Husker S&C, Janovich

cm husker said:
I agree with much of your post, TeachCD.

Just a couple of points:

1. Correct, almost no lift translates 100% to the field. However, certain lifts are more time consuming in terms of teach technique and also riskier in terms of wear and tear on joints, as well as risk of kinetic injury. I'd try to avoid or modify those to the extent possible, which is why I'm a big proponent of hang clean, but not so much of from the ground to overhead lifts.

2. Re: the vertical jump, I actually think that's a great gauge of athleticism (maybe the single best test, if I had to rely on just one). That said, I certainly wouldn't devote time to rep'ing vertical jump or even teaching a lot of technique on it (until a guy is prepping for pro day/combine. Even then, the techniques are not very time consuming to learn (unlike olympic lifts).
Click to expand...
True Dat

 
To the question of when it opened, no.

It opened in May 2013. They had an excuse to not use it in 2013 but no excuse to not use it in 2014.

Comments the former coach made in the past led me to believe he's not interested in data.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cm husker said:
I agree with much of your post, TeachCD.

Just a couple of points:

1. Correct, almost no lift translates 100% to the field. However, certain lifts are more time consuming in terms of teach technique and also riskier in terms of wear and tear on joints, as well as risk of kinetic injury. I'd try to avoid or modify those to the extent possible, which is why I'm a big proponent of hang clean, but not so much of from the ground to overhead lifts.

2. Re: the vertical jump, I actually think that's a great gauge of athleticism (maybe the single best test, if I had to rely on just one). That said, I certainly wouldn't devote time to rep'ing vertical jump or even teaching a lot of technique on it (until a guy is prepping for pro day/combine. Even then, the techniques are not very time consuming to learn (unlike olympic lifts).
Click to expand...
Just as an example of why this idea really isn't true,

2). Nobody jumps in FB from a standing position. However, it is a measure of explosiveness.

If one linemen has a higher vertical jo from standing still, chances are he will be more explosive off the line.

 
BigRedBuster said:
cm husker said:
I agree with much of your post, TeachCD.

Just a couple of points:

1. Correct, almost no lift translates 100% to the field. However, certain lifts are more time consuming in terms of teach technique and also riskier in terms of wear and tear on joints, as well as risk of kinetic injury. I'd try to avoid or modify those to the extent possible, which is why I'm a big proponent of hang clean, but not so much of from the ground to overhead lifts.

2. Re: the vertical jump, I actually think that's a great gauge of athleticism (maybe the single best test, if I had to rely on just one). That said, I certainly wouldn't devote time to rep'ing vertical jump or even teaching a lot of technique on it (until a guy is prepping for pro day/combine. Even then, the techniques are not very time consuming to learn (unlike olympic lifts).
Click to expand...
Just as an example of why this idea really isn't true,
2). Nobody jumps in FB from a standing position. However, it is a measure of explosiveness.

If one linemen has a higher vertical jo from standing still, chances are he will be more explosive off the line.
Click to expand...
Why are you quoting me? I like the vj as a metric. In fact, it's my favorite.

 
The snatch builds explosiveness, hence why they do it. And it doesn't do any more damage to your joints then bench, shoulder press, DB raises and so on.

 
Agree with CM. Especially snatch, highly technical lift that takes years to do safely and effectively at high enough weights to build athleticism. Snatching 100 lbs poorly will only beat up joints and it's too light to develop strength/power for the activity. It's almost a perfect example of poor exercise selection for training football players IMO. Clean/pc/hc is a very different animal and much more appropriate in terms of risk:reward.

 
Stumpy1 said:
The snatch builds explosiveness, hence why they do it. And it doesn't do any more damage to your joints then bench, shoulder press, DB raises and so on.
Click to expand...
But the clean also builds hip power and body tension, at 30% higher loads, with MUCH less of a learning curve and likely less injury potential to shoulders.

 
307husker said:
Stumpy1 said:
The snatch builds explosiveness, hence why they do it. And it doesn't do any more damage to your joints then bench, shoulder press, DB raises and so on.
Click to expand...
But the clean also builds hip power and body tension, at 30% higher loads, with MUCH less of a learning curve and likely less injury potential to shoulders.
Click to expand...
You won't get an argument from me about cleans. Love them.

The snatch actually helps build your shoulders. You don't need to do heavy weights to get benefits out of the snatch because it is a continuous motion. The other reason why they use it is because it is considered a " full " body lift unlike the clean. To me, you can't go wrong either way and should implement both into ones program if you are wanting to build explosiveness. It is just good to see that they being held accountable in the weight room again and it will pay dividends.

 
Where does the notion come from that they weren't being held accountable previously? Some obsessive need to pillory the previous staff?

If you listen to the interview, it sounds like they had a lot of accountability under Bo, then slacked when Riley came in with a "lighter touch" and then responded again when they were punished for slacking (up downs with a plate).

This is a decent discussion about s&c philosophies. No need to paint one staff or the other as "slackers" or otherwise ill informed.

 
No...the VJ probably has nothing to do with the reaction of an OL off the ball...The VJ is not tested (that i have ever seen) off of a snap count.

 
I would prefer a standing broad jump, more posterior chain focus, rather than VJ but either one helps to test neural speed and strength/weight ratio. Both of which are valid measures of power production.

Do Husker football players squat high or low bar? Interesting question, significant difference, I have no idea what they actually do.

 
teachercd said:
No...the VJ probably has nothing to do with the reaction of an OL off the ball...The VJ is not tested (that i have ever seen) off of a snap count.
Click to expand...
He's obviously talking about how quickly they explode from their stance given that they've heard the snap. Not how fast they react to a noise.

 
Moiraine said:
teachercd said:
No...the VJ probably has nothing to do with the reaction of an OL off the ball...The VJ is not tested (that i have ever seen) off of a snap count.
Click to expand...
He's obviously talking about how quickly they explode from their stance given that they've heard the snap. Not how fast they react to a noise.
Click to expand...
I don't think one has anything to do with the other...like for instance...being great at "slap jack" probably doesn't mean you are great at the VJ...

 
307husker said:
I would prefer a standing broad jump, more posterior chain focus, rather than VJ but either one helps to test neural speed and strength/weight ratio. Both of which are valid measures of power production.

Do Husker football players squat high or low bar? Interesting question, significant difference, I have no idea what they actually do.
Click to expand...
Agree on broad jump. Though I think that's slightly more gamable with technique "tricks" (sort of why I don't like the 40). Correct me if I'm wrong on that though.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top