Prediction Time - 2010 North Division

[Joe_5700]

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

 

Missouri played better as the season went on? Really?

 

1st game-Sat, Sep 5 at Illinois W 37-9

 

last game-Thu, Dec 31 Navy L 13-35

[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

 

Missouri played better as the season went on? Really?

 

1st game-Sat, Sep 5 at Illinois W 37-9

 

last game-Thu, Dec 31 Navy L 13-35

That comparison is weak. Mizzou matched up well vs Ill & horribly vs Navy. The outcome of those games is much more about matchups than the Tiger's progress. I can't count how many times a solid team has won its opener & lost its bowl game. I'm not Mizzou fan (far from it) & I don't think they progressed much during the season, but this does not support that argument at all. Take a look at the body of work, & you'll see they were inconsistent at best.

[Joe_5700]

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

 

Missouri played better as the season went on? Really?

 

1st game-Sat, Sep 5 at Illinois W 37-9

 

last game-Thu, Dec 31 Navy L 13-35

That comparison is weak. Mizzou matched up well vs Ill & horribly vs Navy. The outcome of those games is much more about matchups than the Tiger's progress. I can't count how many times a solid team has won its opener & lost its bowl game. I'm not Mizzou fan (far from it) & I don't think they progressed much during the season, but this does not support that argument at all. Take a look at the body of work, & you'll see they were inconsistent at best.

 

Then losing to Baylor supports this?

[ESPY]

Yahtzee! That's the proof I'm talking about! Baylor was decent but certainly should not have beaten MU at Faurot Field.

[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 )

 

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.

So you really don't think Kansas will do much of anything then eh? Are we looking at a temporary return to the 90s for these Jayhawks?

[Joe_5700]

Yahtzee! That's the proof I'm talking about! Baylor was decent but certainly should not have beaten MU at Faurot Field.

 

I was stating that in my opinion Missouri started the season very well and went downhill in a hurry. 3 consecutive losses followed by a win over struggling Colorado and another loss at home to Baylor. Then consecutive wins over mediocre teams followed by a thrashing at the hands of the Middies. I hardly call this playing better as the season went on as fro daddy stated.

[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.

 

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.

 

I don't think Connealy and Joel Wilks had any D1 offers at all. If they did, it would have been to smaller D1 schools. Rob and Jon Zatechka weren't highly sought after recruits either. Even Crick I don't recall being a heavily sought after recruit. Russ Hochstein had a couple of offers, but really went for the most part unnoticed except for Nebraska's coaching staff. Eric Anderson anchored the OL, and was a 4 year letterman. Adam Julch didn't really get any recognition, but started every game in 1999 and was a team captain. Loran Kaiser was a 3 year starter and team captain. The Kelsay brothers both started down in the trenches. I've barely even scratched the surface of all the homegrown farm boys who were major contributors to our NC teams. Maybe we need to also clarify heavily recruited players. I believe Baker Steinkuhler is the only 5 star recruit Nebraska has produced. At one time in 1996, over half of the starters on the team grew up and lived in Nebraska. Just about every fullback I can remember was a walk-on from Nebraska.

 

The top players you speak of on those lines were also Nebraska grown farm boys. This is the difference between what Nebraska was then and what Mizzou is now. Milt did an excellent job in developing talent. Yes, we did get an occasional great OL or DL recruit. However, the bulk of our men in the trenches hailed from Nebraska. Anyone remember the long snapper that was usually the first down the field to make the tackle on punts? It was Adam Treu who I believe had a fairly decent NFL career. He was a homegrown talent. How about one of the most decorated OL ever to play at Nebraska? Zach Wiegert was a homegrown from Fremont.

 

To put things in perspective. On the entire roster of the 1994 NC team, Nebraska only had 5 players from Florida; 6 players from the entire state of Texas; and 12 players from California. Only 11 of those 23 were major contributors to the team. Only 3 of those 11 were major contributors in the trenches. You can say you can only coach them up so far, but I disagree. I knew Joel Wilks dad. The only school that even looked at him was KState back in the late 80's coming out of high school. They wouldn't even give him a scholarship. He ended up staying home playing for Nebraska and was a starter on the 94' NC team. Nebraska has always been known to take homegrown nobodies and turn them into football playing machines.

