Strength and Conditioning questions.....

Thought this was gonna be a thread about Shane Beamer.

 

Well, it definitely showed against Miami.

 

Same guys always hurt for the most part. Rest don’t play anyway. There’s onl a handful that would get snaps.

 

I see no S&C questions.

 

Seems like S&C has been an issue for over a decade, even Savage had detractors.

 

Did not see these dividends pay off vs Miami. We got manhandled. And we have a bunch of injuries.

 

And you think that the strength and conditioning was to blame? Maybe go a bit deeper with that and you will have your answer...

 

The few guys we have that stay injured, I wonder if that was in their history as players and not only attributed to their time at Florida. Asa Turner was injure last year at Washington too and didn’t last a game here.we have 2-3 more that stay injured. I’m not convinced that isn’t a personal trait and not solely our s&c.

 

Little correlation between S&C and on-field performance, though it could contribute to injuries.

 

Not being strong enough to outmuscle your opponent on the offensive line doesn't contribute to on-field performance in football? Defensive linemen and defensive backs not being in good enough condition to avoid sucking wind with hands on-hips in the fourth quarter doesn't have an impact on actual performance? I think it does.

 

Not just OL, receivers need to muscle position and fight for the ball. Important for every position.
How often can you give 100% output is conditioning.

 

Not saying which one or if all of it is our problem but I'd think there could be other factors to those issues as well. Pad level, leverage and confidence in assignments can change who wins a blocking battle. As for DBs being tired, I imagine it gets tiring when you can't get off the field or your offense can't sustain a drive over and over. Just playing Devils advocate.

 

Yeah, I am with you there. I'm not actually trying to make the point that our S&C is to blame for all, or even even the majority, of our on-field woes. That may be others' position, I don't know. My point was that poor strength and conditioning status of players most certainly does have some impact on any team's on-field performance. Of course, there are plenty of other factors that contribute to the overall results on the field, too.

 

Every kid on every campus grows muscle but …

 

A bit deeper, yes, because it wasn't just strength & conditioning. But, this team was nowhere a strong looking team against scum, unlike we'd been led to believe with all of the muscle they, supposedly, packed on. If they did pack on muscle, it didn't seem to include any strength with it. I thought they'd at least be tougher this year. To see them get shoved out of the way, to be slow like they were, and seemingly not real interested was incredibly disheartening. We look powerful against the Samfords of the world, but will we the rest of the season against anyone else?

 

We don’t have a strength issue. We have a toughness issue.

 

I believe I mentioned that in my post.

 

Gotcha, I was centering on the packing on muscles with no strength remark. That is not a physiological reality.

 

Are you saying that somehow bad S&C status of a player on the field doesn't lead to bad performance because all kids grow muscles and there are people teaching bad S&C practices? I'm not following the logic with that.