PreSeason Rankings - your turn

[EZ-E]

10. Iowa - Defense wins championships, but having a competent offense helps. Iowa has both, and less questions than Nebraska.

11. Nebraska - We know about the Blackshirts. Let's see the offense hold up their end of the bargain, and this will be the lowest the Huskers are ranked all season.

Iowa has plenty of question marks themselves. Last year on average (excluding the sun belt teams) we saw a defense that was ranked 43rd overall, they saw a defense that was ranked in the 50s. They ranked just ten spots ahead of us in total offense. The average offenses that both saw are actually dead even due in large part to them playing GT at the end of the year and us being obligated to play Colorado. :facepalm:

Iowa may have everybody back, but they have plenty of questions as well.

For the record I hate Iowa with every once of my husker red blood. The only credit I will give them is that last year they made plays when they needed to. They could have the exact same season as they did this year minus a few plays here and there and go 6-7.

 

[I am I]

I was pretty surprised to see N picked at 8 as well. Pleasantly surprised, for sure. I think we should be in the 11-14 range, simply based on the fact that we still haven't beaten 2-4 quality, ranked opponents during a full season. furthermore, we always seem to lose to someone that, on paper we should beat (TT, ISU)...until we prove it this year, even if we're 'favored' I just won't be flying my "Preseason #8" flag. Even if we started at around 13, though, I think schedule wise we'd be inside the top 10 in a matter of weeks.

Fro, I certainly haven't read your responses and turned into a Tiger fan, but I have gained some insight into Helu v Washington v Murray and what McNeill really means to our team (certainly statistically, not as much as i'd thought); so thanks for looking up those stats. The GT arguement for me boils down to this: they play in the ACC. Not such a great conference. They will win a bunch of games.

I am surprised that you don't bring up Gabbert in your defense of a good 2010 outcome. I really think he is pretty good, certainly the class of the b12 north this year, if not 2 or 3 in the whole league. Still, you have Stinkel as your coach and not much momentum heading into 2010, I would say not deserved of a top 25, but that's just me....

 

[GMoose]

I like this list, my only qualm is with VaTech being top 5, the ACC coastal will likely tear itself apart from the inside out. But that's neither here nor there.

I think this goes along with the question of a pollster's philosophy in their poll. Do you try to create a poll that reflects where you think teams will end up, or where they are on paper? I typically go with an "as is" approach, not looking at schedules. I doubt seriously that the Longhorns will get through their four-game stretch of Tech, UCLA, Oklahoma and Nebraska unscathed, and I really think they'll lose two of those four. But on paper, they have all the players to make another run at the MNC, so I put them higher than where I think they'll finish.

That's a good point. Personally when I think of rankings, I always think of the "where will they finish? point of view. It just seemed kind of silly to me to have a team ranked in the pre season poll if you think they're going to go 8-5 with an insight bowl loss. I think it's because I examine a lot of teams schedules really closely.

I think this year (especially compared to last year) a preseason poll is extra-useless. I have a feeling it'll be like 2007(?) again when the top five teams are in flux every week after the first few games, since (IMO) there's not a clearly dominant and favorite team.

 

[I am I]

ooooops....i meant to put my reply in the thread started by nuance, where that debate between huskerjosh and fro was happening...my bad..

 

[NUance]

The 8-10 range is reasonable. Our D will be on par with last year. And our offense will certainly be better. What would our record have been if we had, say, the 50th ranked offense in the nation last year?

exactly. and don't forget the most important returning starter... BOSEPH. first, he has improved the team every year. second, our defense, which is what wins championships, will always be solid. third, it's been a hot summer, have an ice-cold, big glass of :koolaid2:

:koolaid2: :koolaid2: :koolaid2: :koolaid2: :koolaid2:

Oh yeah!

 

[EZ-E]

I was pretty surprised to see N picked at 8 as well. Pleasantly surprised, for sure. I think we should be in the 11-14 range, simply based on the fact that we still haven't beaten 2-4 quality, ranked opponents during a full season. furthermore, we always seem to lose to someone that, on paper we should beat (TT, ISU)...until we prove it this year, even if we're 'favored' I just won't be flying my "Preseason #8" flag. Even if we started at around 13, though, I think schedule wise we'd be inside the top 10 in a matter of weeks.

Fro, I certainly haven't read your responses and turned into a Tiger fan, but I have gained some insight into Helu v Washington v Murray and what McNeill really means to our team (certainly statistically, not as much as i'd thought); so thanks for looking up those stats. The GT arguement for me boils down to this: they play in the ACC. Not such a great conference. They will win a bunch of games.

I am surprised that you don't bring up Gabbert in your defense of a good 2010 outcome. I really think he is pretty good, certainly the class of the b12 north this year, if not 2 or 3 in the whole league. Still, you have Stinkel as your coach and not much momentum heading into 2010, I would say not deserved of a top 25, but that's just me....

I would say MU around 20th would be about right. Sure, Pinkle has shown to be a very average if not below in-game coach. But I do believe that they have the talent to be a quality team. Gabbert is the best draft eligable QB in the Big 12 IMO. He will get drafted high and there will be a reason for that when he does decide to come out. You can't teach a kid to be Blaine's size.

 

[rawhide]

Me voted #1 gotta be one homer on the board. :throwdabones1: but knapps ranking is pretty darn good

GBR

 

[zoogs]

I'm gonna go and say #16. We had some close contests in both ways last year but I generally go with 'when you win, you earn it, and when you lose, you deserve it.'

We're a 10-4 team last year that overcome and anemic offense to perform to expectation-exceeding peak potential. Not literally peak, I guess, but what we did was pretty remarkable given what we had, and a top notch, unbelievably playmaking defense was a big part of that. This year we have to reload in a number of key positions on D, so expect some dropoff there. In the end I expect a team on par with last years. I think the O could open it up and surprise, but it's equally likely that the D will take a step back - maybe not a large one, but one that involves showing significant, game-swinging vulnerabilities. I also think our final jump in the rankings last year is the benefit of riding the momentum of our strong finish.

So when it comes down to it, we played some good games last year there at the end, but it's a different team this year and it's all about consistency, which we haven't shown, and when you factor in that we haven't shown 'Beating a Top Team' either - that's what makes me hesitate to put us on the cusp of the Top 10.