Epley's comments on Talent

[NUance]

Getting back to the subject...

 

Nick Saban has said that when Alabama recruits, he has a set of metrics (height, weight, speed, strength etc) for every position on the field for which they are recruiting.

 

He has said that Alabama will not recruit any player that does not fit those metrics no matter what. He has used those metrics since day one at Alabama... for every position on the field.

 

If there are multiple recruits that meet those metrics then yes the will look at other factors... but first they must meet the metrics. No exceptions.

 

Boyd is saying he wants to test as many players as possible during the recruiting process. Smart.

 

And THAT is why Ameer Abdullah played for the Huskers. :

[Sargon]

It's impossible for threads to hit 3 pages on this board without stupid, trolling, and personal attack posts. 2 of the 3 are rules violations.

 

Turn on the neg rep function and use it for suspensions and bannings. Amazon and Google know it's a great tool and have been using it for years. It's central to Amazon's success.

[Husker Psycho]

 

Getting back to the subject...

 

Nick Saban has said that when Alabama recruits, he has a set of metrics (height, weight, speed, strength etc) for every position on the field for which they are recruiting.

 

He has said that Alabama will not recruit any player that does not fit those metrics no matter what. He has used those metrics since day one at Alabama... for every position on the field.

 

If there are multiple recruits that meet those metrics then yes the will look at other factors... but first they must meet the metrics. No exceptions.

 

Boyd is saying he wants to test as many players as possible during the recruiting process. Smart.

 

And THAT is why Ameer Abdullah played for the Huskers. :

 

 

That's exactly right. Some great players slip through the cracks. Our good fortune.

 

But Alabama is playing for national championships.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

Don't know what to say, other than that Tom Osborne is on record himself as crediting the switch to defensive speed as the difference maker that led to the national championships.

 

That defensive speed was obtained by following what the Florida schools were doing at the time. That is what Kevin Steele's influence brought.

 

I suppose I can infer that you believe that NU under Osborne didn't recruit speed on defense before the '90s?

 

 

Dude, you don't need to "infer" anything. I'm telling you that TOM OSBORNE HIMSELF says he started recruiting for defensive speed after 1990, having watched those speedy Florida (and Georgia Tech) teams thwart his offense.

 

That would seem to suggest that however much speed Tom Osborne had recruited before 1990, he realized he had to step up his game in the new college football landscape that put a premium on DEFENSIVE SPEED.

 

Or to look at it another way, in keeping with the thread, Nebraska needed to target and secure better talent to become the '93-'97 juggernaut we remember.

 

I suppose I can infer that Tom Osborne's doesn't know what Tom Osborne was thinking as well as you do?

[zoogs]

Tom Osborne was playing a different game in a different world. But, Nebraska was at the forefront of S&C in those days, too. Landscape changes, and Osborne shifted with it in the 90s to his benefit.

 

Right now the challenge Nebraska has is we want to build a program that (assuming the coaches are up to it) can compete against the likes of Ohio State, Alabama, etc, and be a playoff team. Concretely to Boyd Epley, this means a focus on raising the performance index bar. Both in recruiting, and in working on the S&C of these players after they get on campus.

 

It should be very clear that Nebraska has been far closer to middle of the road in athleticism than they have been to elite.

[Elf]

 

There is no doubt he was given an amazing gift early on.

 

One man's given gift is another man's acquired skill, I guess. The difference being if we all agree it is a "given gift" then it excuses a lot of people from having to make a considerable effort. Like saying "Computers hate me!" or "I can't do math!" or "I can't swim because I sink like a rock!"

 

People are naturally better at some things than they are at others, just the way it is. For example, I'm pretty good at spotting BS such as this post is proclaiming and you're much better at spewing the BS in this post than I am. (I jest! )

 

All joking aside, its kind of silly to imply that we are all born equal. I believe each of us is born with a unique set of gifts, or strengths if you will. We are also born with weaknesses, none of us are perfect. My strengths are not likely to mirror your own. All of this doesn't mean that I can never improve upon the strengths I've been given or shore up some weaknesses. This is where the work part comes in. You put in work to enhance your strengths and shore up your weaknesses. I think Ameer did a fantastic job of this, certainly better than his peers. This doesn't mean he didn't start off with certain gifts. If you (yes you personally) take into account, and accept my bolded sentence, then I basically agree with you.

