|
|
Post by firebird on Nov 14, 2006 21:28:58 GMT -6
This is a topic that probably belongs on the weight training board, but I wanted to post it here. I have been thinking of posting a "desired" level of strength for all of our starters next year. We are a small school with a new program and many of our players have gotten playing time just because of this fact. Next year we are stepping up to a much tougher league and some of our upperclassmen who have started for a couple of years are very complacent about their strength levels. They will train when it suits them. Unfortunately, I believe a lot of this is due to the fact that they have started for 2 years basically because there wasn't anyone else to compete with for a starting position. My freshmen and 8th graders are training hard and many will compete for a starting position next year because of this. I have been toying with the idea of "required" maxes on all of our core lifts mostly to motivate our players so we don't get killed next season.
I guess my real question is:
How big is your school?
How strong are your players by position in the bench, squat, dead, and clean?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Nov 14, 2006 21:41:44 GMT -6
850 students playing in the second highest class in the state.
Here is our Offense
QB 225 bench, 320 squat, ?, ?
TB 285 bench, 440 squat, ?, 245 clean
FB 315 bench, 450 squat, ?, ?
SE 185 bench, 315 squat, ? ?
TE 265 bench, 460 squat, ? ?
T 360 bench, 550 squat, ?, 300 clean (6'2 210, 4.6 forty, 30" verical)
T 245 bench, 400 squat, ??
G 295 bench, 500 squat, ? ?
G 315 bench, 520 squat, ? ?
C 370 bench, 570 squat, ? ?
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Nov 14, 2006 22:07:24 GMT -6
this is a very interesting topic. people in america always assume big with strong and that is not the case. I realy this story, several years ago the wisconsin badgers had aaron gibson. he was a huge man standing 6-7 and weighed 400 lbs. one of wisconsins lbers was this kid by the name of thompson. thompson was 6-1 and weighed 215-220. gibson could bench press 450 pounds and thompson could bench press 400 lbs. who was stronger, thompson clearly. when gibson graduated he was benching nearly 600lbs. so do not confuse size for strenght. give me a kid weighing 150 lbs and benching 300 and he will beat a 200 lb kid who only can bench his weight.
I tend to look at the following as strong if a kid can bench press 1.25 to 1.5 times his body weight he is strong for a varsity player. a freshman who can bench his weight is strong for a freshman. one should squat 2 times what they weigh to be considered strong.
most kids i know will not squat no matter how hard to make them. they are afraid of the weight. sure you have those few who love it. I require only a bench and deadlift max. we do not do power cleans but we do do high pulls with a snatch and clean grip. you get almost as much explosive power as you do the clean or snatch. best done from hang or second pull phase. I see way too many kids using poor tech or muscling up the clean or snatch. just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Nov 14, 2006 22:12:28 GMT -6
This is a topic that probably belongs on the weight training board, but I wanted to post it here. I have been thinking of posting a "desired" level of strength for all of our starters next year. We are a small school with a new program and many of our players have gotten playing time just because of this fact. Next year we are stepping up to a much tougher league and some of our upperclassmen who have started for a couple of years are very complacent about their strength levels. They will train when it suits them. Unfortunately, I believe a lot of this is due to the fact that they have started for 2 years basically because there wasn't anyone else to compete with for a starting position. My freshmen and 8th graders are training hard and many will compete for a starting position next year because of this. I have been toying with the idea of "required" maxes on all of our core lifts mostly to motivate our players so we don't get killed next season. I guess my real question is: How big is your school? How strong are your players by position in the bench, squat, dead, and clean? Thanks! firebird - I wouldn't get hung up on numbers. Instead, concentrate on results and improvements. Take stock of where your guys are now and then chart their performance. Put a big dry erase board up in the weightroom where the kids keep track of their records. I coach at a small school, too. The small school mentality is tough to overcome, especially in the weightroom. Kid knows, when there are only 20 varsity players, that he is probably going to play if he is a halfway decent athlete whether he lifts or not. Of the 20 or so juniors and seniors we have, I would say probably a little more than half are really good lifters...they show up and they work hard in the weightroom. About a quarter or our guys show up in the weightroom, but they kind of go through the motions. The last quarter of guys we have typically will not lift at all because either a) they aren't that serious about football or b) they are a big fish in a small barrel and know they are going to play even if they don't lift simply because they are a better athlete than everyone else. But, for the sake of discussion, here's our best all-time records. In our weightroom, records are set in relation to the kid's bodyweight. So, we have had kids move more weight in absolute terms, but the kids who get their names on the record board have moved the most weight in relation to their bodyweight. Bench Press 1. 305 (kid weighed 190) 2. 295 (kid weighed 205) Box Squat 1. 365 (kid weighed 185) 2. 275 (kid weighed 165) Dead Lift 1. 500 (kid weighed 185 - same kid at #1 in Box Squat) 2. 365 (kid weighed 150) Hang Clean 1. 285 (kid weighed 175) 2. 290 (kid weighed 190 - same kid at #1 in Bench Press) Pull-Ups 1. 20 (same kid at #2 in Dead Lift) 2. 19 (kid weighed 160) |
|
|
|
Post by knighter on Nov 14, 2006 22:57:30 GMT -6
we make up for our weakness by being small, and slow (and throw in stupid too)
|
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Nov 14, 2006 23:04:10 GMT -6
Well, I hate to throw common sense into the mix, but I would rather take a bigger faster stronger kid over a smaller slower weaker kid.
