Blog

If only coaches knew how much damage they were doing by lining up their athletes to run as a consequence for poor performance. I’ve played my fair share of lacrosse, and nothing tightened up a group more than when a coach gripped his whistle a little too tightly, launching into a soapbox memoir about being the most conditioned team. Echoes of Miracle on Ice would ring throughout the practice field as we were pushed to the furthest extent of human aerobic capacity.

The worst part was…I don’t think any of those hardcore sessions made a difference in a final score in my high school and college career. Most old school sport coaches end up using various workouts they’ve found online, or their metric for a good conditioning workout was how many kids ended up neck deep in a trash can.

I don’t think any of those hardcore sessions made a difference in a final score in my high school and college career, says @Coachbsweeney. Share on X

The best college coaches that have a well-balanced strength and conditioning program and the best high schools that host a recruiting class full of multi-sport athletes have found what truly makes a difference in the sport: speed.

I played college lacrosse for five years (COVID year for super senior) and I was never the fastest player on the field. As an attackman, you can become crafty and still be very successful; but now that I’ve begun working with a nationally respected track program, damn do I regret not taking speed training far more seriously. I, much like many other victims, thought quick feet and impressive weight room numbers would propel me to an unprecedented lacrosse season and help me achieve any goal that I set.

Now, I didn’t have a horrible career in college—my twin and I were fourth and fifth in the country in scoring before the season was shut down. But in terms of being effective on the field and what a proper sprint program could have provided for myself and my team along the way, we could’ve done a lot better.

When Skill Levels, Speed Wins

In large part, lacrosse is a game of fine skill and lesser teams often fall prey to opponents that are not only faster, but much higher in skill. This is where I think the difference in the final score lies.

Lacrosse is a game of fine skill and lesser teams often fall prey to opponents that are not only faster, but much higher in skill, says @Coachbsweeney. Share on X

Once you get up to a high level of college lacrosse, skill is almost always equal. It could come down to something as simple as the team with a more dominant faceoff man getting more opportunities and outlasting their opponent. So, how do we raise the level of play without overhauling the skills component and blaming the coaches for kids not being good enough at the sport?

We raise the overall speed of the program.

A big reason a team may be wrung out over the course of a game is not just because an opponent is better; but because these athletes have an innate ability to make faster decisions, read and complete a schematic representation of an oncoming play, and utilize less energy.

Techno-Tactical Model for Lacrosse

• Attackman: Dodge, get open, ride, create contact
  • Major KPI: Acceleration, COD testing, strength, problem solving
• Midfield: Highest run volume, dodge, clear the ball, defend
  • Major KPI: Short- to mid-distance sprints, aerobic capacity, strength
• Defense: Provide coverage, clear the ball, ground ball, withhold and create contact
  • Major KPI: Strength, reactive COD, short sprints
• Goalie: Fast decision-making, clear the ball
  • Major KPI: Hand-eye coordination, hand speed, general aerobic shape, explosiveness, reaction time
• Defensive midfield: Coverage, clear the ball, push transition, big ground ball emphasis
  • Major KPI: Repeat sprint, strength, COD, IQ, power
• LSM: Defend dodgers, clear the ball, push transition, big ground ball emphasis
  • Major KPI: Combo of defender and defensive mid
• Faceoff: Get out quick from low positions, use physicality, ground balls, transition
  • Major KPI: Explosive, strongest position, mental strength, short fast bouts

So, given all of this, what’s the solution?

The rapidly growing phenomenon of Tony Holler’s Feed the Cats has been introduced into lacrosse and has made a great impact on how coaches see the game. It’s essentially microdosing sprint volume in a digestible format where coaches can fit sprint training into warm-ups and solve everybody’s issues of getting faster and getting “conditioned.”

It’s essentially microdosing sprint volume in a digestible format, says @Coachbsweeney. Share on X

The old school coach is under the impression that running ten 300-yard gassers (totaling 3,000 yards of low intensity sprinting) or several mile runs (another way to build a submaximal aerobic base) will fully prepare their players to outrun the opponent in a given game. Sadly, the players walk away disgruntled more often than not, assuming the coach is just out to get them with this absurd amount of volume that just adds to the wear and tear of the season. It may surprise some folks to find out you can sprint a total of 100 to 400 yards with maximal rest and improve both sprint speed and repeat sprint ability, all while increasing player morale!

Practical Applications

You can split this up into a high speed 40- to 50-yard competition workout or keep it short and high rep with a 10×10 workout (which I’ll detail fully later). The issue is that kids don’t know how to pace themselves, and during these shuttle workouts, they destroy themselves on the first rep and become way too tired to reach a high enough velocity to elicit change on any of the other sprints. Or you have the savvy veteran who sandbags the first couple sprints, only to show effort on the last. Now, if you want to build up a bigger endurance base before the season starts, I recommend using drills as conditioning with little rest in between or starting off with 1,000 yards in a given day and then slowly building up throughout the season to an actual game load.

When I look at a general practice plan, I start by evaluating the daily running volume. It doesn’t have to be exact, but I’m trying to figure out if the kids are running a lot, a little, or if they’re just standing around. You can then look at your book of drills and categorize those into high running drills or low running drills.

When I look at a general practice plan, I start by evaluating the daily running volume, says @Coachbsweeney. Share on X

The last—and most important—piece is splitting up your week between high days and low days. On the high days, it makes sense to do more full field work and have a focus on longer sprints during warm-ups in a 10- to 20-minute block. Even providing your athletes with three to five 30- to 50-yard sprints with three to five minutes in between would be enough to elicit a speed adaptation, as long as the sprints are at true max velocity. This accomplishes the goal of sprinting the players when they’re at their freshest and building a good relationship with coaches regarding the importance of sprinting.

The low days can be focused more on small-sided games and tons of skill work. The velocities are lower during these days, so using acceleration as the basis combined with COD complexes that are close to the drills you’re doing that day should be the focus of the plan. Throughout the week, the players will be refreshed and recovered because the running volume is giving their bodies a chance to compensate and replenish over-utilized energy sources.

My main advice is to start sprinting early and often. I promise there’s benefit in terms of injury rates and speed development with proper sprint training, and kids will genuinely enjoy watching themselves get faster and having time come off the clock.

My main advice is to start sprinting early and often, says @Coachbsweeney. Share on X

Video 1. Reactive speed and agility games.

In the off season, I love running Derek Hanson’s 10×10 plan, building up acceleration volume and then slowly building up total volume and vertical forces as the season advances:

• Take a 10×10 box, set your kids up in a line, have them sprint the 10-yard length then walk the 10-yard width.
• Repeat this process until you get to 10 reps, then you can rest for three to four minutes in between before you repeat the drill.

Take away meaningless conditioning tests and recreate game-like environments in drills and practice, and use that as your conditioning. You can also build up the volumes and reps in those drills and, look at that, your players are working on skills as well as practicing skill development. Lastly, make running a fun game and play around with how to make the kids become competitive with it.

Make running a fun game and play around with how to make the kids become competitive with it, says @Coachbsweeney. Share on X

When my athletes are given a small-sided game like “trash can ball” or different games I come up with, they have a ton of fun and still walk away out of breath…but actually wanting to play more. Even if you run sprints, time them, and decide on a winning person/team, players light up and start to really buy into the process and the progress. In the end, they’ll further their buy-in and you will finally achieve your goal of kids not walking through the conditioning, but looking forward to it.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

September 7, 1974 —It was a warm late-summer day in Anaheim, California, and the Angels were playing the Chicago White Sox. A young pitcher, Nolan Ryan, toed the mound. Wiping the sweat from his brow, he nodded for the fastball and began his windup. In the blink of an eye, the ball left Ryan’s hand and thwacked into the catcher’s glove—the world’s first recorded 100-mph pitch.

Thirty-six years later, in 2010, Aroldis Chapman blew the hats off of spectators when he launched a pitch clocked at 105.1 mph—the fastest recorded in the modern era. Over the past 13 years, the speed of the average pitch has gone up by more than 3 mph. Although that may not seem like much to the average person, it is a remarkable feat at the MLB level. Spectators might show up for overpriced hot dogs and concessions, but they stay for the speed—and the athletes have noticed.

This made me concoct a theory—not about hot dogs, but about the potential to add pitching speed to a ball player in the pre-season. If the game is faster than ever, how do I fill in each player’s gaps to help them keep up? Or, in other words, can I make fast athletes stronger, strong athletes faster, and once balanced, improve both instead of only focusing on one quality?

What We Did

Every pre-season in our facility, we host dozens of high school and college baseball players looking to improve their mound performance. Our program has always had fantastic results, but I wanted to quantify the most valuable KPI (key performance indicator) to any baseball player—mph. I’ve had this theory on how to get the most speed out of each athlete for years, but I finally invested the resources to test my hypothesis.

I’ve had this theory on how to get the most speed out of each baseball player’s throw for years, but I finally invested the resources to test my hypothesis, says @endunamoo_sc. Share on X

To do this, we hard-mounted a Pocket Radar and a tablet and regularly tracked throwing velocities. If I was correct, then focusing on the differences and deficits of each athlete would yield better results than a standard pre-season program. Within 12 weeks, most of our players were throwing 5.2 mph faster.

How did we do it?

Aside from traditional strength and power training, our program evaluated each player based on two attributes (strength-speed and velocity), categorized them, and then modified their training. Not all athletes start with the same biases and deficits, and once we understood those gaps, we were able to break some plateaus and get some results. To capture the deficits within our population, we implemented two tests and created a ratio score based on these:

1. 1. Three-step kickback medball shotput. This was how we evaluated the strength-speed of each athlete. By implementing a familiar load that was much heavier than a baseball, we could capture peak power that was more force than velocity. Athletes who were high performers in the weight room or on non/low countermovement actions excelled at this.

 

1. Three-step kickback baseball throw. This test leaned more toward the velocity side of performance and gave us a glimpse at the number everyone truly cared about. Having a low medball shotput speed did not mean that there would be an equally low throw speed. Athletes who struggled in the weight room but excelled in aspects like jumps or sprints had higher-than-expected throw velocities.

Once both metrics were collected, we created a ratio and used group means to determine the “ideal” score—which we called a speed-strength ratio (SSR). We had a group of players who’d been in our program for several years and were multi-year varsity and/or college players—we will call them the “Goon-Gang” (IFYKYK)—who all shared an SSR within 0.2 of each other, regardless of their baseball or shotput throw speeds. Some were higher performers than others, but they were all at the top of our competitive food chain. It was like the Red Sea parted, and the optimal ratio was right there in front of me.

Once I had that goal ratio in sight to get our athletes to reach, we got to work on modifying sessions to build their deficits before strengthening their strengths. Before we can dive into the fun and practical side of this approach, however, we have to get our reading glasses on and pencils out and start doing some graphing.

Once I had the goal speed-strength ratio in sight to get our athletes to reach, we got to work on modifying sessions to build their deficits before strengthening their strengths, says @endunamoo_sc. Share on X

Force-Velocity Curve Remodeled

The force-velocity curve is one of the first things taught to aspiring strength coaches. In most textbooks, this is a simple curve with a 1:1 relationship between force (F) and velocity (V). This chart would suggest that as force increases, velocity must decrease (and vice versa). It would be nice if the entire universe followed black-and-white rules like this, but as in many cases, the truth has more gray to it.

If you asked most baseball coaches which is harder, adding pitching velocity or improving a deadlift, they would say the former. That being said, an increase in absolute strength will sometimes lead to an increase in velocity (up to an extent). This means that getting stronger increases the length of the curve while also increasing the speed (V) at which we can move certain loads (F). This is because athletes are not uniform in nature but can use greater stretch loads from the stretch-shortening cycle to throw even harder.

If we were robots, the FV curve would make complete sense, but since our body is designed to utilize the kinetic chain, we can generate high levels of force without losing velocity (at least for a little bit). During advanced movements, the entire body acts like links in a chain, transferring the force generated by one link to the following link while amplifying it through its own additional segmented forces. By improving the efficiency of transfer or the strength of links, we can maximize performance! Humans have a very complex fascial system that we have used since the beginning of human movement to throw, jump, and run faster. Many vertebrates also share these characteristics, but it’s not a universal superpower seen in the animal kingdom.

If we were robots, the FV curve would make sense, but our body is designed to utilize the kinetic chain, so we can generate high levels of force without losing velocity (at least for a little bit. Share on X

Full-grown chimpanzees are 1.5–2 times stronger per pound of body weight than humans, but the average chimp can only throw a ball at 30 mph…which would be impressive if it was faster than the average prepubescent 11-year-old could throw. Meanwhile, the Goon-Gang all have mound velocities between 85 mph and 90+ mph. They might lose to a chimp in a deadlift competition, but that monkey can’t keep up when it comes to arm speed.

The complexity doesn’t stop there. We should also consider adding a second parabola to the Force Velocity chart demonstrating how power plays into all of this. If you can reach back in your mind to the last time you ran a physics calculation, you might remember that Power (P) = Force (F) * Velocity (V). Increasing peak power in athletes is associated with many other performance benefits. As a coach, we can target when force and velocity are at their peak, creating the sweet spot for power training. Although this will vary between athletes, most research suggests traditional strength exercises have peak power at 70%–80% 1RM, whereas their plyometric/ballistic counterparts peak at 35%–45% 1RM.

