Wellman's ability to transform players vs Barwis
First of all, I would give anything to be able to be trained by Barwis regularly. I think the guy is incredible. However, just reading through the Dline preview from Brian and some of the other previews, what stands out is how many guys have shed bad weight (e.g. BWC) and how many others have been effectively putting on good weight. This starts with the S&C philosphy and approach in addition to diet which is possibly even a bigger factor.
Wellman and Barwis are both very talented but it could be said Wellman has been more effective during his limited time at Michigan in getting guys into playing shape. I can't imagine it is just because we shifted from heavy emphasis on Olympic lifts, it has to be more than that. Does anyone have any insight on this part of our program? Have we also changed our approach to diet as well? Is is simply better participation? Maybe it is just the effect of multiple years in the program finally creating change. Would appreciate some inside info. Thanks.
August 30th, 2012 at 11:57 AM ^
I imagine that both guys are really good at what they do. I doubt there's a huge difference in what they can accomplish with a player who is properly motivated. It's up to the player to want to get in shape.
August 30th, 2012 at 12:03 PM ^
This. I don't know why, but Barwis got way too hyped when he was here in terms of the advantage he would give us over other Big Ten programs. Everyone prety much has access to the same information, equipment, methods, etc., these days.
August 30th, 2012 at 12:55 PM ^
Probably because everyone was so relieved to be moving on from Gittleson.
August 30th, 2012 at 1:13 PM ^
...when I was in 8th grade.
I'm still sore.
August 30th, 2012 at 1:19 PM ^
Jake Long disagrees with that opinion.
August 30th, 2012 at 1:26 PM ^
How much of Jake Long was Gittleston or God given?
August 30th, 2012 at 1:41 PM ^
Ah yes. I remember the days when Gittleson was the scapegoat du jour. Of course, that was when going 9-3 constituted a grave disappointment.
Even if Gittleson was "bad" at his job, the fact that we won at a very high rate and continually produced high NFL draft picks during his 30 years suggests that it ultimately didn't really matter.
August 30th, 2012 at 1:44 PM ^
a conversation that's strayed into the Twilight Zone.
August 31st, 2012 at 10:16 AM ^
App State, a faster USC, a faster Oregon, over and over again to a faster Troy Smith, etc. that created that conversation. Remember when Ron English first came in at DC and the defense devoted their summer to loosing weight, and getting faster and adding endurance?
The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article on NFL Players: Tired of Being Fat (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100008723963904443751045775911400298978…),
My view: Gittleson = old NFL and Wisconsin run stopping (or blocking) players and Barwis = new spread run / pass players, and Wellman is somewhere in between. The reason Bo didn't win many Rose Bowls is simple: he and Gittleson built their teams to win the old Big Ten and beat Ohio State. Wisconsin (and maybe Iowa) are the last vestiges of the old Big Ten.
Sure, maybe Gittleson could have evolved his conditioning program to bring what Rich wanted, but it was reasonable for Rich to bring in the guy he trusted to get the job done. just like it was reasonable for Brady Hoke to do the same.
I agree with the OP, Wellman has done some good work over the past two summers. I think the results are part Wellman's program building what Hoke needs, and part players like BWC, Q and Ash realizing no one is in front of them, time to graduation is short, and they need to get it done (now or never).
August 30th, 2012 at 12:46 PM ^
The motivation is really the key I think. Multiple players have said they didn't like the atmosphere RR was creating and it felt like everyone for themselves rather than a team. I'd imagine that reduced the amount of voluntary workouts the players did. You see after Hoke and company came in some of the guys just started shedding pounds or bulking up (as needed). Likely because senior leadership was better and the players were eager to perform. That's likely the major difference.
The only real techinque issue I see is that Barwis excels at creating the the spread and shred guys RR wants. Fast, agile, disruptive. That was fine for the offense but I think it hurt the defense. I do trust Wellman to be more capable of turning out future Mike Martin hulk like players. Basically if I wanted a coach to crank out giant nose tackles that could clog up the middle and shut down the Wisconsin power running attack, I'd likely look to Wellman more than Barwis. That isn't really meant as a slam against Barwis, so much as realizing Barwis was building players for one type of system, Wellman is building them for another. In a perfect world I'd have them both on staff, with Barwis as my agility trainer and Wellman running the weight room.
August 30th, 2012 at 1:32 PM ^
The only real techinque issue I see is that Barwis excels at creating the the spread and shred guys RR wants. Fast, agile, disruptive. That was fine for the offense but I think it hurt the defense. I do trust Wellman to be more capable of turning out future Mike Martin hulk like players.
