Freep interviews our incoming freshmen players.

Submitted by wolverine1987 on

No controversy, no sneaky "how much practice time are they forcing on you--it's ok, it's just between us" questions. Just routine questioning of some of the guys, about the only thing that jumped out to me was Justice Hayes saying: "in the whole program, they say the lifting is the hardest part. They lift more now than with the previous staff." Can that be true? Anyway, it was interesting to hear what some of the guys are thinking going into school. What a great time that they'll always remember.

http://www.freep.com/article/20110630/SPORTS06/106300464/Q-several-U-M-…

 

fat_wilhelm

June 30th, 2011 at 10:45 AM ^

You're wrong about me. I'm a CSCS, compete in strongman and powerlifting, and though I didn't play college sports, I have a pretty extensive athletic background. My point was to say that once you get to D1 level and start comparing the intricacies of Wellman vs. Barwis, etc., it probably doesn't make as much difference as you think because these athletes are going to respond no matter what. And contrary to general assumption, not all guys in the position of major program S&C coach know what the hell they're doing, yet the programs they're part of manage to do OK. Hell, Iowa's coach just put a bunch of kids in the hospital with rhabdo.

Blue in Yarmouth

June 30th, 2011 at 10:56 AM ^

That isn't what you said at all. You said essentially that a chimp could be the S&C coach and these guys would still thrive. That is complete and utter BS and not nearly what you are saying in this post.

In this post you have changed your tune and say that basically all S&C coaches are the same and it doesn't matter who a school has they will thrive in any S&C program. Again, I disagree completely. I am not of the same opinion as most on here that believe Barwis was the be all and end all in S&Cing, but all S&C coaches are not created equal.

As I said, I have played sports my entire lift and at a very high level in hockey. There are very real difference in both philosophies and techniques when it comes to S&Cing. As I said previously, I was traded during my time in the Q and the training program was completely different from one to the other and the second one yielded far greater results.

I'm sorry, but in this case I am flat out saying you're wrong.

fat_wilhelm

June 30th, 2011 at 11:09 AM ^

Again, though, U of M now, U of M last year, Penn State, LSU, etc... they are all very different philosophies on S&C, but I'm willing to bet that at that level, those philosophies are not going to have a huge impact on wins and losses. Trust me - I value the importance of S&C as it's my one true passion. I was offered an internship under Barwis and really like what he does and quite honestly, I don't like the little bit of video I've seen on Wellman, but will that matter come fall? Probably not. The chimp comment was obviously an exaggeration, but either way, I respect your opinion of disagreement.

maizenbluenc

June 30th, 2011 at 10:40 AM ^

were none other than Patrick Omameh, and Mark Huyge. Kevin Koger was hanging around as well. Let me tell you, it does not appear that the new conditioning staff is returning to the pizza a night program. Those guys are built like tanks.

superstringer

June 30th, 2011 at 11:06 AM ^

The "pizza" story is legendary now, as if its conclusive proof the Gittleson system was doomed to failure.  However, I am aware of two anecdotes that compel  me to hold up my pencil and pull a Corso:

1.  Death Roh, IIRC, is eating like 5000 caleries a DAY.  They want him to massively increase his weight.  I'm not sure that's necessarily pizza, however, it certainly is un-Barwis, isn't it?  And it doesn't mean Roh is doomed to failure.

2.  There is a general story about the U-Dub o-line.  They bring in 2-starts with have strong frames and nasty attitudes.  Then they fatten them up on Wiscy cheese and sausages (well, slight exaggeration) while making them lift weights like no tomorrow, and end up with NFL linemen who are huge and can run-block a tank.  This is also the un-Barwis approach -- make them huge and strong.

So, I think we should put the hatin' on pizza thing to bed.  Barwis was about flexibility and agility.  That didn't work too well against U-Dub's o-line last year.  Maybe sometimes they do need to fatten up the linemen -- as long as they maintain their strength, they can play.

AlwaysBlue

June 30th, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^

The "pizza" story is both legendary and as you point out wrong.  It still pisses me off to think about the beating Gittleson took based on the eye-test of people here who judged football players like some kind of runway models.

maizenbluenc

June 30th, 2011 at 12:56 PM ^

our "water boys" don't have Boren guts. Omameh was listed in the spring at 299, and Huyge at 306, and they both look like most of that is muscle mass. If they are adding weight, it is good weight.

On the flip, I think the issue with the Barwis system may be that it takes at least three years in system to get to the ideal weight / strength balance. With the youth of our team, we never saw a starting lineup at full Barwis potential (e.g., the '07 WVU team). Parenthetically, I also believe that Barwis had to adjust his weight / speed balance for the Big Ten and he hadn't perfected the dials yet.

My point though is the new S&C team appear to favor muscular mass, over plain old mass. At least with experienced players. We'll see how the incoming OL are built up (i.e., do they do a Barwis tear down to fitness and rebuild up, or do they do pack on weight and catch up on fitness as they go along.)

superstringer

June 30th, 2011 at 10:57 AM ^

Best line:  "Denard is such a humble young man and treats everybody with respect."

Yet another voice adding to the cacaphony of proof about what a stellar representative of the institution Denard is.  From new coaches to recruits, he is universally described as humble and respectful -- I suppose, the polar opposite of the now-former QB dipsh!t from tSIO.  Say what you want about RR, but bringing Denard to our program should always be remembered.

mhayes09

June 30th, 2011 at 10:29 PM ^

There were less than 10 guys that could bench 225 20 or more times when Hoke took over. I don't care who the person was before, that is unacceptable. Regardless of philosophy, that is unacceptable.