Heretical/Serious question: Does Barwis deserve the hype?
It is a measure of his reputation that this question can even be raised. Most S&C coaches are anonymous to all but the close followers of a team, and are not noticed much unless there is a weakness or problem.
In the dim, pre-Barwis, Carr era, the thing above all else that I was most outraged by were comments from opposing players to the effect of "we knew they'd get tired in the 4th quarter" or "they were gassed at the end of the game." We heard this often, even after The Horror, and to hear that from an App St. player was the ultimate indictment of the Gittleson tenure.
So we all were thrilled at Barwis' arrival, and I continue to be glad he is here. And while many trolls make snarky comments about him, we know that our two year losing record isn't really a reflection on any S&C coach, being far more about talent, experience, position coaching, etc. I will caveat the issue with this: I assume it is tough for any fan to really measure how fit and strong a team is, let alone how that translates into winning on the field. The coaches are the only ones with the expertise to do so.
With that aside, do you believe there is evidence to show that Barwis deserves his high profile?
EDIT: to be clear, I'm not asking if he is good, I assume from player comments that he is. I'm asking if he deserves the extra money and reputation that puts him above other good S&C coaches.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:56 AM ^
I think there are two sides to the equation at least.
I like that Barwis is taking overweight (and skinny) players from high school, and rebuilding them the right way. And I like how that is most likely better preparing these guys for a fit life after youth and football. Lets face it, the Gittleson "pizza a night" plan did not do much for our linemen in the long run.
That said, I think the team is so young, that we really don't have many guys with three to four years of Barwis conditioning to judge how they'll stack up against a Buckeye or Badger "pizza a night" line. Mike could have gone hybrid and done the pizzas and the conditioning, but he seems to have taken the long view (which is better for our athletes).
At the same time, he may have to modify his lineman conditioning for the year in and year out competition we face in the Big Ten, and compromise weight for conditioning in the long run. Judging by his press conference comments, Rich seems to have come around on the thought of needing some bigger guys on the line.
So I think it is two fold: once Barwis has a group of fully developed juniors and seniors, with capable backups to spell them in the two deep, we'll know how his program really stacks up. In the meantime, I'd imagine Rich's comments mean they are considering making adjustments to how they recruit and build up linemen.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:04 PM ^
that we're playing with a bunch of freshmen and sophomores for the most part.
What are Barwis players going to look like when they are seniors and are NATURALLY bigger/faster/stronger than they were as freshmen WITH an additional 3-4 years of Barwis on top of that.
I think that in another 2 years is the first time you are actually going to be able to make apples:apples comparisons.
You can't compare 4/5 years gittleson to 1, 2 even 3 years Barwis. It's just not even remotely the same thing.
Wait 2 more years and ask us again.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:25 PM ^
I think it's a reasonable question. We've gotten plenty of anecdotal evidence that he's the real deal, but thus far it hasn't seemed to have translated into improved performance on the field. I do suspect that this will change when our young team comes of age.