Epley's comments on Talent

[Danny Bateman]

This post has been deleted by the University of Nebraska | University Communications for inappropriate and defaming remarks.

WTH did you do Enhance?

Lolol

 

[Enhance]

This post has been deleted by the University of Nebraska | University Communications for inappropriate and defaming remarks.

WTH did you do Enhance?

Lolol

Just adding to conspiracy theories!

 

[Hujan]

Maybe I missed it, but I'm surprised no one has speculated who did the best on the testing.

I bet Wilbon was tops among RBs and my money is on Alonzo Moore for the WRs, though I bet DPE would be tops if he was healthy. I'll go with Chris Jones among the DBs.

 

[grandpasknee]

If I'm not mistaken, he also said he volleyball team had the best scoring of any team on campus. OH! LOOK! They are in the final four too! Funny how that works...

 

[adc7236]

I have no idea what Epley's metric looks like when evaluating "talent", but talent is more than just an athlete. I assume he looks at a persons athletic ability in relation to speed, strength and reaction time to name a few. Having great athletes in needed for a top football team, but it goes much further than that. Football smarts also play a vital role on both sides of the ball. Reading defenses, anticipation, football geometry (pursuit angles, throwing), seeing a running lane as it opens, making cuts at the RIGHT time etc. I could go on, but my point is, being athletic and having football smarts are both crucial. A few examples..... you could have the fastest RB in the nation, but if he cannot see a running lane or make a cut at the right time, he is only half effective, and play calls are limited. (A competent coach should recognize) You can have superior athlete at QB, but if he struggles to read a defense, he is not as effective. Your defensive backs can be the strongest and fastest, but if they take poor pursuit angels.......I think I made my point on this.

To go a bit further though and a bit outside the scope of this thread, coaches develop their players differently. Some players require more time than others, some need work on football IQ, others need to put on weight, get stronger, endurance, mechanics, footwork....on and on. I think that player development is ONE of the things that can separate bad, good and great coaches.

 

[lo country]

The time it takes to develop young players is as important as any part of what he said.

This means that an incoming player... here for the very first time... should be ready to play and contribute much quicker than what we've been seeing.

But another thing is that by doing that and recruiting those type of players it would to a great degree solve our "depth" issues. We would simply have more players ready to play as backups, to rotate in and out and all the benefits of having way more play ready players on the sidelines.

I wonder if the top rated teams of today recruit with that in mind? He seems to be saying that they are in fact doing this but that we haven't been doing it.

Very ambitious comments from Boyd. A pretty tall order. I really like it.

But all will be for nothing if our coaches and recruiters can't deliver. What happens on signing day this year is going to be an even bigger deal than usual... if that's possible.

Once again... our recruiting has to drastically improve... now. We simply cant play the "we'll do better next year" game any longer.

So much the bolded. If we are recruiting kids who take 1.5 years to develop (round up and say 2 years) thats 2 years of a kid on scholarship sitting on the sidelines who really isn't "ready" to contribute in what I would call a meaningful way based on the metrics Boyd uses. That's a lot of guys who don't really add quality depth.

I look at the success Urban and Stoops have had. Urban last, last year IIRC, only recruited kids who were a match for his system. He said that way if a guy goes down, he "plugs" another one in. I would ASSume he gets guys who "fit" and are physically ready to contribute immedately. Stoops said (paraphrase) he doesn't recruit kids that need to be developed or can't play right away. I like that idea.

I think that is what Boyd has done. Laid out a road map for success to succeed after being recruited and better matrix (tangible) to be used in recruiting kids who are more able to contribute quickly (physically) as well as kids who have the potential for a higher ceiling. I like it that he lays out in black and white, a factual basis for where we are, why we have some issues and how to correct it as well as a time line. Much better than the "we failed to execute" or "we are excellent in al areas". He pulled a Corey Raymond and basically said "look at them and look at us". Sometimes the truth hurts. Guys will either get pi$$ed and get to work or sulk off and get passed over. Either way means a stronger team going forward. I like it.

