|
|
Post by wingtol on Jul 6, 2006 8:22:25 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by pegleg on Jul 7, 2006 21:26:42 GMT -6
thats a great article. 40s are the most overblown, overhyped crap in our profession.
the first time we time 40s in offseason, we time 42s. the second time we time 40s, and the thrid time we time 39s. the point in the article about not coaching speed is true. the reason we do this timing system is to make the kids think they are getting faster, when in reality thats not possible. we can teach technique and improve a young kid's time but like the article said, for the most part you are as fast as your gonna be based on genetics.
40s to me are a comparative tool. you know a kid is fast if you hear 4.45 or lower. doesn't matter really what the time is if he "runs" a 4.8 he's not as fast as a guy who "runs" a 4.5. to me thats all it is, tell me he runs a 4.30 and he's probably the same kinda fast as a kid who says he runs a 4.40.
my opinion tell us what you think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jul 7, 2006 22:01:22 GMT -6
great article ... states much of what i've thought for some time ...
40 yd time is so overrated. best wr i ever had was maybe a 4.7 guy... but, his shuttle time was unbelievable, and his ability to cut in space was exceptional. plus, i can't remember him getting run down by too many people either
|
|
|
|
Post by tvt50 on Jul 7, 2006 22:05:49 GMT -6
Excellent article. I am printing it out as we speak. Thanks Coach. Great find.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Jul 7, 2006 22:19:43 GMT -6
I would prefer a 20 yard time myself. For all positions.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Jul 7, 2006 22:21:59 GMT -6
the other thing that I use (since we have some decent ones) is our track times, which are FAT timed
our starting A back runs a 49 quarter
our starting x runs a 22.7 200 yards
our starting C back runs a 23.5 200 yards
|
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Jul 8, 2006 7:16:14 GMT -6
I thought people would enjoy it. It always cracks me up when you hear people talking about kid in HS who are 4.4 or lower. Then like 4 guys at the NFL combine break 4.4. I really dont care about 40 times, if a player is fast he's fast. If he dosen't get caught from behind often then who cares what his 40 time is. Football speed is alot more important than a 40 time.
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 8, 2006 7:58:10 GMT -6
Good job, wingtol.
I think "Speed Training" has become the biggest bunch of nonsense, as your article helped point out.
There are only four ways to get faster: 1) lift weights with your legs along with a flexibility program (power); 2) improve your mechanics (form running); 3) practice running fast (sprints of varying distances); and 4) choose your parents wisely (genes - fast twitch vs. slow twitch muscle fibers).
Regardless of how hard you work on the first three, eventually you will hit the genetic wall. As a friend of mine says, "I don't care how hard you train a mule, he isn't going to win the Kentucky Derby."
I think most of the speed gimmicks, gadgets, and gurus out there are a waste of time. Besides, 80% of movements in a football game are short bursts, lateral, backward, or change of direction.
One example: a coach in our neck of the woods had great success his first six years on the job, winning 80% of his games and two state championships. He expounded at clinics how it was due to his great off-season program, including an exhaustive speed training program with all the toys.
The next three years he had losing seasons until going 6-4 last fall. So either he forgot how to run his off-season program recently, or maybe it was the DI football players he had the first few years and not the harnesses, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 8, 2006 11:16:27 GMT -6
I agree and disagree.
First of all, I believe that a high school kid running a true 4.4 is crap, but I have had a few. Let me explain. The only way I can time is to go off of their first movement and then guess when they cross. Just like the article said. So my kid who runs a 4.4 in reality runs a 4.96 if it was eletronically timed on a track with a starting pistol. But everybody (ok, most everybody) times it the way I do, so the 4.4 is a good comparison of his speed. It also tells me that he is faster than another kid at a time of 4.7. But more importantly, it truly gives me a way to gauge their speed improvement. We all want bigger, stronger, faster players. Bigger is easier. Put them on a scale. Stronger is easy. Measure their bench, squat, and clean. Faster is easier. Measure their forty. If he ran a consistent 4.9 last year, but consistently runs a 4.6 this year, than he is faster as long as the conditions and person timing him is the same. We time alot so I am not just going to go by one freak time.
We tell our players all the time that if someone is stronger than you that does not mean he is better than you. Same goes for quickness, speed, and size. But if You are stronger and You are faster than You were, than You are definately better.
