Epley's comments on Talent

[RedSavage]

Edit: Delete

[cm husker]

 

 

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?

 

 

 

Sorry, I'm on a mod hold right now, so it's harder to follow and reply to posts as they go.

 

To answer your question:

2008 6 31 197 Bo Ruud Patriots LB 2007 1 13 13 Adam Carriker Rams DE 3 24 87 Stewart Bradley Eagles LB 4 5 104 Jay Moore 49ers DE 2006 2 8 40 Daniel Bullocks Lions DB 6 34 203 Sam Koch Ravens P 6 37 206 Le Kevin Smith Patriots DT 7 12 220 Titus Adams Jets DT 2005 1 23 23 Fabian Washington Raiders DB 2 4 36 Barrett Ruud Buccaneers LB 2 8 40 Josh Bullocks Saints DB 3 17 81 Richie Incognito Rams C

 

That's the list of players drafted between '05 and '08 who were signed by Frank and his staff, for a total of 12 players (with 7 of those players going in the top 3 rounds).

 

Here's a list of the drafted players who were signed by Callahan and played under Bo:

 

2012 4 31 126 Jared Crick Texans DT 7 27 234 Marcel Jones Saints T 2011 1 19 19 Prince Amukamara Giants DB 4 8 105 Roy Helu Redskins RB 4 23 120 Alex Henery Eagles K 5 24 155 Niles Paul Redskins WR 6 31 196 Keith Williams Steelers G 7 45 248 Eric Hagg Browns DB 2010 1 2 2 Ndamukong Suh Lions DT 4 17 115 Phillip Dillard Giants LB 5 29 160 Larry Asante Browns DB 2009 5 22 158 Cody Glenn Redskins LB 6 20 193 Matt Slauson Jets G 7 19 228 Lydon Murtha Lions T

 

So, my mistake, that was 14 players recruited by Callahan who were drafted. however, of those 14, only 2 were drafted in the first three rounds.

 

Personally, I wonder how many other kids would have been drafted from Solich's classes if they hadn't suffered under the "coaching development" of Callahan and crew.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

Funny that all the faux uproar is over the motivation instead of the results of the tests. That says a lot about the people that want to misdirect the story away from the results and into a fog of crap

So far, all that these testing results have told us is that we don't have as much talent as we did in the mid-90s. Pretty sure no one needed the testing results to find that out.

 

If we had testing results to compare with from the last 10-15 years, that would be a lot more interesting.

Yes it would be.

Bo and Tom Osborne could have brought it back anytime. But they didn't.

 

 

 

I wonder how someone could spin this.

I'm saying it would be interesting but, I am not one that's all up in arms that if hasn't been. Meh....that's up to the AD and coach. If they don't want to release them, fine, that's their choice.

[Enhance]

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

Sorry, I'm on a mod hold right now, so it's harder to follow and reply to posts as they go.

 

To answer your question:

2008 6 31 197 Bo Ruud Patriots LB 2007 1 13 13 Adam Carriker Rams DE 3 24 87 Stewart Bradley Eagles LB 4 5 104 Jay Moore 49ers DE 2006 2 8 40 Daniel Bullocks Lions DB 6 34 203 Sam Koch Ravens P 6 37 206 Le Kevin Smith Patriots DT 7 12 220 Titus Adams Jets DT 2005 1 23 23 Fabian Washington Raiders DB 2 4 36 Barrett Ruud Buccaneers LB 2 8 40 Josh Bullocks Saints DB 3 17 81 Richie Incognito Rams C

 

That's the list of players drafted between '05 and '08 who were signed by Frank and his staff, for a total of 12 players (with 7 of those players going in the top 3 rounds).

 

Here's a list of the drafted players who were signed by Callahan and played under Bo:

 

2012 4 31 126 Jared Crick Texans DT 7 27 234 Marcel Jones Saints T 2011 1 19 19 Prince Amukamara Giants DB 4 8 105 Roy Helu Redskins RB 4 23 120 Alex Henery Eagles K 5 24 155 Niles Paul Redskins WR 6 31 196 Keith Williams Steelers G 7 45 248 Eric Hagg Browns DB 2010 1 2 2 Ndamukong Suh Lions DT 4 17 115 Phillip Dillard Giants LB 5 29 160 Larry Asante Browns DB 2009 5 22 158 Cody Glenn Redskins LB 6 20 193 Matt Slauson Jets G 7 19 228 Lydon Murtha Lions T

 

So, my mistake, that was 14 players recruited by Callahan who were drafted. however, of those 14, only 2 were drafted in the first three rounds.

 

Personally, I wonder how many other kids would have been drafted from Solich's classes if they hadn't suffered under the "coaching development" of Callahan and crew.

 

And I forgot about Incognito so thanks for catching that. The Huskers' website does not count him as a drafted Cornhusker it appears because of his dismissal from the team in '04 (he's listed on the website but under the number of Huskers drafted that year they put '3' instead of '4.')

 

The question you pose at the end is interesting to consider. I'm not sure what to think about it. I think you could argue that perhaps more players would've been drafted from Solich's classes had Callahan not come along; but, to play Devil's Advocate a bit, you could also argue perhaps more players would've been drafted if Bo had never come along and Callahan stayed.

