S&C differing philosophies
Reading the article on the side about Wisconsin's new strength and conditioning program(http://myespn.go.com/blogs/bigten/0-3-421/Herbert-sets-new-tone-in-Wisc…) and approach I saw how its almost a complete 180 from Barwis. While Barwis focuses on agility and speed as much as strength, Wisconsin's strength coach seems to be more focused on strength and size, even cutting down on the running to leave more time for strength training. There are only a few things the programs have in common: Building better team unity and accountability, and aiming to mold better football players.
As Michigan fans we are likely to consider Barwis' program the better of the two but it will be interesting to see on the field this fall if their strength trumps our speed and if they can keep it up for 4 quarters unlike this last season.
They're using Miracle-Gro. Not sure that even Barwis can match that.
Uh, Michigan was using a similar philosophy (size above all else) under Gittleson. I think we all know that we didn't prefer it.
Of course, Wisconsin's schematic philosophy is different than ours as well, and it seems as though each team has matched S&C techniques with football goals.
Gittleson's program might have stagnated, but we won a national championship using his program. I know we all think Barwis is superior, but he's never won a national championship.
I mean to pass no judgment about which is better, just that, right now, Michigan fans would probably prefer the method focusing on speed (though I think there is an argument to be made that it's a direction in college football necessitating this change).
Agreed. It's a different game than it was in 1997.
This makes sense for Wisconsin. If they focused on speed and agility but still had a power ground game, it would be a poor fit. Rodriguez's gameplans are built around speed and agility, so using MiracleGro would be counterproductive.
In this day and age, I'll take speed over power.
Wisconsin and size is traditional big ten football.
On Wisconsin! On Wisconsin!
Bounce right off that line.
Run the ball three times a series,
Punt on fourth and nine.
On Wisconsin! On Wisconsin!
Every week's the same.
Drink, fellows, drink, drink, drink,
Forget this game.
I think much of it is semantics, Barwis focuses on strength..Will Johnson T. Taylor etc he just doesn't want them to have any excess fat on them. That being said I think it is a good idea for Wiscy. Highlight your strengths. You are a big power team be big and kickass. I think Alvarez was very smart in how he turned around that program. He built his team around the culture and climate of the area. Mich has access to better athletes, but when you are limited in talent accumulation outlier strategies are great moves I think.
Terrence and Will were already strong before they started working with Barwis. Taylor was one of the strongest guys to ever come through the program from the start. Also, these guys didn't do their combine training with Barwis. Johnson did his at a Velocity Sports Performance in California and that's where he worked on his bench press. This wasn't from Barwis' strength program
Taylor and Graham and the entire team made huge strength gains working with Barwis.
....the scene where the defensive line for Wisconsin looked at each other and said, "We're the Tonesetters."
Except, they said it like Justin Timberlake said, "We're the Dancers" in the Beyonce "Single Ladies" video sketch on Saturday Night Live in November?
"Yeah i think that was really tight."
"Tightest workout yet."
"We're the Tonesetters."
I think Kiffin's a major-league asshat, but what he said just prior to the '07 Rose Bowl is interesting:
"Still, when asked what he noticed about Michigan's defense, he replied: size. "They tend to get bigger guys," he said. "I don't know if that's the way they recruit. But when you look at their linebackers and linemen, there is about an average of two inches and 20 pounds compared to our guys."
Size, he said, is not something USC covets. "We go for speed," he said. "That's just our philosophy.""
For better or worse, RR is changing things up. I think it'll be for the better, but nothing's proven yet.
I have been going to coahcing clinics for many years and I saw Barwis this year, he was the best presenter I have ever seen. He knows his stuff, the team this year is going to be a completly different animal. His focus actually makes you stronger period, not just in benching in squats but in athletic movements. His style is also going to prevent injuries.
I say we throw guys like Vincent Smith and Odoms at Wisconsin a lot, see how their size does against those guys.
Without taking a position, I am recalling the Tom Brady Orange Bowl against Alabama. In the first half, announcer Griese trumpeted SEC speed, and he looked to be correct. In the second half, when Michigan dominated, he had to admit that Big Ten strength or conditioning (don't remember exactly) was winning out, i.e. Michigan had worn Alabama down and was kicking ass. I would like to know how we went from that to The Horror in only 7 seasons. Because of showings like the Orange Bowl, it took me a long time to sour on Lloyd. Can someone explain how the Gittleson plan worked in that Bowl game and then seemed like a failure later? Just better players back then?
I don't think you can ever look at a specific game and argue that the result was due to issues of size and speed (well I'm sure you can, but it seems to be oversimplified and greatly discounts a number of other factors). In the 2000 Orange Bowl, we just had a kickass offense. The o-line was awesome, and we had fantastic players at the skill positions (Brady, A-Train, Terrell, Walker, etc.). I think that regardless of issues of size and strength, and perhaps despite Gittleson (though I think his negative effect on some of our teams was a bit overstated), we had a better team.
