NIKE OREGON PROJECT

Ann,

I mean no disrespect whatsoever. But according to Kevin Hanson, I was told 3 years ago that Chad Johnson was on schedule to break 2:10 in the marathon before 2004 trials. This was not pressure that he was putting on someone else. Chad Johnson was then a member of Hansons. It was at the Expo for Old Kent River Bank 25k run. Kevin went on to guarantee me that Chad would be the first american the next day in the 25k (he was not picked to finish in the top 10 by any experts). The next day Chad won the 25k and shocked everyone. Chad then left Michigan because Alberto was going to start a marathon group with the backing of Nike dollars (I thought a good move at the time).

I talked to Kevin before the Olympic Trials this year and he told me that they were capable of having at least 2 guys in the top 5 and 3 in the top 6 if they ran well. I asked him about Chad Johnson and he said that he still hasn't worked with a runner as talented as Chad. Why can Nike and Alberto Salazar not do what Kevin and Keith Hanson can do? Is it dollars? HELL NO Is it athletes? CHAD HAS MORE TALENT THAN ANY OF THE HANSON GUYS. Is it training environment? WHAT IS BETTER MICHIGAN OR OREGON? Is it coaching??????????????

This belongs on the first page.

Richard Taylor... couldn't have said it better myself.

Read my message. I am referring to Dan Browne who is now living in Beaverton which is not "right there next to the park". Careful calling others morons.

Richard,

With all due respect to your argument, the evaluation of talent is an arbitrary art. While the Hanson brothers may have thought very highly of Chad Johnson's ability, it is virtually impossible to guarantee success because of the multitude of variables that can effect performance. In that sense, he is no different than the scores of pitchers, quarterbacks, and centers that were going to re-define their respective sports but never reached the heights predicted for them. Do names like Jose Contreras, Ryan Leaf, and Christian Laettner ring any bells?

If any programs or training regimen were completely effective and produced universal results then we would find ourselves knee deep in 2:07 Americans. The reality is that individuals adapt differently to the stress of training. If he had stayed with Hanson's, can you truthfully say that he would have not been injured, sick, or suffered a bad race?

As it stands right now, Team Hansons has no Olympians. Is that a failure of their program? Absolutely not. Nor is Dan Browne proof that the NOP guarantees world class results. Add in Team USA, ZAP, Farm Team, and others and we should all recognize that today's promising post collegian has more opportunity to develop than the

grads of just 10-15 years ago. Overall, that is an improvement but it will take years to bear fruit. It seems very clever to bash a program or coach or athlete who hasn't performed up to someone's expectations. Anyone who has been an athlete and a true maven of this sport knows that running offers no guarantees. The most talented athlete with the brightest coach can underacheive due to injury, personality, or any number of circumstances. That's why true world class runners are extremely rare. If passion and work ethic were all it took, this board would be clogged with 12:55 / 26:45 / 2:06 types wouldn't it? If coaching were the lone factor, then Stanford, Colorado, and Arkansas should be cranking out 3:45 milers by the truckload.

Rather than bash, root for all of these guys to do well. They do represent the future of American distance running.

portland,

that is the best post i have ever read.

thank you,

randy

Portland Runner wrote:

With all due respect to your argument, the evaluation of talent is an arbitrary art. While the Hanson brothers may have thought very highly of Chad Johnson's ability, it is virtually impossible to guarantee success because of the multitude of variables that can effect performance. In that sense, he is no different than the scores of pitchers, quarterbacks, and centers that were going to re-define their respective sports but never reached the heights predicted for them. Do names like Jose Contreras, Ryan Leaf, and Christian Laettner ring any bells?

.

A couple of flaws with your comparisons. If the Hansons are judging the ability of an athlete that is running with them they are comparing apples with apples. They are looking at how Chad Johnson handled the same workouts as Brian Sell and Clin Verran and Trent Briney and Jeff Campbell on the same courses in the same weather. You are comparing how college athletes handle the move to the pro's. In this case they are competing against different athletes with different amounts of pressure. The San Diego Chargers hadn't seen Ryan Leaf day in and day out for a year before the draft. After Ryan Leaf worked with them for a year do you think they would have rather drafted Manning? Everything is different. The Hansons are not judging the ability of Dave Davis or Mike Donnelly or anyone that they hadn't seen day in and day out for a year. I also have never heard Keith or Kevin critisize Alberto or Chad. Kevin just felt like he was on schedule to run 2:09 this year.

Kevin and Keith Hanson post on this site and most definitely have saw this thread by now. I'm just wondering what they saw in Chad that made them think he had the most talent of any athlete they have ever coached? Coming out of college Chad was a 14:18/29:11 guy, which compared to the other runners on the team wasn't that great. I'd be pleased if one of those two would answer this question. What did they see in him that made him more talented than Jurcevich, Verran, Brinker, Sell and the rest of the crew? Didn't Jurcevich take 4th at the Olympic Trials 10k when Chad was there?

Does it really matter? Chad Johnson is not a 2:09 guy now. If it was important enough to Chad to be a 2:09 guy he would probably move back to Michigan now. Maybe it is more important for him to focus on other events.

First of all Portland Runner, great post. It's great because it seems as if you have some sort of perspective on the multitude of factors involved with coaching. Here are a couple of points I'd like to make:

1. Humboldt St. used to churn out great D2 runners all the time with Coach Wells. Their athletic Dept. is drastically downsizing T&F and Cross (maybe even dropping them?). Now that they don't get the same scholarship money that they used to and, consequently, the same athletes, does that mean Coach Wells is a bad coach? No way. But, if you didn't have the inside scoop, it would be easy to think like that.

2. At the college where I coach, the men's basketball coach is probably one of the best coaches/teachers I've ever been around. In the last 7 years he's won the conference once and finished under .500 4 times. On the surface it may seem he's not very good. But, if you dig a bit, you'll find out that the team is DFL by a LLLLOOOOONNNNGGGG way in athletic scholarship support and consequently can't get the same athletes as the other schools, it becomes apparent that the coach isn't the problem, there are other things going on too.

The point is that there is always a much, much bigger picture than there may seem to be. Unless someone has a hands on, first person view of the situation, it's way too hard to predict times/performances and also very difficult to criticize.

I don't know Alberto and probably never will. He may be a jerk or he may be an angel. But to rip a program without being a witness to its daily ins and outs is just plain ignorant. If some of the athletes buy into the program for 3-5 years and don't get better, I'm sure that Nike will be the first to pull the funding. Until then, if you don't have anything nice to say, limit your conversation to the weather. After all, how does it hurt us if the program doesn't work? I would think that being supportive and positive would be a much better route to take.