Epley's comments on Talent

[Elf]

Frank's classss may have been declining from the mid 90s, but it was as good or better than what we've seen since then.

 

Or, Frank was a hell of a head coach.

 

I wonder what percentage of husker nation regrets his firing at this point. I would hope 99.9995%. If less, we still have too many people who will keep Nebraska football in serious trouble during the coming decade.

If Frank was a hell of a coach, then why isn't he in a better job than he currently holds? If he is this world beater coach, then why haven't top programs snatched him up? He's done alright in his current position but I wouldn't say he's set the world on fire.

 

I will say this about Frank, he was a hell of a running backs coach, HC...not so much.

[Husker Psycho]

Back to he subject. Because Boyd mentioned the importance of recruiting... and metrics...

 

 

This is quite simply the most astounding metric in the history of recruiting... uncovered by SB Nation last year.

 

It's very simple. EVERY team that has won the national championship in the last 10 years has recruited more 4 and 5 star players than 3 star or less players over the previous 4 years of signing classes.

 

100% of the teams (every team) that has won the national championship in the last 10 years has met that metric. In the last 10 years, if a team did not meet that metric they had 0% chance of winning the national championship. No team has won a national championship in the last 10 years without meeting that metric.

 

Examples.

 

Alabama: 2012 - 4&5 star = 17

3 star or less = 9

2013 - 4&5 star = 17

3 star or less = 8

2014 - 4&5 star = 19

3 star or less = 6

2015 - 4&5 star = 19

3 star or less = 5

4 year totals: 4&5 star = 72

3 star or less = 28

 

Ohio State: 2012 - 4&5 star = 16

3 star or less = 9

2013 - 4&5 star = 18

3 star or less = 6

2014 - 4&5 star = 16

3 star or less = 7

2015 - 4&5 star = 14

3 star or less = 12

4 year totals: 4&5 star = 64

3 star or less = 34

 

This metric is 100% accurate over the last 10 years. All teams that have won the national championship in the last 10 years have met the metric of recruiting more 4&5 star players than 3 star or less players over the previous 4 years of signing classes.

 

In this years playoff, only one team has met that metric... Alabama.

Clemson: 39 - 43

Oklahoma: 42 - 51

Michigan State: 20 - 54

 

This is an astounding predictive metric. We'll see if it holds up this year.

[Mavric]

 

And we don't have to consistently beat tOSU anyway. We wouldn't have had to beat them to win a championship this year. We wouldn't have to consistently beat them to win any conference titles. We only have to beat them in one game.

In order to compete for championships we have to be able to consistently beat the best teams in our conference. Right now, that is OSU. They have the most talent and the best HC.

 

 

No, we don't.

 

To compete for championships, we have to win our division. We dominated Iowa and Minnesota and played Wisconsin to the wire. We also beat the East's representative in the CCG.

 

To say we don't have the talent to compete with Ohio State when we beat the team that beat them is absurd.

[GBRedneck]

 

Frank's classss may have been declining from the mid 90s, but it was as good or better than what we've seen since then.

 

Or, Frank was a hell of a head coach.

 

I wonder what percentage of husker nation regrets his firing at this point. I would hope 99.9995%. If less, we still have too many people who will keep Nebraska football in serious trouble during the coming decade.

If Frank was a hell of a coach, then why isn't he in a better job than he currently holds? If he is this world beater coach, then why haven't top programs snatched him up? He's done alright in his current position but I wouldn't say he's set the world on fire.

 

I will say this about Frank, he was a hell of a running backs coach, HC...not so much.

 

He was obviously a helluva lot better than what we have now. That's not even debateable.

[Stumpy1]

Back to he subject. Because Boyd mentioned the importance of recruiting... and metrics...

 

 

This is quite simply the most astounding metric in the history of recruiting... uncovered by SB Nation last year.

 

It's very simple. EVERY team that has won the national championship in the last 10 years has recruited more 4 and 5 star players than 3 star or less players over the previous 4 years of signing classes.

 

100% of the teams (every team) that has won the national championship in the last 10 years has met that metric. In the last 10 years, if a team did not meet that metric they had 0% chance of winning the national championship. No team has won a national championship in the last 10 years without meeting that metric.

 

Examples.