 

Certain players may have benefited under the tutelage of other staff, while players who ended up succeeding may not have been successful if they'd stuck with the previous staff. Does that make sense what I'm getting at?

 

I guess I'm just saying it's hard to determine because we'll never really know.

[Elf]

 

 

 

 

Just ask yourself, why would an AD who recently hired a coach who is in danger of having the worst season in 58 years go out of his way to get major state newspapers to publish an in-depth article about how poor the talent level is on the football team?

 

It's quite obvious to anyone with their eyes open.

I think it's obvious that anyone who has an axe to grind against the AD and coaching staff will read anything they can into it to make them look bad.

 

Thus it was a pretty poor choice to call up the newspapers and ask them to come do a story on it. Unless that was what you wanted to happen all along.

 

If that is how you want to look at it, fine. I read it differently because I don't hold the same opinions as some. I read the story and thought the same way BRB does in his comments a few posts ago.

 

It doesn't have to always be more to it like some people on here think.

 

Even other media guys and apparently those in the locker room were questioning the motives. So perhaps it's the people who don't want to believe a certain story line who are in the minority.

 

Does that make it the right narrative just because people question the motive? Sometimes an apple really is just an apple.

 

Honestly, I just see this as Boyd Epley doing his part to return us to greatness. He used to do this exact thing. Until it stopped during Frank's watch.

 

 

 

If we had testing results to compare with from the last 10-15 years, that would be a lot more interesting.

You said this earlier and I completely agree. I think this is a fantastic tool that we never should have stopped using.

[Husker Psycho]

I don't really disagree with the overall point that we need better athletes. This is a given. But what gets me, is that 1 year ago Eichhorst said we have the talent to win a championship now. He said a major reason we fired Bo was he didn't think he could guide us to a championship. Yet, here we are a year later, and they invite all the media out and put on a nice PR event. Whether or not it was their intent, it comes across as covering their backsides for a bad year.

 

 

Yep

 

But even worse, they threw the players under the bus in order to "cover their backsides".

 

And even worse than that... and the part I cant even hardly think about... is they appear to have used Boyds reputation and standing... the one guy who really does have a great reputation in the program... in their attempt to "cover their backsides". I really feel bad for Boyd.

 

If this had only been about performance testing and making those numbers public again then it wouldn't have been a problem. Virtually everyone agrees that's a good thing.

 

But when they injected the other needless and inflammatory stuff about needing to recruit "more talented" players and the stuff about the current players needing too much developing and coaching... in order to "cover their backsides for a bad year"... that's when the public relations scheme crashed in a ball of flames.

[RADAR]

 

I don't really disagree with the overall point that we need better athletes. This is a given. But what gets me, is that 1 year ago Eichhorst said we have the talent to win a championship now. He said a major reason we fired Bo was he didn't think he could guide us to a championship. Yet, here we are a year later, and they invite all the media out and put on a nice PR event. Whether or not it was their intent, it comes across as covering their backsides for a bad year.

 

 

Yep

 

But even worse, they threw the players under the bus in order to "cover their backsides".

 

And even worse than that... and the part I cant even hardly think about... is they appear to have used Boyds reputation and standing... the one guy who really does have a great reputation in the program... in their attempt to "cover their backsides". I really feel bad for Boyd.

 

If this had only been about performance testing and making those numbers public again then it wouldn't have been a problem. Virtually everyone agrees that's a good thing.

 

But when they injected the other needless and inflammatory stuff about needing to recruit "more talented" players and the stuff about the current players needing too much developing and coaching... in order to "cover their backsides for a bad year"... that's when the public relations scheme crashed in a ball of flames.

 

Anytime you and your ilk don't like the message, you call the messenger a liar. Its BS and its getting old.

[RADAR]

 

I don't really disagree with the overall point that we need better athletes. This is a given. But what gets me, is that 1 year ago Eichhorst said we have the talent to win a championship now. He said a major reason we fired Bo was he didn't think he could guide us to a championship. Yet, here we are a year later, and they invite all the media out and put on a nice PR event. Whether or not it was their intent, it comes across as covering their backsides for a bad year.

 

 

Yep

 

But even worse, they threw the players under the bus in order to "cover their backsides".

 

And even worse than that... and the part I cant even hardly think about... is they appear to have used Boyds reputation and standing... the one guy who really does have a great reputation in the program... in their attempt to "cover their backsides". I really feel bad for Boyd.

 

If this had only been about performance testing and making those numbers public again then it wouldn't have been a problem. Virtually everyone agrees that's a good thing.

 

But when they injected the other needless and inflammatory stuff about needing to recruit "more talented" players and the stuff about the current players needing too much developing and coaching... in order to "cover their backsides for a bad year"... that's when the public relations scheme crashed in a ball of flames.

 

Anytime you and your ilk don't like the message, you call the messenger a liar. Its BS and its getting old.

[teachercd]

You can say that again!