Is this S&C or just recruiting? Our spread & shred offense didn't function that well until its third year, when we put a really, really fast guy at QB - and he was fast long before he arrived here. On the OL, it indeed became more athletic, but again, that was as much due to recruiting as anything - Carr switched to zone blocking in 2006 and started recruiting players who fit that mold. Molk was recruited specifically for his agility. Later, Omameh was as well.
As for Mike Martin, he was always a physical monster (as was Lewan, who would have fit well in our older blocking schemes). He battled injuries and had suspect coaching for his first three years, and then it all came together last year. I don't know that Wellman was all that responsible. I think S&C knowledge has reached a point at which these guys are basically interchangeable with each other. Maybe some S&C coaches are more willing to look the other way on PED use, but that's probably the only significant difference.
August 30th, 2012 at 11:59 AM ^
I think this is more perception than reality. Strength and conditioning coaches always get hyped for a few years, then a new guy gets hyped after the last one moves on.
Either that or the fatties were just putting too much Nesquick in their post workout milk.
August 30th, 2012 at 12:03 PM ^
But I think if you actually asked around in professional circles, Wellman might come more highly regarded.
August 30th, 2012 at 12:09 PM ^
I don't have any insider info on our S&C at this point, but I do think the following:
- People hype S&C too much for sports:
I understand it is necessary in order to fill out younger bodies, etc. However, getting better in the weight room doesn't automatically translate to better on field play. Strength and conditioning should be used and accept for what it is: field preparedness. I've been around guys who train high profile athletes (NFL, MLB, NBA, etc) and they all will tell you that work in the weight room will not necessarily make you a better player at your sport. Practicing football (or other sport) is what should be emphasized.
- Oly lifting vs. non-O:
There are so many different schools of though on this one. I know guys who say there is no other way but Oly lifting! rabble rabble! I also know other guys who say it's a waste of time to teach the lifts and risk injury when they can get excellent results via other means. Personally, I think people are too worried about the details when really, what matters is that you have sound meso/macro cycles, stick to it and work hard. Is that clean and jerk really making you better on the field compared to squatting and OH pressing? I'll just leave that one here...
Also, all these great strength coaches know each other and know exactly what methods each other are using. Nobody has a super-secret program that is better than another.
August 30th, 2012 at 12:46 PM ^
I pretty strongly disagree with your first point. While obviously the appropriately developed skill set is necessary for any sport, high level S&C combined with high level effort makes a huge difference. One athlete with higher rate of force production combined with a higher maximal force will have a significant advantage over an equally skilled player. Football specific, you can watch as much film as you want (and should), but you want the MLB who can squat 500lb at 250 bodyweight over the MLB who can't do that. It may not make you better at "playing" your sport, but it will give you the best opportunity to apply your skillset appropriately.
August 30th, 2012 at 12:55 PM ^
Strength and conditioning is definitely important to a player's development, but from the fans' perspective, it's probably not worth paying too much attention to, because it's very likely that every school has a highly qualified S&C coach who is doing great work. As sports medicine gets more advanced and knowledge of advanced training techniques becomes more and more widespread, the law of diminishing returns kicks in. With every program focused on doing this stuff right, gaining a competitive advantage is difficult.
August 30th, 2012 at 1:08 PM ^
I agree that for fans, it's essentially meaningless. I have coached S&C on the NCAA level, and currently still work in the field, and without being involved on a daily basis most fans either know just enough to proclaim the coach "The Best/Worst Ever" without understanding what is actually going on behind the scenes.
August 30th, 2012 at 12:07 PM ^
Once you get into the elite ranks of strength coaches, it's pretty much six of one, a half-dozen of the other. I highly doubt that either of them would take any real issue with any part of the other's program.
August 30th, 2012 at 12:12 PM ^
are doing what the HC asks of them. I think what Rich Rod wanted his athletes to be is far different that what Hoke wants his athletes to be.
I think we can all agree that see what Rich Rod wanted on the defensive side of the ball was kind of frustrating to us all....specifically DL and OL.
Barwis became a rock star because of his personality more than his result probably.
August 30th, 2012 at 12:15 PM ^
It is all about being orthopedically sound.
August 30th, 2012 at 12:16 PM ^
I think it has to do with the how hard the kid is willing to work. It seems to me that the current players would give their left hand for Brady Hoke. I remember in 2008 the tv announcers would say things like look at those offensive lineman at Michigan there isn't a bad ounce of fat on those bodies. They then would go on to talk about how fast paced the offense was and how the OLINE had to be in great shape.
August 30th, 2012 at 12:17 PM ^
As noted by a few already, I think Barwis was over-hyped in terms of providing some sort of distinct advantage over other S&C programs. That said, I will forever be in awe of him for what he has done with Brock Mealer, and I don't mean the dedication and motivation part, but rather the technical aspect of what he has done. He had no experience in rehabbing spinal cord injuries and somehow figured out a program to get Brock's body to repsond the way he wanted it to. Incredible stuff.
