Was Barwis the best part of RR era?

Submitted by AC1997 on

It seems almost strange to have an off-season without a love-fest for the strength and conditioning coach after the past three years.  Barwis may have been the most rewarding aspect of the Rodriguez coaching staff - both for the program and those of us that enjoyed reading tales of his workouts these past three years.

I was once again reminded of this when I picked up my Chicago Tribune today.   Every Sunday the columnist Teddy Greenstein (known to the MGoBlog community for his insane coaching search rumors) recounts a round of golf he played the past week with a famous sports personality or athlete.  This week his golf partner was none other than Charles Woodson. 

In the piece Woodson expresses his love for Michigan and is generally positive.  But what stood out to me was this shocking quote about former S&C coach Mike Gittleson:

"The philosophy of my strength coach at Michigan (Mike Gittleson) was 'No stretching,'"  Woodson recalled.  "If you're walking across the street and a car is going to hit you, will you stop to stretch?"

It is pretty amazing to me that this guy lasted as long as he did in the S&C field with this type of philosophy.  And it may also be a clue as to why the fitness of the team deteriorated over the last few seasons under Carr. 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/greenstein/ct-spt-0807-18holes-woodson--20110806,0,7197108.column

Webber's Pimp

August 7th, 2011 at 1:07 PM ^

I loved reading the Barwis tales as much as the next guy. But I don't believe there is enough empirical evidence out there to suggest that Barwis made a big difference for our program. If anything his tenure was marked by some of the worst Michigan defensive squads we have seen in A2. Our defenses were routinely pushed around all over the field and this speaks to the overall strength, agility, and coniditioning of the unit as a whole. I like Barwis and I think that given enough time we might have seen the improvement on the field that we were all looking for. But as things stand the results are inconclusive...

jmblue

August 7th, 2011 at 1:24 PM ^

It's likely that both Barwis and Gittleson were/are highly competent S&C coaches.  So is probably every other S&C coach in college football.  Think about how many personal trainers there are across the country.  Probably tens of thousands.  Only 120 get to be Division I-A strength and conditioning coaches.  Tthese guys are the cream of the crop.  The mistake people here committed was assuming that Barwis knew how to get his players into shape better than anyone else.  Barwis probably got results, but so did every other team's S&C guy, so it wasn't noticeable on the field. 

As for Gittleson, everyone rags on the guy, but he was our S&C coach for 30 consecutive non-losing seasons (29 winning, one 6-6 season) from 1978 to 2007.  That's pretty impressive.

MGoNukeE

August 7th, 2011 at 6:04 PM ^

I think you answered your own point. Even if Gittleson and Barwis and every other S&C coach are incredible, they're all incredible approximately the same amount. Therefore, any shortcomings or accomplishments that a team achieves cannot be heavily weighed towards the S&C coach. From the fan's perspective, it should all be taken with a grain of salt.

NateVolk

August 7th, 2011 at 1:30 PM ^

....and the fly balls to the track  were suddenly going for home runs.   Sorry, but not buying the pure skill argument with Bonds.   The question always begs: "Why did he take them, if he didn't really need them or they didn't help him?"

 

befuggled

August 7th, 2011 at 3:17 PM ^

Is that he didn't start taking steroids until he would have started to decline physically (i.e., sometime in or after 1998 when he was 33). Steriods allowed him to not only maintain his athletic performance at an age when most atheletes are beginning to decline but to improve on it. If this is true, the guy was still having a Hall of Fame type of career before he took steroids, and his stats got better afterwards.

Having said that I haven't followed baseball all that carefully in years and I'm sure somebody who has can speak more intelligently about it.

JHendo

August 7th, 2011 at 1:39 PM ^

During the Barwis era, we were as susceptible to injuries as ever, defensive backs were consistently beat downfield, most of our players were consistently bullied around by clearly stronger players and our level of physicality seemed to decline faster than our opponents towards the end of games. Blame it on personnel and schemes if you want, but an SC coach is supposed to do as much as he can to make sure shortcomings on physical level like that don't occur. I think he failed horribly. I never understood the Barwis hype and as someone who played football for 8 years I definitely noticed a decline in our strength and endurance during his era. People who think he was the greatest part of RR's reign strike me as people who may be big fans, but don't fully understand all the intricacies of the game of football. Looking in shape and good in a jersey doesn't necessary mean you're ready to play some big ten football.

JHendo

August 7th, 2011 at 4:05 PM ^

There's a difference between a mental and physical mistake. Mental mistakes will happen a lot with freshman/inexperienced DB's playing a route wrong. However, unfortunately there were a lot of routes that they played right, but just couldn't keep up, even against mediocre route runners. Granted, blame should never be fully put on the SC coach for all those types of mistakes, but it's his job to make sure we can compete as much as possible physically.

BigBlue02

August 7th, 2011 at 3:05 PM ^

Looking in shape and good in a jersey doesn't necessary mean you're ready to play some big ten football.

