This might not end well...
Everyone is going to have a strong opinion and toss around a bunch of cherry picked facts. Here comes the mushroom clouds.
This might not end well...
Everyone is going to have a strong opinion and toss around a bunch of cherry picked facts. Here comes the mushroom clouds.
The mushroom pizza.
I thought Griese's unsolicited credit to Mike Gittleson was interesting and probably calculated.
I had the same thought. It's maybe another behind-the-scenes glance at the Civil War. Or, maybe he's just a huge fan of Gittleson and he's showing respect. Who knows?
There are a lot of questions in your post.
* Gittleson was apparently widely respected in his field. Barwis himself has praised the old S&C coach.
* Most of the readers are probably familiar with the "increase Massey's weight with pizza" strategy, which is referenced here: http://tinyurl.com/2bhtmal (A link to MGoBlog, too! I could have just referenced that, but I thought it would be interesting to show that Dan G. was famous outside of town.) I don't know whether it's true. But, it doesn't sound cutting-edge, does it? Perhaps DG was out-of-date near the end?
* As far as David Harris is concerned, there's more to football than S&C, right? If it were that simple (and we can safely assume that the reputation of Barwis is deserved) we wouldn't be talking about RichRod's job security. No, I think Harris developed as a football player, too (gains in size and strength aside). I mostly agree with you on Graham's development, by the way.
It might not be easy to separate the S&C program from player development. I'd be interested in what the 'blog experts have to say.
highly of LC after 97, but things change.
Clearly there was a disconnect in player development in later years. Could be that someone might not have wanted MG to push players so hard....The answers are not easy and clear, of course, and one can find examples of development in every class. But it would be tough to deny that MB and the modifications to the weight room and program have not been good for UM. For some example, merely read recruits comments.
And hopefully this year, we will see more physical antedotal evidence...Taylor, Schofield, etc...
pretty much everyone still thinks pretty highly of Lloyd Carr. As Brian said, I'm pretty sure LC has done more for the University than you, me, or anyone else on MGoBlog has.
on MGoBlog and other places. There seems to be a pretty big dissent on whether "pretty much everyone" still thinks pretty highly of Lloyd. I would venture that as a football coach that it is not "pretty much everyone." And even Brian has written some perhaps not so flattering comments about some of the final years of LC's tenure as the football coach.
But, if you are talking about what LC has done as a person for the University - - such as the hospital fundraising, the behind the scenes stuff like taking an interest in Bree Evans, then yes you are likely right, and people should think highly about LC's commitment to Mott etc.
And since you missed the entire point of the post, it was that the evaluation of LC, the football coach, was a lot higher in 1997 than 2007, and the same could be same for Gittleson.
But never forget the S&C coach is only as good as the entire teams focus. Lets face it, 2006 team showed up in a huge way, they looked great from the 1st game. 2007 many of the same players and the team looked like crap. Was that Gittleson or was that the team not showing up in the offseason?
I wanted a modern up to date S&C program focusing on power & explosion, concentrate of football movements and stability muscles as well as speed training. The thing is was it Lloyd who wanted to stay the same or was it Gittleson. I had heard Lloyd was big on the hit method and machins rather then free weights for a couple reasons but one was safety and second was focus on indivudiual muscle groups.... But it was difficult to work on power/explosion through those methods.
The other thing 2006 team did was run and they put in miles every single day. and at this level you need to run 3 miles a day for lineman and probably 5 for athletes.....
type of kid that each system seeks to develop. Barwis is faster, smaller, better conditioned, Gitt was slower but stronger.
Barwis needs his linemen to get to the 2nd level, play a uptempo and no huddle offense, while Gitt's guys had a huddle & only needed to hold their blocks for a few seconds while the QB threw, the RB ran by them.
One isn't better than another, but RR's system demands a guy like Barwis.
"Griese made it sound as if the team gave a renewed and increased dedication to not being denied by anything in 97, in other words the players were all in."