You cannot tell me that speed cannot be improved. I have seen it a four hundred times. But there is obviously a limit for each person. And there is no doubt that "40" speed and game speed are different. I have had 4.8 guys that were faster than my 4.5 guys in games.
The thing that I think is the biggest bunch of malarky is the NFL combine. My gosh, haven't you seen them play 30+ games against other big time players. Come on and open your eyes. The only place I believe the combine is useful, is to take a look a returning injured star or a D-IAA or less player who is a stud, but you aren't really sure how he measures up.
One side note, let me poke a hole in the article. They say the Ben Johnson ran a 4.38 forty on the perfect conditions. Well if you went off his start and hand timed it would translate into a 3.82, yes 3.82, according to that article. They said that you should add a total of .56 (they went from a 4.35 to a 4.91) to get a real track time, so I am assuming that you could subtract .56 to get a real "40" football time. So I have zero problem believing that Deon Sanders ran a 4.17 for someone a stopwatch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jul 8, 2006 11:20:39 GMT -6
silky ... those are excellent "rebuttal" points.
i will say that speed is the hardest thing to improve upon. a ferrari is a ferrari and a saturn is a saturn ....
|
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Jul 8, 2006 13:10:38 GMT -6
No doubt you can get faster. We had a kid who was a 4.7 when he started college. When he ran at the combine he was a 4.38 ( Just throwing the times up there as a point). He obivously got faster, but he also probably had the genetics to get faster. I would never have been able to get down to that speed back in the day. Look around the weight room kids get bigger but they hit a plateau, just like speed. Sure kids can get faster but you eventaully hit your top speed no matter how hard you train.
Speed training is good and has some good results, would I pay someone to train my kid/player for speed. No. Do we work it into our program. Yes. I think we sometimes tend to over train our players with all the weight, plyo, speed, etc. stuff that I have seen some people do.
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 8, 2006 14:36:05 GMT -6
wingtol,
I agree. There definitely is a limit, but I doubt any of our high school players have reached their limit. I certainly wouldn't pay someone to train our players on speed improvement. We do plenty to get faster (weights,plyos,sprint,sleds,etc.). I really think that most of these "speed doctors" and "combine gurus" just teach a player how to run the 40 instead of actually getting faster. They teach them a great stance, start, and finish mainly. Things that have nothing to do with actual football or actual speed.
Huey,
What I want to do is get my saturn some new tires, oil change, and a turbo charger. Get him faster. But he still won't catch that ferrari.
By the way, I bet a lot of you have had this happen. Have a kid who runs a 4.9 and get him down to 4.6 in a year or two. Have a kid who runs a 4.6 the whole time. The kid that ran a 4.6 the whole time still is actually faster in a game than the one who caught up with him in the forty. Goes back to the ferrari and saturn. lol. But maybe the saturn is at least a mustang now.
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 8, 2006 14:53:42 GMT -6
Regarding plyos, I once asked a college S&C coach if box jumping did any good.
He replied, "Only if you want to be a good box jumper."
If you feel they work for you, pay me no heed. But there is something to this specificity stuff, I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jul 8, 2006 19:00:58 GMT -6
Regarding plyos, I once asked a college S&C coach if box jumping did any good. He replied, "Only if you want to be a good box jumper." If you feel they work for you, pay me no heed. But there is something to this specificity stuff, I think. true ... but there is something to be said of good hip flexion. we do ton's of things to "snap" the hip ... box plyos, field plyos, dynamic exercises & stretches. just believe that the more flexibility & snap in the hip flexors, the more athletic that individual will be |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 8, 2006 19:18:49 GMT -6
Regarding plyos, I once asked a college S&C coach if box jumping did any good. He replied, "Only if you want to be a good box jumper." If you feel they work for you, pay me no heed. But there is something to this specificity stuff, I think. Does that apply to bench press? Squat? Cleans? Sprints? What about doing cones to improve quickness? Does that just make you a better cone runner? Most of my best athletes have been good box jumpers, so if it makes them good box jumpers, then quite possibly (not definitely), it helps to make them good athletes. Sorry for being a little harsh, but can't that be said about any drill? Like pushing a sled, only makes you a better sled pusher. Throwing Routes on Air only makes you better against no defense? |
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jul 8, 2006 19:26:49 GMT -6
touche
lol
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 8, 2006 19:52:33 GMT -6
My question.... and it sounds simple stupid...why don't they time people with equipment on? I guarantee you that all of us have had guys who run "4.5's" in track shoes on track, but with gear on in grass that slows down to a blistering 5.0. And then we all have had guys who run 4.75 in shorts...and 4.759 in full gear (or seem to).