Give me the kids who will work hard and I will win games. The End.
|
|
|
|
Post by firebird on Nov 14, 2006 23:14:16 GMT -6
I posted the original message while I was sitting around thinking of ways to motivate some of our less motivated lifters. We all know that at a small school I can say whatever I want and the reality is that the best athletes will probably play no matter if they lift or not. It sucks, but it is reality and also what I believe will be the one thing that really holds our program back.
I was just thinking that if I said something like, "I want every starter next year benching X and squating Y," that it might motivate some of those "bubble" players into lifting. I would definitely not make a statement like "if you don't lift x or y you won't start" because we all know I would have to eat my words.
Just thinking. Thanks for the comments.
|
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Nov 14, 2006 23:49:42 GMT -6
200 bench
300 squat
400 clean
(might have squat/clean backwards) is the goal of all our players.
|
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Nov 15, 2006 10:53:34 GMT -6
Man those numbers might be a little mixed up saintrad
Our average starter
Bench 250
Squat 420
Clean 240
So I would say good goals for middle of the road player would be
Bench 225
Squat 400
Clean 200
This of course would be what I would consider to be good for an incoming junior player who was around 200lbs.
We expect our senior linemen to be around
Bench 300
Squat 500
Clean 300
So it will vary based on age, position, size.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Nov 15, 2006 10:57:22 GMT -6
ah, the numbers are so misleading...from my experience a true 500 lb DEEP squat is rare...lots of half squats and 1/3 squats...guys dont squat very deep it seems. anyhow, i think the numbers are misleading.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Nov 15, 2006 11:10:51 GMT -6
ah, the numbers are so misleading...from my experience a true 500 lb DEEP squat is rare...lots of half squats and 1/3 squats...guys dont squat very deep it seems. anyhow, i think the numbers are misleading. Steve - Great point. That's why we don't do free squats anymore. When we squat, it is always to a below-parallel box. No way kids can cheat. Have to go all the way, release your hips on the box, and then bang it back up. |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Nov 15, 2006 11:12:11 GMT -6
I'd say take the
average clean / the average weight
and call it a day.
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Nov 15, 2006 11:20:35 GMT -6
We tell our kids if they want to start on Varsity, as a minimum they better be able to bench 200, squat 250, and run a 5.2 or better 40 (unless they're a big ole' OL that can play) - 5.0 or better for "skill" guys.
We tell them if they can't do those things but they have to start because they're the best we have at that position, they'll be "The Weakest Link."
Nobody wants to be the weakest link. And of course most of our starters do much better than that in those three areas.
I agree too with calande. Friday nights are not a power lifting contest. I'm not impressed with numbers. I have had kids that could bench as much as you could get on the bar and squat the building but couldn't play football a lick. 4.5 guys that can't catch or tackle should play soccer.
I'm interested in avoiding injuries and building functional strength. Refer to the quote from USC's S&C coach at the end of his article in last month's American Football Monthly.
|
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Nov 15, 2006 11:34:12 GMT -6
I agree that we shouldn't get caught up in the numbers. While it might be nice to have kids lifting certain totals, I think that the functional strength and injury prevention are more valuable benefits of strength training.
|
|
|
|
Post by tribepride on Nov 15, 2006 12:14:05 GMT -6
NOT VERY!! According to blb's requirements we have many weakest links on our squad. Only had two kids that ran sub 5.0 fortys! Starting WR and CB = 5.4 forty (wind aided, downhill, etc) but he was the best we had!
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Nov 15, 2006 12:24:56 GMT -6
tribe, how many inches were on the ground when you timed them, and were they wearing their boots or skis?  |
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Nov 15, 2006 12:26:33 GMT -6
I have always posted the BFS posters that have the "Beginning" "All State", "All-American" and "Elite" numbers for the major lifts. How many of my players ever approached those numbers? Maybe 2-3 total. And the rest were nowhere near.
Here is what I would say is "good".