Just like playing football for 8 years doesn't necessary mean that you know anything about a strength and conditioning coach. I mean, I have played NCAA football on playstation, playstation 2, Wii, Xbox, and Xbox 360, I have played fantasy football for over 10 years, and I am a huge Michigan fan, therefore I know Barwis is better than you say he is.

JHendo

August 7th, 2011 at 4:18 PM ^

You're analogy isn't equivalent in the least. That's like telling a short order cook that you know more about being a head chef because you beat the game cooking mama on your gameboy.

I get the point that you're making, and clearly I'm not playing football anymore or coaching it, so I'm far from an expert on football conditioning. But actually being a part of the game, going through different styles of strength and conditioning with different coaches, and actually being able to tell what kind of "football" shape someone in gives me more insight into it than everyone else. It atleast does give my statement a whole lot more validity then someone's who's really good at twiddling their thumbs on a controller and being able to check each players endurance stats.

Also, my post started with IMHO. It's my opinion, pal, and a humble one at that. Relax a bit.

OMG Shirtless

August 7th, 2011 at 4:32 PM ^

You should brush up on the difference between "your" and "you're."  It's my opinion, pal, and a humble one at that.  Therefore, I don't expect you to respond to this post like a butthurt teenage girl who just found out Justin Bieber will never actually talk to her.

JHendo

August 7th, 2011 at 5:21 PM ^

where the hell did you come from? Did something in my post offend you, because it sure as shit wasn't meant for you. This thread must be really fucking with your mind if you're (see I'm brushing up on it for you, grammar douche!) throwing hostility at shit that had nothing to do with you. Chill the fuck out and back the fuck up and if you want anyone to listen to you, quit visualizing Justin Beiber and a butt hurt teen girl and projecting it on everyone else.

JHendo

August 7th, 2011 at 1:39 PM ^

During the Barwis era, we were as susceptible to injuries as ever, defensive backs were consistently beat downfield, most of our players were consistently bullied around by clearly stronger players and our level of physicality seemed to decline faster than our opponents towards the end of games. Blame it on personnel and schemes if you want, but an SC coach is supposed to do as much as he can to make sure shortcomings on physical level like that don't occur. I think he failed horribly. I never understood the Barwis hype and as someone who played football for 8 years I definitely noticed a decline in our strength and endurance during his era. People who think he was the greatest part of RR's reign strike me as people who may be big fans, but don't fully understand all the intricacies of the game of football. Looking in shape and good in a jersey doesn't necessary mean you're ready to play some big ten football.

wenttoosubutbl…

August 7th, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^

Definitely Barwis and bringing a quick offense in were by far the best. But in the end it brought us closer to being a dominant offense in great shape and with great training determination (Barwis), ADDED TO A GREAT DEFENSIVE MINDED COACH. The RR era wasn't all for naught- all our guys have to do is go into that mindset on D where they gave up the lead and many times once we did we couldnt finish stringer. I honestly am looking for a drastic improvement on D and if it all plays out strong this might be a Shock the World scenario. couldnt have asked for a better tradition but toughness minded head coach and D staff.

I think they could shock the world if they can stay healthy. where was the limit on the Fab 5??? With the right mindset on D we are going to be a tough team to beat!

wenttoosubutbl…

August 7th, 2011 at 2:38 PM ^

Meaning not wanting to get beat or let games get out of hand. They learned what they don't want to go thru or feel again when they lost or let games get out of hand. Not going to a no huddle all game helps give an extra minute or more to the D to get focused and not run out of gas. Barwis is a great trainer but ya have that human fatigue factor no matter how well trained you are.

NOLA Wolverine

August 7th, 2011 at 2:53 PM ^

I hope that someday Michigan brings in something like a "sleep specialist coach," runs a few articles on mgoblue, and maybe even gets the coach a mention in the Big Ten blog on ESPN. It would be hilarious to see the MGoBoard diefy another coach whose margainal benefit is indistinguishable from before their arrival. 

One Inch Woody…

August 7th, 2011 at 3:02 PM ^

I don't know... From what some players who I am friends with have told me, he (Barwis) emphasized olympic lifting to bring about quickness and explosiveness which are all very good things for a quick spread 'n shred offense. But there's a little bit of a trade off when you work for quickness and explosiveness... you sacrifice a bit of pure size and strength. Wellman emphasizes power lifting and I think that tomorrow we should see huge gains on the depth chart (this is both from what my friends have told me and from comments made by Roh, Koger, Denard, Omameh, Martin). The greatest gains, of course, should be made by the OL, LBs and TEs. I think Campbell will be down 15/20 and Roh up 15/20 (5000 calories a day!).

MasonBilderberg

August 7th, 2011 at 3:11 PM ^

What is with UM fans infatuation with Barwis?
<br>
<br>In his 3 years at UM - UM was physically dominated by teams like OSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, MSU. His teams faded down stretch, an increase in the number of injured players (at least it appeared that way), developed almost zero NFL talent (Exception- B Graham? I know he credited Barwis with his development, but he was already at UM for 3-4 years and a great player before RR/Barwis arrived)
<br>
<br>If this guy was that "Tremendous" of a football S&C coach he wouldn't have been at WVU. He would've been offered better money by a big time CFB program or NFL team.
<br>
<br>Maybe he'd be a great S&C coach for the ironman marathon or a Thai-Bo class, but he was vastly overrated at UM.
<br>
<br>Other than his work with Mealer, I would love to know what positive results this guy brought to Michigan Football to justify this odd infatuation.

