SEARCHBITS XXXIII: HONEYMOON OVER! GRAARGH! Comment Count

Brian

16148512435_1a640e0b7b_z

IT'S OVER [Bryan Fuller]

OMG HIRE SOMEONE. Noted failure Jim Harbaugh has yet to assemble his staff and has even seen a few dudes stay where they are once their schools belly up with big-ass raises and titles like King Of East Besserabia, and people are starting to notice. The always on point Football Scoop:

Srs. Get this jackwagon out of here so we can go after Joe Moglia, that's what I say.

(Also Bacon immediately said WHOOPS after his Harbaugh Big Game Hunter tweet, because he then read twitter. Protip: always read twitter before twittering.

Roussel is frosty after Bacon twitter-broke the hire to the point where he'll ignore the fact that Durkin was heavily rumored for weeks before Lance Anderson's name ever came up and that speculation about Greg Roman was extremely weak. But whatever. Guy was outstandingly wrong for a solid month.)

HIRE THAT GUY IN FACT. After weeks and weeks of Wheatley-related rumors, there is finally a concrete indicator that it's happening from Angelique:

…word is former Michigan running back Tyrone Wheatley, most recently an assistant with the Bills, is expected in Ann Arbor this week to discuss the opening.

Sam Webb confirmed. Need some sort of Ty Wheatley in a hat taking a sled through Canada gif for this.

Wheatley is of course in limbo after Doug Marrone quit the Bills. Marrone's interviewing with the Jets, and I find it hard to believe that he's not locked in there. You do not walk away from an NFL head coach job without something in your pocket. (This is why you shouldn't get all hyped up about Jim Mora interviewing there and perhaps knocking some recruits to Ann Arbor by leaving.) Would he take Wheatley with him? Would it matter? I don't know, but there's not much uncertainty at Michigan and about as much money these days.

WITHER THAT OTHER GUY. Angelique also has details on what's going down with Fred Jackson: he filed benefit paperwork because his contract is up but hopes to continue coaching. I don't think that'll be at Michigan if he does continue.

Tolbert_Kevin_ci[1]

THE OTHER OBVIOUS S&C GUY. People have been talking about Kevin Tolbert, an assistant S&C coach with the 49ers who was with Harbaugh at Stanford and worked under Mike Gittleson at Michigan from 2001 to '07 before that, since Harbaugh started happening, and he's supposed to be in town today as well.

Tolbert's a Navy alum who started at fullback for three years and has evidently impressed Harbaugh enough for him to have him around wherever he goes. Missing on Shannon Turley is a disappointment but he'll probably be fine—Harbaugh don't play around with guys who aren't hypercompetitive. Hopefully he's no longer a High Intensity Training advocate, if only to save us from people on message boards muttering darkly about the stone-age training Michigan is using. I don't think it'll be much of an issue with Tolbert's last eight years in the cutting edge Stanford and 49ers programs.

I'm not entirely sure but the internet seems to think that Tolbert was also this guy back in the day:

images[1]

So… okay. There is also a painting by Sandra Gittleson of a Kevin Tolbert-looking guy lifting that anvil.

IF NOT MORTON, THEN THIS GUY? This gentleman is also an old-time Harbaugh associate:

Before taking the SJSU job two years ago, Dougherty had been the WR coach at Washington for four years and QB coach under Harbaugh at USD before that—Harbaugh in fact inherited him. He'd probably just be coming as a position coach if he did end up here, but these days that's a major pay bump. Dougherty made under 200k last year and would probably be looking at a 50% raise even if he was just a plain old WR coach. He's very accessible.

FWIW, San Jose State was miserable this year, but that is nearly always the case. In 2013 the Spartans were 30th in FEI as they nearly scraped a bowl; their QB graduated and that was it for acceptable offense in San Jose.  In his lone year with the passing game coordinator title at Washington the Huskies were 13th in FEI, 38th in S&P passing.

