It was pretty widely accepted that Suh was the most dominant player in the country that year. Would you like to argue the contrary, or just live in denial?
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/7/20/16002914/ndamukong-suh-heisman-trophy-snub-2009
Quote from Texas coach Tom Herman
"I'm sorry, Heisman Trust, I love you, we've got two winners at Texas, and I've been around the block. But I got a little disappointed in '09 when Ndamukong Suh didn't win. We [Iowa State] actually played against him in Lincoln. It was the game that we won the turnover battle eight to nothing and won, 9-7. That was the most dominant football player I have ever seen, probably still to this day, on a college football field. Didn't win the Heisman. I don't know why. Is it because he played defensive line? I don't know."
From the same article:
"Suh recorded 24 tackles for loss, 12 sacks, 26 quarterback hurries, 10 pass breakups, one pick, and three blocked kicks in 2009. He was so dominant that NU head coach Bo Pelini was almost able to play a permanent dime formation; Suh was a one-man offensive line destroyer, and Pelini almost never had to blitz. Just drop about seven guys into coverage, then pounce on wayward passes when the quarterback still gets hit in about 1.5 seconds.
Nebraska allowed 10.4 points per game and four yards per play. This was a wrecking machine, and it all revolved around a single player."
Am I the homer, or do you just not want to acknowledge greatness due to jealousy or hate? There are plenty more articles and anecdotes that go along with his mind-boggling stats. And if this doesn't convince you, then turn the tape on and watch him and try to tell me he's not the most dominant player on the field every game he played in.
