Strength & Conditioning conversations over the years

[Blackshirts007]

I don't attribute many injuries to a strength and cond problem. Injuries are a fluke and happen to every team across the country. Some more than others. But if you see the way these kids get bent up play after play you cannot expect people to not get hurt.

[Nobody]

Personally I think the S&C if fine. When things arent going well (and right now theyre really not. No way of spinning it), everything is low hanging fruit, from coaches to the strength program to uniforms and the water they drink. When we're doing well, everything is glorious. I know it's pretty repetitive of what's already been mentioned, but I reiterate cuz it's the truth. Also, the injury spell this year has also spurned a more-than-normal amount of questions towards the program, but anyone who's played the sport knows that at least 80% of injuries are just a luck of the draw type of deal. Sure there are things you can do to prevent some, but most, it's just what it is.

 

I agree. When you're 9-4+ and its become normal, no one is safe. (I feel guilty saying that kinda, should I?)

 

As for the injuries... someone made a point about alabama having a similar number of injuries... but the difference is that they are clearly still having success. We arent having the same success. One could attribute that to s&c and depth. That could fall on dobson or it could fall on recruiting, depending on how you want to spin it.

[C N Red]

From the sounds of things, it may not be Dobson's fault. Look at our best players. They are well known to be big weight room and conditioning guys. From the sounds of it, Bo has a "self accountability" system for weight lifting and conditioning. He expects the players to be self motivated enough to get their strength and conditioning work done. Does he really expect 18-20 year old kids to all have enough self motivation to not just get this done, but to get it done at a high level. You can't just show up and lolly-gag through your reps.

 

It would be hard enough to get them to show up to do the work, but even if they do I know many will just do the minimum to get it done. There has to be steps put in place to prove accountability and hard work in strength and conditioning, and also there needs to be consequences when it's not getting done at a high enough level.

 

Self accountability can be a good thing, but there better be consequences set up when it's not working for individuals. Also accountability needs to most likely begin with upper classmen down to freshmen. Players need to hold other accountable. Hell, when I was in High School it was this way. If upper classmen knew younger kids weren't lifting or if they were just in the weight room screwing around there was hell to pay. And as I became an upper classmen, myself and others in my class took that over, and that's how it was. And the cycle needs to continue if a team ever wants to be good on the field. Competition needs to happen not just on the field but in the film room and definitely in the weight room too.

[kchusker_chris]

From the sounds of things, it may not be Dobson's fault. Look at our best players. They are well known to be big weight room and conditioning guys. From the sounds of it, Bo has a "self accountability" system for weight lifting and conditioning. He expects the players to be self motivated enough to get their strength and conditioning work done. Does he really expect 18-20 year old kids to all have enough self motivation to not just get this done, but to get it done at a high level. You can't just show up and lolly-gag through your reps.

 

It would be hard enough to get them to show up to do the work, but even if they do I know many will just do the minimum to get it done. There has to be steps put in place to prove accountability and hard work in strength and conditioning, and also there needs to be consequences when it's not getting done at a high enough level.

 

Self accountability can be a good thing, but there better be consequences set up when it's not working for individuals. Competition needs to happen not just on the field but in the film room and definitely in the weight room too.

There might be something to this. I think the team will hold a guy accountable, but if expectations aren't clear - that's often something that takes months to resolve. They held VV accountable this season, but he lost almost an entire season while the process played out. Makes you wonder if it's something that could have been addressed early on.

[Polarhusker]

From the sounds of things, it may not be Dobson's fault. Look at our best players. They are well known to be big weight room and conditioning guys. From the sounds of it, Bo has a "self accountability" system for weight lifting and conditioning. He expects the players to be self motivated enough to get their strength and conditioning work done. Does he really expect 18-20 year old kids to all have enough self motivation to not just get this done, but to get it done at a high level. You can't just show up and lolly-gag through your reps.

 

It would be hard enough to get them to show up to do the work, but even if they do I know many will just do the minimum to get it done. There has to be steps put in place to prove accountability and hard work in strength and conditioning, and also there needs to be consequences when it's not getting done at a high enough level.

 

Self accountability can be a good thing, but there better be consequences set up when it's not working for individuals. Competition needs to happen not just on the field but in the film room and definitely in the weight room too.

