Epley's comments on Talent

[dvdcrr]

Wow... I really admire people who can speak honestly about difficult matters...

 

But that has to really sting the upperclassmen on the team. So much for chat boards being the only ones making critical remarks. I guess making critical remarks doesn't hurt the team after all... which I think we already knew.

 

Very good to hear some real honesty. About time.

 

When people start talking honestly... that's when real change starts to occur.

The truth is the truth, doesn't matter who gets burned. Osborne prided his program on honesty to coaches and players. An honest assessment of the team is worth much more than the emotions shielded by pumping constant sunshine. Epely knows strength and conditioning and if he say's you're lacking..... then you're lacking.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Bo Pelini can win 9-10 games a year with no talent, but Riley will need 1.5 years to get the talent needed to get passed 6 wins?

Any way you slice it, it's hard to get past this point.

Why do you guys consistently try to misrepresent the talent that Bo had on the team and act like we won't notice?

 

He had NFL caliber running backs EVERY YEAR he was here. He had Suh and some of the nastiest DBs early on and one of the best LBs in the NFL. He won 9 games last year and had three most talented players on the team drafted. Three cornerstone players the offense and defense were absolutely built around.

 

But by all means, continue to act like Bo coached with no talent.

Can't give Bo credit for winning 9-10 games every year, but we can sure blame him for only a 5 win team that he didn't even coach.

 

Can't make this stuff up. Some of you actually think this way.

^^^This^^^

 

You guys sound surprised about this stuff. I mean, you have guys like RADAR on here who unabashedly claim that Solich was a horrible coach while they're busy slobbering all over Riley.

 

I don't understand how people can function under such cognitive dissonance, but we see it here every day. It shouldn't be surprising any more.

 

You do realize it's possible to think Riley is a good coach while Solich was not? It's perfectly logically to think Solich, Callahan, Pelini, and Riley are good or bad coaches in any combination. This whole notion that people must be on certain "sides" of the debate is false.

 

For example, I think Pelini had a decent record but was an a-hole, bad representative of the university, and therefore needed to be fired. I also think Riley is good at the CEO type activities but was an uninspired hire and has a bad record, and think we'll fire him in a couple seasons (although I wish we'd never hired him).

 

Yes, I realize it's possible to think that a demonstrably bad coach is better than a demonstrably good coach. I've observed that type of "thinking" here for quite awhile. That's why I made the comment. I just don't understand it.

 

I wonder how Solich could have gone 7-7 in 2002. I mean, there is evidence from 2001 that he should have at least gone 11-2 and played for a national championship...

 

 

If we can believe Boyd Epley's comments about the talent difference between this year and the 90's players (which I have no reason to doubt), I wonder how the 2002 team would have fared? I wonder how much the talent level dropped off, if any, during three year's of Frank's recruiting?

 

 

You mean guys like Tenopir's lack of recruiting. All I know is that we can't expect 90s talent every year, and Frank left more talent on the roster for Callahan (at least based on NFL draftees and their position in the respective drafts) than Callahan left for Pelini.

 

And what did any of this get us? Not a f'ing thing. So who cares?

 

He should just add the sentence about draft picks and Callahan/Pelini to his tag. It will save him the trouble of reposting it over and over again as he has here and in other threads.

 

 

When people stop repeating the same inaccuracies about recruiting abilities and talent levels, I'll happily stop repeating the facts that disprove them.

[cm husker]

 

Wow... I really admire people who can speak honestly about difficult matters...

 

But that has to really sting the upperclassmen on the team. So much for chat boards being the only ones making critical remarks. I guess making critical remarks doesn't hurt the team after all... which I think we already knew.

 

Very good to hear some real honesty. About time.

 

When people start talking honestly... that's when real change starts to occur.

The truth is the truth, doesn't matter who gets burned. Osborne prided his program on honesty to coaches and players. An honest assessment of the team is worth much more than the emotions shielded by pumping constant sunshine. Epely knows strength and conditioning and if he say's you're lacking..... then you're lacking.