[Dr. Strangelove]

I don't really disagree with the overall point that we need better athletes. This is a given. But what gets me, is that 1 year ago Eichhorst said we have the talent to win a championship now. He said a major reason we fired Bo was he didn't think he could guide us to a championship. Yet, here we are a year later, and they invite all the media out and put on a nice PR event. Whether or not it was their intent, it comes across as covering their backsides for a bad year.

Which is even more funny as our recruiting class ranks outside the top 25 by every service and is in the mid 30s by 3 of them.

 

They say we don't have the talent now and that we'll have to get better. Yet the staff is bringing in what might be one of the worst recruiting class, according to the services, since 2000.

[DomiNUs]

 

I don't really disagree with the overall point that we need better athletes. This is a given. But what gets me, is that 1 year ago Eichhorst said we have the talent to win a championship now. He said a major reason we fired Bo was he didn't think he could guide us to a championship. Yet, here we are a year later, and they invite all the media out and put on a nice PR event. Whether or not it was their intent, it comes across as covering their backsides for a bad year.

 

 

Yep

 

But even worse, they threw the players under the bus in order to "cover their backsides".

 

And even worse than that... and the part I cant even hardly think about... is they appear to have used Boyds reputation and standing... the one guy who really does have a great reputation in the program... in their attempt to "cover their backsides". I really feel bad for Boyd.

 

If this had only been about performance testing and making those numbers public again then it wouldn't have been a problem. Virtually everyone agrees that's a good thing.

 

But when they injected the other needless and inflammatory stuff about needing to recruit "more talented" players and the stuff about the current players needing too much developing and coaching... in order to "cover their backsides for a bad year"... that's when the public relations scheme crashed in a ball of flames.

 

Yeah, poor Boyd is obviously the goat here. He really is an old timer just sitting around waiting for some evil AD to take advantage of him. Good grief.

[Sargon]

You can say that again!

Anytime you and your ilk don't like the message, you call the messenger a liar

 

 

 

 

[Saunders]

 

 

I don't really disagree with the overall point that we need better athletes. This is a given. But what gets me, is that 1 year ago Eichhorst said we have the talent to win a championship now. He said a major reason we fired Bo was he didn't think he could guide us to a championship. Yet, here we are a year later, and they invite all the media out and put on a nice PR event. Whether or not it was their intent, it comes across as covering their backsides for a bad year.

 

Yep

 

But even worse, they threw the players under the bus in order to "cover their backsides".

 

And even worse than that... and the part I cant even hardly think about... is they appear to have used Boyds reputation and standing... the one guy who really does have a great reputation in the program... in their attempt to "cover their backsides". I really feel bad for Boyd.

 

If this had only been about performance testing and making those numbers public again then it wouldn't have been a problem. Virtually everyone agrees that's a good thing.

 

But when they injected the other needless and inflammatory stuff about needing to recruit "more talented" players and the stuff about the current players needing too much developing and coaching... in order to "cover their backsides for a bad year"... that's when the public relations scheme crashed in a ball of flames.

Anytime you and your ilk don't like the message, you call the messenger a liar. Its BS and its getting old.

 

You do realize that the "messenger" said this a year ago...

 

"At the end of the day, I think we have kids in our program that are capable of winning championships."

 

http://www.cornnation.com/2014/11/30/7310255/nebraska-huskers-football-bo-pelini-shawn-eichorst-press-conference

 

 

So... what were you saying about lying again?

[cm husker]

The more I think about it, the more sense these results make, if they were taken during the past month. VB would have been conditioned for the beginning of their season. Men's football would have been worn down.

 

Wonder where men's basketball fell.

[RADAR]

 

 

 

I don't really disagree with the overall point that we need better athletes. This is a given. But what gets me, is that 1 year ago Eichhorst said we have the talent to win a championship now. He said a major reason we fired Bo was he didn't think he could guide us to a championship. Yet, here we are a year later, and they invite all the media out and put on a nice PR event. Whether or not it was their intent, it comes across as covering their backsides for a bad year.

 

Yep

 

But even worse, they threw the players under the bus in order to "cover their backsides".

 

And even worse than that... and the part I cant even hardly think about... is they appear to have used Boyds reputation and standing... the one guy who really does have a great reputation in the program... in their attempt to "cover their backsides". I really feel bad for Boyd.

 

If this had only been about performance testing and making those numbers public again then it wouldn't have been a problem. Virtually everyone agrees that's a good thing.

 

But when they injected the other needless and inflammatory stuff about needing to recruit "more talented" players and the stuff about the current players needing too much developing and coaching... in order to "cover their backsides for a bad year"... that's when the public relations scheme crashed in a ball of flames.

Anytime you and your ilk don't like the message, you call the messenger a liar. Its BS and its getting old.

 

You do realize that the "messenger" said this a year ago...

 

"At the end of the day, I think we have kids in our program that are capable of winning championships."

 

http://www.cornnation.com/2014/11/30/7310255/nebraska-huskers-football-bo-pelini-shawn-eichorst-press-conference

 

 

So... what were you saying about lying again?

 

So he realized he was wrong, big f'ing deal. That does not make him a liar. I have no doubt the Pelini fortress was hard to see inside. Think you can find that mountain after tripping over the mole hole?