Now that we understand the complex relationship humans have with load, speed, and power and how we can uniquely use the SSC and fascial network to maximize the speed at heavier loads, we should be able to get everyone throwing 100+ mph, right?

Probably not—but at least we can try. Not everyone has the same genetic makeup, which means they come with their own predispositions, deficits, and potential. To get the most out of everyone, we have to figure out their FV curve and then go from there. Easier said than done, though, right?

Determine Whether Your Athlete Is a Rhino, Cheetah, or Tiger

There are many ways to describe an athlete’s “natural” type, and once you determine their strengths and weaknesses, you can build a program to fix their weaknesses and take advantage of their strengths. In the deep off-season, we want to address the gaps in an athlete’s portfolio, but once it’s game time, we should be peaking their strengths.

The simplest way to peak a player’s strengths without an SSR is to determine which of these three categories they fall into: endomorphs, mesomorphs, or ectomorphs, says @endunamoo_sc. Share on X

You don’t need an SSR to start doing this with your athletes (though it does help). There are many ways to do this, with some being more “science-heavy” than others. To start at the simplest option, you can look at a player and determine which of these three categories they fall into. Endomorphs are heavier set and more strength dominant (think shot-putter). Mesomorphs are lean but muscular, with a balanced athletic ability (think football running back). Ectomorphs are naturally skinny and do well in more dynamic situations (think basketball players).

If you’re like me, you might find this style of assessment underwhelming. The next step in the evaluation is to determine whether they are eccentrically or concentrically dominant. Another way to look at this evaluation is to say whether they move elastically or muscularly. Athletes who are more eccentric-elastic (EE) can generate more power from dynamic movements, while concentric-muscular (CM) athletes can produce large force with little assistance. Between these two groups are the muscular-elastic (ME), who have a balance of concentric abilities but still can produce large amounts of power with additional eccentric load.

There are many ways to evaluate each athlete within your group. For example, you could compare a standard countermovement vertical jump with a more dynamic approach jump. More EE athletes will see 15%–20%+ differences between the two, while more CM will have a 0–10% difference. You will also find that a CM will have better 10-yard to 40-yard ratios compared to an EE. It’s not uncommon for a CM to have a comparable or even better 0–10-yard time than an EE. It’s also not uncommon for a CM to struggle with seeing their times improve between 20–30 and 30–40, whereas an EE will have significant changes at those distances.

For our purposes, we looked at the difference between the 4-pound shotput throw and the standard plyo baseball throw. Those with a smaller difference were dubbed CM, while those with a much greater difference were EE. Our goal was to get everyone to a standard difference (working on their gaps) while still improving them in total (peaking their strengths).

If all else fails, you can put on your safari hat and decide what kind of animal your athletes are. Are they like a rhino (strong and powerful in short distances)? Are they a tiger (explosive and strong without being too heavy)? Or are they a cheetah (lean and fast with bouncy movements)?

Let’s look at our Goon-Gang for an example. Although they were all built differently (heights ranging from 5’6” to 6’4”), they moved similarly. They had creative, explosive abilities from both static and dynamic situations while also being some of the strongest per-pound-of-bodyweight athletes in the weight room. None of them moved heavy but lacked bounce like a rhino, nor did they move weakly but quickly like a cheetah. They were all tigers—strong and powerful, with a pop when needed.

How We Built Velocity Regardless of the Athlete’s “Type”

Now that we’ve made it through the “boring” logistics, we can get to practical application. For starters, we still worked on building strength (unilaterally and bilaterally), and everyone sprinted weekly and hammered rotational movement qualities as a group—after that, however, things got a bit squirrelly.

Each session included medball throws to some degree and lower/upper plyometrics as a supplement. To work on weaknesses at the beginning of the season, we created a few rules. Those who were CM used 2–4-pound medballs exclusively, and most of their throws included a greater dynamic effect: steps, wind-ups, catches, etc. Likewise, they performed fewer static plyometrics and sprinted longer distances throughout the program. Those who were EE were forced to use 6–8-pound medballs exclusively from more static positions: full kneeling, half kneeling, standing, etc. When they performed plyometrics, we focused on non/low countermovement jumps, and they trained at a higher intensity in the weight room—2.5% to 5% 1RM heavier each session.

The Goon-Gang had a more diverse training experience throughout the pre-season. They were able to use weighted throws of 2 to 8 pounds while also performing movements and throws from both static and more dynamic approaches. Not to waste a good Pocket Radar, we also recorded rep by rep to get every drop out of these guys each session.

And it worked.

Those with the greatest increases in pitch velocity resolidified my original theory—make fast athletes strong and strong athletes fast, and once balanced, improve both, says @endunamoo_sc. Share on X

Lifetime throw PRs were seen from every rhino, cheetah, and tiger in the group. Those who went from EE or CM to more ME had the greatest increases in pitch velocity, which resolidified my original theory—making fast athletes strong and strong athletes fast, and once balanced, improving both was the way to go.

The Perfect Balance

Every sport has its unique landmark of athletic success. For gym bros, it’s the answer to the question, how much can you bench? For basketball, it’s can you dunk? And even if they’ll never be able to bring it over triple digits like Nolan Ryan or Aroldis Chapman, for baseball pitchers, it’s can you top 90 mph?

Working in the private sector, I get approached by a lot of baseball parents and athletes asking how to improve their pitching velocity. I have a personal rule to stay in my own lane when it comes to my profession: I am in no way a pitching coach, so modifying their technique is out of the question. What my resume does have on it, however, are a few degrees, certifications, and studies I’ve gotten in sports performance and exercise physiology. And despite my limitations, we added an average of 5.2 mph to our group’s pitching velocities.

Establishing which animals we were working with was the key to getting those gains. The entire performance community has accepted barbell velocity-based training as a great tool for building “athletic” strength. It’s only time we get beyond the weight room and onto the field with this science.

The entire performance community has accepted barbell VBT as a great tool to build “athletic” strength. It’s only time we get beyond the weight room and onto the field with this science. Share on X

It is no longer the gold standard to track the speed of movement but rather to determine which athlete needs more speed, more strength, or the right amount of both. This can be done with a radar, as we did. This can also be done by comparing non-countermovement jumps to more dynamic jumps. And this can be done by comparing 10-yard split and 40-yard split times. The list goes on of ways to evaluate CM- and EE-dominant athletes.

Ultimately, it is up to what you have available at your disposal. And, one day, you might find yourself eating that overpriced hot dog in a ballpark somewhere in America as you watch one of your kids throwing gas on the big stage.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

The NFL Combine is the most notable combine for professional athletes when compared to the NBA, MLB, and NHL. As soon as the Super Bowl concludes in mid-February, this is the event all football fans look forward to. For the players participating, the NFL Combine is a weeklong experience filled with meetings, interviews, medical evaluations, and on-the-field drills and performance testing. The performance testing includes the 5-10-5 and three-cone drills to assess change of direction, the broad and vertical jumps to evaluate lower body power, the 225 bench press test for upper body strength/strength endurance, and everyone’s favorite: the 40-yard dash to measure speed.

We will dive into what the training is like in this process at Bommarito Performance Systems (BPS)—one of the premier training facilities for this process, led by Pete Bommarito. This past year was my fourth year assisting Pete with NFL Combine prep. I will look more specifically at one unidentified wide receiver (athlete E) who trained with us during this process and his results at the Combine.

I chose this athlete because he did a great job recording his weight on every set and rep in the weight room, never had any significant injuries that altered his training, and participated in the three major performance tests I wanted to discuss. (More performance tests take place at the Combine, but the six major ones I mentioned earlier are more popular and shared with the fans.)

Where It Begins

When athletes first show up to start training with us for the Combine, they are evaluated by the medical staff to ensure they are healthy and cleared for training. Athlete E was, so we tested him on all Combine performance tests.

The pre-testing results can humble a lot of athletes: not everyone runs a 4.4 or jumps 32 inches as they think they will, especially after a football season, said @steve20haggerty. Share on X

Before looking at his pre-testing numbers, remember that he just finished a college football season in a Power 5 conference. He was not training for the 40-yard dash and vertical jump; he was playing the extremely physical sport of football. The pre-testing results can humble a lot of athletes: not everyone runs a 4.4 or jumps 32 inches as they think they will, especially after a football season. For playing wide receiver in the NFL at his size (6’3” and 235 pounds), we knew he needed to run in the 4.5 range and jump at least 10 feet in the broad jump and 32 inches in the vertical.

We will look into the training for the 40-yard dash, vertical jump, and broad jump. Athlete E trained speed two days a week and for the agility drills and position work two days per week. A typical schedule for athlete E on a speed day was:

• 6:30 a.m. – Arrive for breakfast
• 7–8 a.m. – Physical therapy, acupuncture, chiropractor, massage, etc.
• 8:15 a.m. – Speed session
• 10 a.m. – Boots or massage
• 11 a.m. – Lunch
• 12:30 p.m. – Film review
• 1:15 p.m. – Lower-body lift
• Ice bath

He arrived at the facility in mid-December. For athletes like E, Bommarito Performance serves as a second home, where they will eat, train, and sometimes sleep (naps) for the next two and a half months. Athlete E arrived two weeks earlier than most other players, giving him a head start on learning some of the movements and getting healthy from his football season.

His main focus in December was to get healthy and start building strength and power in the weight room. In the tables below, I include the workout date, the main movement or superset, and the hamstring accessory exercises. There were, of course, other exercises in the workout, but I only included the hamstring-dominant accessory movements. I also included each exercise’s volume and intensity (load, distance, height, etc.).

January Training

Once we got into January, athlete E was in a very good position health-wise—he already had had no major injuries, but now he was more or less completely recovered from the football season. Our focus in the weight room shifted more to explosive power. The speed training sessions consisted of more drills to build an overall training volume and capacity. We timed sprints six days in January; in three of them, we only sprinted up to 20 yards. The longer the sprint, the more stress put on the hamstring—which is the No. 1 injury everyone is worried about during this process.

Again, this is a football player, not a track sprinter, so we typically are cautious with sprinting distance until later in the process. Athlete E was also invited to the Senior Bowl, so in the last few days of January, we really pulled back on his training volume just to ensure he felt fresh and recovered for the week of practices ahead.

Again, this is a football player, not a track sprinter, so we typically are cautious with sprinting distance until later in the process, said @steve20haggerty. Share on X

As you will see in both the speed workouts and the weight room lifts, athlete E utilized supersets or complexes in his training (many refer to this as post-activation potentiation). For example, a common approach in the weight room is to speed squat with accommodating resistance and then jump—whether on a box, using a Vertimax, or with something measurable like a Vertec. Our goal was to raise the muscle’s capacity to produce force and the nervous system’s ability to produce force quickly and then apply it in the fashion in which he would be tested, like a vertical jump.

In January, we utilized more weighted movements like squats and a higher volume of them. As we progress, the movements we utilize change to lighter/faster movements and lower volume. On the field for speed training, he would utilize a drill that we would program to improve the technical components of his sprint, then hit a timed sprint.

Athlete E is a strong and muscular athlete. We knew we needed to maximize the start (or first 10 yards) of his run and get his upper body to relax during the last 20 yards of the run. For this, we worked a lot on his starting stance, projecting out, and being very aggressive in his start. We utilized basic kneeling arm swing drills to teach him how to swing fast while keeping his hands, shoulders, and neck relaxed.

I always want to see if we can enhance sprinting mechanics with a drill and then get it to carry over to a full-speed sprint. In early January, we started with slower acceleration-based movements such as sled sprints. As February approached, athlete E spent more time doing max velocity-based drills, like overspeed bounds and sprints.

After doing a heavy sled push sprint, athlete E and everyone in the world will run slower on a timed sprint. That’s okay. Did we get the improved technical components to carry over to the sprint? That’s what we’re looking for.

February Training

Once athlete E was back from the Senior Bowl, the focus was on getting him recovered and healthy from the week of intense practices and the game itself. The strength and power established in December and January set a good foundation for the peaking process needed in February. The weight room consisted of more jumps and less squatting, while the speed work consisted of fewer drills, less volume, more rest, and longer distance sprints.

Drop-Off in Performance

Measurable numbers will decline at some point—I have heard the coaches at Spellman Performance refer to this as “the valley”—it pretty much happens to everyone. Training for the NFL Combine is a long, tiring process, and athletes are rarely completely fresh and recovered, so we can’t expect them to break personal records every day. The biggest thing to look for during this time of decreased performance is their technical performance. When watching them run or reviewing film of the athletes running…are they running with the proper technique? If they are and their performance is down, they simply need to recover and for their legs to feel fresh again.

The biggest thing to look for during this time of decreased performance is their technical performance…are they running with the proper technique?, said @steve20haggerty. Share on X

During training, when they are sprinting four times per week, plus working on agility drills twice a week, doing position work, and lifting four times per week, we expect decreased performance. Needless to say, athlete E was often sore, and his legs never felt great. If they are running technically sound—which to me is being in the proper positions to direct force into the ground in the proper direction—then there shouldn’t be anything to worry about. If his legs are sore as we still push him to improve his physical qualities, such as strength and power, once we begin to taper, that power can be expressed. Athlete E had performance drops at times, as we accepted.