There might be something to this. I think the team will hold a guy accountable, but if expectations aren't clear - that's often something that takes months to resolve. They held VV accountable this season, but he lost almost an entire season while the process played out. Makes you wonder if it's something that could have been addressed early on.

maybe it was addresses early on, maybe it took VV sometime to see the light and grow up.

[BigRedBuster]

One thing we need to keep in mind is that it used to be that Freshmen weren't even allowed to play varsity. Then, we went through a period where rarely did we see freshmen or sophomores playing. NOW.....we started off the season with (I think) 11 of the front 7 two deep was Freshmen or Sophomores.

 

So....it used to be that a player would come in (no matter how talented they were) and they KNEW they had to sit a couple of years and learn from the older players. They knew they had two years of either working their asses off or their life was going to be hell because it was easy for a Junior or Senior who was playing to dominate over a Freshman or Sophomore.

 

NOW......we have these kids coming in and they are playing right away. It is harder for a senior who is starting along side a Freshmen or is second team to that freshmen to take them aside and hold them accountable.

 

The entire dynamic in the weight room/ meeting rooms and locker rooms are different.

 

It still can be done. However, it is more difficult. It is much easier for a Freshmen to have the attitude of..."hey, the coaches said I was awesome when they were recruiting me and I'm playing so I must not need to listen to you."

[Enhance]

I posted in another thread that I think, sometimes, an injury bug really can hammer a team no matter how physical or how good your strength and conditioning program is. I also said in that thread I believe it's been awhile since Nebraska looked like the more physical team on any given Saturday. I think this has more to do with the style of play, though. If you compare Stanford and Nebraska, for example, Stanford just physically drains and wears opponents down. But, they also run a very powerful and physical type of offense quite different from ours.

 

The big thing to keep in mind here is talent as well, imho. The talent discrepancy between 2009, and now, for example, is pretty substantial. Most notably on the defensive side of the ball. I think the group of young guys we have on that side of the ball have a ton of potential - don't get me wrong - but 2009 had fairly veteran/talented defenders where we were rocking a lot of young/talented defenders this year.

[NUinID]

I posted in another thread that I think, sometimes, an injury bug really can hammer a team no matter how physical or how good your strength and conditioning program is. I also said in that thread I believe it's been awhile since Nebraska looked like the more physical team on any given Saturday. I think this has more to do with the style of play, though. If you compare Stanford and Nebraska, for example, Stanford just physically drains and wears opponents down. But, they also run a very powerful and physical type of offense quite different from ours.

 

The big thing to keep in mind here is talent as well, imho. The talent discrepancy between 2009, and now, for example, is pretty substantial. Most notably on the defensive side of the ball. I think the group of young guys we have on that side of the ball have a ton of potential - don't get me wrong - but 2009 had fairly veteran/talented defenders where we were rocking a lot of young/talented defenders this year.

 

Nebraska's edge in physicality came from the style of play, and from the fact that we had a better S/C program than any team for the better part of 20 years. The edge doesn't exist anymore. Every big program has an elite S/C coach and works just as hard as NU does.

 

Style of play is a big part of Stanford's dominate play, but they also have trouble sometimes, hence the 2 loses.

[BigRedBuster]

I posted in another thread that I think, sometimes, an injury bug really can hammer a team no matter how physical or how good your strength and conditioning program is. I also said in that thread I believe it's been awhile since Nebraska looked like the more physical team on any given Saturday. I think this has more to do with the style of play, though. If you compare Stanford and Nebraska, for example, Stanford just physically drains and wears opponents down. But, they also run a very powerful and physical type of offense quite different from ours.

 

The big thing to keep in mind here is talent as well, imho. The talent discrepancy between 2009, and now, for example, is pretty substantial. Most notably on the defensive side of the ball. I think the group of young guys we have on that side of the ball have a ton of potential - don't get me wrong - but 2009 had fairly veteran/talented defenders where we were rocking a lot of young/talented defenders this year.

 

Nebraska's edge in physicality came from the style of play, and from the fact that we had a better S/C program than any team for the better part of 20 years. The edge doesn't exist anymore. Every big program has an elite S/C coach and works just as hard as NU does.

 

Style of play is a big part of Stanford's dominate play, but they also have trouble sometimes, hence the 2 loses.