UPDATED GUESSOCHART. As it currently stands:

OFFENSE Coach confidence DEFENSE coach confidence
OC Tim Drevno lock DC DJ Durkin lock
QB Jim Harbaugh lock DL Durkin lock
RB Ty Wheatley probable LB Greg Mattison lock
WR John Morton maybe OLB/DE Roy Manning probable
OL Bill Bendenbaugh none DB Greg Jackson maybe
TE ??? none ST ??? none

OTHERS: Mike Hart (RB), Jimmie Dougherty (WR).

Bendenbaugh is Oklahoma's OL coach; Sam brought him up as a possibility a little bit ago. With Oklahoma in the midst of staff turmoil he may jump over. This configuration currently has four guys on each side of the ball with Harbaugh being Harbaugh and a wildcard for TE/ST or possibly a CB/S secondary split. With Marrow out of the picture there's a spot for some guy to come in and recruit his ass off.

Comments

Magnus

January 6th, 2015 at 12:27 PM ^

Name a "proven" running back whisperer. Go!

...

...

...

Okay, now that that experiment is over, let's just all realize that "great" running back coaches don't exist. Running back is a position that is mostly based on talent. Are you fast? Can you see holes? Can you run through a tackle? Hold on to that ball, dammit!

Okay, there. I just went through everything you need to know to coach running backs.*

The fact is that coaching running backs isn't about technique. Coaching running backs is largely about explaining assignments and then recruiting. Running backs enter college, and they're generally good or they're not. This is not a position where a fifth year senior is significantly better than the baby-faced true freshman. Quarterbacks need a lot of coaching. Offensive linemen need a lot of coaching. Defensive linemen who aren't total freaks need a lot of coaching. Safeties need coaching. Hell, wide receiver is a more technical position than running back.

*Not really. There's more to it than that.

Magnus

January 6th, 2015 at 12:42 PM ^

Somewhat, yes. Partly because I don't know whose decision it was to a) recruit certain players or b) put certain players on the field. The head coach is ultimately responsible for who's on the team. Vincent Smith was the "feature" back here for a while, but he fit more of what Rodriguez wanted than what Jackson has historically coached. Once Rodriguez was gone, Jackson/Hoke put somebody else on the field.

I also don't think Jackson forgot how to coach. So he either got lucky with all those guys from the mid-1990's through 2007 (and unlucky in the subsequent years), or he is a good coach who got saddled with some players who couldn't do the job up to his standards.

I do think the Fred Jackson hate is too much. Is he the right man to work with Harbaugh, the current staff, etc.? I don't know the answer to that one.

dragonchild

January 6th, 2015 at 12:52 PM ^

"I also don't think Jackson forgot how to coach. So he either got lucky with all those guys from the mid-1990's through 2007 (and unlucky in the subsequent years), or he is a good coach who got saddled with some players who couldn't do the job up to his standards."

Or he got old.  The dude's 64.  It may just be he can't handle the 17-hour days as well as he used to.  It's fair to appreciate one's past contributions while pointing out they're no longer an asset.  No one deserves a coaching spot as a gold watch; it's not fair to the players.

Magnus

January 6th, 2015 at 1:11 PM ^

I fail to see how that might be manifesting itself. Is he falling asleep at 8:00 p.m. in the middle of coaches' meetings? Is he too slow in his motorized wheelchair to get from drill to drill on the practice field? Is his hearing so bad that he can't hear on the head-set whether to send in Justice Hayes or De'Veon Smith?

I fully understand the possibility that he might not fit with Harbaugh, and if he's not up to the job, he shouldn't have the job. But that doesn't mean he's been a terrible coach since 2008, one year removed from coaching Michigan's all-time leading rusher - a kid who was credited for being a great leader and a heady player. Unless he got in a debilitating accident, he didn't forget how to coach from about January 1, 2008 to August 30, 2008.

dragonchild

January 6th, 2015 at 1:23 PM ^

How do you go from basically dismissing the RB coach as a glorified recruiting position to defending Jackson's record by crediting him with past performance?  I'm the one making the case that the RB coach is accountable, and in that context I don't care what happened in 2008.  Fred was still in his 50s in 2008.