I think your definition of "all in" is a bit higher order than what RR has thus far intended. I would define RR's "all in" as believing in the new program and having faith in the coaching staff. It's more of an internal perspective. The mindset Griese discusses seems more external - Michigan against everyone else. Thus, it seems Griese discusses more going "all out" than being "all in." And while they overlap, I would say that "all in" has to precede "all out" to some extent. RR would like his "all in" to develop into Griese's "all out." Maybe we will see it this season. Maybe next.
run that by me again; this time I'll be all ears
Nah, its not worth it. Trust me - its just me being overly complicated about a simple, obvious topic.
..for his time. However, just as with Lloyd Carr, the game passed him by.
Gittleson did his job very well; his job was to produce the stereotypical, bulky Big Ten beast. However, it seems to me that too many players slowed down between their freshman and senior years. In today's game, speed is more important than bulk: thus, the transition into coaches like Barwis.
Though the subjects of this "argument" are contemporary, the core argument has been going on for years. One side says that you can't win in the Big Ten without bulk because you need it for leverage when the weather gets cold. The other side says that bulk wins the Big Ten, but fails massively on a national scale because there isn't enough speed.
Barwis'methodology is apparently desigined to produce both strength and speed, with an accent on explosion.
I attended somewhere around a hundred games in the Big House when I lived up there. One of the most frustrating and repetitive experiences for me was to see maize and blue linemen or LB's bust into the backfield, only to have the QB scramble just out of reach and complete a big play. I don't see that happening with the current team.
Will Michigan get pushed around by bulky BT linemen? It's possible, but I don't think so. I think we need to wait until there are some fifth-year seniors who have been through five years of Barwis before we make that kind of judgement.
I think Gittleson was great for his time, but I think Barwis is great for the current era, too. As a somewhat experienced complimentary health (massage) practitioner and teacher, I can say from experience that the health field is going through near-exponential advancement. The worst thing one can do in the field of health is to stop learning and say, "this is how we did it ten years ago."
I'm willing to give both men credit. I don't think it has to be mutually exclusive.
could you please pinpoint the year the game passed Lloyd and Gittleson by.
I don't know why people need to bash the old regime to praise the new. This isn't directed at Tater's comments, but more of an overall feeling around here. We were the epitome of a consistently good team. There were peaks of "great", valleys of "ok", but most of the time we were contending for B10 titles and beating our rivals more times than not. I think Lloyd, Mo, the staff and Gittleson had a lot to do with that. Those were great times.
I think we can praise the work being done by RR and Barwis without having to say that the game passed the others by and they weren't good at their jobs anymore.
Asking the exact year the game passed Lloyd and Gittleson is like asking why we lost to OSU so much towards the end of Lloyd's tenure but beat them at the beginning. It isn't one reason just like there wasn't an exact year.....but some of us watching the games just sort of felt it. That isn't to take anything away from the earlier years, but the first 2 games of 2007 should tip you off at how far we have to go to get back to being elite.
I think "passed him by" is a loaded phrase, as it can mean more than 1 thing, e.g., do you mean no longer winning at an elite level or do you mean no longer any good at all? If you mean, the former, the answer is yes.
Obviously, to the very end, Carr could get big wins (see his last game vs Florida, though they weren't a Top 10 team that year; they just were a very good team paired with the magic of Tebow). However, the 7-5 record in 2005 was a big misstep (though how we would have loved that record last year!), the 2006 season started fantastic, but our vaunted D gave up 30+ in its last 2 games (both losses), and then 2007 had the Horror, the galatic beatdown by Oregon, and yet another loss to OSU.
Carr went out when he should have - the program was slipping. Unfortunately, it has slipped much more since then and it's been a hard road to get back.
he would say the game was changing, and he preferred to retire and enjoy life, and let the next coach help guide UofM through the changes. In fact I think he damned near said that in his retirement presser.
When Bo took over there supposedly wasn't a strength and conditioning program. Gittleson came in and created a program that built players to win the Big Ten. This worked great for a long time. We won Big Ten Championships and most teams in the Conference hated to play us.
Football evolved in the outer world, and the evolution edged into the Big Ten. Gittleson to Barwis is a continuation of our own evolution.
Respect the past and cheer for the future ...
somewhere around the time Armanti Edwards was staring at our gassed, out of shape d-line, gasping for air, hands on hips - IN THE FIRST QUARTER- and thinking "These guys can't catch me...can they?"