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jul 8, 2006 19:57:17 GMT -6
that is true, coachd5085 ... i happened to be one of those guys that was 4.7 (4.8, 9, whatever...lol) in shorts, pads, street clothes, hahaha....
some guys have the "strength" or whatever to carry that extra weight of those 'cumbersome' pads. the guy i referrenced earlier in this post was one of those. he could wake up, get dressed and run a 4.7. didn't matter what happened, he was going to be about the same speed. he wasn't a "burner" by the 40 times, but he was a kid that could make a play for sure
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 8, 2006 20:04:38 GMT -6
I agree with the specificity insofar as I don't really get why the 40 is THE speed stat. It's true you don't bench press or power clean in a game, but a) how many 40s do your kids run (Especially non-WRs?) other than when they are tested, since the bench/clean etc we seem to at least think they work important muscle groups, and b) we don't put the emphasis on a kid's bench number in the same way we do 40 times. A .2 difference in 40 time has a huge impact on how a lot of people think, whereas you'd have to have a huge difference in bench press to justify basing the reason to sit or start a kid based entirely on that number.
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 8, 2006 20:09:18 GMT -6
EXACTLY! Now you've got it (the Specificity thing).
If your better athletes are your better box jumpers, isn't it likely that's because they are your better athletes - not that box jumping made them your better athletes? And would've been even if they never jumped a box?
As for running cones, so long as you are doing sport-specific movements (backward run, shuffle, cutting, etc.) they have application.
You're right about the sled too. We don't block a sled because it doesn't have arms or hands - like real-live defenders. We block people.
As for strength training, are your best benchers, squatters, cleaners always your best players? Have you ever had a real strong player who couldn't play a lick? In other words, strength training is just one means to an end. Its major value probably lies in injury prevention - has nothing to do with skill development.
The idea should be to get good football players and make them stronger. Just making somebody stronger doesn't necessarily make them a good football player.
Sorry if I'm expressing the minority, not-in-the-mainstream viewpoint. Based on my research and experience, it makes sense to me.
Like I said before - if you think something works for you, pay me no heed.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 8, 2006 20:09:58 GMT -6
I think we should delete all reference to this thread immediately before it gets out that football coaches are really as stupid as we make ourselves to be !!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by tye2021 on Jul 9, 2006 10:24:34 GMT -6
I also think that the 40 time is over rated. There is a difference between having speed and having FOOTBALL speed. Also i was timed at 4.39 my senior year in high school and our middle linebacker was timed at 4.7(based off of 1st movement), yet he was a tenth of a second faster than I was in the hundred and a 2 tenths of a second faster in the 200.
However, you can train to get faster. Some kids will get faster as their muscle develope. Muscle developement will help to increase explosion and turnover(how fast you can pick up and put down your feet), increase in stride also helps. Form and control can also help to increase your speed. Yes we all have a limit but chances are that a high school kid hasn't reached his yet.
For skill players:
What worked for me was running track. Most football coaches focus on STRENGTH and QUICKNESS, if you what to see an increase in speed in your players having them run track will help them correct their form eliminating any unnecassry movements and train their muscle to get stronger, more explosive, a faster turnover rate, and increase their conditioning. This will also allow you as a coach to spend less time on conditioning and more time installing your playbooks and work on techniques.
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 9, 2006 10:27:58 GMT -6
Another quick thought: On the point that even if we time kids too fast, everyone does it this way so the times are comparable--I think this is misleading. First, is a reason that doesn't apply to most of us, in that the article tends to refer to NFL and College coaches who are trying to evaluate 40 times by players from lots of different tracks with different coaches. Second though, is that the hand's imprecision isn't just a tangible lag that we make players seem faster than they are, it's also that they vary quite a bit, whether we think it or not. I think the general point of the article is that not only do the conditions and the hand timing inflate the speeds, but coaches aren't especially trained in this type of thing, and the conditions we do it on also makes the whole thing rather unpredictible.
I've found this to be true. I mean even if one coach was similar, most of us don't have one single guy do all the measurements for every player.
