mc140
Sophomore Member
Posts: 204
|
Post by mc140 on Jul 13, 2019 22:36:02 GMT -6
This one has been all over my twitter feed. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 14, 2019 5:54:06 GMT -6
Agreed!!!!
Thoughts on conditioning
1) conditioning interferes with size, speed, and strength gains. So do the minimum required and try and not do it until you have to.
2) the kids should be in some kind of general shape just from working out, doing agilities, plyo’s, speed training, playing other sports. Only fat one-sport lineman should ever be a problem getting into shape and they don’t ever run more than a few yards per play anyway.
3) Train as much game-like as possible. We run either 20’s, 30’s or 40’s and one every 30 seconds. We will sprint a lap around the goalpost (about 250 yards - 2 times at most) for time because you do need some aerobic conditioning.
4) You should ramp up the conditioning. We don’t condition until after July 4th week. Start with 10 20’s and 1 250. Build up to 20 40’s and 2 250’s over the course of 3-4 weeks.
5) all of this still doesn’t get up in football shape. You won't be in shape until about game 2 or 3. I don’t care how many 110’s you run.
|
|
|
Post by mrjvi on Jul 14, 2019 6:03:27 GMT -6
My thoughts almost completely mirror silkyice. I have NEVER understood the 16 110's. Totally out of the energy system for great speed and power gains. We also do 5 or 7 man sled work (season) where we follow the same energy system as football. 5 seconds of effort with @ 30 seconds of rest for 10 reps. Only thing we don't usually do is a longer run, but that's only a minor difference. Our "Hour of Power" offensive session (not really an hour) runs on the same energy system.
|
|
|
Post by morris on Jul 14, 2019 6:18:54 GMT -6
We do tempo runs. 60 yards at about 65%. 30 sec rest and 3 minute rest between the two sets. Two sets of 5. We then move up to two sets of six. If we increase the distance we drop the reps back. Any other type of conditioning is done through practice tempo. I realized this past Thursday I screwed up and should of backed off the tempo.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 14, 2019 6:32:46 GMT -6
First thing that jumps out at me is that Coach Holler wants to know "what is wrong with FOOTBALL COACHES"due to this encounter. According to his post (which may or may not be true) this was asked by a college football player. Unless this athlete is competing at one of the lower levels of the sport, this test was not prescribed by a FOOTBALL COACH, but rather a S&C coach.
Second, if this is indeed a college athlete, then unlike a HS situation, there is a possibility that the athlete was not on campus all summer and did not participate in supervised workout. So I am assuming the test is there as some type of "incentive" to ensure that the 18,19,20 year old doesn't show up in such bad condition that he would be unable to effectively practice and keep up.
Regarding the use of 110s, I could see the thought process being they don't want to risk pulled hamstrings or other issues trying to test something like 40s within a certain range of their best time (hardest Conditioning test I have heard of) or something similar.
I don't think things like this really apply to HS much because of the differences in off season supervision. That said, I never really understood the concept of the conditioning test, especially for HS. What do you do if the best players perform poorly? It just shows how "inbred" some of the thinking is, even by well known coaches such as Bum Phillips. Why the hell was Earl Campbell torturing himself failing to run a mile the first day of camp? Because "that is how we do it? So stupid.