Again, he was training intensely six days per week with multiple workouts per day—this is not ideal for breaking personal records daily. Yet he and all of our athletes want to see faster times every day, which does not always happen. That is a tough part of this process for many guys to understand. As a coach, it is my job to get him to understand that performance will sometimes decrease. When reviewing athlete E’s sprinting film with him, it was easier to show him how much he has improved technically and get him to understand that once he begins to taper, we would see significant time improvements.

The biggest dips in sprint performance seemed to occur on January 13 and January 23, and the only drop in performance on jumps was on January 10. January 10 was a Tuesday, and January 13 was a Friday of the same week. This was athlete E’s deload week—he had been training hard for a few weeks prior, and it was time to pull back on overall training volume. A deload for athlete E on the field looked like almost no drills on the feet—no sled pushes, A-skips, or anything like that. He did some traditional arm swing drills from a kneeling position and still hit full-speed sprints, but less distance and fewer reps than the rest of his group.

Two things could have occurred here, or maybe even a combination of the two—he was slightly overreached or over-trained, which led to a decrease in performance, and we did a good job of giving him a deload week. Or what I have noticed with deload weeks is that guys tend to relax and let off the gas a bit. Some guys celebrate the deload week because they are constantly sore and want to feel fresh again. Athlete E is the type of guy who always wanted to do more and get extra work, so I don’t know if I saw him pull off the gas much. My guess is he was overreaching, which is a good thing—we want to push the athletes over the edge slightly and in a controlled manner. We want the super-compensation effect that comes with it.

The other date of decreased performance was on January 23 and even a little on January 24. This was a Monday and Tuesday of the week leading to him leaving for the Senior Bowl. Again, a couple of things could be at play here.

1. On the previous Friday (January 20), only a few days prior to the decreased sprint times, athlete E had a higher training volume on the field of overspeed sprints and long-distance sprints that he had not completely recovered from. Overspeed sprints are the highest stress we place on the athletes from a central nervous system standpoint. It is very common for guys to feel sluggish the day after these.
2. He may also have been feeling some stress and anxiety about the upcoming Senior Bowl. This is a week of intense practices, meetings, and interviews, and really getting in front of scouts and coaches for the first time. Many guys will ask us if they can do extra position work in the week leading up to their All-Star games or even do less in their weight room lifts in an attempt to avoid being sore.

It’s important to consider both the physical and mental factors that could lead to improved or decreased performance, said @steve20haggerty. Share on X

I think it’s important to consider both the physical and mental factors that could lead to improved or decreased performance. My guess for athlete E for this drop in performance is that the overspeed sprints definitely played a factor (many others ran slower sprint times on January 23 and 24, whether they were going to the Senior Bowl or not), but the stress of the upcoming All-Star game may have had an impact as well.

The NFL Combine

I’m not sure how many readers are aware of this, but the 40-yard dash times you see on TV for the Combine are not connected to the laser timing lights on the field. Even when NFL.com publishes “official times,” those are not the times from the timing lights on the field. Why doesn’t the NFL release the actual times, as you see for the Olympic track events? I don’t know the answer.

NFL teams receive an Official Combine Report about one week after the Combine concludes. This has the official measurements for all the performance tests, specifically the times for the 10, 20, and 40. I used the times from the Official Combine Report for this article.

At the Combine, athletes get up to two 40-yard dash sprints with a long rest in between. I was texting athlete E at the time of his first sprint and during this rest as well, trying to keep him focused. Something interesting to note is that he mentioned how strange he felt, referring to sprinting in a dead silent stadium with everyone staring at and evaluating him. These football players are used to loud, intense, and chaotic environments. The Combine is intense, but there is not the same energy as a football game—yes, there is a crowd in one corner of the stadium, but rarely does any cheering occur. There is almost no noise.

He mentioned how strange he felt sprinting in a dead silent stadium with everyone staring at and evaluating him. These football players are used to loud, intense, and chaotic environments. Share on X

Takeaway

My biggest takeaway from the NFL Combine training this year was simply a reminder of the performance drop-offs that occur. As long as the technical mechanics of the sprint are improving, the power outputs in the weight room are improving, and you have the ability to assess the need for a deload week or much-needed recovery, there is nothing to worry about. This is all part of the process. Athlete E was able not only to hit all of the target numbers we looked at for the 40, broad jump, and vertical jump but surpass our goals.

Lead photo by Zach Bolinger/Icon Sportswire

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

Strength coaches are obsessed with how fast athletes run, how high they jump, and how much they lift. After all, these numbers determine the ceiling of athletic potential…or do they? Consider the perplexing NFL Combine results of running back Chris Johnson and quarterback Tom Brady.

In the 2008 NFL Combine, Johnson ran the 40-yard dash in 4.24 seconds, tying the NFL’s all-time best, and soared 35 inches in the vertical jump. The Tennessee Titans drafted him in the first round. The payoff? Johnson rushed for over 1,000 yards in six seasons, racking up 2,006 yards in 2009. He was also the first player to reach 1,900 rushing yards and 400 receiving yards in the same season.

In the 2000 NFL Combine, Brady ran the 40 in 5.28 seconds and vertical jumped 24.5 inches. The New England Patriots drafted him in the sixth round. The payoff? Brady threw for 89,214 yards with 649 passing touchdowns, was voted the NFL’s Most Valuable Player three times, and won the Super Bowl seven times.

Are Tom Brady’s pedestrian numbers an odd exception and not the rule? Perhaps, but consider the results of one study involving 1,155 athletes who participated in the NFL Combine between 2005 and 2009. The researchers found that “regardless of position, the current battery of physical tests undertaken at the combine holds little value in predicting draft order.”

With such diverse results, it’s understandable that many sports coaches, not just football coaches, are skeptical about the value of testing. But perhaps it’s not so much that testing is worthless, but more that the tests used to measure athletic potential are often irrelevant.

A Closer Look at Speed

The 40-yard dash is considered the ultimate measure of a football player’s speed, but why? How often has anyone ever run 40 yards in a straight line in an NFL football game? Further, between 2010 and 2019, the average number of total rushing yards per game was 117, and the total passing yards was 234. Let’s consider another popular measurement of speed, the 100-meter sprint.

The 40-yard dash is considered the ultimate measure of a football player’s speed, but why? How often has anyone ever run 40 yards in a straight line in an NFL football game? Share on X

The title of “The Fastest Man in the World” is given to the winner of the 100 meters in the Olympic Games. However, sometimes it’s not the sprinters with the highest top speed who win in sprinting. Consider the controversial 100-meter finals at the 1988 Olympics featuring Carl Lewis and Ben Johnson.

Johnson won with a world record time of 9.79, even raising his arms before the finish, which may have slowed him down. Lewis was close behind at 9.92 but was later declared the gold medalist when Johnson was disqualified for doping. Surprisingly, the fastest 10-meter split for both athletes was .83 seconds. Johnson’s superior reaction time and rocket start gave him a huge .8-second advantage over Lewis for the first 20 meters, but both had the same lowest time for a 10-meter split.

Another unique aspect of the 100m is that most sprinters don’t reach top speed until about 65 meters. In his world-record 100m sprints in 2008 (9.69) and 2009 (9.58), Usain Bolt reached his top speed when he passed the 60-meter mark. Further, his time for the first 10 meters during his 9.58 record was .6 seconds slower than Johnson’s.

How could this data apply to football?

Although elite 100m sprinters are undoubtedly fast for the first 10 meters, the average run from scrimmage in the NFL in recent years is 5 yards. From these numbers, the wide receiver position might be best for sprinters such as Bolt and Lewis. Based on Johnson’s faster start (and being able to bench press 407 pounds for two reps!), the running back position might be best for Johnson. But hold on—a football coach should also consider focusing their recruiting efforts on hurdlers.

A hurdler must make minute adjustments during a race and be able to absorb, store, and redirect higher levels of force with each landing without sacrificing speed. Thus, the enhanced kinesthetic abilities from hurdling may transfer better to the gridiron than the ability to cover ground more quickly during a 100-meter sprint. But hold on again—there may be even better cross-training sports for football.

I joined the Air Force Academy as a strength coach in 1987. The head athletic trainer told me that in the early days of Air Force football, off-season conditioning consisted of the “skill” athletes playing basketball and the “linemen” wrestling. Perhaps this was not such a bad idea?

In the early days of Air Force football, off-season conditioning consisted of the ‘skill’ athletes playing basketball and the ‘linemen’ wrestling. Perhaps this wasn’t such a bad idea? Share on X

Basketball players must not only be able to move and change directions quickly over short distances, but they must also react to the movements of others. In the 60m–100m events in sprinting, athletes stay in their lanes so they don’t interfere with the movement of their competitors. (Other than being a groovy-looking conditioning method, the lack of reaction to an opponent’s movements questions the value of many cone and ladder drills for football players.)

Wrestling, and many other forms of martial arts, make sense for linemen. At the Academy, I introduced the coaching staff to a martial artist who worked with NFL teams. He showed the coaches several hand movements to break holds and footwork techniques to move more effectively—we even made a video of these techniques to pass on to our current and future players. (By the way, one of this martial artist’s sales pitches to football teams was to have linemen try to tackle his girlfriend, an elite martial artist who often embarrassed them.)

Now that I’ve got you thinking, what resources are available for coaches to determine the best athletic fitness tests for your athletes? One innovative book that sparked my interest in sports-specific testing is Sportselection by Dr. Robert Arnot and Charles Gaines (1984).

The authors developed three major categories of sports-specific testing: The control (nervous) system, the heart-lung package, and body composition. Arnot and Gaines applied these categories to seven sports: alpine skiing, cross-country skiing, cycling, running, swimming, tennis, and windsurfing. Using their assessments, a parent can determine which of these sports their child is most likely to succeed in (and enjoy, as those with a physical advantage are often prone to enjoy a sport more).

One problem with Sportselection is that it only addressed the requirements of a few individual sports. However, there’s no stopping a coach from developing a method to assess other individual sports or even team sports. Let me show you how I did it with football.

The Football Equation

In the case of football players Johnson and Brady, their positions required different skill sets. The question I had to answer as a strength coach was, “What tests are most relevant for each position?”

Before answering, it’s necessary to distinguish between testing for run-oriented and throwing-oriented teams. The Academy had a “4 yards and a cloud of dust” offense, and the skill requirements for many offensive positions differ from a passing team.

Our wide receivers needed to be able to block, our offensive linemen needed exceptional lateral speed to pull, and our quarterbacks needed to scramble. In the season where we upset Ohio State in the Liberty Bowl, our quarterback averaged only 30 yards a game passing and didn’t throw a single touchdown pass all year. We actually had one game where the kicker threw for more yards than our quarterback when he fumbled the snap from center and passed the ball! My favorite slogan to describe our approach to football is: “Passing is for cowards!”

To determine the best predictor lifts and field tests for our football team, I enlisted the services of the Air Force Academy’s math department. My data included our primary lifts in the weight room, our field tests (such as the 40-yard dash and vertical jump), and our military fitness tests (such as sit-ups and the standing board jump). I only used data from the top three athletes in each position because these athletes were most likely to see playing time in a game. Thus, if our top three linebackers had exceptional results in the back squat, the back squat represented a strong correlation.

To determine the best predictor lifts and field tests for our football team, I enlisted the services of the Air Force Academy’s math department. Share on X

An example of the data we used is summarized in image 3, an Athletic Fitness Player Profile Report of one of our centers on the AFA football team. One feature of this report was that a coach not only sees each athlete’s current testing results but the progression of their testing results throughout their entire athletic career.

With the help of our math consultants, I could determine which lifts or field tests an athlete needed to focus on. (By the way, the math department was thrilled to help. I wonder how many Linear Algebra classes ended with the professors telling their students, “I need to release you 10 minutes early—the Falcon football team needs me!”)

Using data collected over three years, our number crunchers came up with some interesting results, not just in transferring athletic fitness testing to performance but correlations of one field test to another. For example, they found a strong correlation between the 40-yard dash and a two-leg triple jump. Let me explain.

We found that those who excelled in the triple jump also excelled in the 40. With athletes who did not possess good elastic strength (and thus the ability to accelerate in the 40), the results of each of the three jumps varied little. You might see a sequence of 8 feet, 8 feet, 8 feet. Athletes possessing exceptional elastic strength might display patterns of 8 feet, 10 feet, and 11 feet. Again, both athletes achieved the same result in the first jump, but exceptional elastic strength enabled the second athlete to jump farther on the second jump and even further on the third.

One of the issues with 40-yard dash testing is that athletes would (perhaps subconsciously?) hold back in the intensity of their weight workouts the week before testing to ensure they were not fatigued going into the test. Athletes were not so concerned about fatigue or soreness going into a jump test, so we could assess their ability to accelerate more frequently.

Although you would expect that improving all the field results would be good, there are cases in football when failing to make progress in sprinting speed and jumping ability is acceptable—case in point: the Lewis Formula.

