Cal Football Blog

Cal Football News and Updates

Jason A.W.’s – Cal vs. Utah: First Half Analysis


Keenan Allen will look to get open down the field for many brother to brother connections this afternoon

– Wonder why we’re seeing remnants of a baseball field being there even though no games have been played for almost a month.

– Early penalties seem to be hampering Cal again as they give up a huge play on 3rd and 15.

– Seems as if it will likely be a defensive battle for most of the game.

– Zach Maynard inaccuracy is rearing its ugly head again missing open receivers.

– Bryan Anger has been Cal’s MVP this game so far with a couple of huge punts.

– Maynard makes a nice read and gives the ball to Isi for the first touchdown of the game.

– Tipoti with a big hit from behind and a nice recovery by D.J. Holt.

– Not sure why we are running a screen play on 3rd down, but I think we’re lucky to get 3 points off that turnover.

-#70 on the Utes giving Cal a couple of gift penalties. Let’s us see if we can grind out a long TD drive.

– Zach Maynard makes a nice throw on 3rd down after nearly getting picked up. I’m glad to see a great coaching move of quick snapping after a close catch by Marvin Jones.

– Great punt by Maynard pins the Utes. Interesting decision to decline the holding penalty. Probably thought the down was more important than 3 yards. Jones probably should have called for a fair catch.

– I like the idea of play action on first down to try to take a shot down field.

– GT has been very impressive so far this year on field goals.

– Cal’s special teams rearing its ugly head again with a big return followed by an necessary roughness and yet another bad penalty. Kendricks bails out the defense with a huge pick, Cal might be able to get more points on the board and recapture momentum.

– Nice checkdown by Maynard to Jones followed by a nice screen pass to Allen who drags a whole bunch of DBs into the endzone for another Bear’s TD!

Author: jasonarecwang

Network Engineer/Sports Enthusiast in the day, pornstar by night. Basketball - Lakers Baseball - Braves Football - Packers Hockey - Kings