|
|
|
Post by tabs52 on Jul 14, 2019 11:57:23 GMT -6
I joined in this conversation on twitter, first I have never used a conditioning test as a coach, second I see my guys 4 days a week in the summer, if they are not ready then that needs to fall on the staff
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jul 14, 2019 12:30:07 GMT -6
Yay. Tony Holler. Yay.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jul 14, 2019 12:47:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 14, 2019 13:00:28 GMT -6
I joined in this conversation on twitter, first I have never used a conditioning test as a coach, second I see my guys 4 days a week in the summer, if they are not ready then that needs to fall on the staff I don't have tweeter, but i looked at the conversation for the basis of this discussion. I will be honest, I think Holler made up the story just to create an argument. Doesn't mean he is wrong, and I certainly know many HS FB coaches who have used the 110s as a conditioning test, but I still don't see why a test prescribed by a college strength coach initiates comments "I don't get FB COACHESS". Definitely seems like he was just looking to start an argument.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 14, 2019 13:00:42 GMT -6
. What do you do if the best players perform poorly? It just shows how "inbred" some of the thinking is, even by well known coaches such as Bum Phillips. Why the hell was Earl Campbell torturing himself failing to run a mile the first day of camp? Because "that is how we do it? So stupid. That's always the question. I've told this story before but haven't for a few years so this is for the new guys: I heard Joe Bugel tell a story about when he was OL coach for The Hogs with the Redskins. One year Joe Gibbs got a bug about doing a conditioning test and decided on a timed mile. One starter on that great OL walked the whole way. Another hid behind a shed while another jogged one lap then quit altogether. Bugel said he turned to Gibbs and asked, "We're not going to cut those guys are we?". They didn't. At my last stop we did a test but we had a reason. In our state we can't make the offseason mandatory. We used a multi-event test with a sliding points scale and it was designed to be easy for guys who'd done any work in the offseason. The penalty for failure wasn't dire: You didn't get a helmet decal until you did some easy extra conditioning and and made it through the first couple of games without missing a practice. All of the expected contributors made it and of those who didn't most quit before the first game so it didn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jul 14, 2019 13:16:54 GMT -6
...I think Holler made up the story just to create an argument. ...but I still don't see why a test prescribed by a college strength coach initiates comments "I don't get FB COACHESS". Definitely seems like he was just looking to start an argument.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 14, 2019 13:26:03 GMT -6
There is a difference between a "Conditioning Test" that players have to pass or face consequences (extra work), and Testing (40, Bench, Squat, etc.) that players are scored-ranked on at beginning of practice.
|
|
|
Post by kcbazooka on Jul 14, 2019 13:30:12 GMT -6
I was an assistant for a coach that had his kids run a mile the opening day. If you ran a certain time you could be a skill player - if not you were a lineman. We had a 250 pounder state wrestler that was one of the fastest kids we had in a 20 yard dash. Would have been a stud fullback. Never got the chance - did college track as a thrower.
|
|
mc140
Sophomore Member
Posts: 204
|
Post by mc140 on Jul 14, 2019 13:31:47 GMT -6
What percent of high school programs still do a 110 conditioning test or something similar? It seems like every summer a college football player dies doing something like this.
|
|
|
Post by mrjvi on Jul 14, 2019 13:44:28 GMT -6
All of our pre-season tests are strength/power. Squat, Bench, Clean, Trap bar deads, pro agility and 4 Bounds for distance. They need 20 workouts with a summer possibility of over 30 workouts available or pass the test. Otherwise they do have a 20 minute to @ 1/2 hour extra session after practice during the pre-season. Explosive conditioning on the BEAR. It is actually done at the end of each summer workout anyway so it's not even something different.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jul 14, 2019 13:50:32 GMT -6
I joined in this conversation on twitter, first I have never used a conditioning test as a coach, second I see my guys 4 days a week in the summer, if they are not ready then that needs to fall on the staff I don't have tweeter, but i looked at the conversation for the basis of this discussion. I will be honest, I think Holler made up the story just to create an argument. Doesn't mean he is wrong, and I certainly know many HS FB coaches who have used the 110s as a conditioning test, but I still don't see why a test prescribed by a college strength coach initiates comments "I don't get FB COACHESS". Definitely seems like he was just looking to start an argument. He's a piece of work. Make sure you check out his blog, or read his book, or articles, or go to his clinic, or... PS- he used to coach football as well.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jul 14, 2019 14:30:22 GMT -6
I don't have tweeter, but i looked at the conversation for the basis of this discussion. I will be honest, I think Holler made up the story just to create an argument. Doesn't mean he is wrong, and I certainly know many HS FB coaches who have used the 110s as a conditioning test, but I still don't see why a test prescribed by a college strength coach initiates comments "I don't get FB COACHESS". Definitely seems like he was just looking to start an argument. He's a piece of work. Make sure you check out his blog, or read his book, or articles, or go to his clinic, or... PS- he used to coach football as well. coachd5085...and if you do all that stuff, make sure to ask him if weight training makes athletes faster. 😆
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Jul 15, 2019 8:41:03 GMT -6
So many different issues at play here. I followed the twitter thread and many of the subsequent spin offs (mostly an echo chamber)...