In the brief interviews I have seen with Wellman, I really like him. His participation in the Navy SEAL trip with the seniors certainly made a great impression on me, and I'm sure earned him some credibility with the players.
August 30th, 2012 at 1:35 PM ^
Barwis "did" have experience in this area before he worked with Mealer.
August 30th, 2012 at 12:17 PM ^
" but it could be said Wellman has been more effective during his limited time at Michigan in getting guys into playing shape."
But that doesn't make it true.
As others pointed out, Its all about the player's internal motivation when you get two good S&C guys. We have been fortunate in that area with our last 2.
August 30th, 2012 at 12:23 PM ^
I don't think we've ever had a bad S&C coach. Mike Gittleson was much maligned, especially after Barwis took over, but he churned out plenty of NFL-ready guys. I think the gap between a "good" and "bad" college football S&C coach is likely to be tiny, if it even exists. All of them are probably in the 99th percentile of the profession.
August 30th, 2012 at 1:38 PM ^
now was he on the cutting edge of the field in the last few years of Carr ? No, not at all. Doesn't mean that he was bad. Similar is the house cleaning PSU did with their "Gittleson" who was nothing but a machine guy primarilly. That type of trainng was the mainstay for quite a while and it has evolved. Barwis and Wellman someday may be veiwed as representing a "former" way of training too.
August 30th, 2012 at 12:18 PM ^
Apparently Denard has been a junk-food junkie through his years @ UM. This summer he decided to cut out the Little Debbies and Candy from his diet & he has noticed a significant difference.
About diet, I hope the players do not emulate Hoke's "No eatin' the day of the game" policy again this year. Especially for the night games! I believe several bought into it last year, including Denard.
August 30th, 2012 at 1:58 PM ^
Was that his personal policy, or did he recommend that to the players?
August 30th, 2012 at 5:27 PM ^
I'd like to see a link for either of those statements. I've seen no reference to either Denard cutting sweets or any of the players emulating Hoke's no food on game day ritual.
August 30th, 2012 at 6:02 PM ^
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120829/SPORTS0201/208290347
I don't know about not eating on game day, but this speaks to Denard's abuse of Little Debbie.
August 30th, 2012 at 7:42 PM ^
That's not what I mean. I've already read that article. Dude above said that he stopped eating junk food and feels better because of it. That's what I was asking for...
But thanks, even with the snarky subject line.
August 30th, 2012 at 12:34 PM ^
I know just by the eye test Wellman looks like a tough MF'er who would make my ass run and get in shape until the cows come home.
Makes me tired just thinking about it.
August 30th, 2012 at 12:37 PM ^
I have yet to hear a S&C guy or any coach for that matter say "Yeah, player X put on some bad weight in the offseason." or "Our guys didn't work very hard in the offseason." or "Unfortunately player X lost some good weight this offseason."
Moral of the story: all S&C gossip is fluff.
August 30th, 2012 at 12:37 PM ^
Both men are good at what they do, but I especially take notice with Barwis and what he's been able to do for Brock Mealer. Aside from the fact that it is an incredibly humanitarian act, the fact that Barwis has helped Mealer come this far along is a strong testament to his abilities.
August 30th, 2012 at 12:52 PM ^
Excellent post,
August 30th, 2012 at 1:23 PM ^
A lot of that is on Brock too...most of it actually. That kid is amazing and with Barwis' assistance he has done the impossible.
August 31st, 2012 at 10:27 AM ^
and yes
August 30th, 2012 at 12:53 PM ^
Why is it that former Michigan Players train with Mike Barwis? To Quote David Molk "Wellman is good S/C coach and has read all the books but Mike Barwis wrote those books." You also have Mike Martin, Ryan VanBergen, Ryan Mundy, Jack Johnson, Larry Foote, Braylon Edwards, Lamar Woodley, and Brandon Graham just to name a few all work out with Mike Barwis. Aaron Wellman is a very good S/C coach but their is no reason to put down Mike Barwis because he is not our S/C anymore. Mike donates a lot of time to help high school players improve. They both are excellent but they have diffferent approaches. I do not even feel the need to mention the work he has done for Brock because of what he does for others.
August 30th, 2012 at 5:00 PM ^
Barwis is a great coach and and great guy too. Other considerations should be the fact that many players have changed positions as well in the transition. Weights and builds change based on those position requirements. RichRod wanted the his guys to be leaner. If he had wanted them to be larger I feel quite confident that Mike Barwis who in my mind is still a Michigan Man would have been able to provide that. I wish there was a way to have them both.
