|
Post by larrymoe on May 30, 2020 16:39:23 GMT -6
And. Here. We. Go.
|
|
|
Post by 60zgo on May 30, 2020 18:36:09 GMT -6
I would start with the Track Football Consortium and get a couple of those videos.
|
|
|
Post by coacheichler on May 30, 2020 18:37:56 GMT -6
Not sure what this means? Is there a post already? Frowned upon around here?
|
|
|
Post by coacheichler on May 30, 2020 19:14:01 GMT -6
I found another post on this so I’ll delete this. Thanks guys.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 31, 2020 13:42:08 GMT -6
Was this concerning lightweight football?
|
|
|
Post by blb on May 31, 2020 15:26:40 GMT -6
Was this concerning lightweight football? OP's ( coacheichler) team is going to 8-man football this fall.
|
|
|
Post by freezeoption on Jun 2, 2020 10:24:42 GMT -6
I was going to say, don't think there has been much on here about sprint football.
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jun 2, 2020 18:39:09 GMT -6
Here is my question, and maybe its more for smaller school coaches who have guys going both ways, but to what extent is conditioning required for football players and is that training met with this program?
I get not wanting to wear out your players, wanting them to be able to play at top speed. But how many sprints does a top track athlete have to perform at a meet compared to how many plays a football player needs to execute at top level (with whatever available reserves they might have)?
My best players could be hitting 100 snaps a game, is this training best suited for that situation?
|
|
|
Post by 60zgo on Jun 2, 2020 18:47:26 GMT -6
Here is my question, and maybe its more for smaller school coaches who have guys going both ways, but to what extent is conditioning required for football players and is that training met with this program? I get not wanting to wear out your players, wanting them to be able to play at top speed. But how many sprints does a top track athlete have to perform at a meet compared to how many plays a football player needs to execute at top level (with whatever available reserves they might have)? My best players could be hitting 100 snaps a game, is this training best suited for that situation? It's probably more important in the small school environment.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 2, 2020 21:58:25 GMT -6
Here is my question, and maybe its more for smaller school coaches who have guys going both ways, but to what extent is conditioning required for football players and is that training met with this program? I get not wanting to wear out your players, wanting them to be able to play at top speed. But how many sprints does a top track athlete have to perform at a meet compared to how many plays a football player needs to execute at top level (with whatever available reserves they might have)? My best players could be hitting 100 snaps a game, is this training best suited for that situation? I think that is HIGHLY dependent on what you mean by "conditioning". The FTC guys are really into developing among their athletes what they call "anaerobic speed reserve". My understanding is that they want to make guys as fast as possible through sprinting, not running. So, let's say, for example, a FTC team has a bunch of guys who sprint in training and run 4.75 consistently under optimal conditions with maximum rest. Now, those guys aren't going to be running 4.75 in the 4th qt. They might be running 4.85 or 4.9 or even 5.0. But, because they have trained to SPRINT, those 4.85s or 4.9s or 5.0s are STILL going to be faster than the other team because by the 4th qt, the other team is now running 5.2s or 5.5s or 6.0s. So, the FTC argument is that sprint-based training preserves (or maybe a better term is extends) speed over the course of a game than traditional football conditioning programming. At least that is my understanding. I could be completely wrong.
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jun 2, 2020 22:41:48 GMT -6
Here is my question, and maybe its more for smaller school coaches who have guys going both ways, but to what extent is conditioning required for football players and is that training met with this program? I get not wanting to wear out your players, wanting them to be able to play at top speed. But how many sprints does a top track athlete have to perform at a meet compared to how many plays a football player needs to execute at top level (with whatever available reserves they might have)? My best players could be hitting 100 snaps a game, is this training best suited for that situation? I think that is HIGHLY dependent on what you mean by "conditioning". The FTC guys are really into developing among their athletes what they call "anaerobic speed reserve". My understanding is that they want to make guys as fast as possible through sprinting, not running. So, let's say, for example, a FTC team has a bunch of guys who sprint in training and run 4.75 consistently under optimal conditions with maximum rest. Now, those guys aren't going to be running 4.75 in the 4th qt. They might be running 4.85 or 4.9 or even 5.0. But, because they have trained to SPRINT, those 4.85s or 4.9s or 5.0s are STILL going to be faster than the other team because by the 4th qt, the other team is now running 5.2s or 5.5s or 6.0s. So, the FTC argument is that sprint-based training preserves (or maybe a better term is extends) speed over the course of a game than traditional football conditioning programming. At least that is my understanding. I could be completely wrong. Thats a good answer, and I usually agree with most of what I read from the FTC crowd (though I find Tony Holler to come off as condescending and one who intentionally misrepresents football coaches). My thought is, would there be a greater drop off in speed in the 4th qtr for an FTC exclusive team than one who balanced out this type of training with some more sprint based conditioning work. Don't get me wrong, Im not implying 20 minutes of Indian Runs or something of that nature, more like additional sprints or time of full go during practice without the prescribed rest period. In essence, my thought is this: 100M sprinters train differently than those who run 3200M; is what we do in a football game more similar to sprinting 100M or running 3200M? And if it is the latter, to what extent should we change our method of training away from what we stereo-typically view as FTC to better accommodate this? Once again, this isnt me advocating for 'the grind' which I agree is foolish. This is me looking at the football and wondering if we are more aerobic than what is being implied.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 3, 2020 7:05:51 GMT -6
