Epley's comments on Talent

[GBRedneck]

I am not saying Eppley is wrong, and I know that there was considerable lack of depth in quality talent. However, Eppley is now working for Riley and the Athletic Department, which he wasn't doing under Bo. There could be a bit of his commentary meant to cover Riley's/Eichorst's ass here.

 

NU fans are not happy with the 5-7 record and Eichorst knows that. But, Eichorst also knows that Eppley is very well regarded by NU fans, so maybe Eichorst sent out Eppley to do some PR work with both major news outlets in the state.

The amount of propaganda coming out of the AD rivals that of the Pedey regime.

[Red Five]

I am not saying Eppley is wrong, and I know that there was considerable lack of depth in quality talent. However, Eppley is now working for Riley and the Athletic Department, which he wasn't doing under Bo. There could be a bit of his commentary meant to cover Riley's/Eichorst's ass here.

 

NU fans are not happy with the 5-7 record and Eichorst knows that. But, Eichorst also knows that Eppley is very well regarded by NU fans, so maybe Eichorst sent out Eppley to do some PR work with both major news outlets in the state.

So is Eppley making up the stats/scores that he is talking about?

[ColoradoHusk]

 

I am not saying Eppley is wrong, and I know that there was considerable lack of depth in quality talent. However, Eppley is now working for Riley and the Athletic Department, which he wasn't doing under Bo. There could be a bit of his commentary meant to cover Riley's/Eichorst's ass here.

 

NU fans are not happy with the 5-7 record and Eichorst knows that. But, Eichorst also knows that Eppley is very well regarded by NU fans, so maybe Eichorst sent out Eppley to do some PR work with both major news outlets in the state.

So is Eppley making up the stats/scores that he is talking about?

 

I am not saying he is making up stats and scores. But, for him to come out with these strong opinions after such a crappy year seems like a bit of PR work by the Athletic Department.

[Husker Psycho]

 

I am not saying Eppley is wrong, and I know that there was considerable lack of depth in quality talent. However, Eppley is now working for Riley and the Athletic Department, which he wasn't doing under Bo. There could be a bit of his commentary meant to cover Riley's/Eichorst's ass here.

 

NU fans are not happy with the 5-7 record and Eichorst knows that. But, Eichorst also knows that Eppley is very well regarded by NU fans, so maybe Eichorst sent out Eppley to do some PR work with both major news outlets in the state.

The amount of propaganda coming out of the AD rivals that of the Pedey regime.

 

 

You two know what's going on. Smart

[TheSker]

 

I am not saying he is making up stats and scores. But, for him to come out with these strong opinions after such a crappy year seems like a bit of PR work by the Athletic Department.

 

 

 

This.

[BigRedBuster]

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.

[BigRedBuster]

It would be interesting to know how the points are calculated so HS kids could test themselves and get an idea of where they are.

 

This would be huge for in state kids that might have the facilities to work hard and improve but they don't know where they need to be.

[Stumpy1]

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.

[Husker Psycho]

Boyd: "but in football we need to do a better job of bringing in talented recruits so we don't have to do quite so much development or quite so much coaching."

 

 

So here is the trend in bringing in more talented recruits.

 

Nebraska's recruiting class rankings since 2010:

2010: 22nd

2011: 15th

2012: 25th

2013: 17th

 

2014: 32nd

2015: 31st

2016: 44th (currently)

 

Notice the last three years.

 

So Boyd got the solution correct... but are we actually doing that or are we headed the opposite direction?

[beorach]

I enjoy that someone spins Boyd's words of "we're a year and half away," meaning they are a year and a half away from athleticism levels he believes is championship material, and then turding another thread up into a Bo vs Riley record sh#tstorm. This sh#t is outplayed.

When just hitting the plus for this is not enough...