 

 

 

Honesty is great. Behind closed doors. It's ridiculous that he put this out publicly in the manner he did. And it screams of AD PR positioning.

[74Hunter]

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

Isn't this a personal attack?

[Hujan]

Wow... I really admire people who can speak honestly about difficult matters...

 

But that has to really sting the upperclassmen on the team. So much for chat boards being the only ones making critical remarks. I guess making critical remarks doesn't hurt the team after all... which I think we already knew.

 

Very good to hear some real honesty. About time.

 

When people start talking honestly... that's when real change starts to occur.

The people who censor criticism of players are probably the same people who like participation ribbons and taking red pens away from teachers grading schoolwork.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Bo Pelini can win 9-10 games a year with no talent, but Riley will need 1.5 years to get the talent needed to get passed 6 wins?

Any way you slice it, it's hard to get past this point.

Why do you guys consistently try to misrepresent the talent that Bo had on the team and act like we won't notice?

 

He had NFL caliber running backs EVERY YEAR he was here. He had Suh and some of the nastiest DBs early on and one of the best LBs in the NFL. He won 9 games last year and had three most talented players on the team drafted. Three cornerstone players the offense and defense were absolutely built around.

 

But by all means, continue to act like Bo coached with no talent.

Can't give Bo credit for winning 9-10 games every year, but we can sure blame him for only a 5 win team that he didn't even coach.

 

Can't make this stuff up. Some of you actually think this way.

^^^This^^^

 

You guys sound surprised about this stuff. I mean, you have guys like RADAR on here who unabashedly claim that Solich was a horrible coach while they're busy slobbering all over Riley.

 

I don't understand how people can function under such cognitive dissonance, but we see it here every day. It shouldn't be surprising any more.

 

You do realize it's possible to think Riley is a good coach while Solich was not? It's perfectly logically to think Solich, Callahan, Pelini, and Riley are good or bad coaches in any combination. This whole notion that people must be on certain "sides" of the debate is false.

 

For example, I think Pelini had a decent record but was an a-hole, bad representative of the university, and therefore needed to be fired. I also think Riley is good at the CEO type activities but was an uninspired hire and has a bad record, and think we'll fire him in a couple seasons (although I wish we'd never hired him).

 

Yes, I realize it's possible to think that a demonstrably bad coach is better than a demonstrably good coach. I've observed that type of "thinking" here for quite awhile. That's why I made the comment. I just don't understand it.

 

I wonder how Solich could have gone 7-7 in 2002. I mean, there is evidence from 2001 that he should have at least gone 11-2 and played for a national championship...

 

 

If we can believe Boyd Epley's comments about the talent difference between this year and the 90's players (which I have no reason to doubt), I wonder how the 2002 team would have fared? I wonder how much the talent level dropped off, if any, during three year's of Frank's recruiting?

 

 

You mean guys like Tenopir's lack of recruiting. All I know is that we can't expect 90s talent every year, and Frank left more talent on the roster for Callahan (at least based on NFL draftees and their position in the respective drafts) than Callahan left for Pelini.

 

And what did any of this get us? Not a f'ing thing. So who cares?

 

He should just add the sentence about draft picks and Callahan/Pelini to his tag. It will save him the trouble of reposting it over and over again as he has here and in other threads.

 

 

When people stop repeating the same inaccuracies about recruiting abilities and talent levels, I'll happily stop repeating the facts that disprove them.

 

Who else needs to tell you this before you believe it? Riley has said it. Epley has said it.

[84HuskerLaw]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Bo Pelini can win 9-10 games a year with no talent, but Riley will need 1.5 years to get the talent needed to get passed 6 wins?

Any way you slice it, it's hard to get past this point.

Why do you guys consistently try to misrepresent the talent that Bo had on the team and act like we won't notice?

 

He had NFL caliber running backs EVERY YEAR he was here. He had Suh and some of the nastiest DBs early on and one of the best LBs in the NFL. He won 9 games last year and had three most talented players on the team drafted. Three cornerstone players the offense and defense were absolutely built around.