Yeah. Somewhere around that time.
Seems the general consensus is the game passed Lloyd and Co. way back in 2007
I don't think that you can point to one game that showed the decline in Lloyd and company. However, there were a lot of pitchforks and torches being brandished after that App State game.
That being said, I don't think there was a decline in his ability to coach...maybe a shift in interest in coaching. Wins on the field started to decline. Recruiting efforts started to wane...maybe that is too strong a word...classes weren't as balanced as they had been in the past. And there is that God awful Ohio State record...Being a college coach means staying on top of kids going to class, recruiting the next great Wolverine, knowing the latest trends in teaching football in it's many aspects, including strength and conditioning and being able to adapt (figure out the spread). It all can take a toll on you. I just think Lloyd was transitioning in life later in his years and whether consciously, or unconsciously I think it started to show in the performance of the team.
I tend to agree with you, I don't for a minute think the game passed Lloyd by, but I do think Lloyd could not keep working at the relentless pace necessary to stay on top. Just look at Urban Meyer and his burnout. Working in such a pressure filled environment takes its toll on people. Check out how much RR has aged since taking the M job. Here is hoping RR gets some good fortune this season and exceeds expectations.
a bit in the early 2000s, when he lost some of the vigor to recruit with the new and upcoming coaches. There were some (not all) recruiting battles lost because the effort and desire was not where it should have been.
But everyone is entitle to their own opinion.
this may be right. it might be the case that gitt's conditioning methods were at the head of the class in 97 and just aren't now. we don't have to think lowly of gitt to think highly of barwis.
Trying to predict what Tater did for a living, how far down the list would masseur have been?
I thought the same thing
Behind peanut vendor and fishing guide.
"Barwis'methodology is apparently desigined to produce both strength and speed, with an accent on explosion."
As opposed to Gittleson's, which was designed to produce weakness and slowness, with an accent on implosion.
"One of the most frustrating and repetitive experiences for me was to see maize and blue linemen or LB's bust into the backfield, only to have the QB scramble just out of reach and complete a big play. I don't see that happening with the current team."
Why scramble to complete a big play when you can immediately complete the pass over 5'8" Boubacar Cissoko, freshman walk-on Jordan Kovacs, etc.?
Both of Magnus's comments here are 100% on the money correct for ether their sarcasm or analysis.
Like others have said, both Gittleson and Barwis were/are really good at what they did/do. Not sure we get anywhere with this armchair criticism.
of blog sites like this....I for one thought it was for armchair criticism (or praise where warranted). If you are uncertain of this, come here on a game day for a live blog...
The thing was, his training style would not have worked with the type of athletes we need on this team now. He was a solid strength coach but I think Barwis is a lot better.
Barwis always speaks highly of Gittleson when his predecessor comes up in the course of an interview. Gittleson was as much a pioneer in the field during his time at Michigan as Barwis is today. I don't think Barwis would take offense to Griese's comments, so I'm certainly not going to.
about Gittleson, but he has a NC, and 5 Big Ten Titles. What does Barwis has?
And, who doesn't love pizza!
don't worry. i'll neg myself out the door.
Barwis has a wolf.
Whats the conversion factor between titles and wolfs?
Mike Barwis would also agree with you wrt Brandon Graham. Barwis has said repeatedly that all he does is provide the tools, the kids do the work. So yes, BG gets credit for becoming the player he is because he himself put the work in to get there.
Also, I never thought the glaring issue with Michigan's program had ever been S&C. Michigan's problems had a lot more to do with injuries, early departures, lack of significant defensive talent, and not maxing out potential on offense.
In a lot of ways Gittelson's program made a lot of sense given Michigan's style of play. Barwis is running a program to fit what RR does. Simple.
I played multiple sports in high school, and I can tell you that even at that level, there is a distinct difference in how your body feels in football, wrestling, basketball and baseball. The training regiments are different for each and it doesn't take long for your body to feel different. I agree that Gittelson's program was probably geared towards the power game than the speed game we are trying to play now. I don't know if it is out of date or not, as I think Wisconsin and some other schools still use it to a varied level of success, but we are deffinately stepping away from it here.