Power Factor Testing: The Lewis Formula

There is no question that Saquon Barkley is a powerful runner. In his rookie season with the New York Giants, he rushed for 1,307 yards with a 5-yards-per-run average. He also performed remarkably in tests of strength and jumping ability. You can watch a YouTube video of Saquon Barkley cleaning 405 pounds in college, and in the 2018 NFL Combine, he vertical jumped 41 inches. But which test is better, the clean or the vertical jump? The answer is both.

At the AFA, our math consultants determined that the No. 1 test for determining the physical abilities of a lineman was the Lewis Formula. We also found that the formula was more relevant to fullbacks and linebackers than wide receivers and cornerbacks.

I first read about the Lewis Formula from sports scientists Mike Stone, Ph.D., and Harold O’Bryant, Ph.D., in their classic exercise science textbook, Weight Training: A Scientific Approach. They said, “The vertical jump is not a valid indication of leg and hip power unless mass and time are taken into consideration.” They followed this comment by introducing the Lewis Formula, a power index that solves this dilemma by using the vertical jump and body weight.

The Lewis Formula is represented by a nomogram containing three parallel vertical lines. On the left is body weight, on the right is the vertical jump, and where they intersect in the middle represents power. Using a straight ruler, a strength coach could determine if an athlete could generate more power by increasing their vertical jump (plyometrics) by 2 inches or increasing their body weight (higher-rep bodybuilding training) by 10 pounds.

Video 1: Weightlifter Christian Rivera demonstrates his vertical jumping ability and single-leg strength.

A practical example of applying the Lewis Formula is with Air Force Academy graduate Steve Russ. As a freshman, Russ recorded one of the fastest 40s, not just for the freshmen but for the entire team. He was 6-feet-4 and probably would have been a tight end on just about any other college team, but a more pressing need for us was a big body on defense (again, passing is for cowards). For Russ, the best way to increase his Lewis Formula was to increase his body weight, as he already had an excellent vertical jump.

Over the next four years, Russ improved his vertical jump from 31 to 35 inches but made minimal improvements in his 40- and 10-yard sprint times. But that was okay because Russ packed on approximately 50 pounds of muscle while maintaining a body fat of 10%. Also, during his four years with us, his clean went from 220 pounds to 335, and his bench press from 260 to 370. He thus became an irresistible force to compete against the immovable objects on our opponent’s offensive lines. Further, the Denver Broncos drafted Russ in the seventh round in 1997. He played for three years, including in 1999 when the Broncos won the Super Bowl, and he is now the Linebacker Coach for the Washington Commanders.

Fine-Tuning Performance with the Athletic Index

For strength assessments, we relied on the results of three lifts: clean, bench press, and back squat; we also considered body weight to assess relative strength. By the way, I wasn’t a fan of in-season “maintenance workouts.” Instead, I followed the in-season volume/intensity recommendations of legendary strength coach Charles R. Poliquin, which enabled many of our athletes to break personal records, even in the clean and squat, during the season.

We kept the coaches abreast of each athlete’s progress, and the best performances were recognized on large record boards posted throughout the gym. Awards such as “Mr. Intensity” were given to athletes who stood out for their work ethic and leadership in the weight room. One recipient of the Mr. Intensity award was Chris Gizzi.

In his first year with us, Gizzi increased his clean from 280 to 325, his vertical jump from 33 inches to 36, and his body weight from 195 to 221 at 8% body fat. Gizzi eventually cleaned 379 pounds and vertical jumped 39 inches at a body weight of 233. Gizzi played in the NFL and is currently the Strength and Conditioning Coordinator for the Green Bay Packers.

For the “skilled” players, I developed an “Athletic Index” that assessed the overall athletic ability of a football player. Rather than relying on one test, I took five field tests representing the basic athletic skills of running, jumping, and muscular endurance. (A comprehensive resource on tests to assess athletic performance is Physiological Tests for Elite Athletes, 2nd Edition (2012) by the Australian Sports Commission. It was first published in 2000. It was updated in 2012 and contains assessments for 18 sports; unfortunately, not American football.)

I developed an Athletic Index that assessed a football player’s overall athletic ability. It relies on five field tests representing the basic skills of running, jumping, and muscular endurance. Share on X

For each test on the Athletic Index, I established a point value, up to 20 points, based on the best performances on the team. For example, let’s say the best vertical jump on the team was 40 inches. The point value would be distributed as follows:

Jump Height           Points

40                                20

39.5                             19

39                                18

…and so on

I used 20 points as the max value because 20×5 equals 100, so one athlete may have an Athletic Index of 90 points and another 85 points. Working on an athlete’s weakness is the fastest way to improve an overall score. Let’s look at one variable considered vital for nearly every position in football: lateral speed.

Because you briefly support yourself primarily on one leg when you change directions, single-leg squats are one strength training exercise to improve lateral speed. I like to start with assisted single-leg squats followed by non-assisted single-leg squats. Image 4 shows a progression of four single-leg squats, going from assisted squats to an unassisted version using weights.

On the field, you can perform many challenging exercises to increase the work of the muscles involved in lower body stability. Video 2 shows one exercise that involves fast eccentrics of muscles involved in lateral movement.

Video 2. In-and-out squat hops on an incline is a challenging exercise using fast eccentrics to enhance lateral speed.

I found the Athletic Index was most applicable to our “skill” players. For this reason, we had two basic workouts. The linemen would lift four days a week and do running and plyometrics once a week, and the skill players would lift three days a week and do running and plyometrics twice a week. If a lineman’s Athletic Index score was particularly low, he could briefly switch to the skill position workout to become an overall better athlete. Likewise, a physically weak skill player could briefly do the lineman workout to add strength and muscle.

Of course, you can expand an Athletic Index with additional tests. You could have 10 tests with a maximum value of 10 points per test. I also made an index that incorporated several core lifts, calling it the Football Index.

Today, considerable technology is available to take athletic fitness testing to the next level (certainly far exceeding what I did 30 years ago), precisely measuring physical qualities that could not be adequately measured before. Force plate technology is now being used at Brown University, where I’ve been coaching for several years. And my colleague Paul Gagné, a strength coach and posturologist, has been using force plates with his elite athletes to test their athletic preparedness for many years (video 3).

Video 3. Force plate technology can take athletic fitness to higher levels. Here Coach Paul Gagné uses a force plate to assess and train body awareness with Chloé Dufour-Lapointe, Olympic silver medalist in freestyle mogul skiing at the 2014 Olympic Games.

Moving on, in addition to individual testing reports, we would give the coaching staff team reports with the cooperation of our exercise science lab and sports medicine staff.

Team Reports

As with any sports medicine department, the AFA tracked every injury they treated. In 1992, they gave me a report summarizing the number of injuries they treated on the football team from 1988 to 1992. Over these five years, the number of injuries decreased linearly by 60%! Such results helped us earn the support of our sports coaches.

As a bonus, our sports medicine staff could determine approximately when an injury occurred during practice or a game. Falcon Head Football Coach Fisher DeBerry was known for his inspirational (and rather lengthy) post-practice reviews. We found that an exceptionally high percentage of injuries occur in the last 15 minutes of football practice, so we suggested that Coach DeBerry give part of his review in the middle of practice to allow the athletes to rest and recover. Although many variables are associated with injuries, the decrease in visits to the trainers during the first full year after we made this change was 18.75% (again, with a 60% decrease over five years).

Body composition testing was also crucial at the Academy. Let’s say an athlete needs to improve their running speed or jumping ability. Because you can’t flex fat, you want your athletes to have low body fat levels. Want proof? Have an athlete run several 20-, 30-, or 40-yard sprints, alternating between wearing a 5- or 10-pound weight vest and running without one. Or have them perform several vertical jumps with and without additional weight. You may be surprised at how much just 5 pounds can affect running speed and jumping ability.

Speed is a primary concern in football, but it’s more challenging for lighter athletes to block and tackle heavier athletes. Share on X

Speed is a primary concern in football, but it’s more challenging for lighter athletes to block and tackle heavier athletes (in fact, we had one game in which the opposing team’s quarterback weighed more than any of our defensive linemen!). As such, our linemen needed exceptional stamina when faced with larger opponents (which was pretty much everybody we played).

How did we do at the AFA for turning our athletes into lean, mean football machines? Consider image 5, a team report showing our football players’ average body fat levels, including linemen, during a three-year period. Note that these are averages, and the percentage decreased each year. By the way, Jack Braley, the head strength coach at the AFA, was a master at skin calipers for determining body fat. He frequently compared his results to athletes who did hydrostatic (underwater) weighing in our exercise science lab and was usually spot on. 

While putting this much work into testing may seem extreme, most colleges (and many high schools) have sufficient resources to enact a comprehensive testing program with their athletes. Assign a team manager or intern to evaluate testing results and get the school’s math, computer science, exercise science, and sports medicine departments involved. From there, see how you can use that data to help your athletes reach higher levels of athletic superiority.

Takeaways

1. Determine what lifts and field tests are most relevant to your sport. Use current testing research and experiment with tests you believe are important.
2. Share the results of your tests with sports coaches to encourage them to promote your program. Provide them with individual and team testing data.
3. Use testing results to monitor the effectiveness of your program. If your athletes are not getting better during testing periods, change your program.
4. Consider that many tests to determine athletic preparedness are inexpensive and require little or no equipment. If you have the budget for new testing technology, go for it!

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

References

“Chris Johnson Prospect Info.”

“Tom Brady NFL Combine Highlights.”

Robbins, Daniel W. “The National Football League (NFL) combine: Does Normalized Data Better Predict Performance in the NFL Draft?” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2010;24(11):2888–2899.

“Development of average offensive yards per game (rushing/passing) in the NFL from 1950 to 2021.”

Lee, Jimson. “Add Up the Fastest 10 meter Splits and You Get…”

Royal, Darrell. Quote: “People call the split-T the ‘four-yards-and-cloud-of-dust’ offense.” Hickman, Herman. Sports Illustrated, September 23, 1957. (Note: There is insufficient evidence that this was the first reference to this quote.)

Arnot, R. and Gaines, R. Sportselection, Penguin Books. 1984. (Note: Title was later changed to Sportstalent.)

Poliquin, Charles R. Personnel communication, 1988.

Boly, Jake. “Penn State Running Back Saquon Barkley Just Cleaned 405 Lbs.” BarBend, 6/30/17.

Stone, Michael and O’Bryant, Harold. Weight Training: A Scientific Approach, Burgess International Group, Inc. 1984, pp. 166­–168.

Goss, Kim. “They Call Him Mr. Intensity.” Bigger Faster Stronger, Winter 1977.

Physiological Tests for Elite Athletes, 2nd Edition, Australian Sports Commission. Human Kinetics, 2012.

There’s fast, and there’s fast, fast! When creating testing procedures, we should always strive to be as specific to the sport as possible—and when the sport demands the need for speed, we should follow suit with Dominic Toretto, buckle our racing harnesses, hit the redline on the tachometer, and get there as quickly as possible. Along with specificity comes efficiency. Specificity and efficiency are the name of the game when conducting tests in the team environment, especially during intense times such as training camp, when numbers are enormously high and time is tremendously low.

Another cornerstone of testing is that it should also be used as a training mechanism throughout the year in the performance end as well as helping in the return to play and reconditioning spectrums. Ensuring that tests are consistently performed enables us to collect and monitor data at a more precise rate. This also allows the athlete to perform the test without a learning curve and with the understanding that it translates to sport. This saves us time convincing athletes why we perform the test and increases enthusiasm and buy-in. Bottom line: any time we can bring together transferability and efficiency within the testing curriculum, that’s a win-win for the coach and the athlete.

We should always aim to deviate as little as possible in the training stresses the athlete experiences in the weight room and their sport, says @DeRickOConnell. Share on X

We should always aim to deviate as little as possible in the training stresses the athlete experiences in the weight room and their sport. A great goal to strive for is a synchronized simulation from training to sport. By doing this, we can provide the athlete with an environment that allows maximal transfer, reduction of injury, and easier return to play transitions—the popular slogan “training is testing, testing is training” carries much validity.

Flying Leaps and Braking Demands

For birds, “jumping to takeoff is an explosive behavior with the goal of providing a rapid transition from ground to airborne locomotion. An effective jump is predicated on the need to maintain dynamic stability through the acceleration phase.”¹ Parslew et al. defines a generic jumping system as comprising three functional components: body, leg, and foot.

• The body refers to the mass group, including the head and trunk.
• The leg is an extensible member that can do mechanical work through linear and rotational displacements of the body and foot.
• The functional foot provides a distributed mechanical interface between the end of the leg and the ground.

The term “foot,” chosen here for brevity, encompasses the front and rear digits in the context of avian morphology. The functional leg in a jumping system is characterized primarily by its stroke length, i.e., the maximum length it can extend, and the general force and power characteristics of the actuation system as a function of displacement and velocity.¹

While sequential rationality may appear to be abstract, the concept described through avian takeoff theory does illuminate an interesting juxtaposition as to the importance of dynamic stabilization in humans. I found the work done in the article to be interestingly outside of the box yet applicable when thinking about the jump takeoff of our athletes. The goal of our athletes when jumping is to display the ability to reciprocate massive eccentric braking forces with the ability to achieve maximum velocity as quickly as possible.