 

Alabama: 2012 - 4&5 star = 17

3 star of less = 9

2013 - 4&5 star = 17

3 star or less = 8

2014 - 4&5 star = 19

3 star or less = 6

2015 - 4&5 star = 19

3 star or less = 5

4 year totals: 4&5 star = 72

3 star or less = 28

 

Ohio State: 2012 - 4&5 star = 16

3 star or less = 9

2013 - 4&5 star = 18

3 star or less = 6

2014 - 4&5 star = 16

3 star or less = 7

2015 - 4&5 star = 14

3 star or less = 12

4 year totals: 4&5 star = 64

3 star or less = 34

 

This metric is 100% accurate over the last 10 years. All teams that have won the national championship in the last 10 years have met the metric of recruiting more 4&5 star players than 3 star or less players over the previous 4 years of signing classes.

 

In this years playoff, the only one team has met that metric... Alabama.

Clemson: 39 - 43

Oklahoma: 42 - 51

Michigan State: 20 - 54

 

This is an astounding predictive metric. We'll see if it holds up this year.

Location, Location, Location.

 

If it were only that easy.

[Elf]

 

 

And we don't have to consistently beat tOSU anyway. We wouldn't have had to beat them to win a championship this year. We wouldn't have to consistently beat them to win any conference titles. We only have to beat them in one game.

In order to compete for championships we have to be able to consistently beat the best teams in our conference. Right now, that is OSU. They have the most talent and the best HC.

 

 

No, we don't.

 

To compete for championships, we have to win our division. We dominated Iowa and Minnesota and played Wisconsin to the wire. We also beat the East's representative in the CCG.

 

To say we don't have the talent to compete with Ohio State when we beat the team that beat them is absurd.

 

Competing means we have to have a chance at winning. If we don't meet or exceed the talent level of the OSU's of the world, our chances of winning diminish the greater that gap is. This is an incontrovertible fact. If you want to compete with the best, you HAVE to be able to beat them. You aren't going to consistently beat OSU's 4-5* roster with a 2-3* roster, or even a 3-4* roster.

[Mavric]

 

 

 

And we don't have to consistently beat tOSU anyway. We wouldn't have had to beat them to win a championship this year. We wouldn't have to consistently beat them to win any conference titles. We only have to beat them in one game.

In order to compete for championships we have to be able to consistently beat the best teams in our conference. Right now, that is OSU. They have the most talent and the best HC.

 

 

No, we don't.

 

To compete for championships, we have to win our division. We dominated Iowa and Minnesota and played Wisconsin to the wire. We also beat the East's representative in the CCG.

 

To say we don't have the talent to compete with Ohio State when we beat the team that beat them is absurd.

 

Competing means we have to have a chance at winning. If we don't meet or exceed the talent level of the OSU's of the world, our chances of winning diminish the greater that gap is. This is an incontrovertible fact. If you want to compete with the best, you HAVE to be able to beat them. You aren't going to consistently beat OSU's 4-5* roster with a 2-3* roster, or even a 3-4* roster.

 

 

So if we beat the best team in the conference this year...........

[RADAR]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, other than the fact that NU beat the team that won the B10E... And don't get me started on an average Florida team playing for an SEC championship.

 

NU has a talented roster.

If some on the board could drop their irrational dislike for the current staff, the answer is kinda simple. The roster is talented and deep in some positions (interior defensive players, wide receivers) and thin and less talented in others (QB, DE, LB). The roster is good in some spots and not so good in others. Does that make it talented or not talented, and how the hell do you decide?

 

According to some Nostradomi on this board roster depth and quality is the fault solely and exclusively of the current staff. I would include the intellectual giant who, in another thread, predicted the current staff will be gone next year.

Pretty simple: with similarly talented rosters, a fired coach won north of .700 of his games here.

 

Only when a coach comes in and lays an egg against a very easy schedule do we hear that the talent isn't there to continue 9+ win seasons. Of course, that's not what was said at the time of the firing last year. And it's not the case today, either.

 

The roster isn't perfect, but it's far better than the results that were wrung out of it.

 

Now cue: we only won last year because of a single player arguments.

 

Talent level under Frank was dropping, anyone who is honest can see that. Same with the last staff. MK III Eyeball Detector.