I guess you've never seen someone grow old, but they can hit a wall pretty hard.  Anyway, it doesn't matter.  Keeping him or not will be Harbaugh's decision, making this an academic discussion.  But while I don't hate Jackson, I also think the justification for keeping him around this long basically amounts to what he did 5+ years ago, which is a very irresponsible argument to make.

Magnus

January 6th, 2015 at 1:53 PM ^

"How do you go from basically dismissing the RB coach as a glorified recruiting position to defending Jackson's record by crediting him with past performance? "

That's part of the issue. He's either responsible or he's not. We can't have it both ways. He either deserves credit (for coaching Biakabutuka, Thomas, Perry, Hart, etc.), or he doesn't (it's all about pure talent).

Another irresponsible argument to make (not that this is YOUR argument) is that the running game has been bad and, therefore, the running back coach is bad.

The following isn't entirely related to our argument but worth noting, in my opinion:

Personally, I have a feeling that Rodriguez was the one who wanted Vincent Smith and Sam McGuffie on the field. It's not always the running back coach who makes the running back personnel decisions. Rodriguez was very involved in the offense, whereas Carr and Hoke were both a little more hands-off, CEO types when it came to offense.

InterM

January 6th, 2015 at 2:36 PM ^

From the number of times you gratuitously mention Vincent Smith, it seems like your argument boils down to "Fred Jackson can still coach if not saddled with the likes of Vincent Smith."  Vincent Smith did just fine, thank you, when used in an appropriate role, whether under Rodriguez or Hoke.  His numbers were virtually identical in 2009 under Rodriguez (5.8 YPC in 48 carries) and in 2011 under Hoke (6.0 YPC in 50 carries).  The only year he was arguably more of a "feature" back was 2010, when he averaged 4.4 YPC in 136 carries.  While that's not too shabby in itself, Rodriguez's other choices for a "feature" back that year were Shaw, Hopkins, a redshirt freshman Toussaint who hardly played and wasn't healthy, and of course the Magnus favorite, Mike Cox.  If you're going to accuse Vincent Smith of unfairly dragging down the coaching reputation of Fred Jackson, then presumably the running game has rebounded in the couple of years since Jackson is no longer saddled with him, and instead has some new blue-chip recruits to work with?  Yeah, not so much . . . .

Magnus

January 6th, 2015 at 5:36 PM ^

You're taking this too personally. From 2010 to 2014, the running backs deployed did not produce much, except for Toussaint in 2011. Vincent Smith was not very good in 2010, whether you like it or not. There was a decent offensive line and a great running threat at the QB position (Denard Robinson, obviously), but Smith didn't have very good speed and didn't break tackles. There is a reason that Smith did not get a sniff at the NFL, and there's a reason he's hanging out on this blog occasionally and doing what he does. All that is fine, but a couple of the other guys on those teams (Brandon Minor, Michael Cox) got a chance at the NFL, and Cox is still in the league. I think that's decent enough evidence that maybe - despite you implying that I was somehow misguided in my desire for Cox to play - I was right about it all along. Heck, even Toussaint - poor damn Toussaint, the guy who looked lost in 2013 - hung around with the Ravens all year.

Smith absolutely had a role on Michigan's team. He was a very good pass blocker, and I thought he did a great job as Borges's third down back. Alas, he should not have been our top running back in 2010. Michael Shaw had better numbers (5.4 yards/carry to 4.4 yards/carry, 9 touchdowns to 5 touchdowns on a little more than half the carries), and Michael Cox was a better runner (he got drafted and is still in the NFL, although he broke his leg and finished the year on IR).

It's not a knock on Smith. I think he maxed out his talent. But the fact is that he was not up to the standard set for most of the last 40 years when it comes to on-field performance. His 4.4 yards/carry was not impressive as a feature guy, he didn't break enough tackles, and the only team he looked fast enough against was Indiana when he broke something like a 55-yarder. If we're being honest, we would choose just about every other back over him going back as far as I can remember - Toussaint, Minor, Hart, Perry, Askew, Thomas, Howard, Biakabutuka, Wheatley, Powers, Hoard, Vaughn, etc. I don't think you can make an "all-time depth chart" and honestly put Smith on the list ahead of any of those guys. Can you?