Movement, in the final analysis, comes only from muscle contraction. Muscle contraction is completely controlled by the alpha motoneurons in the spinal cord. When the alpha motoneurons are active, there will be movement. The activity of the alpha motoneurons is a product of the different synaptic events on their dendrites and cell bodies. There is a complex summation of EPSPs and IPSPs, and when the threshold for an action potential is crossed, the cell fires. There are a large number of important inputs, and one of the most important is from the corticospinal tract, which conveys a large part of the cortical control.

Such a situation likely holds also for the motor cortex and the cells of origin of the corticospinal tract. Their firing depends on their synaptic inputs. And a similar situation must hold for all the principal regions giving input to the motor cortex. The activity of any cortical region will depend on its synaptic inputs. Some cortical motor inputs come via only a few synapses from sensory cortices, and such influences on motor output are clear. Some inputs will come from regions, such as the limbic areas, many synapses away from primary sensory and motor cortices. At any one time, the activity of the motor cortex, and its commands to the spinal cord, will reflect virtually all the activity in the entire brain.²

Along with this massive demand for braking, a component of stability is necessary. When assessing the mechanistic deficiency, we tend to see that the instability comes from a tipping phenomenon. Share on X

Along with this massive demand for braking, a component of stability is necessary. When assessing the mechanistic deficiency, we tend to see that the instability comes from a tipping phenomenon. This is witnessed through a deviation in the center of gravity when the knee travels outside the optimal functional range of the foot. The athlete’s foot and ankle structure efficiency plays a massive role during this preflight phase of movement. Along with this comes a demand for the athlete to be able to push through the ground and own the movement. For more information, feel free to refer to “Triphasic Speed Training Manual for Elite Performance: Part 1 The Spring Ankle Model” (which I wrote along with Cal Dietz and Chris Korfist).

The stabilization demanded during this preflight phase is different from traditional stability training, which may involve athletes training on unstable surfaces with the goal of activating stabilizers in the core and trunk that focus on low-velocity co-contraction. While this variation of training has a list of benefits, especially for athletes returning to play, the largest deficiency in applying training types like this is that classic stability training does not elicit a significant enough stress force factor to allow the athlete to handle the mechanical tension they will undoubtedly face. After all, “Stress is the language of the cell.” The body must be able to communicate with and transduce force and then maintain structural integrity throughout the mechanotransduction process.

Athletes participating in team sports must cut, sprint, and jump in multiple directions. Dynamic stability and leg power are two elements that influence an athlete’s ability to do this effectively. With regard to dynamic stability, this is the ability to maintain balance while transitioning between static and dynamic movement states. Athletes with good dynamic stability should be able to maintain a stable center of gravity during sport-specific movements, such as multidirectional sprinting.³ With this in mind, it is essential to identify and define an appropriate dynamic stability assessment for use in team sport athletes.

The stress applied—coupled with the higher co-contraction rates—makes it clear that high-force braking must be accomplished through high-velocity/high-force training. To gain increases in dynamic stability (typically calculated from the diminishing oscillations of ground reaction force mechanisms over time), we need to enhance the body’s ability to handle high force and increase synaptic transmission, allowing for larger impulse and a larger joint integrity. Analysis of the problem shows that the stability margins during jumping are actually very small, and stability considerations play a significant role in the selection of appropriate jumping kinematics.¹

Let’s keep in mind that transitioning through the propulsion phases of a single jump is the most energetically demanding phase of takeoff—this is where the largest amount of acceleration forces are placed on a single limb. These energy forces are altered when tasked with performing repetitive jumps, but in this scenario, we are looking at one maximal effort jump.

The goal of the testing process is to help coaches not only quantify maximum velocity achieved right versus left but also to dive into the athlete’s ability to create this impulse. In a high-velocity-based sport where athletes need to hit 80% of max velocity incredibly quickly—but rarely touch top speed—it is vital that we dig into the quotient that this situation creates. Max velocity is essential and the most exciting component to discuss, but it is the time it takes to achieve max velocity that is even more central, especially in high-velocity sports such as hockey or within position-specific roles in football, track and field events, and other sports. The demands of the sport dictate that you don’t have to get to top speed; you need to get to max velocity as quickly as you can on a repetitive basis: It’s not how fast you are; it’s how fast you get to how fast you are that sets a player apart.

It’s not how fast you are; it’s how fast you get to how fast you are that sets a player apart, says @DeRickOConnell. Share on X

Within the fastest sports in the world, there are still variables of speed frequently overlooked by the public. This has become common as broadcasts increase fan interaction by repeatedly displaying top speeds achieved during game play to the viewer at home. To achieve the velocities that the fans see, there are obvious braking components coupled with instantaneous acceleratory demands that must be trained that supersede “functional balance and stabilization” and perturbation work within healthy high-speed populations. Game flow may also play a large role in the top speeds accomplished.

Fast, Fast

When looking at an athlete’s ability to create high velocity in a short time, it’s very useful to be able to do this without planar or movement restrictions. This allows the athlete to perform the movement with maximum intent without having to process a specific landing location. This processing demand can downregulate their ability to create maximum force freely. A prime example of this is having an athlete perform a lateral jump onto a force place, processing the athlete’s ability to transition from a dynamic action to a static position and often reactively out of that given position. This is performed with force plates as a means to closely analyze the athlete’s support basis throughout phases of movement.

While we can, in fact, gather some really great information on the athlete, asking them to land on a precise point after maximally accelerating through the air is nearly impossible and, unfortunately, will lead to a downregulation in dynamic intentions. There are times that landing dynamics can be altered during training, such as when asking the athletes to perform calibrated plyometrics (which are an excellent tool for young developing athletes and an invaluable tool for return to play as a way of allowing athletes to understand how to express maximal output with specific intentions).

Jump performance is often used to indirectly measure leg power, given that power involves the ability to produce force quickly. This is a necessary component of an ideal jump: there is a complex interaction between physiological, biomechanical, and technical factors that interact within multidirectional jumping and power-based actions.

Research has documented how lower-body strength, rate of force development, elastic energy use, leg stiffness, and proper coordination and technique can all contribute to successful jump performance. This would be true for both bilateral and unilateral jumps. However, during a unilateral jump, athletes must rapidly express their strength through force development while in single-leg support. This places greater stress on the capacity to maintain stability while completing the jump.

The relationship between dynamic stability and unilateral jump performance and power has received limited analysis within the literature, however, and the window of dynamic stabilization can influence these elements.³ One of the most important aspects of sport is freedom of movement, thus highlighting the significance of quantifying this expression of force production with as few limitations as possible. This is where the 1080 Sprint can play a crucial role.

Practical Application

The 1080 Sprint allows us to test athletes in all planes of motion with complete freedom of movement. Without getting into specific metrics that the 1080 Sprint can provide, it’s fair to say this feature alone makes the device crucial to performance and reconditioning programs.

The 1080 Sprint allows us to test athletes in all planes of motion with complete freedom of movement. This feature alone makes the device crucial to performance and reconditioning programs. Share on X

To set up for the lateral jump test, the athlete stands lateral to the 1080 Sprint. From here, the athlete is cued to lift the outside foot for approximately one second to allow them to stabilize within the position. This also allows for a clean and clear reading when jump profiling the athlete. We also want to limit any cheating in the position, in which the athlete doesn’t hold the single-leg position long enough to get a clean single-leg effort.

• You will see this often with younger athletes and athletes with poor structure and function within the foot complex.
• You’ll sometimes see the athlete lift the foot off at the last second and use the momentum to cheat through the jump.

Once the athlete has stabilized, they initiate performing the jump. To increase safety, always have the athlete land on two feet. With the settings on the 1080 Sprint, the athlete can safely transition through all phases of the jump, land, and simply walk back to the starting line to initiate the next jump. Typically, the athlete will use 1–2 kilograms of concentric and eccentric resistance with maximal speed settings on the concentric. The eccentric speed can be placed at whatever the coach deems appropriate as the athlete walks back to the starting point.

We can begin to quantify and compare differences in multiple planes of motion with lateral and forward jumping, as it is imperative that we assess athletes from all planes of free motion since this is where sport is played. From here, we can also dig into vertical velocity expression versus horizontal and lateral with the use of force plates as a secondary protocol. Reliability, repeatability, and standardization are also important when really digging into the presented data, as there are kinematic, physiological, and structural components to multi-planar high-velocity movement.

Let’s begin by looking at a single-leg broad jump from a general perspective. The two graphics included are the same jump; however, the data is displayed in two different manners: the graphic on the left is displayed in relation to distance and velocity, and the graphic on the right indicates speed over time.

The first image is the primary graphic used when glancing at a jump profile. I have included the second to clarify the noise or general stabilization that occurs when performing a jump. We can see with the primary image that there is a moment where the athlete displays a slow curve trending up, represented by static in the smooth flow of the line. This is where general stabilization occurs in the jump. From a phase of movement perspective, this is when the athlete begins to stand on one foot, starting their “one count” and finding stability and breath control in the static position on a single leg before the explosive effort to follow.

If we zoom in and look closely, we can use our secondary graphic for visual feedback. During this repetition, the athlete appears to have taken approximately half a second to find general stabilization before transitioning into the next phase of the jump.

From here, we can transition into the next phase of the jump profile, the athlete’s window of dynamic stabilization, a product of ground reaction force. With regard to dynamic stability, it is the ability to maintain balance while transitioning between static and dynamic movement states. Athletes with good dynamic stability should be able to maintain a stable center of gravity during sport-specific movements, such as multidirectional sprinting.³ It is important to identify and define an appropriate dynamic stability assessment for use in team sport athletes. This window is crucial to monitor as an athlete progresses through the various stages of return to play and is significantly affected by fatigue.

It is important to identify and define an appropriate dynamic stability assessment for use in team sport athletes, says @DeRickOConnell. Share on X

What becomes interesting is that this athlete, a young but very well-trained elite athlete, has performed this test as part of their training over the off-season, so we see very quickly that their left versus right—when comparing positional kinematics, timing, and eccentric distance (distance pulling down into the stabilization window), and velocity—are almost identical. However, we see a much larger discrepancy from left to right when we quickly examine the athlete’s general stabilization window.

The next phase of the jump that we can look at can be referred to as the peak velocity quotient. This simple formula encapsulates what is so incredibly important for high-velocity athletes:

Peak Velocity ÷ Time to Peak Velocity

This is where things become extremely exciting when comparing athletes to each other, and here the work of Rolf Ohman comes into context. Ohman is the inventor of the original 1080 technology and has been an elite track and field coach for many years. For more information on him, check out this podcast on Just Fly Sports. The most important factor in high performance is acceleration—over power and any other metric. According to Ohman, the best athletes in the world are those who are extremely active within the first 100 to 150 milliseconds of an impulse. Therefore, we should train and perform tests that incorporate this perspective and require high coordinative speeds.

The premise of Ohman’s Elastic Index (EI) is that the athlete must store as much elastic energy as possible so that once they hit the stopping point of the movement, the joint serves as a springboard jolting the athlete into the flight phase. The EI is drastically different from athlete to athlete. General joint stiffness can be termed as an athlete’s ability to accelerate maximally during deceleration of the eccentric phase. Through both the eccentric and concentric phases of a movement, slight deviations in acceleration cause enormous changes in the movement.

As Ohman has highlighted in his work, it is crucial that we dive deep into assessing the athlete’s ability to express movement in kilograms of body weight over time. In contrast, standard power protocols focus more on an athlete’s overall ability to move load in comparison to body weight. If an athlete can accelerate faster in a sport that demands repetitive high-velocity movement, they will win every time. This approach can carry over into the weight room through the use of hyper-speed exercises, oscillating exercises, and partial reps—these forms of exercise help to increase coordination of the neuromuscular system. In turn, we expose the athlete to adaptations with the same coupling times they experience in sport.

As Ohman has highlighted in his work, it is crucial that we dive deep into assessing the athlete’s ability to express movement in kilograms of body weight over time, says @DeRickOConnell. Share on X

Power, force, speed, acceleration, and almost any other metric of performance are derivatives of velocity. Normal mass, once accelerated, gets lighter and lighter, making the first millisecond of movement vital to assess. This approach to testing cuts everything else out and looks at the athlete’s ability to create high velocity as quickly as possible.

This is especially important when looking at high-velocity-based sports. There are two ways to approach quantifying this. Both trains of thought are applicable and largely dependent on what the sport scientist and/or strength coach are looking for and their philosophy.

1. We can quantify this ratio by looking solely at the time spent from the window of dynamic stabilization and braking point into the flight phase to max velocity. Using the trimming tool, figure 5 is what we are looking at if using this approach.

Strangely enough, the athlete has a low training age and was performing the single-leg broad jump test for the first time. As you can see, he achieves a very impressive max velocity of over 5 m/s, and his acceleration curve is impressively steep. You can also see by his general stabilization window that he needed to spend a little extra time getting coached up to allow himself to become stable, as he wanted to bounce and cheat right into the jump.