Gittelson was good in 97? Sounds good.
If I recall Brian Griese's training regimen while at Michigan, it would have gone very well with Gittleson's pizza-based program!
To paraphrase the Lincoln metaphor of what kind of whiskey General Grant drinks; Find out what kind of pizza they were eating in 1997 and order some up for the 2010 team
a Big 10 team, or any D-1 team for that matter, "stepped up" or "really committed" themsleves to the off-season conditioning program is complete horseshit. That's like saying a Big 10 or D-1 team nees headline materials from an opponent to get "motivated" or "fired up" for a game. If you're playing at the D-1 level, particularly for the Big Ten, you should already be committed 100% to the off-season conditioning, just like you should be fired up and motivated for every game. I just find it hard to believe that this "extra effort" in the offseason translated into a national championship. If they weren't working that hard already, they shouldn't be playing at Michigan, let alone any other D-1 program.
I hear what you're saying, but I've read direct quotes from players after the 2005 season to the effect of "we recommited". I'll try and find them.
Gittleson did not get to be or stay an S&C coach at a major program like UM by knowing nothing and not producing results. Was he perfect? No.
Barwis did not get to be and will not stay an S&C coach at a major program like UM by knowing nothing and not producing results. Is he perfect? Well, maybe, but the jury is still out ;)
The point is, there is nothing to be gained in ceaselesly comparing the two coaches, their philosophies and their S&C programs.
I loved Lloyd and his staff for the Michigan teams that I cheered during their tenure. I celebrated their victories and agonized over their defeats, but just as importantly I respected the character they brought to the program. Go Blue.
I am all-in with RR and his staff thus far. I will cheer the teams they field during their tenure and will celebrate their victories as well as agonize over their defeats. I also respect the character that he and his staff bring to the program and will bring to the program long term. Here is hoping that the on the field results give us all reason over the next year or two to get past all the recent kerfluffle and bad PR. Go Blue.
Can we just say 'separate but equal' and move on?
The thing about Gittleson is that originally - in the 1970s - he was a revolutionary. His methods were way ahead of what most other programs were doing, and served us very well. The only problem was that he stuck with the same methods for 30 years, and his counterparts eventually caught up with and passed him. He is a very good S&C coach whose time simply passed.
As far as the strength and conditioning program is concerned, Mundy says West Virginia’s program is much more intense than Michigan’s. Other players that have transferred to West Virginia have said similar things in the past, explaining that at some other places the players coming into the program are physically bigger and more explosive. West Virginia develops it.
Also, an article from the worldwide leader that references a revamping of Michigan's S&C program going into 2005.
"The offseason conditioning approach was revamped, too, with special attention paid to trimming fat and improving diets. "
I don't know anything about Gittleson's program or weightlifting, but that's a pretty poignant quotes in regards to this discussion. Gittleson can simultaneously be a good S&C coach and need to update his methods. Why does everything devolve into picking sides?
Hey! Michigan should go back to single platoon football because that's what Yost did and he won 4 consecutive national championships.
I am not picking sides, I was just showing some love for Gittleson.
I am of the opinion that talent trumps. cain't make chicken salad outta chicken shit
Not even with mayonaisse?
nope not even gray poupou
The style/technique comparisons between Barwis and Gittelson are kind of irrelevant to me. It isn't like (as Magnus pointed out above) Gittelson was trying to train guys to be slow blobs of dough (nor is Barwis attempting to produce lightning-quick, wirey dwarfs). The guy also gets way too much grief for an off the cuff comment about eating pizza to bulk up.
The thing that bothered me about the S&C program under Carr/Gittelson is exactly what Griese is referring to. Before the 1997 season, everybody bought in and participated. After all the close/late losses in 2005, I remember just about every offseason article referring to the renewed focus on S&C. The team came out in 2006 and blew people away. When the entire program got on board with offseason workouts, Carr had probably his two best regular season campaigns. This makes me lament the fact that it wasn't as big a focus every year, so I like the fact that now it at least appears to be a prominent focus of everyone involved in the program.