I think that is HIGHLY dependent on what you mean by "conditioning". The FTC guys are really into developing among their athletes what they call "anaerobic speed reserve". My understanding is that they want to make guys as fast as possible through sprinting, not running. So, let's say, for example, a FTC team has a bunch of guys who sprint in training and run 4.75 consistently under optimal conditions with maximum rest. Now, those guys aren't going to be running 4.75 in the 4th qt. They might be running 4.85 or 4.9 or even 5.0. But, because they have trained to SPRINT, those 4.85s or 4.9s or 5.0s are STILL going to be faster than the other team because by the 4th qt, the other team is now running 5.2s or 5.5s or 6.0s. So, the FTC argument is that sprint-based training preserves (or maybe a better term is extends) speed over the course of a game than traditional football conditioning programming. At least that is my understanding. I could be completely wrong. Thats a good answer, and I usually agree with most of what I read from the FTC crowd (though I find Tony Holler to come off as condescending and one who intentionally misrepresents football coaches). My thought is, would there be a greater drop off in speed in the 4th qtr for an FTC exclusive team than one who balanced out this type of training with some more sprint based conditioning work. Don't get me wrong, Im not implying 20 minutes of Indian Runs or something of that nature, more like additional sprints or time of full go during practice without the prescribed rest period. In essence, my thought is this: 100M sprinters train differently than those who run 3200M; is what we do in a football game more similar to sprinting 100M or running 3200M? And if it is the latter, to what extent should we change our method of training away from what we stereo-typically view as FTC to better accommodate this? Once again, this isnt me advocating for 'the grind' which I agree is foolish. This is me looking at the football and wondering if we are more aerobic than what is being implied. I'm not an FTC guy so I'm speaking out of turn here but I would imagine that they would take issue with the idea of running sprints as conditioning without rest periods. For FTC guys, "sprinting" has a very specific definition. Anything that doesn't fit that definition falls into the category of "running". Regarding Tony Holler, he trains all of his 100m, 200m, and 400m guys essentially the same. According to him, he never has his sprinters run more than 200m in practice, even the 400m guys. For him, it's all about max speed. This is a pretty famous Holler quote that describes his approach: "If you train at 100 mph, 80 mph will seem comfortable. If you train at 60 mph, 80 mph will seem uncomfortable." My takeaway from that is if you are programming sprints without rest, then the players will not be able to go full-speed on each subsequent sprint because of fatigue. So, they are not "sprinting" because they aren't running at max speed. I don't know what the answer is. But, based on what I have read and watched on Twitter, this is my understanding of the FTC approach.
|
|
|
Post by morris on Jun 3, 2020 8:34:06 GMT -6
I could have some or all of this wrong so take it as you will. There is another thread on here that I think covers some of the stuff you’re asking.
Part of the feed the cats stuff is you do a few sprints instead of a bunch of 40s. Their stance is doing a bunch of 40s makes guys slower because it’s training the wrong energy system. Football is closer to 100m than anything above a 400 (I would argue really anything above a 200).
The cutting back on team and things has less to do with the energy system and more to do with just not beating up your kids. For something to be considered sprint you need to hit max velocity. Running 10 yards you’re not going to hit it.
|
|
|
Post by irishdog on Jun 3, 2020 17:04:18 GMT -6
What it really comes down to is this: What are your training goals? Skilled players are required to run longer distances than linemen. However BOTH are required to run those distances as fast as possible. Skills run longer sprints. Bigs run shorter sprints.
Since most of my coaching career has taken place at small schools my coaches and I have spent a lot of time evaluating our players' physical, emotional, and mental make up. During post-season training we focus on these characteristics. We test them first, and determine what their initial individual GOALS should be. We also take into consideration their age, and playing experience. The first half of our post-season (January through March) is focused on gaining strength and power. The only "aerobic" work we do at that time is on Fridays during our timed circuit training. We start "running" and explosive lifting in April. Skill players are separated from "Big Skills". We continue this through June when we start our summer strength and conditioning camp. In July we alternate strength and power (two days) with explosive work (sprinting); and one day of explosive lifting and endurance conditioning. All told we go four days per week in June and July. We cannot be with the boys during dead week the last week of July. During the season we will lift once per week before school, conditioning (endurance) once per week (Mondays), while all of their explosive movement is done during practice.