Kfojames

January 6th, 2015 at 10:54 PM ^

I think that there is an element that may be overlooked. And that is intensity. Which age could play a factor for that with Jackson. Harbaugh is an intense guy, same with Drevno, Durkin, and probably 98 percent of everyone JH will hire. Even Mattison with being a little older is still pretty passionate and intense. I'm not saying Fred can't coach but he may not line up with what JH wants. Just my thought on it FWIW

UMaD

January 6th, 2015 at 12:44 PM ^

You're 90% right, but guys do improve with good coaching.  (e.g., Chris Perry got a lot better at catching and blocking and not being dumb from his freshman to senior year.  Vincent Smith wasn't immediately a blitz-killing pass-protector.)

Fred Jackson is past his time and gets a lot of disrespect around here, but over the years he made some not-especially talented ball-carriers into high NFL draft picks by making them reliable blockers and pass-catchers who knew what they were doing wether they got the ball or not.  None of these Michigan backs ever amounted to much as NFL ball-carriers but he got them drafted.  Some of that had to do with MIchigan's OLs, sure, but Jackson's RBs were always well-prepared and well-coached professional backs.

dragonchild

January 6th, 2015 at 12:46 PM ^

You can't coach a bad running back into a great one, but the RB coach isn't there to coach instinct.  He's there to coach the plays.

Namely, the counters and pass protection.  If you can sell the counter and pick up the blitz, that opens things up in the core running game (or at least prevents you from being part of the problem).  If you allow defenses to key on your motion and don't bother protecting the QB, you've done the defense's job for them.  They can lock you down.  A bad RB can shut down an offense all by himself for reasons that have nothing to do with carrying the rock, and that indeed has happened in the last year.  Michigan's RB coaching has been terrible.

Which is why I'm leery of going after a familiar name for the sake of having a familiar name.  Hey if he's up to the task then OK, but Stanford's offense very much relied on disciplined RB play so it's not a piece we can afford to cut corners off.  Needless to say, I expect Harbaugh to get that so I'm content to sit back and see what name we wind up with.  I just can't get worked up about Wheatley's hype by fiat.

Magnus

January 6th, 2015 at 12:59 PM ^

I knew at least one person would miss the point, and the first person is you.

The point is that teaching assignments, footwork, etc. is the easy part. If you think Fred Jackson can't teach Derrick Green to take two shuffle steps to his right before planting with his right foot and following the pulling guard back to the left and reading the inside linebacker on a counter play, then you're basically calling him a moron. These are not things that pass you by. The thing that hurts you as an aging coach is not understanding the evolution of the game (which isn't really an issue as a running backs coach).

With the bad offensive play over the past couple years, I would say there are bigger problems than running back coaching - such as offensive play calling, offensive line technique, a lack of speed to stretch the field at wide receiver, etc. If Michigan had an offensive line that could open holes consistently, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

dragonchild

January 6th, 2015 at 1:15 PM ^

"Are you fast? Can you see holes? Can you run through a tackle? Hold on to that ball, dammit! Okay, there. I just went through everything you need to know to coach running backs."

Asterisk noted.  Look, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that there was a point you were trying to make, but in that case what you said and meant were entirely different things.  Not trying to start a fight, so here's a tip:  You can't make a case in earnest AND be snarky at the same time.  Pick a tone and be aware of the sort of responses it'll get.  We can't read your mind.

Anyway, our RB play -- independent of O-line as documented in UFR -- has been terrible of late, and that includes "easy" part like pass pro or even just following the damn blocking, so there's ample evidence that Jackson isn't even doing what you call the "easy" part.