BigBlue02

August 7th, 2011 at 4:42 PM ^

Did you just suggest that Brandon Graham had been at Michigan for 3-4 years before RR and Barwis showed up?  I also like how you decided to discredit Graham's own words for no reason other than it made your point better.

MasonBilderberg

August 7th, 2011 at 5:28 PM ^

I believe Graham played 1 year for RR. My point was Graham was a hell of a player before Barwis got there. I have no doubt he still would have been a beast his SR year and a 1st round pick if Carr was still around.
<br>
<br>I'd take S&C program that developed Long, Woodley, Hall, Henne, etc. over The S&C program that never developed recruits like W. Campbell, C. Christian, JT Turner, etc.

MGoNukeE

August 7th, 2011 at 5:51 PM ^

 

Brandon Graham played 2 years for RR. I remember Graham mostly from MSU running plays right at him in 2007 en route to a 10-point lead before Henne ran subroutine "throw ball to Manningham." Not to knock on Graham (or Gittleson for that matter), but he was a complete shell of himself in 2007.

His breakout year was in 2008 under RR, when his play on that side of the line led teams to run plays away from him. IIRC, he also led the team in sacks. Then 2009 happened, where an ideal world would have seen him as a Heisman candidate. I'm fairly certain that Barwis' workouts helped Graham more than Gittleson's workouts, by his own admission.

Finally, it's true that Gittleson has more NFL stars on his resume than Barwis, but keep in mind that Barwis never had the chance to graduate a class of seniors recruited by RR. However, he did just fine turning Ryan Mundy into an NFL player from west virginia, when his playing career flamed out at Michigan. Needless to say, you can't compare the two coaches' careers because Gittleson had more talent to work with. 

maizenbluedevil

August 7th, 2011 at 5:07 PM ^

That block quote in the OT from Gittleson is flat-out, jaw-droppingly stupid.

After hearing that, it baffles that he was employed by U of M.

All that statement proves is that stretching is not an ideal activity when you're about to get hit by a car.  (Duh.)  Guess what, neither is eating a nutritious meal.  Does that mean proper nutrition isn't important to strength training either?

What a complete moron.

NCost

August 7th, 2011 at 5:33 PM ^

There's a reason Barwis is on retainer for more than one pro athletic team, is brought in by many to re-train their S&C staff and pro athletes travel to his new gym to train under him.  His methods work.  He had nothing to do w/ our failure the last three years.

dennisblundon

August 7th, 2011 at 6:42 PM ^

FWIW, I think the infatuation with Barwis as a trainer, had more to do with his personality than anything. Obviously the guy is good but as has been stated so are most at the big time college level. He became sort of like our Chuck Norris. It started with the pack of wolves jokes and took on a life of it own from there, a lot like the Chuck Norris' beard has a fist type of jokes. The difference is that Barwis really doesn't do as many push ups as Chuck can only because he prefers earth downs instead.

James Howlett

August 7th, 2011 at 8:17 PM ^

and static stretching. Dynamic stretching is done pre-workout. You warm the muscle up and lengthen it prior to exercise. Static stretching is done post workout when the muscle has already been warmed up. Static stretching prior to warm up can cause injury.

Gittleson, was argurably the worst long-term head S&C coach in college football. His methods were antiquated. He was consistently one of the late comers in a variety of S&C techniques including plyometrics which he considered too dangerous. This in preparing football players to play one of the most dangeous contact sports there is.

I've covered this ground way too often but, suffice it to say Mike Barwis, while flawed, was a huge improvement over Gittleson. People who have little knowledge of S&C are critical of Barwis because they blame him for making UM too small. Barwis, under the direction of RR, dramatically improved the speed-endurance of UM. He made the players in the image RR wanted them. If he were still S&C head coach and Hoke wanted them muscled up that would be very easy for him to do. Bulking up players is probably the single easiest thing a S&C coach can be asked to do. Barwis, worked with generally less physically talented players than under the Carr and he was asked in three years to take younger, and less talented players and turn them into Big Ten players. The players the new S&C coach is working with have had years under Barwis, have had years getting stronger, and faster. Barwis, will have never had a class with 4-5 years under him at UM. He made some dramatic improvements over a number of players at UM. Former UM players across sports disciplines, pro players, continue to work with Barwis in his new facility in Plymouth. A pale comparison to what they had at UM but, they choose to continue to work under him and they could work under virtually anyone. That alone is a tremendous testimony to his success, and his calibre of S&C coach.

James Howlett

August 7th, 2011 at 10:04 PM ^

have said don't stretch before workouts. Apparently, that was a special knowledge that only Git knew...like "you ever watch a cat? Cat's don't stretch"...umm, yaaaa.