Prediction Time - 2010 North Division

[carlfense]

I would respond with "did you watch us play our first 4 games!!??" Ill. was the only game we played well and they proved to be a real stinker. We played like doggy poo against Bowling Green, we were not at all dominant against Nevada and Furman...well they are Furman.

 

Mu was way more consistant later in the season, but even that wasnt very consistant. They struggled against the 3 best teams they played and didnt bother to show up in Houston. (BTW that was about the most embarassed I have ever been as a MU fan and I have see my teams get destroyed over the years.) But gabberts injury had alot to do with performance in 2 of those games. MU was never gonna win that Texas game.

Fair enough.

 

Sorry Fro . . . I'm a Nebraska fan first . . . and a Navy fan second. I watched the Texas Bowl with some Navy personnel in San Diego. Good times. Again, sorry.

[fro daddy]

Mu played better as the season went on. They are not a power team but they do their fair share of punishing people. I wonder sometimes if your (husker fan) perception or hate blind your true vision. MU is not the biggest most physical team out there, not even close. But it was the same team that ran for 100 yards on your D and held your offense and running game to nothing for 3 quarters. Yes they fell apart in the end, but they are not a bunch of pansies running around out there. They handled their own in plenty of games when it came to the big uglies. No pass defense...that is another story.

 

As far as being better off in the big 10, that would have nothing to do with being physical. If that was what you or your uncle implying then that would be pretty hypocritical considering the big 10 is known as a physical, 3 yrds and a cloud of dust conference. I would believe that you uncle is saying that because MU is a fast, spread team that will beat the big 10 because they have in the past struggled against those types of teams. I do believe that MU would handle alot of the lower teams, but Mizzou has just now over the past 2-3 years been able to get elite/top level O and D line recruits. We are just now getting even talent to the big schools up front. Before we played with a bunch of farm boys from small towns accross the state. There did fine against most teams, but when faced with the best from the best teams, they were just not as good

i dont think MU is a bad team..... but I think the way they play right now does not match up well with us. i see them being a similar team to arizona...... better on O, but not as good on D. i think winning in lincoln is a tall task. but that is why they play the games.... who knows, maybe they will look totally different next year. if they can be physical and really run the ball we are beatable. Imo this is a coaching issue, not a lack of talent

 

well, there has been alot of talk about a turn in our style. Mu was recruiting H-backs and bigger running backs. We have gotten bigger linemen over the past 2 classes and I would not at all be surpised to see our spread change again. We started with an option/read spread, then a 4 wide 1 back spread, to a verticle spread with a motion run game & I would bet now you will see a two back set more like what OU and FL run with their spread

[fro daddy]

I would respond with "did you watch us play our first 4 games!!??" Ill. was the only game we played well and they proved to be a real stinker. We played like doggy poo against Bowling Green, we were not at all dominant against Nevada and Furman...well they are Furman.

 

Mu was way more consistant later in the season, but even that wasnt very consistant. They struggled against the 3 best teams they played and didnt bother to show up in Houston. (BTW that was about the most embarassed I have ever been as a MU fan and I have see my teams get destroyed over the years.) But gabberts injury had alot to do with performance in 2 of those games. MU was never gonna win that Texas game.

Fair enough.

 

Sorry Fro . . . I'm a Nebraska fan first . . . and a Navy fan second. I watched the Texas Bowl with some Navy personnel in San Diego. Good times. Again, sorry.

 

No worries. I have nothing against Navy. I have issues with DC Steckel and a poor game plan, with OC Yost and refusing to run the ball and with the team in general for thinking they won that game in the first 20 seconds and mailing it in

[junior4949]

Nebraska in the 90's had several farm boys from across the state playing down in the trenches. I think it turned out pretty well for the most part.