2. When dissecting the jump, while velocity is our driving factor in the equation, we still want to consider what it takes for an athlete to create this high impulse of velocity. To do this, we must also consider what is happening prior to reaching max velocity. While flight velocity is king here, reactivity, ground reaction force, and the accumulative window in which these take place are very important. This will tell us a lot about how the athlete needs to train and helps shed light on exactly why this peak velocity quotient is such an essential piece of information within the performance and return to play paradigm.

Stories in the Data

When examining the single-leg broad jump test of two athletes of similar height, weight, and age—both of whom spent extensive time in high-caliber Division 1 hockey programs—we can see some astonishing differences hidden in the data. If we were to look at the power and max velocity achieved from a statistical perspective, we would find that these two athletes are very similar.

In fact, athlete A would register slightly higher in these categories, but it’s incredibly close. But let’s look at the jump profile of athlete B. We can see that while the max velocity achieved by both athletes is pulled out of the raw data as the same, there is a distinguishing, clear difference between the way they both achieve this mark.

If we expand the peak velocity quotient to analyze our window of dynamic stabilization coupled with the peak velocity achieved, these two athletes are not even on the same planet as one another.

The time that accumulates while athlete A reaches peak velocity in the jump is nearly double that of athlete B. This leak in energy impacts not only the acceleration of the flight phase but also athlete A’s inability to dynamically stabilize, create ground reaction force, reciprocate this force into acceleratory trajectories, and achieve max flight velocities. Therefore, it is crucially important that we dissect the entirety of the jump.

The data extracted will quantify and solidify what is happening between the two athletes. Still, the eye test live and in person is undeniable: athlete A possesses very little sharpness to any phase of the jump, while we can quickly see that athlete B produces aggressively rigid and sharp peaks at every phase of movement.

As a side note, this is a perfect time to address the second drop shown in the jump post peak velocity. As the peak velocity quotient of the athlete and freedom of movement are our focus within the test, the athlete is jumping with only one or two kilograms of resistance. The second teardrop within the jump profile signifies a moment of slack as they decelerate, and the machine catches up with them. Coincidentally, we can see how much later in distance this occurs for athlete A, while both athletes jump a similar distance.

Additionally, we can examine the left versus right symmetry index and present the information from a data perspective and a visual feedback viewpoint. This is incredibly useful during the return to play and reconditioning phases. In young athletic populations and individuals with compromised joint stability, time to stabilization (TTS) is considered a more functionally relevant stability assessment than static-based measures.⁴

In the graphic below (figure 10), we can see a left (yellow) versus right (grey) leg comparison of an athlete. Right away, we can see that this athlete has difficulty transitioning through the various phases of the jump, notably possessing an inability to pull themselves down eccentrically and exhibiting poor dynamic stabilization on the right leg.

Strangely enough, if we were to quantify the max velocity achieved on a right leg versus a left leg test, we would find that this athlete produces the exact same max velocity on each side. A quick analysis would indicate that they did extremely well on the test. However, when we look at the window of dynamic stabilization and how that affects the following flight phase, we find that it takes the athlete a longer time to reach peak velocity on the right leg—this is very clear when we look at the peak velocity quotient.

From the data presented in the testing process, we can begin to formulate functional thresholds that an athlete must meet to safely pass beyond the return to play stages of training. Criteria can be put in place on a case-to-case basis or from an organizational approach in which, for example, the athlete is encouraged to achieve 10%–15% symmetry in velocity from left to right as well as possess the ability to be within a window of 10%­–15% of the average velocity production to pass along the return to play protocol (as long as all other criteria are met within the paradigm).

Next, figure 11 is a quick view of an athlete who possesses a similar profile from left to right when looking at their window of dynamic stabilization. Their peak velocity quotient, however, is very different, as we can see that they take much longer to achieve max velocity.

Lastly, we briefly examine a classic asymmetrical issue in an athlete (figure 12). As we can see, the athlete’s landing location and distance achieved on the jump are almost dead-on when looking at left versus right. However, almost every other aspect of the jump sequence expresses extreme variance. The general stabilization window shows a lot of static left versus right, and the athlete’s ability to express movement freely and dynamically stabilize is different. Lastly, maximum velocity is achieved, and the peak velocity question is monumentally different from left to right.

Quantifying the Data

While the 1080 does provide real-time numbers on the cloud platform by simply using the trim tool to highlight the area of the jump that you want to look at, the next step is quantifying the data. You can export this trimmed version of a jump; however, there are more ways that you can pull this data:

1. Go to the top right-hand corner of the web dashboard and click on export.
2. From there, scroll down and select raw data.
3. Once this is selected, you can select individuals or do a mass export of the data by clicking on one or all the athletes.
4. Be sure to select the proper dates and exclude hidden curves and override trim. The “override trim” option applies more to sprinting than jumping, as the raw data export will export all data in the jump and not allow a trimmed section to be exported.

Go through and select the jumps you want to export before hitting the export raw data option. The system will only export the jumps that are selected in the athlete’s profile. If you do not double-check, you may miss jumps or, alternatively, export a massive amount of data that includes poor jumps and general static movement that may have been counted as a rep by the system.

Once you have the raw data exported, you will need to write a script that filters the data to identify the two peaks within the jump. These two peaks symbolize:

1. The beginning of the window of dynamic stabilization.
2. The max velocity achieved within the jump.

The 1080 system clips data at a sample of 0.003 per second—so, from here, we have our window that symbolizes the peak velocity quotient. Now we add up the accumulated time within this window by adding up every 0.003. After this is completed, it’s a simple equation, dividing our peak velocity achieved by the accumulated time within that window.

This testing procedure provides us with one of the most specific high-velocity measures possible to quantify a jump, says @DeRickOConnell. Share on X

This testing procedure provides us with one of the most specific high-velocity measures possible to quantify a jump. From the data provided, we can begin to extrapolate which of our athletes possess exceptional dynamic stabilization abilities as well as high-twitch mechanisms, likely enabling them to stand out from a velocity perspective within their sport. This information helps distinguish where our athletes stand compared to their peers while also allowing us to see what traits an athlete may lack.

From here, we can begin to organize training methods that address these weaknesses and allow optimal adaptations for the performance qualities that each athlete requires. As a secondary note, the data provided also gives us incredibly valuable insight to study throughout the return to play phases of training when an athlete is coming off of an injury.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

References

1. Parslew B, Sivalingam G, and Crowther W. “A dynamics and stability framework for avian jumping take-off.” Royal Society of Open Science. 2018;5(10). 10.1098/rsos.181544

2. Hallett M. “Volitional control of movement: the physiology of free will.” Clinical Neurophysiology. 2007;118(6):1179–1192. 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.03.019. Epub 2007 Apr 26. PMID: 17466580; PMCID: PMC1950571.

3. Lockie RG, Jordan CA, Callaghan SJ, et al. “The Relationship between Unilateral Dynamic Stability and Multidirectional Jump Performance in Team Sport Athletes.” Sport Science Review. 2015;24(5–6):321–344. 10.1515/ssr-2015-0022.

4. Liu K. and Heise G. “The Effect of Jump-Landing Directions on Dynamic Stability.” Journal of Applied Biomechanics. 2013;29(5): 634–638. 10.1123/jab.29.5.634.

5. Wikstrom EA, Powers ME, and Tillman MD. “Dynamic stabilization time after isokinetic and functional fatigue.” Journal of Athletic Training. 2004;39(3):247–253.

6. Colby SM, Hintermeister RA, Torry MR, and Steadman JR. “Lower limb stability with ACL impairment.” Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 1999;29(8):444–454.

7. Hallett M. “Volitional control of movement: the physiology of free will.” Clinical Neurophysiology. 2007 Jun;118(6):1179–1192. 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.03.019. Epub 2007 Apr 26. PMID: 17466580; PMCID: PMC1950571.

I recently heard Joel Smith on the Gem Sessions podcast say, “Field and court sport athletes use a different strength than powerlifters.” This statement resonated with me and summed up how I’ve felt about sports performance since my first day in the field. This quote could be interpreted differently depending on the individual and twisted to fit somebody’s bias. Maybe that is exactly what I’m doing. Early in my career, however, I remember thinking “How do back squats, deadlifts, and bench presses best prepare athletes for dynamic sports?”

It was difficult for me to find the correlation between watching a basketball player move on the court and a maximally loaded back squat. This initial thought may have been slightly naive, but I don’t think it was too far off base. The “rinse and repeat” nature of this field and saying “because that’s how we’ve always done it” are two dangerous traps to fall in. We need to continue to evolve and find ways to move the needle with our athletes to best serve, improve, and prepare them.

What if there was a potential way to better prepare athletes for the forces they experience in sport, closer to the rate at which they experience them? Could this help improve performance while helping to reduce the likelihood of injury?

A Question of Force Production

At this point in my career, I understand that what we do as sports performance coaches is general in nature. We apply general stressors to influence the specificity that sports demand. This article doesn’t say that back squats, deadlifts, and bench presses aren’t useful or have no place in training. There are plenty of times when they fit well in a program, such as for athletes who are underdeveloped and have a low training age. They should be dosed with a patient progression, never with the goal of as much weight as possible, as soon as possible.

If you claim your athletes are best prepared for competition because of their improved one-rep maxes, I think you’ve missed the mark, says @huntereis_sc. Share on X

This is also the case during phases furthest from competition, when it is not necessary to expose athletes to the highest of forces, while having the goals of restoring sound movement patterns and training joints through full ranges of motion. However, I don’t think these movements are the “golden ticket” to preparing athletes. There is much more to it than these three exercises and their variations. If you claim your athletes are best prepared for competition because of their improved one-rep maxes, I think you’ve missed the mark.

I would like to explain the thought process behind this opinion and give my recommendation to help better prepare athletes. While I understand there are numerous physiological underpinnings to what strength is—such as rate coding, enhanced synchronization, and accessing higher threshold motor units—to put it simply, I believe this all boils down to force and the ability to generate it when needed, in the time constraint allowed. If you were to take a poll of 100 people walking down the street, and show them two videos, one of a 385-pound deadlift and the other of a 42-inch depth drop, and then ask, “What exercise produces more force?” my bet would be that most would say the deadlift. In actuality, I can confirm the opposite.

In a self-run experiment I performed by myself on Vald force plates, I compared the forces generated from trap bar deadlifts of increasing intensities with depth drops at various heights. Here is what I found:

• At a body weight of 215 pounds, lifting a 385-pound trap bar with max intent produced 2,968 Newtons of force.
• Those 2,968 Newtons of force are equal to about 3.1 times body weight (when converting my body weight to Newtons and then dividing the Newtons produced in the exercise by body weight in Newtons).
• A 42-inch depth drop produced 4,070 Newtons of force, which is 4.3 times body weight.
• A 66-inch depth drop produced 5,480 Newtons of force, which is 5.8 times body weight.

Video 1. Performing a 66-inch depth drop.

Allow this small experiment to set the stage for a system that creates a more effective way to prepare athletes to excel and stay healthy within their sport. We have lost sight of a very important and simple piece of physics:

Force = Mass x Acceleration

We have been so focused on the “Mass” piece of the Force equation that we often fail to truly apply significant forces to our athletes. The Acceleration piece can be manipulated to apply higher forces at faster rates. This is why, in another “in-house” study, a trap bar drop catch with 155 pounds generated more force (3,328 Newtons) than a 385-pound trap bar deadlift (2,968 Newtons). Drop catches can be a powerful way to manipulate the Force equation to achieve higher force exposures. A drop catch consists of holding a weight/implement at the top of the range of motion, allowing the weight to freefall, and then catching it at the lower portion of the range of motion.

Drop catches can be a powerful way to manipulate the force equation to achieve higher force exposures, says @huntereis_sc. Share on X

Video 2. The drop catch allows increased forces at a lower external load because of an increase in acceleration or rate of loading. The rate of loading is an extremely important factor when looking at the speed of sport but also the time frame in which injuries occur.

According to Koga et al. (2010) in a study assessing ACL injuries in handball and basketball players, there were high peak vertical ground reaction forces experienced at an extremely fast rate. It is important to keep in mind, as stated in this study, that there are a lot of kinematic factors that influence an ACL injury; however, we are going to dig into the kinetic influences presented. Those high peak vertical ground reaction forces averaged 3.2 times body weight and occurred 40 milliseconds after initial contact.

Let’s take this information and consider a hypothetical scenario: when looking at a Power 5 college basketball player, the average weight for an individual at this level is about 205 pounds. According to the study referenced above, that individual would experience about 656 pounds of force in 40 milliseconds. I don’t have data to back this claim, but I doubt there are many college basketball players back squatting or deadlifting 650 pounds, and not in 40 milliseconds.

Again, I want to reiterate that there are a lot of specific kinematic factors that contribute to an ACL injury. However, we want to prepare athletes to be as robust as possible, and with this specific topic, I think we can accomplish a lot in the kinetic realm. While I don’t have a study to prove that a depth drop occurs at a faster rate than a heavy back squat or deadlift, I think most of us realize which one has a faster rate of loading.