My recollection of the 2000 Orange Bowl was not that the S&C program had Michigan players in better shape, but rather that Michigan was trailing in the second half, and Lloyd could no longer use his typical conservative play-calling. Once he opened up the playbook, Michigan's offense started dominating. I remember wishing at the end of that game that Lloyd would let the team play like that more often.
because just as everything else in the world, things continue to evolve. The problem with LC and Gittleson was that they seemed to be stuck on the tried and true traditions of Michigan football (Bigger players, Power I, conservative.) Yes, those traditions have worked out for Michigan for a long time, but the game has become more of a speed and finesse game than it was in the 90s. When you combined our end product of our recruiting classes and our outdated S/C program, it got us exactly what it did, 8-4 seasons and losing to rivals with a decent bowl game matchup.
because just as everything else in the world, things continue to evolve. The problem with LC and Gittleson was that they seemed to be stuck on the tried and true traditions of Michigan football (Bigger players, Power I, conservative.) Yes, those traditions have worked out for Michigan for a long time, but the game has become more of a speed and finesse game than it was in the 90s. When you combined our end product of our recruiting classes and our outdated S/C program, it got us exactly what it did, 8-4 seasons and losing to rivals with a decent bowl game matchup.
because just as everything else in the world, things continue to evolve. The problem with LC and Gittleson was that they seemed to be stuck on the tried and true traditions of Michigan football (Bigger players, Power I, conservative.) Yes, those traditions have worked out for Michigan for a long time, but the game has become more of a speed and finesse game than it was in the 90s. When you combined our end product of our recruiting classes and our outdated S/C program, it got us exactly what it did, 8-4 seasons and losing to rivals with a decent bowl game matchup.
I can tell you're pretty adament about your opinion here :)
When Will Johnson puts up 225lbs 47 times how can you say Barwis is only concerned with speed? All the players have made significant strength gains under Barwis while reducing body fat. The idea is strength - excessive weight + increased speed training will lead to lean mean destruction machines.
Give me a man a little smaller, but as strong if not stronger and definitely quicker then the man he's facing and he will win every time.
Bariws didn't train Will Johnson for the NFL combine.
I don't know how much of an effect Barwis had on Johnson's bench, but he must have helped a little. You don't spend 12 months in an S&C program and completely remake your body in 3 months. Barwis's program deserves at least a little credit for Johnson's strength.
I never said Barwis didn't have an affect on Will Johnson. The poster specifically brought up Johnson's BP record that he set at the NFL combine as validation of the Barwis program. Johnson trained at Velocity Sports Performance in preparation for the Combine. Most draft prospects work with similar programs such as Velocity.
Eh...that's not the way I read it, but whatever.
Anyway, Johnson didn't bench 47 times at the Combine. It was at Michigan's pro day.
Sorry if you misinterpreted was I was saying. (I guess?)
You are correct, though, that he broke the BP record at his pro day and not at the combine.
APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED. I HATE YOU.
The Velocity gyms are sick. I played a season of semi-pro football out here and we trained with Velocity trainers at their facilities. Top notch.
I didn't know they made semi-pro football video games. Was it for Atari or something?
Fair. I should have seen that coming. We joked and called it our "clutching onto our glory/youth" league. It's more accurate, mostly because it entirely lacks the word "pro."
Michigan is moving in a new direction with the spread. Wisconsin still embraces the big hogmollies of the three yards and a cloud of dust philosophy. Good for them, but I think that all that will get Wisc is 9-7 wins and a decent bowl game. Michigan has higher aspirations.
boys! boys! Will you two ramp it UP! lol
Wisky lost the Outback Bowl to Tennessee last year, and it could have been a blowout if UT had a real coach (Sorry, but Fulmer was at the top of my "coaches who have to go" list after Carr left, because the game had passed him by). A gross lack of speed was the main reason Wisky lost. I was there, and it was much worse than it appeared on TV.
For years, I have listened to well-meaning, "old-school" types say that fat, strong, heavy linemen were valuable in the Big Ten for when the weather got cold; supposedly, they have more "leverage" than lighter players. My response was always that they don't play the Rose Bowl in cold-weather cities.
Kiffin may turn out to be the worst head coach in college football history, but he hit the nail on the head about speed being more important than bulk. Luckily for UM, Barwis tries to develop speed and strength without as much bulk. It seems to have worked well for USC and Florida. We'll see how well it works for UM.
I much prefer what is being done now than what was done before.
Joe Thomas and Jake Long were fat slobs.
And when you say last year you are referring to Wisconsin's 42-13 loss to Fla. St. or am I missing something. Their offense will workfor them IMO anyways. Recruiting will prevent them from further success.
I always find it interesting when people bash Wisconsin for being an old school smashmouth football team, yet they are 3-0 in Rose Bowls since 1994. Actually, their overall record in bowl games since 1994 is quite respectable (9 wins, 4 losses).
That overall bowl record is nice, but the "3-0 in Rose Bowls since 1994" line is a bit misleading when you consider that their last appearance was 10 years ago. The Pac-10 stunk in the 1990s, and Big Ten teams beat up on them. Not so much now.
3-0 is 3-0. Their overall bowl record in that time span is quite impressive for a so called "second rate" Big Ten team.
they played stanford in one of those games, i think that says a lot about the strength of the pac-10 at the time
Stanford? Meh.
A lot of Big Ten teams would have gone 3-0 against the teams they faced. They weren't beating Carroll's SC. And again, it's been a decade since they've played there. It's not a very contemporary thing to discuss. Tom Brady was our QB the last time it happened.
This discussion is hampered by USC-colored glasses.
There was no USC-like team in the Pac-10 during the 1990s. However, Michigan wasn't exactly USC in the 1990s and Ohio State wasn't USC in the 1990s, either. What USC has going on right now is a pretty special thing, whether you're talking about national championships or the production of NFL prospects.
The Pac-10's top teams weren't as good as USC is now; that's true. But Washington, Stanford, and UCLA were all good for parts of that decade. It would be more impressive if Wisconsin beat USC now, but...like...duh.
Apparently, nothing counted in the Pac-10 before Pete Carroll entered the picture. I guess our Rose Bowl win against Wash. St. didn't mean much, either.
I don't think anyone is saying that, but it needs to be pointed out that not all Rose Bowl victories are equally impressive. It's always a big deal to win the Rose Bowl, but doing it when Wisco was doing is a lot different than doing it now. In fact, Wisco beating Stanford was like USC beating Illinois a year ago. Sure, they won the Rose Bowl, but I doubt they're going to crazy about it.