Our complete Weight Lifting and strength Approach/ results is abject failure

[dvdcrr]

10 hours ago, gobiggergoredder said:

Functional Fitness.....dead on.  Great quote.

In the early 90s NU sent out a tape to high school coaches laying out the principles of NU weight training ,plyometrics, calisthenics.  It was an excellent program.  

Just guessing.... they never sent a copy to the Winnipeg Blue Bombers.

[jager]

Does this mean other schools are are use PEDs and we’re not? Or is there something more to it, because it does seem like our tackles get broke pretty easily.

[wiuhusker]

59 minutes ago, TonyStalloni said:

If I'm not mistaken Boyd Eppley was brought back into the program 3 years ago when Riley was hired to oversee S & C.  He doesn't do the day to day lifting but he is the architect of the program.  I think what we might be seeing is the lack of steroids that were pretty common in the mid 80's into the 90's.  Perhaps it wasn't Boyd Eppleys lifting that turned our linemen into mountains as much as the pharmaceuticals doing their job.

Totally agree with this. Boyd's program that was used in the 90's wouldn't succeed in today's environment. 

 

To me the root of this issue isn't the strength staff at NU. These kids specialize in one sport at a very early age. They train for one sport, lift for one sport etc. This creates weaknesses and imbalances that if not properly addressed will eventually catch up with any athlete. 

 

There has to be time spent focusing on stabilization and strengthening not only muscles but tendons and connective tissue. These things seem boring but can make a big difference. 

[teachercd]

A lot of "hurt" players are "hurt" because the coaches allow it.  I don't mean that in the hardass way but it is true.  If you know that when you come out your job is "gone"...you are not hurt as often.

[TonyStalloni]

2 minutes ago, teachercd said:

A lot of "hurt" players are "hurt" because the coaches allow it.  I don't mean that in the hardass way but it is true.  If you know that when you come out your job is "gone"...you are not hurt as often.

Are you saying todays players have to go to the sidelines to have their "boo-boo's" kissed?

[Ric Flair]

I’m in complete agreement with the original poster. Our strength and conditioning program is simply not getting the job done. Our guys look gassed and out of breath, sometimes in the first quarter. Our lines get pushed around on a regular basis and the offensive line in particular looks flabby, out of shape, and slow. 

[dvdcrr]

2 hours ago, wiuhusker said:

Totally agree with this. Boyd's program that was used in the 90's wouldn't succeed in today's environment. 

 

To me the root of this issue isn't the strength staff at NU. These kids specialize in one sport at a very early age. They train for one sport, lift for one sport etc. This creates weaknesses and imbalances that if not properly addressed will eventually catch up with any athlete. 

 

There has to be time spent focusing on stabilization and strengthening not only muscles but tendons and connective tissue. These things seem boring but can make a big difference. 

Everything NU taught in the weight room back then is absolutely relevant today.  Dynamic lifts involving multiple joints to build explosiveness.  Plyometrics to build explosiveness and agility.  

Do you know what a "flying 40" exercise is?  Or the technical reasons it was implemented at NU?

[wiuhusker]

4 hours ago, dvdcrr said:

Everything NU taught in the weight room back then is absolutely relevant today.  Dynamic lifts involving multiple joints to build explosiveness.  Plyometrics to build explosiveness and agility.  

Do you know what a "flying 40" exercise is?  Or the technical reasons it was implemented at NU?

Obviously the base principles would be successful. Those should be used in any program regardless of sport. 

 

What I'm saying is if you took Boyds program and didn't change a thing about it I don't think it could work today. You can run and jump as much as you want but if there's no time spent with flexibility, mobility and joint stabilization it's all pointless. 

[jdhusker]

When your offense is based on a physical run game you get the Wisconsin/ old nebraska linemen but when your a "balanced" or passing attack your linemen will look more like Nebraskas linemen now because they need to be quicker to pass block apparently. I've though about the topic of this post the last 2 years. Results don't lie gates looks like a hippy Pillsbury doughboy. He should be jacked 

[Stumpy1]

10 hours ago, teachercd said:

A lot of "hurt" players are "hurt" because the coaches allow it.  I don't mean that in the hardass way but it is true.  If you know that when you come out your job is "gone"...you are not hurt as often.

So much this...i watched it all year long with our high school team.  They would get beat on a play and all of a sudden, they would fall down having a hurt ankle or a cramp.  

[BIG ERN]

I always think it's a better idea to keep conditioning/lifting a priority even throughout the season. Of course you work them harder in the off-season, but I think when coaches want to 'rest' or not 'hurt' players is when they fall short in conditioning and seem to get hurt even more often. 

[teachercd]

23 minutes ago, Stumpy1 said:

So much this...i watched it all year long with our high school team.  They would get beat on a play and all of a sudden, they would fall down having a hurt ankle or a cramp.  

Dude, my favorite is when one player gets to sit out because they are "hurt" so many other players all of a sudden "get hurt" too.