 

C'mon, guys - let's try to read, comprehend, and live in the now. Nobody's happy about the record but some of us can still hope and even some who can't (hope) still manage to refrain from regularly attacking their peers.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

I am not saying Eppley is wrong, and I know that there was considerable lack of depth in quality talent. However, Eppley is now working for Riley and the Athletic Department, which he wasn't doing under Bo. There could be a bit of his commentary meant to cover Riley's/Eichorst's ass here.

 

NU fans are not happy with the 5-7 record and Eichorst knows that. But, Eichorst also knows that Eppley is very well regarded by NU fans, so maybe Eichorst sent out Eppley to do some PR work with both major news outlets in the state.

So is Eppley making up the stats/scores that he is talking about?

 

I am not saying he is making up stats and scores. But, for him to come out with these strong opinions after such a crappy year seems like a bit of PR work by the Athletic Department.

 

 

Sure. There could be a bit of PR push in this. If the Athletic Department isn't out there promoting a positive, fixable message for the football program, it isn't doing its job.

 

They certainly made an effort to present Bo Pelini as warmer and more human.

 

It's certainly possible to take Eppley at his word, too. I'm not seeing much spin either way.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I'll take "What People Wearing Tinfoil Hats Would Say" for $1200, Alex.

 

There's nothing to say that Bo Pelini would've had won at least 9 games this year. He probably could've had a better season than 5-7, but that's partly attributable to having his guys for his system.

 

Believe it or not, there is a lot of adjustment that needs to be made when a new coaching staff takes over and implements their system. Yes, I think we were fed a damned lie from MR when he said that he was going to match the system to the players, although we don't truly know the intent behind that statement. He could've easily meant that looking towards Year 2-5 rather than the present year. Regardless, it's not surprising that Nebraska played its best football during November, they were starting to show signs of meshing into both Langsdorf's and Banker's systems. Take just 1 INT and those 2 big runs by Canzeri away (Gerry would've been the safety there) and you have a completely different game.

 

But back to Bo, is anyone surprised that he recorded his worst winning percentage as a HC his first year at YSU? He's facing the same problems as MR faces in his first year at Nebraska. Let's just see what Nebraska looks like over the next couple years.

 

You set a dangerous expectation among fans wen you fire a coach that wins 9 games every year. But, as an AD what do you do when you can only win 9 games a year with 0 conference titles? I applaud Eichorst for taking the risk. If Mike doesn't work out, Eichorst will more than likely be gone as well, but well have to wait and see what plays out on the field.

[NUance]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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?

[cm husker]

We have 3 NFL caliber athletes, 7 above average, a significant number average, and around 20 walk on caliber.

 

I cant link via mobile. I read the Journal Star article, OWH has one too.

 

Epley says Phillips is doing best he can but we need 1.5 years to get the talent we need.

 

If he really said that, I'm seriously curious how he thinks there are only 3 NFL caliber players right now. Did he mean on the roster or in the senior class? 20 "walk on caliber" athletes wouldn't be surprising on the roster, as we have a number of walkons.

 

But I would be shocked if there are only 3 players registering as "NFL caliber" players, because I can think of about a dozen guys off the top of my head who will likely be actually drafted and more who will get a look in free agency (let alone who demonstrate pure "NFL athleticism" based on the index). If he's talking about just the senior class, then these numbers are hardly alarming. 3 guys drafted per year isn't that far out of line with NU's historical 1-6 rounds drafts.

 

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.

I do find it interesting that he (and posters here) want to compare it to the 90s talent. Well, two things: (1) compare almost any team this year to the 90s talent, and you'll see some deficiencies in this year's teams, and (2) the OL talent on those teams was largely (like 50%) homegrown. Should we blame the Nebraska moms for the inability to recruit significant numbers of elite OL talent since then?

 

Finally, this quote demonstrates why Boyd is a strength coach, and not an actual team coach, or it means that Boyd recognizes that current coaching talent isn't going to bridge the gap.

 

"we need to do a better job of bringing in talented recruits so we don’t have to do quite so much development or quite so much coaching"

 

[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.