 

Frank had the #14 class in the country when he was fired, and he likely would've signed Woodhead.

 

 

 

Exposed again. You straight up invent crap to try to make a point.

 

http://dataomaha.com/neb100/player/60

 

"Danny Woodhead doesn’t dwell on not being recruited by Nebraska and why should he?"

 

HAHAHA! An article about Danny Woodhead not getting a scholarship from Callahan doesn't expose anything I said.

 

Solich had already recruited Woodhead to walkon, and if a bunch of blue chips didn't fall into place by signing day, he would have gotten a full ride.

 

Solich and Nebraska had only contacted Woodhead once. They didn't even recruit him to walk-on.

 

 

Bullsqueeze.

 

Solich had already asked Woodhead to walkon at the Huskers summer camp before his senior year. And then Solich was fired in November when Woodhead's senior season was barely over.

 

The misinformation spewed here by some is outrageous.

 

I'm not saying he was offered or even that he definitely would have been offered. What I'm saying is, if it had gotten near signing day and a spot or two was still open (which was usually the case with Solich) Woodhead would have been a likely recipient. But Callahan completely ignored him. So he accepted the Chadron State offer.

 

However disappointed that Nebraska contacted him once and never called back, Woodhead chose Division II Chadron State not so much as a consolation prize but as an opportunity to reunite with his older brother, Ben, a wide receiver.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/sports/football/danny-woodhead-is-a-big-talent-in-a-small-package.html?_r=0

 

Your article is from 2012. Funny how memories and stories change after 9 years. Let's look at something closer to the actual timeline:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/sports/ncaafootball/26back.html

 

Woodhead was named state player of the year as a senior at North Platte High School, when he led Class A with 2,037 yards and scored 31 touchdowns. That year, he was also the state’s top scorer in basketball, at 26 points a game, and led the soccer team in scoring in the spring. Before his senior year, Woodhead attended Nebraska’s summer football camp. He said he had several conversations with Nebraska’s coach at the time, Frank Solich, who encouraged him to walk on as a kick returner. “It was tough to swallow,” he said.

 

 

So yes, Solich was in touch, they had several conversations, he attended camp, he was asked to walkon, ALL before he even started his senior year.

 

Now stop the misinformation.

 

EDIT: I think your 2012 article was specifically talking about post-Solich. After Callahan was hired, Woodhead was contacted once about walking on and that was it.

 

You are correct. I read an article that interviewed Scott Dowling when he was HC of Northern Colorado and he did mention that they offered him as a walk-on. He did say that it did change when Callahan got hired. My apologies...

 

Thanks, Stumpy1. Much respect.

 

But be ready to suffer the wrath of RADAR!

 

You said that Solich would have likely "signed" Woodhead, of course that is total crap, Frank was never going to give him a scollie and did not do much to encourage him to walk on. If he thought he could be a returner, that means he never took him seriously as a running back. Danny knew that! Danny wanted a scholarship and the only one worth taking came from Chadron. End of story.

 

99.35% #BOOM

[junior4949]

 

Frank's classss may have been declining from the mid 90s, but it was as good or better than what we've seen since then.

 

Or, Frank was a hell of a head coach.

 

I wonder what percentage of husker nation regrets his firing at this point. I would hope 99.9995%. If less, we still have too many people who will keep Nebraska football in serious trouble during the coming decade.

If Frank was a hell of a coach, then why isn't he in a better job than he currently holds? If he is this world beater coach, then why haven't top programs snatched him up? He's done alright in his current position but I wouldn't say he's set the world on fire.

 

I will say this about Frank, he was a hell of a running backs coach, HC...not so much.

 

 

We have made two crucial errors which has led us to where we currently are. The first was TO pulling rank when $ Byrne wanted to offer Stoops the job when TO retired. The second was firing Solich. We have been paying for both errors going on two decades now. If Frank isn't a very good HC, why in the heck has he been nominated by his peers as the conference coach of the year three times in his HC career? Karma is a bitch, and we're still paying for firing Frank.

 

In terms of Danny Woodhead, he was never going to walk-on at Nebraska. If not given a scholarship, he was going to Chadron where his father once played. Blame whichever coach you want for this, but he wasn't going to be a Husker without a scholarship.