I'm not calling Jackson a moron (thanks for the blatantly loaded argument though); I'm saying he's done.  There's no shame or disrespect in that.  There is, however, a danger in abusing the notion of loyalty or tenure.  He's accountable to players, people with something to lose, so if he's incapable of meeting the expectations of the job he needs to go.  The burden of proof isn't on me; he need to constantly prove himself like anyone else, and the performance of our RBs has been anything but consistent of late.  At the very least, I'd say someone else certainly deserves a shot.  Jackson can stay if at the end of the day he's shown he's the best candidate, but I'm skeptical.

Magnus

January 6th, 2015 at 1:25 PM ^

You can be skeptical all you want. (Isn't that nice of me to allow it?) What I said in my original post above is that the hatred for Fred Jackson is over the line. I'm not saying he deserves to keep his job because, by golly, he's been here for a long time. It's a new head coach with different ideas, a different personality, etc.

I guess one of my points is that people look at the anemic running game and immediately blame the running backs coach, as if blocking, play calling, etc. don't have anything to do with it. Half the people calling for Jackson's head also believe that the customer service guy on the phone at Comcast is the one who determines the price of cable these days.

dragonchild

January 6th, 2015 at 1:34 PM ^

FWIW I'm not one of those people.  I don't blame Jackson for everything that has gone wrong with our offense.  MGoBlog has done breakdowns that show when a TFL had nothing to do with the RB. . . and plays where the RBs set new expectations for buffoonery.  Replacing Jackson isn't going to fix the offense.  But keeping him will certainly blunt any improvement.

I mean, when Fitz is running around Gallon's block, turning an easy TD run into a short gain, it's on Fred to fix that.  Granted the RB play dramatically improved the next week, but at that point it had to have gotten everyone's attention when it's the RB coach's job to make sure it never gets that bad in the first place.

My impression is that Fred hasn't forgotten the concepts, but shows the characteristic decline in focus that afflicts most people aging in extremely demanding jobs.  Coaching kids requires inexhaustible energy that very few people his age can maintain so it's not like he's a special case here.

Magnus

January 6th, 2015 at 1:44 PM ^

Bad plays are going to happen. It's also someone's job to make sure that NFL centers snap the ball directly into the quarterback's chest on time, but the first snap of last year's Super Bowl sailed past Peyton Manning and into the endzone. I don't blame Denver's offensive line coach.

I think the point of the UFR is to identify overall trends, but it often seems to point out a single bad play or weakness that a lot of people point to and say "Jeez, this guy sucks because he got blown up by a double-team!" Personally, I look at two regimes that saw the head coach get fired (Rodriguez, Hoke), and yet the one guy who has lasted from Moeller to Carr to Rodriguez to Hoke is Fred Jackson. Four consecutive guys thought he was the best man for the job when there were eight other guys who could have stuck around with each coaching change. The guy must know a little something, and I'm guessing four consecutive FBS coaches are a little more in the know than random message board posters (not you, maybe, but lots of others).

Magnus

January 6th, 2015 at 1:35 PM ^

It's still a position that needs to be taught. It just doesn't take a genius to do it.

Let's look at this in reverse. Roy Manning was the running backs coach at Cincinnati in 2012. Manning was a linebacker/defensive end and then was a grad assistant on the offensive line, but that first year coaching running backs, George Winn had 1,334 yards, 5.5 yards/carry, and 13 touchdowns; Winn was named Second Team All-Big East. His backup averaged 5.3 yards/carry and had 366 yards and 3 touchdowns.

Is Manning such a genius that he picked up all the intricate nuances of the running back position in one off-season? If he is, then why did Michigan's cornerbacks regress this season and only make 2 interceptions when they have a genius for a position coach? Or could it be that as a very green coach at that position, the running back himself, the play calling, and the offensive line just combined to make him second-team all-conference?

CoachBP6

January 7th, 2015 at 6:12 AM ^

There is plenty of stuff you can teach to RB's to make their game more well rounded. At the college level there is a lot to work on. There are some RB's out there that are just flat out naturally gifted and flourish immediately with little to no coaching on this level. However for every 1 supremely gifted RB there are many that must constantly work on their craft to get better.