August 30th, 2012 at 12:55 PM ^
Strength and conditioning coaches train the players occording to the head coaches philosophy. I'd be happy working with either one of them but, I know more about Barwis than I do Wellman. I'd gladly take either coach over the Strength and conditioning program we ran the last few years of Coach Carr's career.
August 30th, 2012 at 1:05 PM ^
I'd gladly take either coach over the Strength and conditioning program we ran the last few years of Coach Carr's career.People have been saying this for five years. Why? Is there any evidence that Gittleson wasn't good at his job? Was another guy really going to get more out of Jake Long, Alan Branch, LaMarr Woodley et al., than he did?
August 30th, 2012 at 2:57 PM ^
The vast majority of scouting reports on Wolverines headed to the NFL prior to Gittleson's departure consisted of "Lacks explosiveness; lacks lower body strength."
There is a reason that, prior to Brandon Graham, UM hadn't had a single first round pick from the defensive front seven since 1986: measurables. Those guys disn't test well at the combine, and that is directly on Gittleson.
August 30th, 2012 at 3:07 PM ^
OK, that is an interesting data point. But we produced many 1st-round picks in other positions. And we certainly had plenty of quality players in the front seven over those years.
Do you think that Gittleson's methods actually cost us on the field? Or did they just cause some of our guys to be underrated by the pro scouts?
August 31st, 2012 at 10:32 AM ^
the last few years in key games (Texas, OSU, USC, etc.). Close games where we could score enough points to make up for a fading defense against top opponents.
August 30th, 2012 at 1:22 PM ^
Who could better prepare me for NCAA '14? That's who I need STAT.
August 30th, 2012 at 4:12 PM ^
I'd recommend a steady diet of Jenna Jameson videos.
August 30th, 2012 at 1:32 PM ^
A statement of fact is made about how one may be better than the other because of a player and good weight, bad weight in his senior year? Anyone ever hear of physical maturity, and maybe willingness of the athlete (BWC knows he has one shot now ).
All these comments about how good styles are or S&C methodologies... not anyone here has spent any time, let alone actual training time with either of these coaches and yet you "know" their styles and strategies based on what?
Both are good and know their stuff. Barwis has more years in the field than Wellman. Wellman is dedicated, motivated, and a great fit for this coach and team and will continue to excel.
August 30th, 2012 at 1:37 PM ^
There arent any secrets in S&C, theyre all doing the same lifts probably at the exact same times since their seasons are the same.
Here is a breakdown of what a S&C training program may look like:
Typically there will be a few "Offseason" and "Preseason" sessions followed by "Inseason".
*Offseason lifts consist of high sets and reps (3-6x10-20) with a moderate % (50-75% max). This would be an example of a Hypertrophy/Endurance phase and can last around 6 weeks.
*The second Offseason lift is lower sets/reps (3-5x4-8) with a higher % (80-90% max) to increase strength. This is the Basic Strength phase and can last around 6 weeks as well.
*Another Offseason lift consists of sets/reps of 3-5x2-5 and a % of 75-90 of thier max. This is the Strength and Power phase.
Preseason lifts would start after the Offseason lifts and a S&C coach may go back to the Basic Strength phase for a few weeks before moving on to the Peaking phase.
*Preseason lifts have very low sets/reps (1-3x1-3) and a high % (85->95% max). This is the Peaking phase where strength and power are increased the most.
*Inseason lifts are just moderate in intensity, most of the conditioning comes from practice. This lasts the length of the season (obviously). Sets/reps (2-3x6-8) and % (80-85% max) are used for the Maintenance phase.
Mixed inbetween the Offseason, Preseason and Inseasons are testing and recovery weeks which would make up the 52 weeks of the year. There are also holidays to take into account when making a training schedule.
Also, this set up can be used for literally any sport. As long as there is a set season, it would work. Using this for MMA or military training would be a little tricky as you have to be ready to go at all times. Hope this helps, if not it was fun for me. Go Blue!
August 30th, 2012 at 1:46 PM ^
1. You could work out with Barwis and it would cost you less than "give anything"
2. You have to consider the coaches they worked under. They both are great but Barwis trained players to the desires of RR which was more speed oriented. Wellman trains players to the desire of BH which is more size and strength.
To think that Barwis could not get players the same size and strength or that Wellman couldn't get lineman to be sleeker, faster and more agile is an ignorant thought.
They are both great and UM is better for having them.
August 30th, 2012 at 1:48 PM ^
motivation that coursed through the team and wider establishment during RR's tenure to even really enter the conversation. Barwis in Hoke's system? Welmann in RR's? With alumin and fans behind both? Empty cupboard, etc.?
It does interest me that Barwis didn't follow RR to AZ.