[Spooky Tooth]

 

 

Frank's classss may have been declining from the mid 90s, but it was as good or better than what we've seen since then.

 

Or, Frank was a hell of a head coach.

 

I wonder what percentage of husker nation regrets his firing at this point. I would hope 99.9995%. If less, we still have too many people who will keep Nebraska football in serious trouble during the coming decade.

If Frank was a hell of a coach, then why isn't he in a better job than he currently holds? If he is this world beater coach, then why haven't top programs snatched him up? He's done alright in his current position but I wouldn't say he's set the world on fire.

 

I will say this about Frank, he was a hell of a running backs coach, HC...not so much.

 

He was obviously a helluva lot better than what we have now. That's not even debateable.

 

 

 

Actually, it is debateable, hell, it's even debatable.

[Spooky Tooth]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, other than the fact that NU beat the team that won the B10E... And don't get me started on an average Florida team playing for an SEC championship.

 

NU has a talented roster.

If some on the board could drop their irrational dislike for the current staff, the answer is kinda simple. The roster is talented and deep in some positions (interior defensive players, wide receivers) and thin and less talented in others (QB, DE, LB). The roster is good in some spots and not so good in others. Does that make it talented or not talented, and how the hell do you decide?

 

According to some Nostradomi on this board roster depth and quality is the fault solely and exclusively of the current staff. I would include the intellectual giant who, in another thread, predicted the current staff will be gone next year.

Pretty simple: with similarly talented rosters, a fired coach won north of .700 of his games here.

 

Only when a coach comes in and lays an egg against a very easy schedule do we hear that the talent isn't there to continue 9+ win seasons. Of course, that's not what was said at the time of the firing last year. And it's not the case today, either.

 

The roster isn't perfect, but it's far better than the results that were wrung out of it.

 

Now cue: we only won last year because of a single player arguments.

 

Talent level under Frank was dropping, anyone who is honest can see that. Same with the last staff. MK III Eyeball Detector.

 

Frank had the #14 class in the country when he was fired, and he likely would've signed Woodhead.

 

 

 

Exposed again. You straight up invent crap to try to make a point.

 

http://dataomaha.com/neb100/player/60

 

"Danny Woodhead doesn’t dwell on not being recruited by Nebraska and why should he?"

 

HAHAHA! An article about Danny Woodhead not getting a scholarship from Callahan doesn't expose anything I said.

 

Solich had already recruited Woodhead to walkon, and if a bunch of blue chips didn't fall into place by signing day, he would have gotten a full ride.

 

 

 

Solich did not try to sign Woodhead. An offer to walk-on is different than recruiting him with a scholarship. You get caught again and rather than admitting it you try to move the goalposts again, eh?

[cm husker]

Spooky I am talking about actual talent as shown again and again on the field by play, in the games, this year. Game starting rosters. So no forecasting at all about it. This team did poorly in post season awards because they earned it with their play in games this year.

 

As for using supposed pre-season "talent" Phil Steele does it well. He does not include star power for players not on the team for example (because duh guys not on the team never make good contributions ). Returning starters are worth more cause on average they outperform the others. His predictions like all predictions will become less and less valid as important players miss time for whatever reason throughout the year or there's a 3* Johnny football surprise at QB.

 

I share your preference for 247 ranking. But signed talent is less and less useful as a proxy for actual talent on a team now, over time (one team retains and develops most 4-5 starts and another gets low performance out of em (poor for NU's 2011 class...Texas classes 2010 2011 and 2012 IIRC their NFL drafts hit the sh*t*r the last few years and that is mostly to do with the the old coaches recruiting not with the current coaches coaching).

 

Again, that 247 ranking accounts for attrition. It's based on current rosters.

 

As to the post-season awards, those tend to go to members of the most successful teams (not unlike the Heisman). It's hardly a great proxy for determining which teams have the best raw talent.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, other than the fact that NU beat the team that won the B10E... And don't get me started on an average Florida team playing for an SEC championship.

 

NU has a talented roster.

If some on the board could drop their irrational dislike for the current staff, the answer is kinda simple. The roster is talented and deep in some positions (interior defensive players, wide receivers) and thin and less talented in others (QB, DE, LB). The roster is good in some spots and not so good in others. Does that make it talented or not talented, and how the hell do you decide?

