Was Barwis the best part of RR era?
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.
August 7th, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^
I hated it. I always felt less explosive. So, I would generally fake it. I would generally be the only one stretching after a game/workout, though.
August 7th, 2011 at 11:55 AM ^
We all know how excessive stretching worked for us when RR took over..
August 7th, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^
You ever see a lion take the time to stretch before taking down a gazelle?
August 7th, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^
Cats (big and small) and dogs stretch contantly.
in a Far Side cartoon. Cant find that exact one to post here though. Actually, I think it was cheetahs stretching, but in the world of The Far Side, thats close enough
That would have translated into many many wins.
Alternatively, he could have turned our players into lions.
heh. I was wondering if anyone got the reference.....
August 7th, 2011 at 12:05 PM ^
RR Era Rankings:
Best Part:
Our Offense: Watching it score touchdowns at will against vastly smaller / less athletic teams like it was playing junior high flag football.
Worst Part:
Our Offense: Watching it sputter when vastly larger / more athletic teams would laugh in the face of a system where they realistically only had to worry about one player being protected by Lewan, some under sized lineman, and a 5'6" dude.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:19 PM ^
Worst Part:
Our Offense: Watching it sputter when vastly larger / more athletic teams would laugh in the face of a system where they realistically only had to worry about one player being protected by Lewan, some under sized lineman, and a 5'6" dude.
The "undersized linemen," apart from the aforementioned Lewan:
 |
[Lewan] btw: a 294-lb. Soph. |
| 72 Mark Huyge | 6-6, 306, Sr., RS | |
 |
|
 |
52 Stephen Schilling | 6-5, 303, Sr., RS |
| 56 Ricky Barnum | 6-3, 286, Jr., RS | |
| 57 Elliott Mealer | 6-5, 313, Jr., RS | |
|
|
|
 |
50 David Molk | 6-2, 288, Sr., RS |
| 63 Rocko Khoury | 6-4, 295, Jr., RS | |
| 57 Elliott Mealer | 6-5, 313, Jr., RS | |
|
|
|
|
|
65 Patrick Omameh | 6-4, 299, Jr., RS |
| 74 John Ferrara | 6-4, 283, Sr., RS | |
| 76 Q. Washington | 6-4, 315, So., RS | |
|
|
|
|
|
79 Perry Dorrestein | 6-7, 305, Sr., RS |
| 72 Mark Huyge | 6-6, 306, Sr., RS | |
| 75 Michael Schofield | 6-7, 293, So., RS | |
Michigan's offense sputtered when, as a bunch of sophomores, they went up against the top four defenses in the Big Ten, composed of juniors and seniors.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:25 PM ^
For once, I agree with you. I'm not sure why everyone thinks the linemen were undersized for the last three years. They are right in the middle/upper tier of the B1G in terms of size.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:28 PM ^
How many sophmores do you consider a bunch? 4?
When virtually all of your skill position players are sophomores and they comprise 1/3 or more of the starting team, yes indeed I call that a "bunch."
"Bunch" is a technical term in statistics, used to denote "significance." Slightly more than "some," and fewer than "all."
I went with the definition that states a bunch is a large number or quantity. Because, according to my dictionary, there is no statistical definition of bunch that denotes significance, so I didn't know that's what you meant.
I always thought that a "bunch" of sophomores was what happened when one arrived at Ulrich's around 11 AM or so.....
a bunch is the number right between some and a shitton
August 7th, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^
I see 3 SRs, a JR, and a SOPH....
I love how you referred to Michigan's offense as "a bunch of sophomores" after you provide a chart of the offensive line that featured ... uh ... no sophomores.
Michigan's true sophomore/redshirt freshmen starters on offense last year: Denard, Smith and Lewan. That is it.
The quarterback was young, but the youth of the unit was a myth.
I posted this year's OL depth chart. (To prove, in the first place, that they were not an undersized group. And that Lewan, the presumed ass-kicker of the group was a bit smaller than the average. Not surprising since he was a year or two or three younger than the other guys.) So, reduce all the above-listed experience by 1 year. (I don't think weights have changed all that much, and in fact they may be last year's weights, etc.)
And yeah, when I casually said, "A bunch of sophomores" were on the allegedly "sputtering" Michigan offense, I did mean that we had a large percentage of sophomores (and almost all underclassmen) running that offense. And that when your starting QB, starting RB, leading WR and several others in the 1-2 spots on the depth chart are sophomores, then yeah, you are playing "a bunch of sophomores."
I don't think redshirt sophomores (especially ones like Roundtree playing a position that younger players can be dominant in) should be seen as part of a youth movement. You should know what you're doing by that point.
The defense WAS ridicuously young. But last year's offense used far too many third-, fourth- or fifth-year players (Stonum, Hemingway, Roundtree, Odoms, Koger, Webb, Molk, Huyge, Dorrestein, Schilling, Omameh, Shaw) to use it as a legit excuse.