[Schoeny]

Mu played better as the season went on. They are not a power team but they do their fair share of punishing people. I wonder sometimes if your (husker fan) perception or hate blind your true vision. MU is not the biggest most physical team out there, not even close. But it was the same team that ran for 100 yards on your D and held your offense and running game to nothing for 3 quarters. Yes they fell apart in the end, but they are not a bunch of pansies running around out there. They handled their own in plenty of games when it came to the big uglies. No pass defense...that is another story.

 

As far as being better off in the big 10, that would have nothing to do with being physical. If that was what you or your uncle implying then that would be pretty hypocritical considering the big 10 is known as a physical, 3 yrds and a cloud of dust conference. I would believe that you uncle is saying that because MU is a fast, spread team that will beat the big 10 because they have in the past struggled against those types of teams. I do believe that MU would handle alot of the lower teams, but Mizzou has just now over the past 2-3 years been able to get elite/top level O and D line recruits. We are just now getting even talent to the big schools up front. Before we played with a bunch of farm boys from small towns accross the state. There did fine against most teams, but when faced with the best from the best teams, they were just not as good

 

I don't agree with the bolded. MU's record may have gotten better as the season went on . . . but that is because of a decline in the competition played and not because of an increase in Missouri production. The three toughest games on Missouri's conference schedule were right in front: NU, UT, OSU. After those games Missouri played Colorado, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Kansas, and Navy. I would fully expect Missouri to look better playing those teams than when they played NU, UT and OSU . . . but Missouri still managed to: 1. lose to Baylor at home, 2. squeak out a win against a BAD Kansas team, and 3. get absolutely manhandled by an undersized Navy team.

 

That's hardly what I'd call "playing better as the season went on."

 

Explain yourself Fro!

 

I would respond with "did you watch us play our first 4 games!!??" Ill. was the only game we played well and they proved to be a real stinker. We played like doggy poo against Bowling Green, we were not at all dominant against Nevada and Furman...well they are Furman.

 

Mu was way more consistant later in the season, but even that wasnt very consistant. They struggled against the 3 best teams they played and didnt bother to show up in Houston. (BTW that was about the most embarassed I have ever been as a MU fan and I have see my teams get destroyed over the years.) But gabberts injury had alot to do with performance in 2 of those games. MU was never gonna win that Texas game.

 

Trust us Fro, nobody in the BXII was going to beat Texas. No matter what

[fro daddy]

Mu played better as the season went on. They are not a power team but they do their fair share of punishing people. I wonder sometimes if your (husker fan) perception or hate blind your true vision. MU is not the biggest most physical team out there, not even close. But it was the same team that ran for 100 yards on your D and held your offense and running game to nothing for 3 quarters. Yes they fell apart in the end, but they are not a bunch of pansies running around out there. They handled their own in plenty of games when it came to the big uglies. No pass defense...that is another story.

 

As far as being better off in the big 10, that would have nothing to do with being physical. If that was what you or your uncle implying then that would be pretty hypocritical considering the big 10 is known as a physical, 3 yrds and a cloud of dust conference. I would believe that you uncle is saying that because MU is a fast, spread team that will beat the big 10 because they have in the past struggled against those types of teams. I do believe that MU would handle alot of the lower teams, but Mizzou has just now over the past 2-3 years been able to get elite/top level O and D line recruits. We are just now getting even talent to the big schools up front. Before we played with a bunch of farm boys from small towns accross the state. There did fine against most teams, but when faced with the best from the best teams, they were just not as good

 

I can't speak for my uncle, but around here it's generally accepted that the Big 10 and Pac 10 are really overrated because of their media bases.

 

I understand that thought process, but the big 12 is really not the diffent. The middle to bottom of our conference is similar to those two. Mu is 24-16 (16-8 over the past 3 years) against the big 12 since the 05 season. That includes an 18-7 record against the North. (13-2 over the past 3 years) It not like we struggle in the big 12. MU's teams and talent keep improving. But they still have some work to do to get to a top level in the conference.

[fro daddy]

Nebraska in the 90's had several farm boys from across the state playing down in the trenches. I think it turned out pretty well for the most part.