[rolldog]

It's too easy to tap out.  Guy runs a 15 yard route, makes a catch, quick celebration and then taps out.  BS.  Stay on the field and get back to work.  Definitely not just Nebraska, you see it during any football game today.

 

There also seem to be many injuries where the guy is down, lays there for a minute and then pops back up and is back in one play later.  Kind of like soccer players acting like they are dying and then running the full length of the field in the next 30 seconds.  Not advocating that players play with serious injuries but everybody gets nicked up in a game.  Fight through it and play on.

[Undone]

On 10/29/2017 at 9:50 AM, Depressed Husker said:

  Hide contents

 

 

...is any one else seeing this..?

Yes. 

I decided this season I was going to steer away from making pointed, negative comments about individual players a general rule for myself. But yes.

Gates is a good example. A guy weighs what he weighs; Wisconsin's linemen probably weighed 265-275 in high school so they're just big boys. So when they put on even more weight in the Wisconsin program, you're going to see muffin tops in the gut on those guys. They weigh a lot. 

But that's not the case with some of our guys. A guy weighs whatever he weighs but the higher the muscle content in the body composition, you're going to assume the more athletic the athlete is able to be. I have definitely noticed it with Gates this season.

[HuskerPowerVA]

Up my alley.  The player's appearance is sloppy and their performance weak, but I find it hard to believe it is the fault of Boyd's actual strength and conditioning principles.  I think it might be their implementation or lack of it.  Bear with me.  I have participated in power lifting, O-lifting, body building and strongman, to include before, during and after football, for over 30 years.  I have spent a fair amount of time around legends in the strength community, including NFL guys.  Boyd is not only a legend in the Iron Game, but still knows more than most in the entire universe about his chosen field.  He created the National Strength and Conditioning Association (if you are in the business you know how impressive it is to be certified with their credentials).  The very concept of a strength and conditioning programs for collegiate athletes was basically his influence (Ara Parseghian's staff also helped).  Concepts from articles I read from Boyd in the early nineties are still being dressed up and served as new and innovative today.  The resurgence of Olympic lifts were a staple in Boyd's training since the early 70's.  Before you say his concepts are outdated, please know that much of what he created is still the foundation of successful programs today, including Notre Dame (have you seen their linemen this year).  The strength and conditioning of other Husker athletics also are not seeing the same issues.  

 

There is nothing wrong with his principles. Boyd understood long ago how important it is to train the correct energy system.  All those laps our high school coaches had us run are completely ridiculous for football, and in the case of linemen, actually more harm than good.  Of the three energy systems, the aerobic system should not be trained often. That does not mean they are excused from conditioning.  Sprints, interval training and pushing/pulling sleds will make you puke and pray for the day you had to run laps.  What are our kids doing?  I would expect what I just mentioned if Boyd has anything to say about it. The fact kids specialize in one sport is not usually a cause unless our linemen want to be cross country runners.  Unbalanced programming is usually the issue, but almost ALL high school kids are subjected to unbalanced programming and when they get to college they become one sport athletes.  The term functional training is an over used concept.  Boyd was using asymmetrical load training and plyometrics before people knew what it was.  

 

Now to be fair, I hear that Boyd has changed some things at Husker Power.  Is he too corporate?  Is his influence being appropriately and directly used on the football program?  What is the culture?  Are there competing and inconsistent ideas and systems?  I don't proclaim to know these things and I am not an insider.  

 

Here are the things I think might be the issues with the current S&C program:

 

• Genes.  Coaches began saying long ago, "I cant put in what God left out."  You have to have good genetics to become big and strong at the D1 level.  I have seen really big kids maul competition in high school simply because they were bigger and this can mean body mass dominated by fat tissue.  But that kid is also loaded with slow twitch muscle fibers and does not have the genetic blueprint to take it to the next level where his opponent is not only large, but powerful.  He might be able to lift weight (force) but has no ability to create power (force x velocity to keep the formula very simple).  
• Drive.  I have seen athletes with the best programs in the world attain below average results.  Usually they are lazy or distracted or both.  Working hard, I mean REALLY hard will make champions.  Not only when the coaches are there.  Not when it is fun and everyone is doing it.  The kid that makes it to the gym on spring break or during the entire summer.
• Culture.  Is getting bigger and stronger a true priority?  Many football coaches are still in the dark ages about S&C, especially if they are older.  Their coaches didn't use it so why should they?  When the linemen were 260 pounds they could be more athletic. Now they need to be 310 and able to move.
• Technique.  I see linemen bending at the waist and over reaching.  Are they doing footwork drills?  They have to be but our linemen appear as if their shoes are tied together. 
• Recruiting.  A big fat kid might stay a big fat kid.  Assessment of potential for linemen needs to include potential to be powerful.  The old adage, "does he have a good caboose" sounds weird, but is still used in the NFL before draft day.  Hips and glutes make power. 
• TOO much emphasis on maxing out. Absolute strength (single rep max) is important, but testing it too often, without supervision and cycling, leads to plateau and injury. 

 

 

 

Edited October 30, 2017 by HuskerPowerVA