Bench: 200#
Squat: 300#
Clean: 70% of your squat (which if you squat 300# is 210# which is not that much)
|
|
|
|
Post by tribepride on Nov 15, 2006 12:26:59 GMT -6
I wish that was our problem. Next year we are going to time them at 38 yards and tell them its 40. That way they can feel better about themselves and then we can have a group hug.
|
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Nov 15, 2006 12:35:28 GMT -6
I have always posted the BFS posters that have the "Beginning" "All State", "All-American" and "Elite" numbers for the major lifts. How many of my players ever approached those numbers? Maybe 2-3 total. And the rest were nowhere near. Here is what I would say is "good". Bench: 200# Squat: 300# Clean: 70% of your squat (which if you squat 300# is 210# which is not that much) I think those are good, realistic goals that groundchuck suggested, especially at a smaller school. And when (very seldom) I have had several kids who were above those numbers, we had pretty good seasons. Looking at the bench and clean numbers, does anyone else see a similarity in the amounts kids do on these two lifts? I have no explanation for it, but over the past 6-7 years I have had many kids whose bench and clean totals were almost exactly the same. |
|
coachf
Freshmen Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by coachf on Nov 15, 2006 13:11:06 GMT -6
I went a University this past summer for a clinic and their record for squat was 510 pounds.
No joke, when I first came to our school the record for squat was 800 pounds!!! The biggest joke I have ever seen. The kids would do box squats and just barely bend their knees. We took down all the records and got rid of them.
Really good squats are rare. I still think it is a great lift, but the numbers thrown out sometimes are ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Nov 15, 2006 13:25:01 GMT -6
 OPEN LETTER TO BORAT: Hey Borat, Yakov Smirnov called. He wants his jokes back. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Nov 15, 2006 13:47:26 GMT -6
I went a University this past summer for a clinic and their record for squat was 510 pounds. No joke, when I first came to our school the record for squat was 800 pounds!!! The biggest joke I have ever seen. The kids would do box squats and just barely bend their knees. We took down all the records and got rid of them. Really good squats are rare. I still think it is a great lift, but the numbers thrown out sometimes are ridiculous. I get it all the time..I walk into the wt room and the kids are all talking about who squatted 600 or whatever....no way. |
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Nov 15, 2006 13:53:39 GMT -6
Feel the BURN!  |
|
|
|
Post by airman on Nov 15, 2006 17:36:02 GMT -6
as they say look like trazan play like jane.
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Nov 15, 2006 19:05:20 GMT -6
I wish that was our problem. Next year we are going to time them at 38 yards and tell them its 40. That way they can feel better about themselves and then we can have a group hug. Honestly that is not a bad idea. AS long as we are talking speed what is "fast" for your team/conference? I'm talking skill positions here. The last school I was at if we had a 5.0 RB that was good. In five years I had a couple 4.8-4.9 and one kid who ran 4.6 but that was it. |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Nov 15, 2006 19:29:11 GMT -6
The ability to play the game is still the most important thing. Strength training is but one piece of the puzzle, and is often overrated. And as far as "speed", I've had kids that timed in the 4.6 area but played a lot slower, because they lacked contact courage or hand-eye coordination. And I've had kids that timed at 5.2 that made every play on defense or you couldn't bring down without your Letterman's Club.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Nov 15, 2006 19:32:07 GMT -6
I wish that was our problem. Next year we are going to time them at 38 yards and tell them its 40. That way they can feel better about themselves and then we can have a group hug. Honestly that is not a bad idea. AS long as we are talking speed what is "fast" for your team/conference? I'm talking skill positions here. The last school I was at if we had a 5.0 RB that was good. In five years I had a couple 4.8-4.9 and one kid who ran 4.6 but that was it. Our league is really fast: OL- Who cares? TEs- 4.8, maybe a 4.9. WRs- mostly 4.5s or better. Slightly slower players (4.6-4.7) can play if they can block and have great hands. TBs- also in the 4.5-4.6 range. Faster is a nice luxury. FBs- 4.7-4.9 if they're wiling and able to block. QBs- If they can chuck it who cares? Otherwise about the same as TBs. DEs- 4.6 or so, DTs- for the better teams, low 5.0s or so. Others, whatever. ILBs- 4.5s are not unusual. Most are probably 4.7-4.8. DB- You can get by with a 4.7 whose smart and has great technique. Otherwise it had better be better. For corners, a lot better. |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Nov 15, 2006 19:43:07 GMT -6
phantom,
I read your posts and respect your knowledge and perspective. But unless you're coaching in "The League" (NFL) those times are really exaggerated.
I coached six years in college and a good friend of mine is an NFL assistant (albeit on a bad team). Those times are just not realistic for high school - even most college teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Nov 15, 2006 20:46:43 GMT -6
These times are not electronic so I'll admit that they would be slower if they were. Otherwise, though, I stand by my times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Nov 15, 2006 21:13:25 GMT -6
in high school, our coaches used these % as goals:
bench press = 1.5 times body weight
deep squat = 2 times body weight
|
|