When I moved from passing game coordinator to full time OC I spent a lot of time studying the position. There is a lot you can teach that will help RB's become great. Small improvements in footwork on counter or jab steps are huge in creating a better RB. Teaching them pass protection and all the nuances that go with it will help create a 3 down back, just as long as he can catch out of the backfield.

As a coach you're always looking to help players get better. I can't teach vision, or intuition, but working everything in between can turn just a great runner into a great all star caliber, every down back.

CoachBP6

January 7th, 2015 at 6:18 AM ^

Forgot to mention a big thing that helps is breaking down defenses with them, teaching them how defenses work and where they are weak in certain areas / looks.

Biggest thing really is that there is always something to work on and get better at. Any good coach constantly feels that way. Gotta always challenge your guys to be the best and win every day.

Asgardian

January 6th, 2015 at 12:38 PM ^

Maybe you are John Harbaugh?

Because before this season he hired Thomas Hammock away from Wisconsin, who spent three years there as RB coach and had also been given the "Associate Head Coach" title (and presumably a raise) to try and keep him from leaving.

http://www.uwbadgers.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/thomas_hammock_749549.html

http://www.baltimoreravens.com/team/coaches/Thomas-Hammock/f677eb12-890…

Of course you can't put it all on Hammock, Wisconsin was good before he came along and its not like Melvin Gordon had a dropoff this year.

bronxblue

January 6th, 2015 at 1:16 PM ^

RB coach seems like a great place to put a good recruiter, provided he has a basic understanding of the position (like a Wheatley would) and you have a strong OC/OL system set up.  Especially in college with the various offensive systems, some schools just keep pushing out big-yardage backs but I'm not sure how much the RB coach is responsible for it.  I mean, Minny barely ever threw the ball this year, so them having a good rushing game makes sense.  And I mean, Texas Tech had an 1,100 yard rusher this year and that is largely due to him running against 4-5 man fronts as everyone else was spread out trying to cover receivers.  

Wheatley is probably a decent RB coach; might as well take a stab at a guy with deep connections to the program and, I suspect, a strength as a recruiter.  It's not like he's being brought in as an OC or anything.

JayD

January 6th, 2015 at 12:05 PM ^

Why no mention of Montgomery possibly coming back, especially with what's going on at Oklahoma.  Throw him a co-defensive coordinator title and let him get to work recruiting!

ND Sux

January 6th, 2015 at 12:06 PM ^

Also, I keep thinking each row on the GUESSOCHART is for one coaching spot...would be great if you could bold the line between columns C and D, indicating a break. 

the blue planet

January 6th, 2015 at 12:08 PM ^

Will happen.  You know the rest.  I have taken my Dramamine.  So I am now little num to all this searchbits chatter.  Having followed this site for the last month like a homeless man searches trash cans, I will finally give in and just sit back and enjoy the ride.  In Har-Bo We Trust!  Saying to self:  "We have Coach Harbaugh and we'll be better than fine, now matter who joins this staff".  Go Blue!

Reader71

January 6th, 2015 at 12:08 PM ^

That picture is of Kevin Tolbert, who is something of a legend in the lifting ranks. His story is very fascinating, and people should read it. He was adopted by a weight training pioneer. He trained under many notable guys. He became a monster himself, and now makes monsters. At Michigan, BTW, he was the speed coach, so he's not just a powerlifter.

He is a high intensity training guy. Most football strength coaches are, although other methods are constantly being added to it.

HIT is currently akin to what you would call "pro-style offense" 10 years ago. It is the standard procedure. Most SC guys are familiar with it, were original trained in it, and subscribe to it. The other successful trends are always being co-opted. There are thus a lot of hybrid systems, just like the NFL features a lot of hybrid offenses. But HIT is still either the norm at the highest level, or is the base that the system is built upon. Maybe other methods will soon be the norm, like the spread has become, but it will take another generation of coaches to learn the new methods, just like it did with the spread.