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 9, 2006 10:48:47 GMT -6
EXACTLY! Now you've got it (the Specificity thing). If your better athletes are your better box jumpers, isn't it likely that's because they are your better athletes - not that box jumping made them your better athletes? And would've been even if they never jumped a box? As for running cones, so long as you are doing sport-specific movements (backward run, shuffle, cutting, etc.) they have application. You're right about the sled too. We don't block a sled because it doesn't have arms or hands - like real-live defenders. We block people. As for strength training, are your best benchers, squatters, cleaners always your best players? Have you ever had a real strong player who couldn't play a lick? In other words, strength training is just one means to an end. Its major value probably lies in injury prevention - has nothing to do with skill development. The idea should be to get good football players and make them stronger. Just making somebody stronger doesn't necessarily make them a good football player. Sorry if I'm expressing the minority, not-in-the-mainstream viewpoint. Based on my research and experience, it makes sense to me. Like I said before - if you think something works for you, pay me no heed. BLB, I think you and me probably agree a lot more than we disagree. Your good athletes are naturally going to able to most of these things well (boxes,40's,bench,etc.). Someone who is better in a particular area or even in all areas is not necessarily a better player. The one who benches the most is not necessarily the best player or the one who is the fastest in the 40 is not necessarily the best player. But don't tell me that in general your better ball players aren't bigger, faster, and stronger than the other ones. I without a doubt believe that if I run a 5.0 forty and then train and workout and now run a 4.8 forty, that I am definitely a better player. I have also had players that were good in the weight room that weren't very good on the field, but not often. I also like your a idea of getting good football players and making them stronger. But I am not a college and can't recruit, so I have to take what I have and try and make them all stronger. Hopefully, we have all have had a kid who was not as good as someone else in say the 8th grade, and he busted his butt in the weight room, and lo and behold, by the 11th grade was better than the other guy. I have had that happen plenty of times. In summary, the weightroom, 40, boxes, none of that means who is the better football player. But it sure helps make you the better football player. |
|
|
|
Post by tye2021 on Jul 9, 2006 11:47:03 GMT -6
I believe some someone already made these points but, I have one issue with the article.
Track times are not timed from a sprinters FIRST MOVEMENT but from the time the starter pistiol goes off until the sprinter crosses the finish line. This involves not just how fast a sprinter is but also how fast the sprinter can react to the sound of the starter pistol. The adjustment to the times are backwards. Football coaches want to know how fast can a player go from POINT A TO POINT B. Thats why players are timed from their first movement. This is your TRUE SPEED. This is how fast you moved from the starting line to the finish line. The article is suggesting that you use track rules where the clock starts on the sound of the starter pistol, which mean that you're not just timing a player's speed but also his REACTION time to a starter pistol. Instead of adding the .15 seconds to a players 40 time i think you should subtract it from a sprinter time to get the sprinters TRUE speed. Sprinters time will be alot faster than football players times and rightfully so thats what they train for.
I used the .15 reaction time because i will argue that football players spend more time reacting to starts than sprinters due. As a sprinter you spend more time working on your top speed and little time working on your start time. Only those sprinters that have slow starts spend extra time coming out of the blocks. Whereas a football player is working on firing off the ball on snap counts every play. Think about it how often due you talk to your players about firing off the ball AS SOON as the ball is snapped?
Other than that I think the article made alot of great points. 40 times don't mean anything to anyone but general managers. How often have you seen a "slow wr" ie Jerry Rice routinly beat a "fast" corner ie Deon Sanders. Also how often have you seen Emmit Smith caught from behind.
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 9, 2006 19:05:36 GMT -6
silkyice,
I think we are probably close philosophically, too. As I get older I just think a lot of us have bought into some training methodolgies without really investigating or critically analyzing them. We just do it because so-and-so does, or said it would do such-and-such for our kids.
The truth is their is no magic bullet, no secret formula. And I think burnout or overtraining is a real danger at the high school level.
You can probably tell I'm not real big on gadgets or gimmicks, either.
Here's some other things we knew we knew once upon a time:
Players should not be given water during practice - it'll make 'em tough; but, they should be forced to ingest one or two salt tablets post-practice on hot days.
Weight training makes you too bulky to move efficiently.
When blocking or tackling, the best way to initiate contact is with the face or forehead.
Soccer-style kicking is just a fad - it won't replace straight-on kicking because soccer-style is not as accurate (swipe at ball from an angle) and will get too many blocked (don't get ball up fast enough).