[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.

So you really don't think Kansas will do much of anything then eh? Are we looking at a temporary return to the 90s for these Jayhawks?

 

I think that is a pretty good posibility. I think KU is going to be pretty bad. They were not world beaters two years ago. A late score and blocked FG got them to a bowl game and this year they had 5 wins. They lose all that talent. They are not deep. Gill may be able to get something going there, but i for one, would not at all be surprised if they finish last again

[fro daddy]

Yahtzee! That's the proof I'm talking about! Baylor was decent but certainly should not have beaten MU at Faurot Field.

 

I was stating that in my opinion Missouri started the season very well and went downhill in a hurry. 3 consecutive losses followed by a win over struggling Colorado and another loss at home to Baylor. Then consecutive wins over mediocre teams followed by a thrashing at the hands of the Middies. I hardly call this playing better as the season went on as fro daddy stated.

 

Well Joe I dont know what you thought was so impressive about beating the 4 teams they beat to start the year. I guess we could look at it two different ways. We could take your word for it as you look at box score and a schedule and give your opinion. Or you could take my word for it as I watched/attended every game. rewatched those games again on DVR (some as many as 5 times) & followed every snap because they are my team and then gave my opinion that they played better down the stretch, although they were quite inconsistant.

 

As someone who did actually watch every snap multiple times, I would say that MU was more complete, executed much better, and played with more consistancy as the season progressed. They obviously had flaws, but that doesnt mean they did get better and play better down the stretch.

[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 )

 

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.

So you really don't think Kansas will do much of anything then eh? Are we looking at a temporary return to the 90s for these Jayhawks?

 

I think that is a pretty good posibility. I think KU is going to be pretty bad. They were not world beaters two years ago. A late score and blocked FG got them to a bowl game and this year they had 5 wins. They lose all that talent. They are not deep. Gill may be able to get something going there, but i for one, would not at all be surprised if they finish last again

Look up "rebuilding year" in the dictionary & you'll find ... Turner Gill's 1st year at Kansas.

[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.

So you really don't think Kansas will do much of anything then eh? Are we looking at a temporary return to the 90s for these Jayhawks?

 

I think that is a pretty good posibility. I think KU is going to be pretty bad. They were not world beaters two years ago. A late score and blocked FG got them to a bowl game and this year they had 5 wins. They lose all that talent. They are not deep. Gill may be able to get something going there, but i for one, would not at all be surprised if they finish last again

Look up "rebuilding year" in the dictionary & you'll find ... Turner Gill's 1st year at Kansas.

 

does the phrase "Spot on" mean anything to you. I could not agree with you any more than i do.

[Joe_5700]

Yahtzee! That's the proof I'm talking about! Baylor was decent but certainly should not have beaten MU at Faurot Field.

 

I was stating that in my opinion Missouri started the season very well and went downhill in a hurry. 3 consecutive losses followed by a win over struggling Colorado and another loss at home to Baylor. Then consecutive wins over mediocre teams followed by a thrashing at the hands of the Middies. I hardly call this playing better as the season went on as fro daddy stated.

 

Well Joe I dont know what you thought was so impressive about beating the 4 teams they beat to start the year. I guess we could look at it two different ways. We could take your word for it as you look at box score and a schedule and give your opinion. Or you could take my word for it as I watched/attended every game. rewatched those games again on DVR (some as many as 5 times) & followed every snap because they are my team and then gave my opinion that they played better down the stretch, although they were quite inconsistant.

 

As someone who did actually watch every snap multiple times, I would say that MU was more complete, executed much better, and played with more consistancy as the season progressed. They obviously had flaws, but that doesnt mean they did get better and play better down the stretch.

 

I didn't watch Missouri play every game this year but i did watch the Illinois, Nevada, Nebraska and Navy games. Missouri only seemed to improve down the stetch against weaker competition. Is that really finishing stronger or having a more favorable schedule late?

[ESPY]

Question - WHAT IF our beloved Huskers find themselves in a tie-breaker at season's end & lose that tie-breaker? What north division team will get to the conference title game?

[junior4949]

Probably Mizzou.

[jnkyrdoff6]

Probably Mizzou.