Erik_in_Dayton

January 6th, 2015 at 12:15 PM ^

...I hope Tolbert - or whover the S&C guy for Michigan is - isn't stuck using his model.  I remember Kirk Herbstreit saying in the mid-'00s that Michigan and OSU were recruiting the same guys but that Michigan's guys tended to seem slower and stiffer, and the unfortunate thing was that I had to agree. 

Reader71

January 6th, 2015 at 1:09 PM ^

FWIW, when Tolbert came to M, he brought some innovations with him.

High speed cameras to evaluate running technique: stride length, point of contact at the foot, hand pumping, facial relaxation (dont wanna tighten up while you run).

An off season speed program featuring plyonetrics, rubber bands, ladders, and so on.

Again, Tolbert is a HIT guy, but he's one of the coaches who supplements his foundation (which worked like hell for him, so of course he is a believer) with newer information.

He kind of reminds me of Harbaugh. They have their core beliefs (manball/HIT), but they are always adding new wrinkles (pistol/plyo).

michgoblue

January 6th, 2015 at 1:25 PM ^

Preface - I am an admitted S&C geek and I am pretty into this stuff.

What Reader71 is saying is exactly on point.  While HIT has gotten a bit of a negative rep on this blog, it is pretty much the gold standard in football S&C training.  HIT is perhaps the most proven and consistent method of quickly producing gains in both size and strength.  And while speed is very important (more so at certain positions than others), make no mistake that size and strength are equally important.

HIT does have its limitations.  It is not as ideal for proceding gains in speed, agility or flexibility, nor is it an ideal injury prevention regimen.  So, if used in isolation, I can see the arguments against HIT.  Fortunately, however, these days, nobody uses HIT in isolation.  Every HIT-based S&C guy out there incorporates modern  training methods to supplement the HIT-based training, including such things as band training, plyometrics, metabolic intervals, etc.  In almost every instance, HIT training only represents a portion of the S&C program.

My point is that there is absolutely no reason for concern, simply because Tolbert is a HIT guy. 

bronxblue

January 6th, 2015 at 1:36 PM ^

I don't disagree completely, but it never seemed like Michigan was noticeably slower/stiffer than OSU's players, at least not to a noticeable degree.  More frequently, the reason OSU looked faster and tended to perform better was because their teams were, overall, better, and Michigan's flailing and being out of position made the speed differences more obvious.

Also, Kirk might be the one who's a little stiff.

 

michgoblue

January 6th, 2015 at 1:30 PM ^

Serious question:  do you have any idea about HIT training and how it compares with other methods of training?  What are the benefits of HIT, the shortcomings, etc?  Is there another method that you would prefer?

We will not be on the wrong side of history is we hire a HIT guy because almost EVERY SINGLE football S&C coach employs HIT training.  If you are concerned about the effects of HIT training, why don't you take a look at the 49ers.  Those guys look pretty damn big, strong and athletic to me.  Or you could look at Alabama, Ohio State, Florida State or Auburn (or almost every other D1 program), since all of their S&C guys are HIT based.

BIGBLUEWORLD

January 6th, 2015 at 1:15 PM ^

We need an S&C coach from the new generation of coaches to be "leaders and best".  The most effective methods, both from the standpoint of athletic performance and player health and well being, have progressed a great deal in the past twenty years.

I do this for a living, and work with methods developed by the best In the business: Paul Chek, Kelly Starrett, Gray Cook, Shannon Turley, Naudi Aguilar, Michigan's own Mike Favre.  

I've gotten resistance from people on this board whose only knowledge is reading a copy of a muscle magazine while they're at the tanning salon.  That's okay.  I've also heard from a lot of good people who care about this subject.  There's a growing awareness on this blog regarding advanced athletic training.
 
Get informed on how Ray Lewis and Dwayne Wade train: what Kareem did to have a long career.  Being able to "Deliver a blow (quote from Greg Mattison) comes from training like Chuck Norris, not some roidded out freak on the cover of "Flex".
 