 

Nebraska also had studs and top players on those lines. Top players from their states. Top recruits that had a number of big offers. There were some farm boys on your lines. But they were not all nobody farm boys. That is a big differnce and not one to over looked. MU had a starting 5 two years ago that had only one player with multiple d-1 offers. Two were from the same school that had a less than 400 kids in the school (7th-12th). We found nobody giants that they could coach up and add the stregth and weight to. But they can only get so good you know.

[melscott62]

well i guess we will see... i just dont see pinkle commiting to the run..... unfortunately i dont see watson doing that either. thank goodness bo is in charge. i miss the days where my weekends consisted of watching NU pound the ball on sat and then the chiefs on sunday

[Igetbored216]

1. Nebraska - while there will be huge losses on D, this defensive coaching staff has a proven track record of coaching up players and making them successful within the system. I don't expect a better D than last year, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a top ten or 15 D. Nebraska gains some more bodies at o-line, which will improve the play there. We really struggled at that position last year and injuries really hurt us. The Arizona game really displayed what the offense is capable of, but they need to go out and do it week in and week out. It will be exciting to see what happens.

 

2. Kansas St - defense will be fairly stout and they should be able to run the ball pretty effectively. Should be interesting to see what recruits make an immediate impact for Snyder and how he sorts everything out. He's a great coach - unfortunately for Nebraska - and while I don't see the resurgence the last time he arrived at the program, I can definitely see them making an impact in the North/Big 12 Championship race.

 

3. Missouri - their D may improve a little, but I don't expect any drastic improvements because it didn't improve too much during the year. The offense is great with an experienced QB, but if they face a great defense, they struggle (or one that uses two down linemen). At this point, I could see Kansas number three and Missouri number four.

 

4. Kansas - just alot of question marks I have no answers to. New coaching staff = uncertainty. Gill definitely gets a break with the schedule (no OU or Texas), but I could definitely see KU 2-2 by the time conference play rolls around. The o-line appeared to be gelling towards the end of the season, but they no longer have the experience at QB. Finding a running game is a must too.

 

5. Iowa St - the schedule is not easy for Iowa St with Texas, OU, and TT all on the schedule. While the program is heading in the right direction after a bowl appearance and win, Rhoads has a monumental task ahead of him this year.

 

6. Colorado - Hawkins. That is all

[northtxhusker]

1. Nebraska-Defense won't be as good as this year but the offense will be better

2. KSU- Strong running game, more confident this year, great coach

3. Missouri- Gabbert will be good, don't know too much about their defense

4. Kansas- Gill's first year will be bumpy but they will pull out some wins

5. ISU- They will continue to improve, always be around to be a thorn in someone's side

6. Colorado- Colorado Sucks

[fro daddy]

well i guess we will see... i just dont see pinkle commiting to the run..... unfortunately i dont see watson doing that either. thank goodness bo is in charge. i miss the days where my weekends consisted of watching NU pound the ball on sat and then the chiefs on sunday

 

Pinkel has run the ball quite a bit really. since moving to the spread this past season was the first that MU didnt finish inside or around the top 50 running teams in college football and had a avg of less than 150 yards a game on the ground. During chases time they ran less than with Brad smith and they ranked 46th w/150 a game, 38th w/176 a game & 52nd w/152 a game. I believe he wants more balance. He has always had a pretty good mix, ussually 55/45 pass/run, but it seems like this last year they went away from it. That could have something to do with those stupid RB motion draw plays though too. They had a pretty poor avg. per carry for the year.

[ESPY]

Mu played better as the season went on. They are not a power team but they do their fair share of punishing people. I wonder sometimes if your (husker fan) perception or hate blind your true vision. MU is not the biggest most physical team out there, not even close. But it was the same team that ran for 100 yards on your D and held your offense and running game to nothing for 3 quarters. Yes they fell apart in the end, but they are not a bunch of pansies running around out there. They handled their own in plenty of games when it came to the big uglies. No pass defense...that is another story.