What I find very interesting is the seemingly large disconnect between the science and actual results as they play out. This is not meant as a my anecdote disproves science, but more to open up questions as to how well "exercise science" as really understands the toll football places on the body.
The idea here is that football is played in 4-5 second bursts of maximum energy (Anaerobic Alactic according to the twitter crew), but that just doesn't mesh with the reality of how people feel after a game (there is definitely lactic build up). So the real question is, is football actually an anaerobic sport played in 4-5 second bursts as the argument states. At what point does anaerobic convert to aerobic? Example:
Nose tackle play 1: Get in stance, play the snap. It's a bubble, so he is engaged for 2 seconds, sheds, and "sprints to the sideline" in pursuit. Play is tackled (5 yard gain), he gets there a few seconds later from his "sprint." Maybe 8 seconds of action by the time he gets slowed down. Offense is no huddle, so he is over the ball waiting for the center to place his hand on it - so he gets 5 or 6 seconds of rest here. Then he is down in his stance (He is fat, so this is a bit of work for him), it's Inside Zone so he takes on the double, it goes to the ground, but it was a 15 yard gain. Big boy gets off the ground, jogs 15 yards ahead and gets, catches his breath for 3 seconds, then is back in his stance. It's a drop back pass this time so he does the fat man dance and him and the center just hang out for 3 seconds. The ball gets thrown and caught for a 9 yard gain... he "sprints in pursuit" on the catch and gets there just a little after the tackle. Catch his breath for 4 seconds then back in his stance. IZ again, but his time he posts up the center, ball carrier bounces outside and he works down the line, ball carrier cuts it back and he gets in to help clean up the ball carrier. The crew goes down so they have to untangle, get up... get set. Defensive Call is for him to slant and penetrate on this 3rd and 2 so now he is going to go full speed. Ball is snapped, he penetrates his gap, QB scrambles on the pressure so he pursues to the sidline. QB reverses field on him and he turns back and chases the other way before eventually the QB whips it to the sideline over his receiver. That little scambled lasted 9 seconds.
That is a 5 play series. Probably 4 minutes real time. He was full speed for... 25 seconds? He was resting for... 25 seconds? He was jogging in pursuit/to get lined up, engaged, in his stance, in a pile for 2 minutes? Is that really anaerobic for a 275 pound 17 year old, or is he maxing out his aerobic system. What if this was a 8 play drive? What if the offenses fumbles the first snap and he is back on the field?
Lets look at a diffrent position, say corner. You are lined up on the left side, they run sweep right. You get in a pursuit lane for the last man tackle and go about 75% for 30 yards (You can't track the ball, so tough to sprint full speed). Whistle blows, jog back. Next play the receiver is running a decoy 9 route, so you run 25 yards with him, whistle blows, jog back. Now they run screen at you, sprint - shed - tackle. Next play is a screen to the other side, back on that last man angle with the long jog.
Is that aerobic or anaerobic. You went 100% once. You probably ran at 75% for 100ish yards. And jogged about 100ish yards. Which energy system are you taxing here?
So much of the "energy system" arguement assumes that 1) The play is the only movement, and 2) Kids actually go 100% every snap - which isn't true at any level of the game, it's not even practical (can you go 100% before you see the ball?)
