Post by BlackFly73 on Mar 10, 2005 11:31:28 GMT
Quote
Originally posted by: TIGER ONE
Good Morning, Vertical
I hear exactly what your saying, but check this out. In this day and time when almost everything is done by computer profile (Body size and strength ranking right up there) the lesser strength guy will in all likehood never gat a chance. Personal example: When my son played at Clemson, the 1991 season they had the #1 defense in the nation. (9 of the starting 11 went right straight to the NFL , Lavon Kirkland, Ed McDaniel, etc.) But, the very best player of them all was their nose guard, a young man by the name of Rob Bodine, who was a tweener size wise. When all the scouts came to test, he was not drafted simply because he did not fit the computer profile. If you think I'm joking, I'm not. Talk to scouts yourself on the Div.1-A college level and the NFL and see if what I'm telling you is not gospel. To me it is ridculous, but thats exactly how it is!
Coach Easton
There are MANY players that fit into that mould Coach Easton, I've seen and coached a few (although not at that level). Another that comes to mind was Mark Messner with Michigan years ago - he ended up playing against Tony Mandrich who was MUCH bigger, faster, and stronger... and totally embarrassed him on the field. Incidentally Mandrich eft that game with a cracked sternum FROM Messner. Bo Schembechler once described him as a Tasmanian Devil - and he was. yet his 'combine' tests were very poor.
The thing about 'functional' strength is it ends up mimicking the natural movements that you do DURING a game. It will probably NOT impact your 'combine' test results - but IMO these are a poor predictor of football talent anyways. When you lift a sandbag as opposed to a barbell the sand shifts causing you to use MORE muscles that you would normally, in a different way. These muscles aren't worked very much with 'traditional' lifts. These smaller muscle groups stabilize the larger muscle groups and use them more efficiently.
That, at least, is part of the theory. I heard a few strength and conditioning guys explain it that way and checked it out with a friend who is a Physio - he agreed. The 'stabilizer' muscles allow the larger muscle groups to work more efficiently when they are used. This is part of the reason why he's got guys using Swiss Balls and Wobble Boards for torn quads or knee injurys - these do little to help the large powerful muscle groups - but instead stabilize joints, allowing the muscle and joint to work more efficiently.
Again - That's the theory from what I understand.
As a player and coach I believe that weighted repetitions of actual football movements best build strength. One of these is the hang/power clean, which is more of a technique lift IMO than many others. There are some Hammer Strength type machines that mimic football movements - but the unpredictability of some of the sandbags, and tires more closely simulates an opponents actions. When was the last time a DL stood there and let you punch, extend and drive him? That is essentially what is being simulated by a squat, clean, or bench press.
A personal example of 'functional' strength was a college team mate who could not lift all summer, because he ran and set up forest camps for a family business. He spent his summer moving rocks, dragging large trees, lifting equipment bags, digging latrines, etc. Each year the guy came back stronger, and consistently showed higher 'testing' gains than anyone else those who were training with professional trainers.
I'm not saying that traditional weightroom activities aren't useful - they ARE NEEDED... but they may not be the best trainer or simulator of the types of loaded movements a football player (in particular a lineman) is asked to do in course of the sport.