Also, remember the numbers stated previously, force in relation to body weight? A 42-inch depth drop produced forces at 4.3 times body weight and 66 inches at 5.8 times body weight. So, a faster rate of loading and higher peak ground reaction forces? Depth drops may not occur in 40 milliseconds, or maybe they do, but I think we’re getting closer to the demands necessary to reduce the likelihood of injury.

After discussing this topic and its potential influence on injury reduction, let’s look at increasing performance. The picture above shows where most, if not all, the fancy metrics over which sports performance coaches, researchers , and scientists obsess ultimately derive from. As you can see, the birthplace of these metrics is “Force.”

What does this mean?

The ability to produce force is the underpinning quality of most others, including jump height, RSI—modified, power, and rate of force development. It is often stated and widely accepted that “strength” is the underpinning quality of all other qualities, and because of this vernacular, young coaches immediately believe they must get their athletes back squatting, deadlifting, and/or bench pressing as much as possible. What if we reframed this narrative and said that the ability to produce high force as opposed to strength was the underpinning quality of most others? How would this small change in semantics change our athlete’s preparation?

What if we reframed the narrative and said that the ability to produce high force as opposed to strength was the underpinning quality of most others? asks @huntereis_sc. Share on X

You may still choose to squat or deadlift an athlete to improve their force-generating capabilities; however, I believe a switch to other, higher-force potential movements should come sooner rather than later to continue to move the needle within an athlete’s performance. Anybody can take a young, underdeveloped athlete and improve their ability to generate force with a traditional exercise—that is simple and effective, and a low-hanging fruit with most.

For example, a basketball player who can do a dumbbell rear-foot elevated split squat (RFESS) with 100 pounds in each hand is pretty strong. I understand that conclusion is drawn subjectively, but bear with me. That 200-pound (total) RFESS produces roughly 2,020 Newtons of force. You could absolutely continue to progress this athlete until they can complete reps with 110 or 120 pounds, but there will probably be a point of diminishing returns with this tactic in terms of the ability to generate force. What if you transitioned this athlete to a forward dumbbell drop lunge, as seen in the video below? Again, this model doesn’t denounce these methods but offers a progression from them.

Video 3. Forward DB drop lunge.

Without the context provided within this article, you may see this movement performed with, say, 45-pound dumbbells and scoff at the potential of increasing an athlete’s force-generation ability. But what if I told you that this exercise with those 45-pound dumbbells produced just under 2,400 Newtons of force? That same exercise with 60-pound dumbbells? Just under 3,500 Newtons.

But wait! The external load! The dumbbells are so much lighter! Yes, the external load is less, but look under the hood—there is more than meets the eye. Remember, Force = Mass x ACCELERATION.

The last piece of this high-force equation within a training program is overcoming isometrics. Most practitioners in our field are familiar with an isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) or an isometric belt squat. While these methods are mostly deployed as testing and/or monitoring within a program, I believe they can also be used in training to create a positive adaptation. Before I continue on this topic, I want to make sure I highlight the difference here between two commonly misunderstood isometrics.

A “yielding” isometric—holding a position with external load, whether gravity in a body weight variation or a weight held in a loaded variation—creates different adaptations than an “overcoming” isometric, which I am discussing here. While a yielding isometric obviously has a force component, overcoming isometrics allow athletes to push with maximal effort against an immovable object.

The reason I think this could be a “tip of the spear” type application within this system is the amount of force that the athlete is able to generate. I believe a belt squat overcoming iso to be the highest force-producing exercise an athlete can perform. I’ve seen athletes produce 10,000 Newtons of force within an isometric belt squat—over eight times body weight! Along with extremely high force outputs, the ease of doing a belt squat overcoming isometric within training is ideal. There are almost zero technical aspects to this movement, as the athlete stands with a belt around their waist that is chained to the ground or a rack and pushes as hard as they can into the ground.

I believe a belt squat overcoming iso is the highest force-producing exercise an athlete can perform, and it needs limited skill. Sounds like a pretty good idea to me, says @huntereis_sc. Share on X

Compare this to an Olympic movement with high technical proficiency needed, or even one of the powerlifts, which requires potentially less than an Olympic movement but still high levels of skill. Exposure to extremely high forces, with limited technical skill needed? Sounds like a pretty good idea to me!

Video 4. There are almost zero technical aspects to an isometric belt squat.

Practical Applications

Do I think you need to overhaul your entire program and only do depth drops, drop catches, and overcoming isometrics? Absolutely not. As I’ve previously stated, there is still very much a need for traditional movements in the weight room, whether they are back squats, deadlifts, RFESS, or lateral lunges. In my opinion, this system can be used on a small scale within an off-season and/or a large scale over an athlete’s career.

Small Scale in the Off-Season

Within an off-season, you can slowly progress force exposure, as opposed to progressing intensities within similar exercises. A common linear progression within an off-season program may be starting at a lower intensity and higher volume and slowly allowing those two variables to flip so you end with high intensities and low volume. I’m proposing, potentially following that same logic, that instead of an overall 10 weeks, this could be weeks 1–5. Weeks 6–10 could then begin to transition from depth drops to drop catches to overcoming isometrics.

I also think these two methods can blend throughout all 10 weeks. Early in the off-season, you could be doing lower depth drops early in a training session before the emphasis of the day shifts to an RFESS. Then this emphasis changes later in the off-season, when you may perform a large quantity of belt squat overcoming isometrics and follow that up with loaded lateral lunges.

Large Scale Across an Athlete’s Career

Maybe early on, with an individual with a low training age, you only employ traditional movements, as this is a low-hanging fruit that allows them to increase their force-generating capacities. Later in the athlete’s career, once they have reached a level of “strong enough” (which is a lot sooner than most coaches believe), you then implement more of these high-force exercises. There is no exact way I believe you have to implement these principles; however, I do believe they are important to think about and employ at some point.

A New Way of Thinking

I’m not trying to reinvent the wheel or demonize traditional movements in the weight room. There are plenty of coaches who help cultivate explosive and robust athletes using back squats, deadlifts, and bench presses. But I want to present a new way of thinking that can help to move the field forward and potentially better prepare those athletes to excel in their sport.

Maybe the best way to prepare athletes isn’t loading them with as much weight as possible but understanding how to apply forces that best prepare them to excel and stay healthy in what they love to do. Back squat? Nope, play their sport!

*Views are my own and not a reflection of former or current employers.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

GPS tracking is nothing new to football, and I have been blessed to have been around a different GPS tracking system at every stop in my career. My responsibilities have morphed from placing out the vests in athletes’ lockers as an intern, to downloading and reporting as a grad assistant, to being the head strength coach conversing with the head football coach about alterations to the practice plan. These organizations have spent money on GPS because they wanted to be at the forefront of physical preparation. By seeing the many systems and approaches to its implementation, I’ve been able to appreciate the value that GPS brings from day one.

By seeing the many systems and approaches to GPS implementation, I’ve been able to appreciate the value that it brings from day one, says @Torinshanahan42. Share on X

The ability to quantify the game removes the guessing about what preparation should look like for optimal performance. While I’ve seen the benefits, I have also seen the costs and understand why every team does not have GPS. My hope with this article is to help provide the lessons I have learned with GPS and bring them to your team. Hopefully, you can use these lessons to improve your understanding of the game and weekly preparation.

It is important to note that the data I share below reflects the data collected at my most recent institution, a Division 1 Patriot League university; however, the lessons I have learned, examples, and ideas for change are lessons that come from my experience across multiple teams and conversations with peers.

Learning these lessons has been a long process, and I am nowhere near finished—it all started one day when I asked my boss to take the next step past just passing out vests and units. My first assignment was to help find sets of normal practice values. When I started looking, there was very little useable information out there—or, at least, it was hard to find.

Data with context can become information. There typically is either data without context or a lack of data, and it’s just stories. I hope to bridge that gap by providing some summarized data with context so that it can help you.

Game Demands

Preparing for something you do not understand is difficult. Preparation for football games starts by analyzing the game itself, and football becomes tricky to quantify not because of a lack of resources but because of its nuances. Multiple positions are drastically different from an anthropometric measure standpoint, as well as the drastically different roles. The nuances compound when you add offensive and defensive schemes to the mix, where the same position can have different roles and demands due to the use of that position in that scheme. The final compounding factor is the individual’s role on the team, whether they are the star player, a special teams star, or another part of the rotation.

Factors impacting game demands:

• Conditions: Field type and weather conditions.
• Style of play: Tactical schemes of offensive and defensive.
  • Position assignments within that scheme.
• Position: Amount of rotation at that position.
• Role: Star player, role player, special teams guy.

The point of explaining the different factors that go into the measurement of game demands is so we all understand that every team will have different demands. Now I will try to provide general averages to game demands with context, so you can understand how they might or might not relate to your team.

GPS metrics are actually very easy to understand. There are metrics for the volume of work, the intensity of that work, and the density. These are all the same variables we utilize in the weight room. Practice and games are external load stimuli to the body, just as resistance training is. The tracking system we had during the collection of this data set is Polar Team Pro.

GPS metrics are actually very easy to understand. There are metrics for the volume of work, the intensity of that work, and the density, says @Torinshanahan42. Share on X

To quantify volume, we utilized their muscle load metric, a measure of anaerobic power movements summed together (or the stress applied to the body). Muscle load per minute is our intensity metric, as this is the rate at which external load is applied to the body. Velocity is the king of intensity. High-velocity and high-acceleration movements place enormous forces and stressors on the body. Respecting the volume of these instances is important for the preparation and modulation of performance.

We look at high-speed distance (global >70% maximal sprint speed), sprint distance (global >90% maximal sprint speed), and high-intensity efforts (count of occurrences of acceleration or deceleration greater than 3.5 m/s²). Polar Team Pro utilizes global thresholds, which means offensive linemen are held to the same velocity standards as wide receivers for all velocity-related metrics—this is important to note when looking at the following data.

Offensive Game Play

Our context: We play in a spread-style offense with a pretty typical tempo. Our running backs rotate the most, but we tend to focus on the guy with the hot hand. Wide receivers tend to rotate with personnel packages. I would call it a standard offense in modern-day football. We averaged 11 drives per game, totaling 70 plays (on average). We possessed the ball for 29.9 minutes of gameplay over 54 minutes of the real clock. The offense averaged 6.2 plays per drive while on the field for 4.1 minutes of the real clock before resting for 9.4 minutes between drives.

Our GPS metrics for offensive players followed normal patterns I have seen with previous teams. Quarterbacks do vastly more in games than they ever do in practices. This is because of protecting quarterbacks in practice. Offensive linemen also have very low volumes in practice unless you have an offense that pulls offensive linemen downfield.

There is a need for metrics specific to line players to quantify the physical demand of pushing other grown men around. Skill players, on the other hand, have physical demands that are very easy to track. Wide receivers and running backs get put in space and are allowed to do their thing: they rack up large volumes of yardage trying to stretch defenses.

Defensive Game Play

Our context: We play in what I will call a 4-2-5 defense. Our defensive line rotates quite frequently, while the defensive backs rotate a typical amount between drives. Our linebackers do not rotate very often. I would also say we run a pretty standard modern defense with a good mix of zone/man and mixed assignments by position. We average 11 drives on defense while facing 67 plays. We defended for 30.1 minutes of gameplay over 60 minutes of real time. On average, the defense had 9.7 minutes to rest between drives before playing for 6.3 plays over 4.8 minutes on the real clock.

The external load experienced by our defenders followed normal patterns. The defensive line has similar problems to that of offensive linemen in quantifying their demands—the primary difference is that they still rack up decent volumes of yardage chasing down the ball carrier. Linebackers perform tremendous physical work, including running from sideline to sideline while chasing down the ball carrier. Safeties must fly downhill from depth, leading to the highest high-speed and sprint distance.

A defense’s performance in a game can be estimated by their top speeds. Higher top-speed percentages mean they had to sprint to catch up with someone—nothing good happens when defensive players are trying to catch up to someone. You will see this as the top speed an athlete hits in a game on defense is usually higher than that of their offensive counterpart, but their offensive counterpart will have a higher average percentage of top speed.

The top speed an athlete hits in a game on defense is usually higher than that of their offensive counterpart, but their offensive counterpart will have a higher average percentage of top speed. Share on X

Offense vs. Defense

The averages for offenses and defenses will look relatively similar, especially when you play similar offenses to the one you run. The difference comes in how your opponents execute their own scheme.

Your defensive players will be exposed to greater variability in the specific demands placed on them each game. It is important to understand this during your practice week: all the workload put on your players must be accounted for. When one of those days has a higher variability, the other days must be more specific to account for swings on the variable input day, game day.

There is more opportunity for swings in practice volume from offensive players because you know what they will handle in the game. You can work the math with them, while the widely unknown variable of the game for defensive players demands that practice be more routine. Increasing the variability of their practice routine exposes them to the extra risk of injury due to intensive swings in their acute:chronic workload from (relatively) very light or very heavy volume games. In short, be more careful with defensive players because of the variability of their game demands.

Practice Demands

Football is a sport where we spend far more time preparing for the game than playing it. Hours of practice, drill after drill, and countless reps are utilized to teach technical skills and tactical concepts, develop physiological fortitude, and train the body physically to play football.