 

 

This is very very true. Our blocking scheme and offensive scheme is totally different than what we ran in the 80s and 90s. Our O line can be doing exactly what they are supposed to do but if you compare what it LOOKS like to what we did in the 80s, it appears like we are less physical and they are getting beat.

[Enhance]

I posted in another thread that I think, sometimes, an injury bug really can hammer a team no matter how physical or how good your strength and conditioning program is. I also said in that thread I believe it's been awhile since Nebraska looked like the more physical team on any given Saturday. I think this has more to do with the style of play, though. If you compare Stanford and Nebraska, for example, Stanford just physically drains and wears opponents down. But, they also run a very powerful and physical type of offense quite different from ours.

 

The big thing to keep in mind here is talent as well, imho. The talent discrepancy between 2009, and now, for example, is pretty substantial. Most notably on the defensive side of the ball. I think the group of young guys we have on that side of the ball have a ton of potential - don't get me wrong - but 2009 had fairly veteran/talented defenders where we were rocking a lot of young/talented defenders this year.

 

Nebraska's edge in physicality came from the style of play, and from the fact that we had a better S/C program than any team for the better part of 20 years. The edge doesn't exist anymore. Every big program has an elite S/C coach and works just as hard as NU does.

 

Style of play is a big part of Stanford's dominate play, but they also have trouble sometimes, hence the 2 loses.

Very true, but they have wins against 7 ranked teams this year and are playing in the Rose Bowl. The two losses didn't come to great teams, but I'd certainly take their season over ours.

 

As a quick little disclaimer, I'm certainly not saying physicality or lack there of is what Nebraska's missing. Nebraska has more problems than just how physical they are.

[BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA]

Players that don't put forth the effort in the weight room are likely falling short in other areas as well. Film room. Practice. May not be following the nutritional regimen. While some of these players may not even make the field they contribute to a lack of depth. And those that do manage to play in a game will be the glaring weak links.

[In the Deed the Glory]

I think some of us are confused with what has been stated about the injuries.

 

First off, most injuries are flukes. Most of them happen without any ability to stop it, prepare for it, or game plan around it. It is usually the one part of the game that a coach has zero control over.

 

However, when a repetitive injury happens throughout a team. Particularly in one position group (i.e. this season knees and linemen, muscle pulls in WR, ankles in RB) a coach, and therefore the S&C coach, are going to look for a pattern. I have stated before that at the level I coach at, the floor of our Weight Room where we did plyo stuff was worn out and caused wear and tear on ankles leading to many high sprains throughout the year. Unnecessary stress on joints, especially on athletes carrying that much high-torque weight on their frame, can cause MAJOR problems down the road. These players have position specific workouts and nutrition regiments that could be causing weakness somehow. (I am also not a fan of the braces the lineman wear. It just weakens the joint IMO)

 

Nebraska itself, in the late 90s, had an issue with groin pulls resulting from a new machine they were using. It CAN be related. It doesn't mean it is, and none of us know for sure because we don't know the ins and outs of the program. I would think Bo and Dobson would be looking over this right now.

 

Maybe it is nothing but crappy luck, maybe it is a systematic problem with on field drills, maybe it is an equipment issue, and maybe it is S&C related. They will probably look through everything and find out.

 

Let me make clear that I am not anti-Dobson. I was just stating some past experience to help others understand where this injury theory is coming from.

[Vince R.]

The coaches need to force these players into the weight room. There are some that are self-motivated to do so. Others need a kick in the ass and senior leadership needs to make sure everyone is in there going 110%. Its really simple.

[Mavric]

There is a difference between making them be there and them working hard enough to make themselves better while they're there. I sure the former is mandatory. I would be nearly as sure that the latter is what many are mistaking for the former.

[BigRedBuster]

I'm pretty sure there are regulations on what the coaches can "require" the players to do in the off season. For instance, the coaches can't require the QBs, WR and DBs to get together three times a week in the summer for 7 on 7 work. They can heavily recommend it. I'm not sure what extent the regulations go as far as weight training...etc.

 

So, to say, "These coaches need to make these kids get in the weight room" I'm pretty sure technically that would be an NCAA violation.

 

Now, maybe the regulations have changed over the years but I'm pretty sure it is still that way.