 

But by all means, continue to act like Bo coached with no talent.

Can't give Bo credit for winning 9-10 games every year, but we can sure blame him for only a 5 win team that he didn't even coach.

 

Can't make this stuff up. Some of you actually think this way.

^^^This^^^

 

You guys sound surprised about this stuff. I mean, you have guys like RADAR on here who unabashedly claim that Solich was a horrible coach while they're busy slobbering all over Riley.

 

I don't understand how people can function under such cognitive dissonance, but we see it here every day. It shouldn't be surprising any more.

 

You do realize it's possible to think Riley is a good coach while Solich was not? It's perfectly logically to think Solich, Callahan, Pelini, and Riley are good or bad coaches in any combination. This whole notion that people must be on certain "sides" of the debate is false.

 

For example, I think Pelini had a decent record but was an a-hole, bad representative of the university, and therefore needed to be fired. I also think Riley is good at the CEO type activities but was an uninspired hire and has a bad record, and think we'll fire him in a couple seasons (although I wish we'd never hired him).

 

Yes, I realize it's possible to think that a demonstrably bad coach is better than a demonstrably good coach. I've observed that type of "thinking" here for quite awhile. That's why I made the comment. I just don't understand it.

 

I wonder how Solich could have gone 7-7 in 2002. I mean, there is evidence from 2001 that he should have at least gone 11-2 and played for a national championship...

 

 

If we can believe Boyd Epley's comments about the talent difference between this year and the 90's players (which I have no reason to doubt), I wonder how the 2002 team would have fared? I wonder how much the talent level dropped off, if any, during three year's of Frank's recruiting?

 

I can tell you that I recall in those Frank years we say the disontinuation of the reporting of the winter conditioning and testing scores and end of spring testing results as well. Frankly, we stopped seeing the 40 times and the strength and team averages. Only one reason we stopped is because the numbers did not look good. It was around the time that Boyd was 'let go' as Frank blamed him for a number of mysterious groin injuries including one to his running back from Witchita (name skips me right now so sorry about that that broke all of Barry Sanders' records). So, yes, I believe we would notice a dramatic decline in the level of recrutis under Frank and after that time our recruiting was never the same. Spotty and intermittant ups and down. To be fair, though, there was NEVER EVER a college football program with the kind of deep, extreme talent stockpiled up as the last 5 years of Osborne's tenure. Our third string would literally have been a top 25 team. I believe our third string in '95 would beat our current team, although it would be a good game. No team today, even Ohio State, has the quality and superb depth across the entire team as the '95 to '97 teams. We had excellent teams through '1999 really and even the 2000 team was pretty good. But by 2001 we were seeing the slippage. Injuries hurt that team in some key areas. We recruited half as many 'great' players by 2001 and not many more until a couple batches of good/great level guys in Callahan's first couple three classes. Bo recruited less than 20 good/great caliber guys in my view. Osborne literally recruited entire classes from what he and his staff considered the top 100 players in the nation. That is mind boggling recruiting. We are not getting more than 4 or 5 from the top 350 nationally and he was getting entire classes from the cream of the crop! It was unfair but deservedly so! LOL

[84HuskerLaw]

I now recall the RB name as Deangelo Evans. Sorry about the typos. At work and time crunched on me.

[StPaulHusker]

Epley retired from Nebraska in 2006.

[Guy Chamberlin]

I think Nebraska has great talent at certain positions, much less talent at others.

 

You can point to a handful of NFL talent all you want, but all it takes is a substandard offensive line, a burnable cornerback or two, and a mistake-prone quarterback to blow up the whole thing.

 

I don't think we've felt deep or Nebraska-worthy at offensive line for years, and proven defensive guru Bo Pelini watched the Blackshirt Defense plummet to historic depths.

 

And even given all this, I think Nebraska is (and has been) a more-consistent quarterback away from winning more games.

 

We talk a lot about offensive identity. But if defenses win championships, I'd like some of that too, please.