The good news is: Harbaugh knows how Shannon Turley's program works, and he's looking for S&C coaches who implement these advanced methods.  
 
"Real recognize real."  Peace. 

Reader71

January 6th, 2015 at 1:18 PM ^

Its not that I disagree with you, but the rest of the football world does, or at least has yet to fully embrace your point. That doesn't mean that the conventional wisdom is right. Its just a fact of life at this point: for SC to change, there has to be a coaching tree. And the new tree is at its infancy, particularly at the highest levels of the sport. Maybe Turley is the Bill Walsh of SC and he builds a tree that makes his methods as ubiquitous as the West Coast Offense.

Aside from that, your Chuck Norris anecdote is silly. Chuck Norris doesn't deliver a hard blow because of how he strength trains, but because of how he trains to strike the blow. The football equivalent would be practice, not weight training.

BIGBLUEWORLD

January 6th, 2015 at 3:08 PM ^

The football equivalent of Chuck Norris begins with the techniques and methods of his athletic training, nutrition, mindset, spiritual practice, human relationships, harmony with nature, and so on.  Martial arts practice involves all these elements.  It's all connected.  

In my previous work as addiction counselor, we understand that how a client gets up and makes their bed in the morning affects how they're going to participate at a meeting, what they'll learn from the days lessons, and ultimately, how they will live.  Or in some cases, die.  Does it get that real in your line of work, bro?

IT'S ALL CONNECTED.

A common, fragmented, reductionist perspective causes a lot of suffering, failure, lost human potential.  I work and struggle to help people overcome such dysfunctional habits all the time.  

Fortunately, Jim Harbaugh knows and practices that it's all connected.

Peace.

 

dragonchild

January 6th, 2015 at 3:18 PM ^

I won't go as far as BIGBLUEWORLD's meditate under waterfalls purple prose, but an apt concern is being addressed here.  A bad S&C coach can use HIT and be a disaster.  You can take a single-minded approach to building strength and quickly cause on-field injury because the parts of the body needed to stabilize the motion aren't flexible or durable.  For example (just one example!), if you're pushing forward into someone you need to develop your leg muscles (glutes, quads, calves), but all that force is going to be anchored by the arches of the feet, sometimes a single arch:

On the field the player's weight is shifted forward, whereas most leg workouts are flat-footed.  If the arch can't support all that force, it generally doesn't tear -- it collapses.  The foot goes flat and either the guy rocks or skates backwards, or the force shifts to the knee and destroys it.  Only one problem -- developing it won't help you with your weight target.  It won't help your leg press goal.  It only matters if you want to play productive, injury-free football.  I think mentioning Chuck Norris is silly, but the point is apt -- the best do not isolate training & practice; one is built around the other.  You can't deliver the full force of your HIT-developed muscles if your body can't supply sufficient counterforce to anchor it without injury.  That has jack to do with practice.

I think the common ground here is that HIT is just a method.  Football requires a lot of strength, so it makes logical sense to incorporate a lot of HIT into the training.  So, I'm A-OK with a coach that uses HIT.  However, there is a huge, HUGE difference between a meatheaded HIT zealot who thinks pain is a religion and injury is a sign of mental weakness (they'll give ANY method a bad name) and a professional that knows his shit and uses HIT as just another tool in the box.  Maybe the tool that gets used far more than any other (if you're assembling a car for example, learn to love your socket wrench), but the usage is not warped by bias.  But both can be considered "HIT guys" depending on one's agenda, hence the confusion.

BIGBLUEWORLD

January 6th, 2015 at 3:46 PM ^

Good point.  The reason JH went after Shannon Turley is that he's working on these integrated physical elements in daily training.  Sure as heck hope JH hires someone who has the same up-to date knowledge.  Some folks don't realize what a big difference this will make for the players and the team. 

Nice to hear from someone who knows their stuff.

By the way, I studied with Chuck Norris.  He founded the United Fighting Arts Federation where people can take classes.  He's a good teacher, and would be a great football coach on every level.  We see eye to eye on a lot of things.