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jul 9, 2006 19:13:24 GMT -6
some training must take place to help prepare the body athletically so that it is more resistant to injury.
other training must take place because you are not allowed by the rules of the governing body to "practice football" year round.
so, running cones, plyo's, bench press, etc. may fall into one of those 2 catergories
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 9, 2006 19:28:53 GMT -6
You are right, of course, huey. Our football players, depending on class scehedules and some other variables, could be doing something for football 49 weeks out of the year (including in-season), at least three days a week.
I just want it to be safe, purposeful, and productive, and to be able to do it in least amount of time as practical.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jul 9, 2006 19:43:08 GMT -6
You are right, of course, huey. Our football players, depending on class scehedules and some other variables, could be doing something for football 49 weeks out of the year (including in-season), at least three days a week. I just want it to be safe, purposeful, and productive, and to be able to do it in least amount of time as practical. yes ... efficiency is something i think all of us should continue to strive for. don't want to "waste" time doing things that are not productive for us on the field compared to how much time we must spend on them in the offseason (or prep. time). conditioning may fall into this category ... is cardiovascular endurance a major component of a football game? yes / no ... as in, being able to just take off and run a mile in 5 minutes is not the ultimate goal of our athlete's cardiovascular endurance, BUT, being able to run 10-20 yds in short bursts (with 20-30 seconds of down time in between) for a long time is ... so, we train "cardiovascularly" in such a manner. |
|
|
|
Post by optioncoach on Jul 10, 2006 8:20:32 GMT -6
Years ago I got in touch with a professor from SDSU about this very issue: Does traditional weight training improve performance?
Here was his response:
"With regard to why so many programs use weight training (which might be the
single most evident source of sports injuries), an explanation that parallels
it to religious fervor and adherence is possibly the best.
Several years ago, a student who was a body-builder (a real one, steroids, and
all that stuff) said he would prove wrong my proposal that"traditional weight
training programs do not enhance performance. He limited his literature review
to football. Most studies he located were master theses or doctoral
dissertations. He conceded in his conclusion that there was only support in the
published, data-based literature, that supported my no-benefit position. I have
described in several books the reasons why it is not beneficial.
The money from equipment manufactures, the health industry that uses
weight/resistance equipment, and the "professional" associations associated
with gyms/weight training, all serve to perpetuate this aspect of culture,
irrespective of the objectively verified evidence that results from
satisfactorily conducted research. [There are "research" articles published
that are seriously flawed in design -- I do not report those.]
You will have to make up your own mind about this matter.
Here is a recent abstract from a paper presented at the 1999 Annual Convention
of the American College of Sports Medicine."
STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING PROGRAMS DO NOT IMPROVE DYNAMIC PERFORMANCES IN
FOOTBALL PLAYERS
Miller, T. A., White, E. D., Kinley, K. A., Clark, M. J., & Congleton, J. J.
(1999). Changes in performance following long-term resistance training in
division 1A collegiate football players.Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 31(5), Supplement abstract 1467.
This study analyzed performance changes in the squat, 20-yard shuttle run,
40-yard dash, bench press, vertical jump, and power clean in collegiate
football players who had experienced a long-term, periodized strength and
conditioning program at Texas A&M University. Players from 1993-1998 (N = 261)
were tested twice per year. Ss were assigned to groups based on playing
position: 1) defensive backs, running backs, and wide receivers; 2) kickers,
linebackers, tight ends, quarterbacks, and specialists; and 3) linemen.
Relationships between performance changes and training time, body fat, and body
weight were determined.
Body fat had a significant negative association with performance in all six
activities for all groups. Neither training time nor body weight was related to
20-yard shuttle running or the 40-yard dash but both were related positively to
the bench press and power clean. Body weight was significantly related to
squatting performance. Results in the bench press, power clean, squat, 20-yard
shuttle run, and 40-yard dash were consistent across all groups. For vertical
jump, time showed a slight positive association only for group 1. Body weight
had a positive effect on all three groups, being strongest in group 1 and
weaker for the other two groups.
A strength and conditioning program was related to performance changes in
strength and conditioning activities. However, there was little to no
association between program training and the dynamic performance activities of
vertical jumping, 20-yard shuttle run, and 40-yard dash, they being activities
that might be transferred to game situations.
Implication. Strength and conditioning programs for football players make them
better strength and conditioning trainers. There is little evidence of transfer
of training effects to dynamic performances that are likely to be more
associated with football playing performance. Increased body fat appears to
hinder performances.
|
|
