same opportunity to "win it on the field" as teams do today. I sincerely doubt many believe BYU would have beaten us for the title in 1984. No way.

HawkWow wrote:The Dawgs were the best team in the country in 84. Period.

We got caught overlooking an unranked USC team and it apparently pissed the writers off. Then in the post season, While a well rested BYU (who did they play all year?) beat a terrible, 5 loss Michigan team, we beat #2 Oklahoma as the #4 team in the country. Considering the schools schedules, we should have been *awarded the Natty. Why? Simply because we were the best team in the country.

* JSea....this idea of winning the title on the field works both ways. We were not given the same opportunity to "win it on the field" as teams do today. I sincerely doubt many believe BYU would have beaten us for the title in 1984. No way.

That's fine. My point is I don't get why we're talking about history because it's irrelevant to the present.

Not to sound like a jerk, but I don't care if UW was the best team in 1984. And I would say the exact same thing if Oregon was the best team in 1984.

I thought you guys were excited about 2013, then y'all go all retro on me!

cesame wrote:You've really said nothing to refute my argument. You're too caught up on the name of the Bowls and not the actual opponents.

How they got there? Ok..... but you basically laughed at Pac 12 championships, saying it was the game after that matters. If that's the case, again, Oregon clearly played against a more quality opponent. They didn't win the PAC 12? That's fine. Alabama didn't even win their division when they beat LSU for the title, let alone their conference. It's the game after that matters!

You still refuse to stick to a single side of it, wanting to have both side for your argument. It's not going to work. Just admit the Fiesta Bowl win was more impressive, because you certainly haven't made the case for the last years Rose Bowl.

Read what I wrote. Go do some research into how the bowl system is constructed. I am not going to respond further on those topics until you do so. Clearly you have some work to do in that area.

Here is why I chuckled at the 3 time Pac 12 Champions comment you made. You guys won in 2010, even though there wasn't an actual conference championship game at that point... but you had the best record at the end of scheduled conference play and rightfully so were Pac 12 champions. You then LOST the national championship. Thus... its the game after that matters. Now that we have a real conference title game, its a more crisp point to make. (i.e. play in the Pac12 CG, Win, Play Rose/NCG).

Note you also lost the Rose Bowl in 2009 (to Ohio State, no less) but in that year the Fiesta Bowl was played between the #4 TCU Horned Frogs and Boise State. Would you have preferred to play the Fiesta bowl that year? I am sure they would have LOVED to have you guys... Luckily your school is wiser about Bowl success than you seem to be.

I am not having "both sides" of an argument. I am refusing to think of a Fiesta Bowl win (no matter who you play) as a better end to a season than a Rose Bowl. That is absurd.

JSeahawks wrote:

HawkWow wrote:The Dawgs were the best team in the country in 84. Period.

We got caught overlooking an unranked USC team and it apparently pissed the writers off. Then in the post season, While a well rested BYU (who did they play all year?) beat a terrible, 5 loss Michigan team, we beat #2 Oklahoma as the #4 team in the country. Considering the schools schedules, we should have been *awarded the Natty. Why? Simply because we were the best team in the country.

* JSea....this idea of winning the title on the field works both ways. We were not given the same opportunity to "win it on the field" as teams do today. I sincerely doubt many believe BYU would have beaten us for the title in 1984. No way.

That's fine. My point is I don't get why we're talking about history because it's irrelevant to the present.

Not to sound like a jerk, but I don't care if UW was the best team in 1984. And I would say the exact same thing if Oregon was the best team in 1984.

I thought you guys were excited about 2013, then y'all go all retro on me!

Haha... yeah, hard not to when you have a lot of pride in that tradition, history, etc. The point I was trying to make was... here is what UW did when the tides were on our side. Now that the tides are on YOUR side (Oregon) what have you done with it? One Rose Bowl win, and yes some other random BCS Bowl wins too... but where it matters most... One Rose Bowl win.

These threads suck, and make me pissed. My fellow dawg fans usually come off sounding like those weak asses 49ers fans talking about the past like it has any relevancy to what's going on now.