2 thoughts on “Jason A.W.’s – Cal vs. Utah: First Half Analysis

  1. CribleSi vous compreniez le pcrinipe du multiplicateur du cre9dit, vous n’auriez pas affirme9 que les de9pf4ts effectue9s dans les banques sont redirige9s dollar pour dollar dans l’e9conomie. Vous auriez compris que dans une de9pression, malgre9 que les gens de9posent leurs e9conomies e0 la banque, c’est un peu comme si ils mettaient celles-ci sous leur matelas.Vous n’auriez pas non plus pre9sume9 que je confondais la cre9ation de monnaie avec la cre9ation de richesse.Le multiplicateur de cre9dit est la fae7on dont les banques cre9ent de l’argent e0 partir de rien, pre9sentement avec un taux de re9serve de 10% aux c9-U. L’inflation mone9taire re9sultante est exactement ce qui a cause9 la bulle immobilie8re et la crise financie8re subse9quente. Ce cre9dit facile n’est pas une source de richesse. Et il cre9e une prospe9rite9 illusoire.c0 ma connaissance, il y a consensus chez les e9conomistes e0 l’effet que la de9flation est une des pires choses pouvant arriver e0 une e9conomie. Les injections des banques centrales visent pour l’instant e0 e9viter la de9flation dont on a de9je0 vu poindre quelques signes.Il y a certainement consensus chez les e9conomistes keyne9siens, mone9taristes ou supply-siders, mais certainement pas les autrichiens.Il n’y a pas de de9flation actuellement. Les seuls prix qui ont tombe9 de fae7on appre9ciable sont le carburant et les prix immobiliers. Je ne sais pas e0 propos de vous, mais j’attend encore de voir cette de9flation sur ma facture d’e9picerie.Nonsense about DeflationDaily Article by Robert Higgs | Posted on 12/2/2008 12:00:00 AM Mises InstituteWe are now hearing ominous warnings about imminent deflation. Checking the welcome page at AOL this morning, I see that the lead item in the financial news section heralds “The Looming Threat of Deflation.” This headline encapsulates two highly problematic ideas. The first is that deflation would necessarily be a bad thing. The second is that deflation is likely to occur in the near term.That deflation is always and everywhere a bad thing—not simply a bearer of bad news but bad news in itself—is now an almost universal article of faith among mainstream economists and financial commentators. Clicking on the scary headline, I opened an article by Ted Allrich, who is described as “the founder of The Online Investor and author of the book Comfort Zone Investing: Build Wealth and Sleep Well at Night.” Allrich’s article, which does nothing to alter my belief that most investment “experts” are simply charlatans, encapsulates virtually every untutored and fallacious idea you’ve ever encountered in regard to deflation.As he tells the story, deflation brings on all the horrors in the catalog of economic devastation.abAs prices decline, businesses sell less, then go out of business. Fewer goods and services are offered. Less doesn’t become more. It becomes less.bbabAs businesses fold, capital dries up because investors don’t believe any business will make it, no matter what the product or service. Investors hang on to their cash. Hording becomes synonymous with survival. Wall Street (what’s left of it) can’t find capital for new companies to grow. Investors won’t invest.…bbSo with deflation, there is less of everything. Businesses don’t grow. Jobs are fewer. Capital is not available. Everything comes to a slow and grinding halt.Allrich concludes his litany of deflation horrors, naturally, by singing the praises of inflation: “Regular inflation, in fact, can be a good thing since it suggests an ever growing economy where jobs are plentiful and goods and services abound. “Well, all right, we can’t expect Allrich to have read George Selgin’s splendid little book Less Than Zero: The Case for a Falling Price Level in a Growing Economy (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1997). After all, the book has been available for only eleven years, and investment experts are busy people.But why, one wonders, has he not taken to heart what I wrote thirty-seven years ago in my first book, The Transformation of the American Economy, 1865–1914 (New York: Wiley, 1971), on p. 21: “Notably, rapid economic growth occurred both before and after 1897; neither a falling nor a rising general price level was uniquely associated with economic growth.” To elaborate just a bit, the rate of economic growth from 1866 to 1897, a period of secular deflation, was perhaps the greatest ever experienced by the US economy during a period of comparable length. Real GDP grew by more than 4 percent per year, on average, notwithstanding the persistent deflation.So, even if you’ve not mastered the works of Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, even if you are a confirmed positivist in your methodological bent (as I was in 1971), you can see clearly that the rate of economic growth and the rate of price-level change have been independent, at least within the ranges of these variables in US economic history. (Hyperinflation or hyperdeflation would be another matter: either would be devastating by making economic calculation and long-term contracting virtually impossible.)Any decent economics teacher makes sure that before the students have gone more than a week or two, they have mastered the difference between absolute (nominal) and relative (real) prices. All of economic analysis hinges on this understanding. Yet practicing politicians, investment gurus, news media hyperventilators, and others who play important roles in influencing public opinion are completely lacking in this basic understanding. The upshot is a destructive bias in favor of secular inflation, with the risk of periodic bouts of rapid inflation.Which brings us to the second question: for better or worse, does deflation actually loom at present? If it does, its occurrence will surprise me greatly, because the Fed has been creating base money as if there were no tomorrow, and if the bailouts continue, as seems likely, more of the same is virtually certain. So far, the huge spurt in base money has simply been absorbed and held by the banks in the form of (legally) excess reserves, but the likelihood that the banks will sit on $268 billion of excess reserves forever is nil. Once they feel more secure, their loans and investments will go forth in search of a higher yield than the Fed pays them (since a recent change in policy) on their reserves, and at that point the banking system’s money multiplier will kick in with terrific force.In short, given the monetary conditions now prevailing, the greater threat by far is inflation, not deflation. And contrary to what the investment “experts,” the politicians, and the mainstream economists believe, inflation is not a benign element in the economy’s operation. It is, as it has always been, the most dangerous and destructive form of taxation.Lorsque des dangers d’inflation pointeront e0 l’horizon, suite e0 une relance de l’e9conomie, il sera toujours temps d’adopter les politiques pertinentes e0 une telle situation. (comme un resserrement du cre9dit, en faisant jouer l’effet multiplicateur du cre9dit de manie8re e0 engendrer une contraction de la quantite9 de monnaie en circulation, par exemple).Pauvre vous! Lorsque l’inflation deviendra apparente, il sera de9je0 trop tard. Le dollar US va sombrer dans le ne9ant.

  2. That kind of thinking shows you’re on top of your game

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s