Yea QB, LT and RB are positions that just don't matter anyway...
Yep. You NEVER see good running backs until they're at least juniors. Sometimes even seniors. It's a late-blooming, cerebral position. This much we know.
When you say "they," it sounds like you're referring to the linemen when it seems like you're trying to refer to the offense as a whole. Your point may be true on a whole but you proved it very confusedadiedly.
Confusedadiedly. Interesting word.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^
Don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:05 PM ^
Denard would be the best part of the RR era.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:11 PM ^
Using results as a yardstick, Barwis' results were less than stellar. When he came here, he was so hyped up that you thought he must have had some magic elexir. In hindsight, I suspect he was no better or worse than many of the other good S/C coaches out there.
The single most impressive thing he did was his work with Brock Meahler.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:15 PM ^
I believe Barwis is well above average, but no strength coach in the world can live up to the ridiculous hype that Michigan fans spewed when talking about this guy.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:16 PM ^
The best part of the RR era was the wins against ND in '09 and '10.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:28 PM ^
Wisconsin comeback win at home in '08 was really fun to be at.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:45 PM ^
Ya, I have to agree with both these posts.
The Barwis hype was fun, and I do think he is a good guy with a good program.
But personally, I'll always remember these three wins, plus the excitement I had in 2009 and 20010 when we began the year 4-0 and 5-0 respectively.
I think the fact that we won so few games the past 3 years makes the ones we did win even bigger in my mind.
Hopefully this year, we'll have a great record to go along with a couple marquee wins.
in 08
That was a special comeback but at that point in the '08 season we were already 1-2 and expectations were low due to the coaching transition. I look to the two ND wins because they were break out performances for Tate and Denard and contained so much promise and hope.
That Wisconsin win gave me so much hope, though. Damn, did that win ever feel good at the time.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
I like Barwis but he didn't always fit well with all our recruits. Barwis is an expert on aerobic conditioning and creating lean, mean, guys who can outrun wolves. That was great for Denard, but I was kind of always underwhelmed at the rate our defense was bulking up. Conditioning only does so much when the tailback has 40 pounds on you and runs you over like a blue bus over a squirrel.
As for ripping Gitteson, seems to me a large number of Carr era players were drafted and did well early in their career. That speaks to something being done right in the weight room.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
But I never really noticed the "Barwis effect" everyone expected. Either that's because of what you say (his talents were better suited to some positions than others), or either because he was over-hyped. I mean over-hyped in one of two ways:
1. his skills were overhyped, in the sense that he wasn't actually orders of magnitude better than the guy who preceded him or the guy who's following him.
--or--
2. the effect of ANY strength and conditioning coach on a team's success was overhyped, in the sense that anything he could do was limited by the talent pool at hand.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:42 PM ^
I will take answer #2. You can be as strong as you want but the talent and technique must be there first and foremost. For the sake of comparison, Barry Bonds hit home runs because he had a great swing and an incredible eye. When he got stronger/took steroids, those home runs started splashing in the bay. Also for a football comparison see Vernon Gholston. Work out warrior who has yet to register a sack in the NFL.
Yes it does. It speaks to the weight rooms they were in the months before the draft and after they got to the NFL.
Michigan currently has as good, if not better, NFL talent than any other CFB program. All of this talent was developed before RR/ Barwis.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:23 PM ^
Stretching obviously didn't help with injury prevention...
Sure the team suffered plenty of injuries, but how many of them could have been prevented with any level of stretching? Ankles asploding and Mike Martin getting chopped like a goddamn cherry tree are pretty much random and unavoidable. It's the same reason that no matter ho well you maintain your car, if you drive it into a telephone pole, it's gonna suffer some damage.
On the other hand, I didn't notice many of the types of injuries that COULD be stretching-related, such as pulled and torn muscles.
...and Mike Martin getting chopped like a goddamn cherry tree [was] pretty much random and unavoidable.
Mike Martin getting chopped like a goddamn cherry tree was intentional, by design, and illegal on the part of several of Michigan's conference opponents, though it was not penalized as it should have been.
"Random" was a poor word choice. It was one of the things that pissed me off to no end all year.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:24 PM ^
The best part of the Rich Rod era was the end of the Rich Rod era.
I'm glad someone said it.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:41 PM ^
Watched the OTL special this morning, they seem to believe the NCAA isn't done with the Dennis Talbott scandal yet, possible future repercussions.
Unless there is some type paper trail nothing will come of this.
<br>
<br>Do a google or eBay search on autographed memorabilia. Every big time program and player, including most UM starters, has dozens of autographed jerseys, pictures, helmets, footballs, gloves, etc.
<br>
<br>There's more evidence against Alabama/T-Town menswear than OSU/Talbott and nothing will come of that.
August 7th, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^
I always wondered what screen name Mike Valenti used on MGoBlog.