The only facts that matter now is that the ducks have beat our asses badly over how many years? It doesn't matter how good we are this year, we can't bark til we beat em. Plus, why are we worried about them? They aren't the next team to be played.

JSeahawks wrote:

HawkWow wrote:The Dawgs were the best team in the country in 84. Period.

We got caught overlooking an unranked USC team and it apparently pissed the writers off. Then in the post season, While a well rested BYU (who did they play all year?) beat a terrible, 5 loss Michigan team, we beat #2 Oklahoma as the #4 team in the country. Considering the schools schedules, we should have been *awarded the Natty. Why? Simply because we were the best team in the country.

* JSea....this idea of winning the title on the field works both ways. We were not given the same opportunity to "win it on the field" as teams do today. I sincerely doubt many believe BYU would have beaten us for the title in 1984. No way.

That's fine. My point is I don't get why we're talking about history because it's irrelevant to the present.

Not to sound like a jerk, but I don't care if UW was the best team in 1984. And I would say the exact same thing if Oregon was the best team in 1984.

I thought you guys were excited about 2013, then y'all go all retro on me!

"Retro"...Hahaha. Excellent. ; )

No, I'm not as excited about this team as some of our teams of the past...that's for sure. Especially when the best team in the country holds a vendetta against us. Why? What did we ever do to the Ducks to deserve the humiliation they crave to bestow upon us...why why why?

Hard to argue your point on living in the past. You bringing the 9er trolls into the equation was a death blow. You win (but that 84 thing upsets me a lot, had to comment).

Throwdown wrote:These threads suck, and make me pissed. My fellow dawg fans usually come off sounding like those weak asses 49ers fans talking about the past like it has any relevancy to what's going on now.

The only facts that matter now is that the ducks have beat our asses badly over how many years? It doesn't matter how good we are this year, we can't bark til we beat em. Plus, why are we worried about them? They aren't the next team to be played.

I do not see it like that. I have attempted to clarify the differences but apparently no matter how much English I put on it - the point is not getting across. This is not a here and now, what have you done situation.

They have dominated the Pac12 in one way or another for the last 9+ years. Especially UW. What I am trying to get an answer from a Duck fan on is this:

In those 9+ years, what has Oregon done (other than win the Pac12 on and off...) other than win one rose bowl? The yardstick of past Pac12 play says they should have done more than that time - especially if Oregon is as "elite" as the Duck fans have said they are. The UW history was used as an example of what other Pac12/10 Titans did with that time. Would you feel better if I pulled up USC? They are the be-all-end-all pinnacle of the conference, all time.

HawkWow wrote: Why? What did we ever do to the Ducks to deserve the humiliation they crave to bestow upon us...why why why?

Kim Grimolds. Chris Fetters. And Ruth Robbins (I actually kinda like Ruth, but she's wacky when it comes to her Duck hatred).

They are the reason that most Duck fans (at least us message board nerd Duck fans) want to destroy UW. I love UW's new system. I like a lot of your players. I have fun yuckin it up with most of the UW fans on this board, most of y'all are good people. But I don't ever want either of those three that I mentioned to have the satisfaction of UW beating UO.

JSeahawks wrote:

HawkWow wrote: Why? What did we ever do to the Ducks to deserve the humiliation they crave to bestow upon us...why why why?

Kim Grimolds. Chris Fetters. And Ruth Robbins (I actually kinda like Ruth, but she's wacky when it comes to her Duck hatred).

They are the reason that most Duck fans (at least us message board nerd Duck fans) want to destroy UW. I love UW's new system. I like a lot of your players. I have fun yuckin it up with most of the UW fans on this board, most of y'all are good people. But I don't ever want either of those three that I mentioned to have the satisfaction of UW beating UO.

You cannot be on top of the pack forever. The Ducks have to make the most of their reign. They will fall eventually, and UW will beat you guys. Its just how it works. Oh, and isnt is Rick dancing on the 50 yard line in your house that fueled the hatred of 9 solar revolutions?