[Hujan]

 

It is pretty low brow to put this out in public. I wonder how the players are going to react to this. Kind of reminds me of when Tenipor came out with criticisms about OL talent (which he was actually responsible for (not) recruiting). There's some serious politics going on here, as there was with Milt's comments, and it's mainly related to Boyd coming back the month before Pelini's firing and the positioning he's taking within the AD.

 

 

Honesty is great. Behind closed doors. It's ridiculous that he put this out publicly in the manner he did. And it screams of AD PR positioning.

 

Just so I understand, you'd prefer we keep the athletic deficiencies of our scholarship players on the DL so as not to offend the precious sensibilities of the athletes we expect to physically dominate opposing players in front of 90,000 screaming fans and a national TV audience?

[Hujan]

Tom Osborne originated this practice.

 

So I guess you could say that TO is low brow and likes to belittle his players. Right?

That's just how savvy Osborne was: he set the stage for anti-Pelini propaganda before Pelini ever got here. Hiring Pelini was just the final domino to fall in Osborne's elaborate plan. "Checkmate," says Osborne, "Checkmate."

[teachercd]

 

Tom Osborne originated this practice.

 

So I guess you could say that TO is low brow and likes to belittle his players. Right?

That's just how savvy Osborne was: he set the stage for anti-Pelini propaganda before Pelini ever got here. Hiring Pelini was just the final domino to fall in Osborne's elaborate plan. "Checkmate," says Osborne, "Checkmate."

 

This is awesome!

[Husker Psycho]

 

 

Wow... I really admire people who can speak honestly about difficult matters...

 

But that has to really sting the upperclassmen on the team. So much for chat boards being the only ones making critical remarks. I guess making critical remarks doesn't hurt the team after all... which I think we already knew.

 

Very good to hear some real honesty. About time.

 

When people start talking honestly... that's when real change starts to occur.

The truth is the truth, doesn't matter who gets burned. Osborne prided his program on honesty to coaches and players. An honest assessment of the team is worth much more than the emotions shielded by pumping constant sunshine. Epely knows strength and conditioning and if he say's you're lacking..... then you're lacking.

 

 

 

Honesty is great. Behind closed doors. It's ridiculous that he put this out publicly in the manner he did. And it screams of AD PR positioning.

 

 

I agree with you.

 

The evidence is as obvious as the nose on their faces. Boyd would NEVER have said what he said... without the full consent and approval of the athletic department. Never. Everyone knows that including the media sites that published his comments.

 

 

But with that said... I think the AD again miscalculated and underestimated... the reaction and affect.

 

When a person in authority comes out with brutally honest comments like Boyd did... then they should have understood that the smart fans that populate these boards were going to have a equally brutally honest and smart reaction. Of course we would... we thrive on that kind of brutal honesty. We love that stuff... it's our world here... brutal honesty.

 

So we were given a gift... one that was long overdue. But the biggest beneficiary of that gift will and should be our program and our team. We need to improve our recruiting... in a big way... once and for all. This can't go on any longer.

 

Yes, the AD miscalculated again. Boyd's comments don't provide "cover' for anyone... and in fact they bring much needed clarity... shine a bright light on a glaring deficiency. That's a good thing. If our recruiting doesn't improve, as in right now... then there's no longer anywhere for those responsible to hide.

 

That's the way it should be and should have always been.

 

We need to improve our recruiting and player development... NOW. No more excuses.

[74Hunter]

I think a lot of people are reading a lot into his comments that wasn't intended.

 

He did not say we don't have talent on the team.

 

Epley said seven football players scored in the 1,700s. Twenty were at 900 or below. Epley said that 900 figure is a good benchmark for walk-ons. NU has a significant number over 1,500.

 

What he is getting at is that we need to bring in players that are already at the 1,500 mark as a true freshman so they don't have to spend 1.5 years getting them to that point. There are lots of players on the team at that level but they had to be developed to that point.

Sounds like player development is currently an issue.