In conclusion I have found that this system has worked very well for my guys in the small school setting. I just want them to be in better shape than they were at the end of the previous season when they report for the current season.
|
|
|
Post by 60zgo on Jun 3, 2020 20:18:00 GMT -6
FTC would argue that football is not aerobic.
As stated above "sprinting" or Max Velocity is a very specific skill. It is a max effort with a relatively large amount of recovery. Increasing Max Velocity or your ability to "sprint" will increase your ability to "run fast" for repeated and crowded efforts. There is an art to seeking the minimum effective dose for the result you want.
This will look different for every program. Total number of two way players, offensive scheme, time out philosophy, substitute philosophy, opponent offensive scheme, etc...
FTC is a philosophical approach. The art of coaching it is a whole different thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2020 8:10:31 GMT -6
How many times are you running 15 yards, much less 40? I would think agility, accelerating, understanding assignment would be much better in the way what actually happens on the field.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2020 9:47:40 GMT -6
I cannot get all in on FTC. I cannot get on board with RPR either. That said, conceptually, there are some things that I do like about FTC. Being fresh on Friday is obviously important, so important I have even given my teams Thursday practice off with only a team meal after school. I agree that you do not need 3 hour grueling practices. We try to get 2 hours tops, with 45 minutes of offense, 45 minutes of defense and 20 minutes of special teams, the remainder of the time is for transitions and wrap up clean up. We RARELY if ever tackle to the ground, all thud fit up. When we do team offense, we typically go vs, a static defense with bags to save the wear and tear on the body. For defense we typically do alignment vs. bags, walk and talk through the teams top 4 plays from their top 4 formations, and may run a few of those against our defense, but scout teams are usually so jacked you get very little from full speed defensive team. So no knock on FTC or RPR, I just cannot get fully on board with what they are doing.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 4, 2020 10:14:57 GMT -6
I cannot get all in on FTC. I cannot get on board with RPR either. That said, conceptually, there are some things that I do like about FTC. Being fresh on Friday is obviously important, so important I have even given my teams Thursday practice off with only a team meal after school. I agree that you do not need 3 hour grueling practices. We try to get 2 hours tops, with 45 minutes of offense, 45 minutes of defense and 20 minutes of special teams, the remainder of the time is for transitions and wrap up clean up. We RARELY if ever tackle to the ground, all thud fit up. When we do team offense, we typically go vs, a static defense with bags to save the wear and tear on the body. For defense we typically do alignment vs. bags, walk and talk through the teams top 4 plays from their top 4 formations, and may run a few of those against our defense, but scout teams are usually so jacked you get very little from full speed defensive team. So no knock on FTC or RPR, I just cannot get fully on board with what they are doing. I've learned to focus on the content and to ignore the middle-schooler-who-gets-purple-hair-for-attention aspect of some of the more obnoxious self-promoters in the movement. If you do that, there are a lot of great ideas.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 4, 2020 17:19:34 GMT -6
Decades ago, when I trained to play rugby, I was given a sprint-interval program to condition myself with over the summer. It worked. Only the next summer did I read the preface, which said it was to be done after a 20-30 minute distance run. I never did the distance run. I could not do a distance run, and if somehow I could, I certainly couldn't do sprints afterward. Yet the conditioning worked for me. It brought down my heart rate to within what they called the training range after I initially exceeded it. And this is for a game that, although it includes a good deal of sprinting, also includes a lot of running between sprints.
It never made me fast. Fortunately I didn't have to be fast because I was a forward. But between that conditioning and smartly knowing when to break off a ruck, I managed to get to the next ruck fairly timely for someone like me who was basically a non-athlete.