The devil is in the details here. Brandon Graham as a senior is a perfect example of this, had everyone bought in and played/trained with the tenacity of Brandon Graham, this team would not have had a losing record. This is not to say the other players were lax, however, they couldn't reach Brandon's level of commitment. Age and personal experience play a part here.
Professional players routinely have their best seasons in contract years, college players often are their most dedicated in their senior season. It would be unreasonable to expect Tate to be as dedicated as a freshman as Brian Griese was as a 5th year senior. This is not a knock on Tate, who was probably far ahead of freshman Brian Griese in terms of commitment, when Tate is a senior he will be much better equipped to dial up his level of commitment to a championship level.
While I agree with most of your points, I'm pretty sure Tate has been hitting the weight room and the offseason conditioning program ever since he arrived on campus (and media reports regularly come out lauding the results of that effort). While he might not have the maturity/experience to play at a championship level, I don't think we're going to have to hear about how he decided to start hitting the S&C program hard after 3-4 years already on campus. It just doesn't appear to be an option under this regime to not put in the time and effort outside of practice in the S&C program, whereas the commitment level seemed to swing wildly under the prior regime (with the "rededication" before the 1997 and 2006 seasons as prime examples).
Agreed. I recall listening to a radio interview and hearing , I think it was Henne, saying how much better in shape they all were in (in 2006), after being frustrated by all the 4th quarter losses in '05, and how they had all worked out a lot more and so on.
My immediate thought was "why don't you guys do that every year?"
Although I don't know if it was a question of not being on board or just relatively old S&C methods. Who knows at this point. However after Barwis arrived nearly every player claimed they were in much better condition than before, so it's not a stretch to say Barwis has our guys in better shape than they were under the previous coaching staff.
Now if only the being-in-better-shape will translate to some wins....
I have no problem with Griese saying this at all. The problem is it isn't 1997 anymore...
I wonder how many of the people with opinions about Gittelson know a thing about what they're talking about. How many know a thing about D-I level conditioning programs? How many are trainers?
I'm guessing the answer is "less than 3".
At least twice under Gittelson (after the 1996 and 2005 seasons) you had a number of players claiming that the team lost close games because they felt they weren't in as good of physical condition as they could've/should've been. They then put in increased effort during the offseason S&C program and improved dramatically the next season both times. This criticism has nothing to do with Gittelson's program/technique/approach, but rather the program wide emphasis on S&C under Carr/Gittelson.
I don't think you have to be a D-1 athlete or trainer to lament the fact that players on the team thought Michigan lost games because of a failure to place a high enough priority on the S&C program and their offseason workouts, and also wonder what might have been if that same focus had been evident every year during that time.
I wonder what he changed after 1996 for 1997-2004.
I'm not quite sure your point, is it that since large numbers of players didn't cite failures in the S&C program as the cause of losses during that particular period that things were for the most part being done well? I would probably agree with you, though it is possible talent or other factors played a large role in the team's success and that other factors (having to play Navarre before he was ready, for example) played a bigger role in the losses.
I certainly have no inside knowledge of how things were done then or how they are done now. Still, I think it is clearly a problem when players attribute losses to things like "we didn't work out hard enough in the offseason" and "we weren't in good enough shape late in games." I don't know who is/was responsible for that or why it occurred, but it certainly isn't a positive even if it isn't the norm.
Like I said in an earlier post, the idea that "the game passed him by" when from what I understand other teams still use Gittleson's techniques is silly. The Barwis/Gittleson technique debate doesn't interest me at all as both know way more about what they do than any of us. Still, I like the fact that the current coaches are very vocal about how high a priority they place on the S&C program and I don't suspect we'll hear players attribute losses in the future or the recent past to a failure to workout hard enough in the offseason and stay in great shape.
I think that sometimes when things don't go well, people try to blame people other than themselves.
You might be right, but very few of us have experience with D-I level football, either - that doesn't stop us from spending hours discussing, critiquing, and analyzing it.
We have a winner....
Maybe someday we will have to show resumes to post, but till then...we all get a chance to opine about things... kind of makes us like ESPN anchors and analysts...opinions change as the winds blow.
When Gittleson was still here, his biggest critics on all the message boards were posters who claimed extensive S&C knowledge. Most of the rest of us had no idea if he was doing a good job or not.