 

As far as being better off in the big 10, that would have nothing to do with being physical. If that was what you or your uncle implying then that would be pretty hypocritical considering the big 10 is known as a physical, 3 yrds and a cloud of dust conference. I would believe that you uncle is saying that because MU is a fast, spread team that will beat the big 10 because they have in the past struggled against those types of teams. I do believe that MU would handle alot of the lower teams, but Mizzou has just now over the past 2-3 years been able to get elite/top level O and D line recruits. We are just now getting even talent to the big schools up front. Before we played with a bunch of farm boys from small towns accross the state. There did fine against most teams, but when faced with the best from the best teams, they were just not as good

i dont think MU is a bad team..... but I think the way they play right now does not match up well with us. i see them being a similar team to arizona...... better on O, but not as good on D. i think winning in lincoln is a tall task. but that is why they play the games.... who knows, maybe they will look totally different next year. if they can be physical and really run the ball we are beatable. Imo this is a coaching issue, not a lack of talent

 

well, there has been alot of talk about a turn in our style. Mu was recruiting H-backs and bigger running backs. We have gotten bigger linemen over the past 2 classes and I would not at all be surpised to see our spread change again. We started with an option/read spread, then a 4 wide 1 back spread, to a verticle spread with a motion run game & I would bet now you will see a two back set more like what OU and FL run with their spread

All this talk of offensive styles got me thinking about one almost-huge-upset in Columbia in '97. The reason that ended up being one of the best games ever in the NU/MU rivalry was the effectiveness of Mizzou's offense vs the Blackshirts. Corby Jones was amazing in that game, & after recently watching it again, I'm convinced he would've been a perfect fit at Nebraska during that time. The Tigers ran an offense eerily similar to the Skers' option-power running attack, & they ran it just as well, except bigger pass plays & not as many huge running plays. My oh my! How the times have changed!

[fro daddy]

Mu was an option team for a LONG TIME. I mean we did invent the T formation and Triple Option That was a hell of a game. And Corby Jones to this day is still one of my favorite tigers of any sport. I would love to shake his hand. He played his heart out every game and in that game he was amazing

[ESPY]

Mu was an option team for a LONG TIME. I mean we did invent the T formation and Triple Option That was a hell of a game. And Corby Jones to this day is still one of my favorite tigers of any sport. I would love to shake his hand. He played his heart out every game and in that game he was amazing

Now that Mizzou has proven itself in the recruiting world (much more so than in the 90s) you gotta wonder what kind of damage they could do with a more power-oriented offense (like what we saw in the '97 game). Let's just hope Pinkel never figures it out...(shouldn't be a problem )

[fro daddy]

Mu was an option team for a LONG TIME. I mean we did invent the T formation and Triple Option That was a hell of a game. And Corby Jones to this day is still one of my favorite tigers of any sport. I would love to shake his hand. He played his heart out every game and in that game he was amazing

Now that Mizzou has proven itself in the recruiting world (much more so than in the 90s) you gotta wonder what kind of damage they could do with a more power-oriented offense (like what we saw in the '97 game). Let's just hope Pinkel never figures it out...(shouldn't be a problem )

 

I wouldnt share too much...I heard he reads boards for ideas.

 

and since i have not shared.

1.NE - until proven other wise. Big losses on D, but return a young offense. To many unknowns to change their rank

2.MU - Had the youngest 2 deep in the country. Return alot but lost two biggest playmakers on both sides of the ball

3.KSU - good scheme and coaches, but little talent

4.ISU - slowly becoming a strong team. could easily see ISU in 3rd place

5.CU - Weak, little talent, dead man walking as a coach and players that are quiting

6.KU - Worst team in the league with the best qb in school history, the best two WR's in school history, the best team in school history. Now take all that away and you have a pretty bad team reagardless of who is coaching them. BTW everyone thought Mangino was a great coach so how much better, if better at all is Gill? And he has nothing in place to work with.