carlfense Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 How is Suh the number three DT? How is Helu not in the top 25 backs? And more importantly, how is Henery not in the top 8 kickers . . . he could very well be number 1. The lesson here: don't buy Lindy's. Quote Link to comment
Igetbored216 Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 The lesson here: don't buy Lindy's. I stick with Phil Steele & Athlon. Sporting News and Lindy's can sit on the shelf as far as I'm concerned. Quote Link to comment
krc1995 Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 What's wrong with #22? Should we be higher? Quote Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 What's wrong with #22? Should we be higher? I don't see anything terrible upsetting about Lindy's having us ranked at 22. I just have an issue with the position rankings. Quote Link to comment
JGS30 Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Who really cares about these position rankings? None of the preseason mags are all that accurate. Phil Steele brags about being the best, but even his predictions are far from right. Having NU ranked #22 is actually pretty accurate. After reading Athlon's mag this year and how they ranked OU's receivers higher than KU's (which is crap), I've decided to stop caring about position rankings. It's just stupid. This season can't get here soon enough!! Uggh. Quote Link to comment
Scarlet Overkill Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Wow, didn't mean to create a stir all over again, I was just hoping Jen hadn't forgot about her little experiment she referenced up above. Bottom line - it's always nice to see your rooting interest getting some mentions in a national magazine, but if they don't, oh well. Same thing with rankings. Remedy? Just play great football and people will take notice. I'd rather see the accolades come during/after the season than before anyone has played a down of football. Quote Link to comment
huKSer Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Who really cares about these position rankings? None of the preseason mags are all that accurate. Phil Steele brags about being the best, but even his predictions are far from right. Having NU ranked #22 is actually pretty accurate. After reading Athlon's mag this year and how they ranked OU's receivers higher than KU's (which is crap), I've decided to stop caring about position rankings. It's just stupid. This season can't get here soon enough!! Uggh. Quote Link to comment
HuskerJen Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Lindy's, as a college football prognostication magazine, is by far one of the the ultimate star gazers. As far as Lindy's is concerned, a player's performance on the field is inconsequential. What really determines how good a player is...is his star rankings coming out of high school. LOL aint that the truth. I mean I could be wrong here but I don't think I am. I mean it just seems to me that the people who put out Lindy's are just plain lazy and do absolutely no research on anything. I have an idea, rather a little experiment I'm going to conduct...stay tuned. Well, how's the experiment coming along, Jen? I was going do a research article where I cross referenced all the players Lindy's lists as being the top 8-10 whatever at their respective position(s) to see if my "star-gazer" comment, from earlier within this thread and above, actually had any merit. Then I realized how long it would take and decided against doing it because quite frankly, I really don't care. Quote Link to comment
Scarlet Overkill Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Sure sounded good at the time, though, didn't it? Quote Link to comment
HuskerJen Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Sure sounded good at the time, though, didn't it? Yes it did. Between work, school, studying, socializing and spending time with my GF and our friends...I just don't have the time to do something like that. Quote Link to comment
JGS30 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Who really cares about these position rankings? None of the preseason mags are all that accurate. Phil Steele brags about being the best, but even his predictions are far from right. Having NU ranked #22 is actually pretty accurate. After reading Athlon's mag this year and how they ranked OU's receivers higher than KU's (which is crap), I've decided to stop caring about position rankings. It's just stupid. This season can't get here soon enough!! Uggh. Oh stop Hukser. Stop reading between the lines. #22 is about right for Nebraska. But as I said, none of this really matters and none of the mags are ever right. Quote Link to comment
The Maudfather Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Who really cares about these position rankings? None of the preseason mags are all that accurate. Phil Steele brags about being the best, but even his predictions are far from right. Having NU ranked #22 is actually pretty accurate. After reading Athlon's mag this year and how they ranked OU's receivers higher than KU's (which is crap), I've decided to stop caring about position rankings. It's just stupid. This season can't get here soon enough!! Uggh. Oh stop Hukser. Stop reading between the lines. #22 is about right for Nebraska. But as I said, none of this really matters and none of the mags are ever right. I agree. Quote Link to comment
tattooedhusker Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I don't think anyone (aside from maybe hukser) had an issue with the #22 ranking Quote Link to comment
predictionking Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Please understand the following post has nothing to do with the Huskers. The following opinon of the Kansas Jayhawks has nothing to with Nebraska or whether or not I believe Nebraska will win the North in 2009. Any magazine, writer, prognosticator, or fan who picks the Kansas Jayhawks to win the Big 12 North in 2009 has lost all credibility. It is absolutely illogical for Kansas to win the North in 2009. Iowa State- blowout, easy win Their first Big 12 road game is at Colorado. - Is this game winnable for Kansas? Sure. However, even without Josh Smith, Colorado should be marginally better in 2009. Most notably, they will be better along the line of scrimmage. KU's biggest weakness is the line of scrimmage. It should also be noted that KU did not put away CU until late in the 4th quarter of last year's win in Lawrence. CU has more than enough talent and athleticsm to beat KU in Boulder. Only the most delusional KU fan can honestly call that game a sure win. Oklahoma- Please. Not going to happen. OU will embarrass KU. Reesing will be on his back most of the game. OU will control the line of scrimmage and take the crowd out of the game early. At Texas Tech - Tech is 48-10 at home this decade. They will re-build in '09, but KU travels to Lubbock on Halloween. Innexperience is not a factor by the end of October. Did I mention Tech is 48-10 this decade? Lastly, Tech destroyed KU last year. A big part of that was due to Tech controlling the line of scrimmage. Tech will still maintain that same advantage in '09. At Kansas State- I hate to give KSU any credit. I think their talent is poor by Big 12 standards, but this game will occur in week 9 of the Snyder regime. I want to give KU the win, but can anyone honestly say this is a definite win for KU? One thing is for sure, Snyder will not let KU waltz into Manhattan and blow them out. Nebraska- just to show I'm being fair, I will give KU the win here. Although common sense suggests the following: Kansas had superior offensive skill talent and a better secondary in last year's matchup, but Nebraska won rather easily because they controlled the line of scrimmage. Nebraska will offer the same matchup problems in the trenches in '09. Secondly, Zac Lee will likely be starting his 10th game of the season. Innexperience is not a factor in November. But again, I will say KU wins this game. at Texas- No, not gonna happen. Mizzou- Mizzou has tons of questions. If KU was opening the season with the Tigers, I would say KU wins easily, but Mizzou innexperience is irrelevant in the last week of the season. KU gets no favors with this matchup. You have to give them the edge, but this is definitely not a sure win for KU. What do we know about Mizzou? They have talented innexperience. What does that translate into by week 12? They have talent. They will be more than capable to knock off KU the final week of the season. But then again, to be fair, I will give KU the win. I see one legitimate sure fire, no brainer Big 12 win for KU, and that's Iowa State. They're not going to beat Tech, OU, or Texas, and they will finish 3-1 at best against Mizzou, K-State, Nebraska, and CU. They will not go unscathed against those four. Only one of those games is at home, and that matchup comes agains the team that presents them with their biggest mismatch along the LOS. Kansas will not win the North in 2009. It's completely illogical. Just to reitterate: Any magazine, prognosticator, or writer whom picks Kansas to win the North in 2009 has lost all credibility. Quote Link to comment
huKSer Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I don't think anyone (aside from maybe hukser) had an issue with the #22 ranking I don't have an issue with #22 - it was semantic (reading between the lines for those in Oklahoma) "No preseason rankings (aka guesses) are going to be right", followed up right away with "NU will finish pretty close to #22" The juxtaposition (putting two opposites next to each other for those in Oklahoma) was my point. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.