 

According to some Nostradomi on this board roster depth and quality is the fault solely and exclusively of the current staff. I would include the intellectual giant who, in another thread, predicted the current staff will be gone next year.

Pretty simple: with similarly talented rosters, a fired coach won north of .700 of his games here.

 

Only when a coach comes in and lays an egg against a very easy schedule do we hear that the talent isn't there to continue 9+ win seasons. Of course, that's not what was said at the time of the firing last year. And it's not the case today, either.

 

The roster isn't perfect, but it's far better than the results that were wrung out of it.

 

Now cue: we only won last year because of a single player arguments.

 

Talent level under Frank was dropping, anyone who is honest can see that. Same with the last staff. MK III Eyeball Detector.

 

Frank had the #14 class in the country when he was fired, and he likely would've signed Woodhead.

 

 

 

Exposed again. You straight up invent crap to try to make a point.

 

http://dataomaha.com/neb100/player/60

 

"Danny Woodhead doesn’t dwell on not being recruited by Nebraska and why should he?"

 

HAHAHA! An article about Danny Woodhead not getting a scholarship from Callahan doesn't expose anything I said.

 

Solich had already recruited Woodhead to walkon, and if a bunch of blue chips didn't fall into place by signing day, he would have gotten a full ride.

 

 

 

Solich did not try to sign Woodhead. An offer to walk-on is different than recruiting him with a scholarship. You get caught again and rather than admitting it you try to move the goalposts again, eh?

 

 

 

I believe that poster said that if Solich had a spot or two open at the end, Woodhead may have gotten a schollie. Seems he's been pretty consistent on the point.

 

By the way, back in the old days, preferred walkons were recruited just about as hard as most scholarship targets. Lots of contact, lots of opportunities.

 

FWIW, I don't know that woodhead would have had a very successful career at NU.As great as he is in a lot of ways, he wasn't suited for Solich's style of offense and I don't think Callahan would have given him much of an opportunity against the "name" backs he brought in.

[NebraskaShellback]

I am still waiting for results, not why we have a malfunction. Ask Harvey why we have a problem with changing direction of the football program and why the science does not add up. Info leakage is a wonderful tool to have but I do not buy it. Who is accountable for the misdirection of the football program, the regents, Harvey, AD or all the above?

[3rd and long]

 

 

 

 

 

I revert back to the statement where someone said they are thinking you really have no clue what you are talking about.[/size]

Of course, that's got to be it.

 

Chuck Norris described himself as being un-athletic and on top of that, he broke his shoulder during his first two weeks of marital arts training. Yet he retired as undefeated Middleweight Full Contact Karate champion. Do you think that was because of some "revealed talent" or because he practiced for five hours every day?

So....

 

You are honestly...with a straight face....telling me that if I had only worked harder when I was younger I could have been as good as Irving Fryer as a WR or Mike Rozier as a RB or Turner Gill as a QB...Or...if I so choose, I could have been the next Dave Rimington. All I was missing is the hard work they obviously put in.

Ben Hogan always said that anyone that didn't have some sort of physical disabilty could learn to shoot scratch golf. I agree with him. But most people aren't willing to put in the amount of effort required, mostly because there are no guarantees.

 

So in principle, I agree with Bowfin.

Ben Hogan was himself one of the greatest golfers of all time. But I'm not sure he's right about that. Ever hear about The Dan Plan? LINK Dan may be disproving what Ben Hogan said.

 

That said, I think it's clear that anyone can *improve* considerably with sufficient effort and training.

But Hogan followed his own advice. In the history of the world, no one spent more time on the practice range than Hogan. And he was the greatest golfer ever. If not for a horrific bus accident, he would've set records that no one would've ever touched.

I'm late to this thread but just couldn't let this go by. Hogan's putting would never have allowed him to take the titleof best ever, even if he had never been injured. And while he did "dig it out of the dirt", he also had an inherent amount of natural talent. And people who do have that natural talent don't realize that not everyone can do those same things so easily. There are scores of people that I'velayed with that, no matter how much time and work they put in, could never sniff scratch.

 

Much like athletes in anyother sport. Hard work will take you part way, but if the innate natural talents aren't there, it won't take a person to the top levels.