 

Even if I was 30 years younger there is no amount of training and conditioning that would allow me to be the same great running back as Ameer Abdullah. I just don't have the same gifts he has.

 

*Edit* When it comes to math? While I can certainly do my addition/subtraction/multiplication/division, more advanced math starts to baffle me. The only class I've ever failed in my entire lifetime was second semester geometry. I'm not stupid, I got straight A's in other courses.

[lo country]

 

 

Don't know what to say, other than that Tom Osborne is on record himself as crediting the switch to defensive speed as the difference maker that led to the national championships.

 

That defensive speed was obtained by following what the Florida schools were doing at the time. That is what Kevin Steele's influence brought.

 

I suppose I can infer that you believe that NU under Osborne didn't recruit speed on defense before the '90s?

 

 

Dude, you don't need to "infer" anything. I'm telling you that TOM OSBORNE HIMSELF says he started recruiting for defensive speed after 1990, having watched those speedy Florida (and Georgia Tech) teams thwart his offense.

 

That would seem to suggest that however much speed Tom Osborne had recruited before 1990, he realized he had to step up his game in the new college football landscape that put a premium on DEFENSIVE SPEED.

 

Or to look at it another way, in keeping with the thread, Nebraska needed to target and secure better talent to become the '93-'97 juggernaut we remember.

 

I suppose I can infer that Tom Osborne's doesn't know what Tom Osborne was thinking as well as you do?

 

TO didn't recruit speed until consulting with Bobby Bowden as FSU. McBride said they recruited speed first, tacking second and then size. If you couldn't run, you didn't get looked at.

 

Great article. TO recruited talent, but realized that speed kills. NU got smaller and quicker with hitters and the rest is the greatest team to ever play the game.

 

http://hailvarsity.com/news/football-news/mcbride-talks-defense/2012/09/

 

Here is another example of recruiting athleticism met with Boyd:

 

• Drafted by the St. Louis Rams (1998 - 1st Round, Pick #6)
• Member of Three Nebraska National Championship Teams (1994, 1995, 1997)
• Lombardi Award Winner (1997)
• Two-Time All-American (AP, Football Writers, AFCA, Coaches, Sporting News, Football News - 1996; AP, AFCA, Walter Camp, FWAA, Sporting News - 1997)
• Two-Time Bronko Nagurski Player-of-the-Year Finalist (1996, 1997)
• AAU James E. Sullivan Memorial Award Nominee (1997)
• Two-Time Football News Defensive Player-of-the-Year Semifinalist (1996, 1997)
• Two-Time Big 12 Defensive Player-of-the-Year (AP, Coaches - 1996, 1997)
• Big 12 Male Athlete-of-the-Year (1997-1998)
• Three-Time First-Team All-Conference (1995, 1996, 1997)
• NCAA Today's Top Eight Award Winner (1997)
• National Football Foundation & College Hall of Fame NCAA Postgraduate Scholarship Winner (1997)
• Two-Time GTE/CoSIDA First-Team Academic All-American (1996, 1997)
• Guy Chamberlin Award (1997)
• Team Co-Captain (1997)
• Nebraska Lifter-of-the-Year Finalist (1997)
• Inaugural Brook Berringer Citizenship Team Member (1997)
• Touchdown Club of Columbus College Defensive Lineman-of-the-Year (1997)
• Second-Team All-American (American Football Foundation, 1996)
• ABC/Chevrolet Player-of-the-Game (vs. Colorado, 1996)
• CFA Scholar-Athlete (1996)
• Two-Time GTE/CoSIDA Academic All-District VII (1995, 1996)
• First-Team Academic All-Big 12 (1996)
• Big 12 Commissioner's Fall Semester Academic Honor Roll (1996)
• Third-Team All-American (AP, 1995)
• First-Team All-Big Eight (Coaches, 1995)
• Second-Team All-Big Eight (AP, 1995)

Defensive end Grant Wistrom.