 

[beorach]

So let's get real: Eply has seen ALL there is to see here. He is the GRANDAD of sports strength and conditioning science. He matters. He knows. And when he says we have 3 guys who MEASURE to pro standards and that we need an infusion of young talent more MEASURABLY ready to go from day 1...he knows what he speaks of.

This. And yet, why is it that some folks do not want to accept this and deal with this?

They all believe they know what's going on at Nebraska. Some won't even stop "Bolieving" despite its irrelevance to this timeline we're all sharing (insofar as I can perceive reality).

 

[StPaulHusker]

Makes it sound much more like Jimmy and Joe's then coaching.

You know, I have never heard a WINNING coach or anyone connected to a WINNING program ever use the "Jimmies and Joes" excuse explanation...probably because winners don't need any excuses. That, and the WINNING programs think they win because they outwork and outperform everybody. Vince Lombardi's Packers, Osborne's Cornhuskers, Walsh's '49ers, Bear Bryant's Crimson Tide, etc., etc.

Tom Osborne said many times that they had to get faster players on defense to be able to match the Florida teams. Once he got them, you didn't hear him talk

 

[VectorVictor]

Good to see the peanut squad sh#t on another good thread.

I like how fans complained that the S&C department quit making testing numbers public and now that they are staring to do it again, it's nothing but a PR move by the AD.

You have a point...but the detractors do too, as the timing of the announcement is spurious at best and lends credence to their arguments, right or wrong.

And again...the comparison is being made to the teams of the 1990s. We don't need the 1995 Huskers to win the B1G when the 2002 team would have made the Rose Bowl.

 

[GBRedneck]

Makes it sound much more like Jimmy and Joe's then coaching.

You know, I have never heard a WINNING coach or anyone connected to a WINNING program ever use the "Jimmies and Joes" excuse explanation...probably because winners don't need any excuses. That, and the WINNING programs think they win because they outwork and outperform everybody. Vince Lombardi's Packers, Osborne's Cornhuskers, Walsh's '49ers, Bear Bryant's Crimson Tide, etc., etc.

Switzer said it and the stargazers of today take him completely out of context.

Switzer said it when he was WINNING, to give credit to his players. He didn't say it when he was losing as an excuse for his poor coaching.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Makes it sound much more like Jimmy and Joe's then coaching.

You know, I have never heard a WINNING coach or anyone connected to a WINNING program ever use the "Jimmies and Joes" excuse explanation...probably because winners don't need any excuses. That, and the WINNING programs think they win because they outwork and outperform everybody. Vince Lombardi's Packers, Osborne's Cornhuskers, Walsh's '49ers, Bear Bryant's Crimson Tide, etc., etc.

Switzer said it and the stargazers of today take him completely out of context.

Switzer said it when he was WINNING, to give credit to his players. He didn't say it when he was losing as an excuse for his poor coaching.

And, neither is Epley.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Makes it sound much more like Jimmy and Joe's then coaching.

You know, I have never heard a WINNING coach or anyone connected to a WINNING program ever use the "Jimmies and Joes" excuse explanation...probably because winners don't need any excuses. That, and the WINNING programs think they win because they outwork and outperform everybody. Vince Lombardi's Packers, Osborne's Cornhuskers, Walsh's '49ers, Bear Bryant's Crimson Tide, etc., etc.

Switzer said it and the stargazers of today take him completely out of context.
Switzer said it when he was WINNING, to give credit to his players. He didn't say it when he was losing as an excuse for his poor coaching.

And, neither is Epley.

But it IS different when you have a point to make. It really, REALLY is...

 

[GBRedneck]

Epley didn't actually use the "Jimmies and Joes" line did he?

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Epley didn't actually use the "Jimmies and Joes" line did he?

I think all he did was comment on the talent level or performance metric, and people spun that however they pleased using it as an excuse to justify this season to saying it was a PR stunt by the AD

 

[NUance]

Epley didn't actually use the "Jimmies and Joes" line did he?

I think all he did was comment on the talent level or performance metric, and people spun that however they pleased using it as an excuse to justify this season to saying it was a PR stunt by the AD

Yeah, "Jimmies and Joes" is from Warrior10's post on page 1 of this thread commenting on Epley's remarks. LINK