|
|
|
Post by funkfriss on Jul 15, 2019 13:50:17 GMT -6
trackfootballconsortium.com/new-ideas-for-old-school-football-coaches/Agree or disagree I think this is a good article to at least think about what you are doing. I think football, especially small-school iron man football, is more aerobic than this author and others acknowledge, but I agree with the basic premise made. I don’t care what offense or defense you run your priorities should be 1. 100% health at the end of the season 2. 100% excitement and buy-in at the end of the season 3. 100% speed, effort and efficiency at the end of the season I’ve coached under five different HCs, myself included, and been a part of different philosophies and practices for conditioning and the one thing that has been exactly the same every year is that no matter what, the team is never ready for Game 1 from a conditioning standpoint. Game day is a different beast and the only thing that truly gets you conditioned is playing games. That’s my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 15, 2019 14:00:24 GMT -6
trackfootballconsortium.com/new-ideas-for-old-school-football-coaches/Agree or disagree I think this is a good article to at least think about what you are doing. I think football, especially small-school iron man football, is more aerobic than this author and others acknowledge, but I agree with the basic premise made. I don’t care what offense or defense you run your priorities should be 1. 100% health at the end of the season 2. 100% excitement and buy-in at the end of the season 3. 100% speed, effort and efficiency at the end of the season I’ve coached under five different HCs, myself included, and been a part of different philosophies and practices for conditioning and the one thing that has been exactly the same every year is that no matter what, the team is never ready for Game 1 from a conditioning standpoint. Game day is a different beast and the only thing that truly gets you conditioned is playing games. That’s my opinion. Not saying this as an argument starter, but for whatever reason after 30 years of coaching/hearing that same phrase "Only thing that gets you conditioned to play games is playing games" I have to wonder : If you only play once a week, how exactly is that getting one physically into shape?
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 15, 2019 15:08:26 GMT -6
Used to be that coaches tried to make practices so tough-demanding that games were "easier."
Whether that is the best approach is debatable and of course has been generally disregarded for several reasons.
Two things about coaching HS football, based on IME:
One, HS kids need more time "playing the game" (scrimmaging or similar drills) because they lack the experience, including situations and knowing the rules.
Secondly, the emotional charge of the game is going to affect them, for the better hopefully.
The latter means they will not always "play like they practice."
|
|
|
Post by IronmanFootball on Jul 15, 2019 15:44:47 GMT -6
Our "condo test" (which I don't care about per se but I'm forced to do) is this:
4 quarters of 15 sprints.
Fat kids 15 yards, medium 17.5, skinny 20 yards.
3 seconds to make the sprint. 30 second breaks to walk back to starting line, 5 min breaks btwn quarters.
If you don't make it you don't get a special t-shirt and helmet sticker.
We practice for it 5 weeks out and ease into it. ie. week -5 is Q1, week -4 is Q1+Q2, and so on...
We never practice that chit on the same day we do speed camp. It takes place of our 20 min indy session on Monday.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 15, 2019 15:56:27 GMT -6
"Only thing that gets you conditioned to play games is playing games" I have to wonder : If you only play once a week, how exactly is that getting one physically into shape? First, that is exactly true. The better shape in general you are, the closer you will be to game shape. The more specific you are, the better also. I guess what we as coaches mean by that saying is on a scale of 1-10, no one is at 10 on game 1. But obviously, the higher you are on the scale, the faster (less games) it will take to get to 10 (or close). Also, if someone is at a mythical 10, all it will take for that player to not be a 10 is to all of the sudden have to play a game 2 pm instead of 7 pm and against a light speed no huddle team and the starter on defense gets hurt, so he now has to play both ways. That 10 becomes an instant 6. Ha But to answer your question more directly, I think it is possible for conditioning to only be done once or twice a week to be effective. We condition some everyday right now during the season (that might change), but during the summer we only condition twice a week after July 4 and the kids make marketed improvement. Furthermore, I know that if I don’t personally play any basketball for a few months, that first time back is tough. If I play a week later, it is easier. One week after that, even easier, and by the next week, I feel “in shape” by my standards.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 15, 2019 16:21:23 GMT -6
Furthermore, I know that if I don’t personally play any basketball for a few months, that first time back is tough. If I play a week later, it is easier. One week after that, even easier, and by the next week, I feel “in shape” by my standards. That is your perception, and that was what I was referring to. I don't think it is accurate for someone to say "the only way to get into game shape is to play games" and that "nobody is in 'game shape' for game one." Rather, I think what happens is simply the perception changes. I think it is probably more of a mental issue than a physiological one. Of course, in this case, perception is reality, and if the guys are flying around in the 4th because they don't "feel tired", that is all that matters.