 

Here is S and C without the athleticism:

Honors & Awards

» Team Captain (2015))

» Nebraska Lifter of the Year (2014)

» Nebraska Scholar-Athlete Honor Roll (Spring 2014)

 

That guy is walk-on Jack Gangwish

 

Not a knock on Jack as Grant was one of the greatest to play the DE IMO. A freak. BUT it goes with what Boyd is saying. Recruit guys who have the "potential" based upon performance and testing. These guys are "easier and quicker" to develop to the next and successful level.

 

​Another walk-on with good success who had ability coupled with the 1.5 year development:

 

 

• Honorable-Mention All-Big 12 (Coaches, Associated Press)
• Big 12 Defensive Player of the Week (vs. Oklahoma, 2009)
• Walter Camp and Bronko Nagurski National Defensive Player of the Week (vs. Oklahoma, 2009)
• 2009 Pacific Life Holiday Bowl Defensive MVP
• 2009 Cletus Fischer Native Son Award Winner
• 2009 Bobby Reynolds Award
• Nebraska Game Record for Interceptions (3 vs. Oklahoma, 2009)
• Two-Time First-Team Academic All-Big 12 (2006, 2009)
• Second-Team Academic All-Big 12 (2007)
• Four-Time Big 12 Commissioner's Spring Academic Honor Roll (2005, 2007, 2008, 2009)
• Three-Time Big 12 Commissioner's Fall Academic Honor Roll (2005, 2008, 2009)

That guy is Matt O'Hanlon........

 

To win, you've got to get guys who can develop and excel at the next level.

[Bowfin]

Obviously hard work is extremely important, but without raw ability, Chuck Norris could never have done that

 

I quoted Chuck Norris himself when he said he wasn't athletic, so I don't how he could have raw ability without athleticism.

[Enhance]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

I am curious about your facts, however.

 

How are you formulating the claim that Solich left more draft picks for Callahan than Callahan did for Pelini? I did a little research, and according to the numbers I pulled, Frank left 11 NFL draft picks for Callahan's years. Callahan left 13 for Bo. I can quote the names I found to be more specific, if requested.

Perhaps I missed some players, but I don't think I did. Your thoughts here?

[BigRedBuster]

 

So....I guess you aren't going to answer the question? If you would simply have the work ethic, I bet you could answer it.

 

I did answer. I said you never had any chance at success.

I'm glad you agree you had no clue what you are talking about.

[Bowfin]

I'm glad you agree you had no clue what you are talking about.

 

Copy and past where I said that. That's Ctrl+C and then Ctrl+V, just in case your God given keyboard "talent" is lacking.

[BigRedBuster]

You said I had no chance at being as good of football players as the ones I listed. You finally realized your first comments on that showed total ignorance on the subject.

[BigRedBuster]

The funny thing is that I don't think you even realize how absolutely idiotic if is to say I (or anyone on this board) could be as good of running back as a Heisman trophy winning, record setting RB.....oh, if we would have just worked harder.

[Sparker]

 

I'm glad you agree you had no clue what you are talking about.

 

Copy and past where I said that. That's Ctrl+C and then Ctrl+V, just in case your God given keyboard "talent" is lacking.

 

 

Or Command+C and Command+V on macs, just to cover our bases here. You also highlight the desired text and right click, then clock copy, then move to the new text box and right click one more time and click paste. Of course, on macs you would need to press control+click due to the single mouse button.

 

Now hopefully regardless of the initial level of god-given talent, this is enough coaching to succeed.

 

 

 

 

 

I should probably just post this directly into the tangent thread.

[Bowfin]

You said I had no chance at being as good of football players as the ones I listed

 

Yes I did. However, I don't ascribe it to lack of talent, and you keep missing that point. My opinion of your lack of success has more to do with your personality, attitude, a perceived propensity to give up before a real effort is made and also the fact that you would be the type to put up over 10,000 posts sitting in front of the computer in the last three years just to this one forum, which might be siphoning away time spent more profitably elsewhere.

 

I am done with you, as I will not be your enabler. Go do something positive, regardless of talent level.

You can have the next and last word, I am going to work on my dog walking "talent".