Epley's comments on Talent

[BigRedBuster]

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.

I really don't care if I'm in the minority. Is it always right to just always have the same attitude as everyone else?

 

[BigRedBuster]

So....let me ask this.

After this season, what would the fans be saying if all we got were a bunch of positive pieces about the program.

I'll tell you....they would be saying its s bunch of crap.

So...I guess the fans are going to b!^@h with what ever is said.

So...pardon me if I don't just follow the crowd.

 

[hskrpwr13]

If you're in the camp that believes this was a BS PR move, then at the same time you should welcome this data, assuming we continue to receive it. The future numbers will either prove that Riley can or can't bring in the talent, and those results may provide additional proof on whether or not Riley and staff can or can't scheme and develop players. If the numbers prove a negative, then you have the necessary artifacts (besided W/L record) to demand change.

 

[RADAR]

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.

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

 

[RADAR]

The volleyball team has 25% of its players testing at an elite level - The win a National Championship

The football team has 2% of its players testing at an elite level - Now where close to championship level as a team.

Humm! lets shoot the messenger instead of discussing how we got here.

 

[Mavric]

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.

 

[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.

 

[StPaulHusker]

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.

 

[RADAR]

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.

I think it would be pretty easy to figure out that the overall level is not up to par with the 90's, The 9 win seasons and 5 win season are about the same, we are irrelevant as a football program until we get better talent.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

There is a common thread to all our coaching threads.

Since Tom Osborne left and Frank Solich took over, conventional wisdom says Nebraska's recruiting has been on a slow, consistent decline.

We can debate all we want about the real reason for Frank's dismissal, and whether his firing was a mistake, but if you can put yourself back in the moment you'll remember believing the buzz: Nebraska just wasn't getting the elite recruits anymore, the rest of college football had caught up with and surpassed Nebraska. Whatever it was we were doing four years after Osborne's last recruits graduated, we needed to be doing something different.

There is PR at work here, and it is no doubt designed to shore up Mike Riley.

It also seems to be accurate and fair.

Like everything else in life, Nebraska football is about expectation management. If we expect to do better on the football field, Boyd Epley's advice should be heeded.

That it might not come overnight -- or with a new head coach -- is the only thing a sensible person would say.

Mike Riley might not be the guy. But given that recruiting was considered his strength, it might be prudent to give him a couple seasons.

The article uses a highly respected Husker legend -- the guy who understands how the glory days worked -- to speak directly to fans and give them the current layout of college sports.

The message is recruiting, S&C and a little bit of patience.

It's a message that helps Shawn Eichorst protect the first year coach he hired. But it's not wrong. And it's a good article.

 

[GBRedneck]

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.

I think it would be pretty easy to figure out that the overall level is not up to par with the 90's, The 9 win seasons and 5 win season are about the same, we are irrelevant as a football program until we get better talent.

9=5. Another RADAR fact.

 

[4skers89]

If you're in the camp that believes this was a BS PR move, then at the same time you should welcome this data, assuming we continue to receive it. The future numbers will either prove that Riley can or can't bring in the talent, and those results may provide additional proof on whether or not Riley and staff can or can't scheme and develop players. If the numbers prove a negative, then you have the necessary artifacts (besided W/L record) to demand change.

You kind of touch on an idea I had. If this was some kind of BS PR move to take the heat off of the coaching staff, they didn't think it through. One could interpret the narrative being a lack of talent is the reason for a very bad season. On the other hand the story indicates that recruiting better talent is what is needed which creates an expectation. It is on the coaches to recruit better talent (and develop it as you state) so it really has the opposite effect on the temperature of coaching staff's seat. I would guess that the athletic department's thinking to release this information is more along the lines of "let's try something different and see if it leads to success".

Personally, I like the idea. Setting clear expectations, measuring performance and providing regular feedback always seems to work the best. This is a very objective way of measuring physical development.

 

[cm husker]

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.

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

The results aren't all that telling or otherwise unusual.

It would be nice to see the full list, even without names, but if most guys were above 1500, only about 20 were at "walk on" range or whatever, and only a handful are pro level at this point, then that sounds pretty typical of a lot of teams between the top 15 and top 40.

For example, we have at least 20 freshman/redshirt walkons on the roster... so it follows we'd have about 20 guys testing in that range.

The problem I have isn't with the results. It's with the comments by Epley that we "obviously have talent deficiencies along the OL.. anyone can see that." That's a completely unnecessary call out.

Question: When were these tests administered?

This is an important question because it relates to an issue that's being overlooked. This test is comprised exclusively of "leg work." At the end of the season, when you've played 12 games (and in the case of the OL, without almost any substitution), your legs are dead. That's why combine participants let themselves rest a ton before turning back to the workouts that get them in peak condition for combine tests.

It doesn't surprise me at all that OLmen would test poorly if the tests were held after thanksgiving/early december. Or that RBs, who saw the most substitution and least wear and tear, would test the best.

Seems like lazy/incomplete analysis by either the reporters or Epley.

 

[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.

 

[4skers89]

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.

Good point. It is apparently contradictory. Eichorst was in a difficult position and he had to come up with reasons to fire a consistent 9 win coach. It could be that at the time he really believed that we had the talent and now Epley has shown that not to be the case. Maybe he was considering the talent that Bo did have which is no longer on the team. His opinion that we should be winning championships is shared by many. OK, how do I get paid? Seriously though, hopefully a sharp reporter will challenge Eichorst on that statement given this latest revelation.