|
|
|
Post by funkfriss on Jul 15, 2019 20:13:26 GMT -6
Furthermore, I know that if I don’t personally play any basketball for a few months, that first time back is tough. If I play a week later, it is easier. One week after that, even easier, and by the next week, I feel “in shape” by my standards. That is your perception, and that was what I was referring to. I don't think it is accurate for someone to say "the only way to get into game shape is to play games" and that "nobody is in 'game shape' for game one." Rather, I think what happens is simply the perception changes. I think it is probably more of a mental issue than a physiological one. Of course, in this case, perception is reality, and if the guys are flying around in the 4th because they don't "feel tired", that is all that matters. I’m not going to argue whether it is psychological or physical, but I agree with silkyice ‘s analogy. I’ve never seen a team that was in the same conditioning week 1 as they were week 4. In fact, I’ve been a basketball coach for a long time as well and have had many players come straight from football where they have been well conditioned, practice basketball for a few weeks and then are dead tired during/after game 1. It takes a few games to get to peak game condition even if it’s a different sport. Again, as silkyice alluded to, athletes get conditioned to the exact conditions they play in. Pace of play, amount of time played, effort played at, and even time of day all factor in. Players get conditioned to practice and even if you try to mimic games and game speed as much as possible it just isn’t the same thing and therefore most kids are not at peak game shape Week 1. But then again I’ve never coached a two-platoon team, so maybe that’s different.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jul 16, 2019 7:30:51 GMT -6
Holler is DEFINITELY the kind of guy who loves the smell of his own farts:
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 17, 2019 7:00:55 GMT -6
FWIW I have heard of two separate studies, one from Ohio State back in '70s and one from Nebraska within last 20 years, both of which said you could get kids in condition for the start of football practice in three weeks.
Football practice has to get kids into "football shape" as far as playing the actual contests themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jul 17, 2019 11:19:04 GMT -6
FWIW I have heard of two separate studies, one from Ohio State back in '70s and one from Nebraska within last 20 years, both of which said you could get kids in condition for the start of football practice in three weeks. Football practice has to get kids into "football shape" as far as playing the actual contests themselves. Yes, I’m three weeks you’ll be as much in football shape as you can be. Improving your baseline requires many weeks and can’t really be done in-season, it’s also not going to happen by running miles a day. This brings to mind an anecdote. We had a legit PhD strength coach who had vastly more sophisticated means of doing testing for this sort of thing to determine how many full-speed plays guys had in them (keeping a long story short here). Side note: legitimately qualified human performance staff makes an unbelievable difference vs Johnny gym-rat. One player was begrudgingly slotted in as our third DT. He could have been our sixth OL but he was insistent on DL so he rode the pine for a few years before flunking out. So as we’re beginning to get ready for training camp and we’re looking at the final depth charts after offseason wastage and such this guy simply hasn’t done the work and he’s grossly out of shape. The strength coach is going through the roster with HC and he says “based on where he stands right now in testing and training, and with the data we’ve collected, he’s got two plays in him before his heart goes into the ‘red’ zone and his performance drops off dramatically.” And he shows the data that looks sort of like timed repeat forties and how it’s bad for the first two and then quickly gets horrible. HC muses for a moment and remarks “yeah, and you didn’t even factor in him running out into the field.” The strength coach was absolutely mortified.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 17, 2019 12:00:55 GMT -6
One of the best indicators of what kind of season we were going to have was the percentage of kids who actually came out (not those who signed up in May and weren't around in August, or what I called "spring football players") that participated in our summer workouts.
If we had a high attendance percentage, typically we were pretty successful. If not, well...
Remember in our state we could not make Off-Season activities "mandatory."
Of course the other variable was how good was the competition.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jul 17, 2019 13:42:25 GMT -6
Holler is DEFINITELY the kind of guy who loves the smell of his own farts: Make sure you buy his videos, or listen to his podcasts, or follow one of his 20 Twitters, or... Guy is an unbearable asshat. My favorite quote from him was when as an assistant JV coach he told the paper (IIRC) the varsity would be a lot more successful if they'd just do what he told them. Democratic socialist to boot.
|
|