|
|
|
Post by morris on Jun 5, 2020 6:04:52 GMT -6
How many times are you running 15 yards, much less 40? I would think agility, accelerating, understanding assignment would be much better in the way what actually happens on the field. How often are you going to bench press 175 or 200? How often are you going to squat (fill in whatever numbers)? We do those things to help get our players stronger and to protect their bodies. So throughout a game depending on your position and style of play all of those help our players perform. It’s the same thing with the sprints. Sprints are a tool to get faster. You’re not doing a bunch of sprints or spending practice just doing that and going home. Some teams still do this but I feel a lot of teams don’t. They run gassers at the end of practice or 110s or other things like that to get their guys “conditioned” or to make them physical/mental tough. The FTC approach doesn’t do that. I think you have to look at sprint days a few different ways. One you’re going to do a few sprints to get to max velocity. It’s just a technique to get faster over time. You are going to do some high intensity things for up to 6 secs or so. That can be team, goal line or whatever where it is full go balls to the wall. You won’t spend the whole practice doing it but that’s the focus. Just make sure whatever you do you don’t hurt the next day’s practice. Non-sprint days you can still do 90% of what have always done. During team or inside run you’re doing it against bags. You still can work on speed, agility, quickness stuff and go live some in your Indy periods. You can still expect your RB to hit the hole full speed, run quick game and all of that. You’re just not really doing things where players are hitting max velocity or going high intensity. No one is going to hit max velocity sprinting 10 yards and running plays on air or against bags isn’t going to get to high intensity. Really when you look past how their message comes across and you can figure out what they are really saying (that’s easier said than done) a lot of us already follow the FTC methods in some part or in whole. Basically don’t beat up your team during the week. Don’t run old school conditioning drills/runs. Don’t stack back to back high intensity practices. Do less team and less full contact. Give players time to recover so they can go full speed. Sprint a couple a times a week to help develop speed.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jun 5, 2020 6:36:58 GMT -6
Basically don’t beat up your team during the week. Don’t run old school conditioning drills/runs. Don’t stack back to back high intensity practices. Do less team and less full contact. Give players time to recover so they can go full speed. Sprint a couple a times a week to help develop speed. THIS Being doing this for twenty years. Well except actual "sprinting" in football practice to develop speed. We of course are doing that in the off-season. But, I think they are getting enough sprinting running routes and running through holes full speed, etc. I am a huge minimum effective dose guy.
|
|
|
Post by CS on Jun 5, 2020 10:27:19 GMT -6
I think something that never really gets mentioned is taking inventory of the drills you run and what they are designed to do.
If i'm working a reaction drill with the d-line why am I having them sprint to a cone that's a designated distance(usually 5 to 10 yards)?
There are certain drills that don't need that extra running involved. You can cut down on the amount of running you do just by knowing where the kids need to run and where they don't
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jun 5, 2020 11:23:24 GMT -6
I think something that never really gets mentioned is taking inventory of the drills you run and what they are designed to do. If i'm working a reaction drill with the d-line why am I having them sprint to a cone that's a designated distance(usually 5 to 10 yards)? There are certain drills that don't need that extra running involved. You can cut down on the amount of running you do just by knowing where the kids need to run and where they don't The best conditioning I found for OL was driving the 5 man sled for 10-20 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 5, 2020 11:26:09 GMT -6
I think something that never really gets mentioned is taking inventory of the drills you run and what they are designed to do. If i'm working a reaction drill with the d-line why am I having them sprint to a cone that's a designated distance(usually 5 to 10 yards)? There are certain drills that don't need that extra running involved. You can cut down on the amount of running you do just by knowing where the kids need to run and where they don't The best conditioning I found for OL was driving the 5 man sled for 10-20 seconds. But that's not gonna get the likes on Twitter! 🙄
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jun 5, 2020 12:25:19 GMT -6
The best conditioning I found for OL was driving the 5 man sled for 10-20 seconds. But that's not gonna get the likes on Twitter! 🙄 What is Twitter?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2020 12:31:16 GMT -6
I think something that never really gets mentioned is taking inventory of the drills you run and what they are designed to do. If i'm working a reaction drill with the d-line why am I having them sprint to a cone that's a designated distance(usually 5 to 10 yards)? There are certain drills that don't need that extra running involved. You can cut down on the amount of running you do just by knowing where the kids need to run and where they don't The best conditioning I found for OL was driving the 5 man sled for 10-20 seconds. where do you see that in a game? Its a waste of time and punitive.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jun 5, 2020 12:51:54 GMT -6
The best conditioning I found for OL was driving the 5 man sled for 10-20 seconds. where do you see that in a game? Its a waste of time and punitive. Ok. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by morris on Jun 5, 2020 14:17:28 GMT -6
Saying it’s punitive I think is a bit of a stretch. Saying there might be a more efficient way might be (I don’t know) more accurate. When we’ve used the sled and drive it we’ve gone about 6-8 sec and rotate. Depending on how many guys you have it will workout to be about the same amount of rest as going uptempo. Unless you bust a big run a play or if it’s a pass of some type the play would run around 6-8 sec range.
|
|
|
Post by kylem56 on Jun 5, 2020 17:44:57 GMT -6
Before I resigned as Head Coach, I did a ton of research on this and actually had practice plans to go with it. However, you have to make room for modifications in there. We were a small school with 23-25 on varsity roster which is alot of why we went to it. We didnt have big kids so we felt we might as well train for speed. But it lacked a strength compeonent. Like anything it has its pros and cons. Not a big Tony Holler fan but Dan Casey, Brad Dixon, and a couple of coaches on here were extremely helpful and made it more "realistic" to adapt for me.
Feed the Cats sponsored by Carol Baskins
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 5, 2020 18:36:09 GMT -6
The best conditioning I found for OL was driving the 5 man sled for 10-20 seconds. where do you see that in a game? Its a waste of time and punitive. Specific stems from the general
|
|