It becomes incredibly important to understand the physical load on the body in practice. This is compared to game demands to understand how well the athletes are prepared, says @Torinshanahan42. Share on X

With the amount of time spent at practice, it becomes incredibly important to understand the physical load on the body in practice. This is compared to game demands to understand how well the athletes are prepared. Athletes can be overtrained and play in a fatigued state—putting them at a higher risk of injury over time—or athletes can be undertrained, meaning they are not prepared for the demands they will be subjected to, also increasing their risk of injury.

Precisely what a practice should look like is beyond this article. What I would like to share are generalized trends in the practice demands of football players.

Trends

Defensive coaches push guys harder in practice, and defensive players will do more work per practice than their offensive counterparts. This becomes especially true when compared to the game demands for those positions. This year, defensive players on this team averaged 87.4% of a game’s volume per practice, while offensive players averaged 80.4%. Offensive players physically cover more distance in practices, but again, this is relative to what they do in games.

In practice, both sides of the ball have similar opportunities for high-intensity efforts for a couple of possible reasons. First, defensive coaches tend to keep rotating players in practices (similar to during a game). On the other hand, offensive coaches tend to rotate less in games or more in practice. This means that offensive players who play in games rack up more high-intensity efforts, while those efforts are spread amongst the position group in practices. Below I have included average practice external load volume metrics for both sides of the ball.

Lesson #1: You can do more, a lot more. 

I think one of the barriers around GPS in football is that coaches see GPS as a limiter, something that tells them to do less on the field. They see reps as currency and duration as a requirement for the day to be profitable. The opposite, however, is true—volume is the cost they pay for each rep, and intensity is the benefit. Practicing at slower speeds than game intensity creates a challenge for transferring technical and tactical skills to the game environment. Situations happen faster than they’ve been practiced, putting the players a step behind.

I think one of the barriers around GPS in football is that coaches see GPS as a limiter, something that tells them to do less on the field, says @Torinshanahan42. Share on X

Playing at game speed in practice prepares players for what they will experience in games. Increasing the intensity is also a way to do more. Players experience greater total volumes of work if the intensity is increased since intensity is the rate of work per time/rep. In short, there is an opportunity for coaches to do more with GPS during practices; low-quality volume must be removed for high-quality intensity during practices.

Lesson #2: Practice is an important training exposure.

The volume of work that athletes are exposed to during the practice week greatly impacts their physical performance capability. This last season, we had 84 practices averaging 125 minutes for a total of 10,500 practice minutes. This a huge opportunity for sports performance coaches to train within the tactical and technical preparation of practice.

Another way we look at the amount of work done during the week is through game loads. The game loads metric is the number of games’ worth of volume of work athletes perform during the practice week. During the 12-week season, we averaged 2.8x game loads per week in practice, meaning we played almost three games to prepare for one game. There is a lot that can go right and a lot that can go wrong during all this time. Coaches need to be very intentional with this time to prepare players to be successful in competition.

Lesson #3: Prepare them for practice, not games.

Players have drastically greater exposure in practices, and practices have different demands than games. While the focus is winning games, the number one objective to accomplish this task must be making sure our players, especially our best players, are on the field.

If practice is a large exposure to training, then players must be prepared to handle practices, not games. I once designed my training, especially fieldwork, to the demands of games. An example is that most wide receivers cover about 250 yards of sprint distance in a game. In the summer, we build to and then consistently expose them to this type of sprint yardage in training. Having done this volume of work in a controlled setting, they are less likely to be hurt in the open environment of games doing the same volume.

If practice is a large exposure to training, players must be prepared to handle practices, not games. But practices have different exposure to external loading, with very different rest periods. Share on X

But practices have different exposure to external loading than games, with very different rest periods. Practices end up being more sustained, whereas games are highly intermittent with long rest periods. The differences are significant enough that to keep athletes healthy, they must be prepared to endure practice first. The volume of practice before the first game will properly prepare athletes for the game. This approach comes from keeping our primary job in mind: reducing the risk of injury.

Differences between games and practice:

• High volumes of work
  • Average 349 high-speed yards in games vs. 366 high-speed yards in practice
  • Average 520 muscle load in games vs. 579 muscle load in practice
    • Muscle load = Polar’s version of player load—a measure that summarizes movement in all directions by intensity for the total load placed on the body
• Low intensity of work
  • Average 145 sprint yards in games vs. 129 sprint yards in practice
  • Average 5.3 muscle load per practice in games vs. 4.3 muscle load per minute in practice
    • Muscle load per minute = intensity of loading as measured by muscle load
• Different rest periods are found in games
  • 86% of minutes are spent not playing football in games vs. one 5-minute rest period and four 1-minute rest periods.
    • 1:3 vs. 1:5–7 work:rest ratio

Summary

In my several years of experience with GPS, I have seen multiple ways to implement the technology. I have also seen multiple ways to practice and prepare for games. The lessons I have learned are straightforward:

• We can do more in practice with higher intensity.
• We need to be intentional about the training exposure of practice.
• Players should be prepared for the demands of practice.

Practice involves lots of work with less rest. Games have extraordinarily large amounts of rest time between drives, allowing for high-intensity actions placing great stress on athletes. Offensive and defensive players are exposed to significantly different demands in practice and games, as defenses must react to opposing offenses. Combined, this is all information I have learned by using GPS with football. You can bring these lessons to your team to help better understand the demands placed on them.

I have included some extra resources that I found useful on the journey.

Lead photo by Bradley Rex/Icon Sportswire.

Resources

The Process: Fergus Conolly and Cam Josse.

Brad Dixon, Tony Holler, and The Track Football Consortium.

I also recommend just getting GPS and exploring.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

My friend Molly Binetti gave one of the favorite talks among all those in attendance at Union Fitness last spring, and I couldn’t be happier to have her back on the docket this July for The 2023 Seminar. She is a driven coach, one who strives to always be better for her athletes and help the profession by sharing and educating coaches. But above and beyond all the great things, if I were to summarize her in one word, it would be “champion.”

CVASPS: What are a handful of the mistakes you routinely see being made by strength and conditioning coaches in the United States and throughout the world, and what specifically do you feel they should do differently to correct these issues?

Molly Binetti: When it comes to the mistakes I see made by strength conditioning coaches around the globe, it really boils down to two things. The first is that we spend too much of our time in a really narrow scope of focus when it comes to our learning and continuing education. What I mean by that is that all of our focus is on the physical and physiological aspects of training—training adaptations, technology, biomechanics, and all of the things that are the foundation of what we do and undoubtedly the cornerstone of doing our jobs at a high level. We don’t spend enough time on lateral thinking and pulling concepts from other professions, such as communication, leadership, business, financial aspects, negotiation, conflict resolution, psychology, and human behavior.

Coaches don’t spend enough time on lateral thinking and pulling concepts from other professions, such as communication, leadership, business, negotiation, and human behavior, says @MollyBinetti. Share on X

All these aspects contribute to us being able to do our roles and navigate our careers at the highest level. It’s really nobody’s fault because none of our curriculum in school focuses on these things. Instead, it tends to be about anatomy, physiology, biomechanics—all of those things.

They’re not included in internships because internships are focused on, obviously again, learning these concepts of training: being able to put a program and a plan together for an entire year. We learn how to coach movements and how to run a session and things of that nature, but there’s really no general education and formal training in these areas, especially when it comes to communication, human psychology, and the ability to understand human behavior, which is at the heart of what we do.

We are teachers. We’re trying to get our athletes to learn how to train. We’re getting them to develop. We’re trying to change the behaviors that may be in their way, inhibiting their performance and growth. A solution would be to include more of those concepts, whether in a curriculum, part of our internship experiences, or having more formal learning opportunities along these lines.

There are sources out there now. “Art of Coaching” is one. There are a lot of coaches providing communication training, presentation training, etc. We need to have more of those resources as part of formal education, whether in school or within internship opportunities, and have more exposure to these areas to understand what aspects of our job are essential.

The second mistake I see us, as strength coaches, making is that we often put our agendas, and not our athlete’s agenda, at the forefront. We don’t keep the main thing the main thing. That main thing is our athletes, their journey, their goals, and what they need to do to perform at the highest level within their sport. Too often, we’re too married to specific training methods and beliefs, for instance, a particular exercise or approach to how we train. This can come at the expense of the athletes and what they need. We often come from a place of control and structure—almost a dictatorship—instead of inviting our athletes to be a part of their own learning and development process.

The most important thing is giving them a say in what they do and finding solutions that work for them individually, even though those solutions may be different than what you truly believe in. We need to release control, let go of our ego, and find solutions for each individual athlete to help them get where they want to go and equip them with skills that will transcend their careers as a basketball player, a soccer player, a football player—whatever that might be.

Sometimes we are blinded by what we believe needs to be included in an athlete’s program, but we need to be open to changing things when it comes to doing what’s best for them, says @MollyBinetti. Share on X

Sometimes we are blinded by what we believe needs to be included in their program or what we believe is the right or wrong way to train. We need to be open to changing things when it comes to doing what’s best for our athletes and not what’s best for us and satisfying our ego. As far as a solution to correct this, I think it just really takes an ability to be open-minded and self-aware and a willingness to listen and ask better questions to understand better what exactly our athletes need from us.

CVASPS: What advice would you give a coach to improve their knowledge as a process of continuing education? By this, I mean, can you point our readers in a few concrete directions to find the scientific and practical information to improve the methods used to strengthen performance?

Molly Binetti: The advice I would give to a coach looking to improve their knowledge in a particular area of training or coaching really differs depending on whether they’re a novice or a more experienced coach. As a young coach, it’s really important to spend as much time around your mentors as you can, whether that’s within your internship or, if you’re a full-time coach already, with your director or whoever is above you or maybe has held a position similar to yours for a long time.

I think it’s also really important to get exposure to as many in-person or virtual clinics and conferences as possible, whether that’s a state or national conference. Being able to meet other people in your field is important, but so is learning and listening to a wide variety of topics.

As you become a little bit clearer on the areas you need to learn about and you kind of create a niche for yourself, my advice is to seek out people who are already in your space doing things at a high level and having a lot of success. Put yourself in the uncomfortable position of asking them for help, asking them questions, and learning from them in any way you can. Because I think the best way to blend the technical and scientific with the practical is to learn from people who are already doing that at a really high level.

There are lots of great resources out there online through articles and blogs, podcasts, and virtual presentations. The NSCA and CSCCA put out content, obviously CVASPS, SimpliFaster, Pacey, and Sports Smith. Many platforms provide continuing education opportunities. So, my advice is also to get specific about what you want to learn, find out who is doing it really well, and do your research on what resources are out there, but it ultimately comes down to being willing to get uncomfortable. Make connections with somebody you don’t know or figure out how to make connections by utilizing the people you know already.

CVASPS: For readers unfamiliar with your history, can you provide some background on your niche in the world of athletics, the educational/career path you took en route to your present role, and any notable publications, courses, or products you have available that you’d like to direct readers toward to dive deeper?

Molly Binetti: I am the Director of Women’s Basketball Performance at the University of South Carolina. This is my fifth year in that role and 10th year overall as a full-time Division I strength conditioning coach. I did my undergrad and got my bachelor’s degree at Marquette University, where I started my journey as a performance professional. I was lucky enough to get introduced to Todd Smith, the head strength coach at Marquette, and interview him for one of my classes. He opened the doors to me and allowed me to come in and observe and volunteer my time.

I had no real idea what this world looked like or anything related to the field, but I just kept showing up, and that opportunity turned into an internship throughout my entire undergraduate career. I went on to internships at EXOS, which was Athletes Performance at the time. I ran a high school program. I got my master’s degree at the University of Minnesota, where I was also a graduate intern and worked with a multitude of teams during that time. And then, I was lucky enough to get my first full-time position at Purdue University in 2013 at 23 years old. I spent one year there and moved on to the University of Louisville, where I spent four years.

So overall, this is my 10th year full-time. My current niche is in the world of basketball development, but I really take pride in my approach to holistic athlete development. I would also say my niche is coaching development and education. For notable publications, I have two articles, both in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, regarding elite women’s basketball players: “Mechanical Determinants of Faster Change of Direction and Agility Performance in Female Basketball Athletes” and “Physical Determinants of Division 1 Collegiate Basketball, Women’s National Basketball League, and Women’s National Basketball Association Athletes: With Reference to Lower-Body Sidedness.”

CVASPS: Can you provide a sneak peek of the topic you will be covering at The Seminar, as well as a few useful takeaways on the presentation for those who may not be able to attend?

Molly Binetti: At The 2023 Seminar, I will be presenting on “developing athletes outside the lines,” which will be a detailed look into a holistic, athlete-centric approach to development in a team sport setting. When I say “development,” that is an all-encompassing physical, mental, and emotional approach to training. The emphasis will be on environmental design and utilizing autonomy, creativity, exploration, and variability. It will be on partnering with the athlete to create a learning environment that equips them with skills, not just to take ownership of their training, but to grow and mature throughout an entire season and an entire four-year career.

There will be specific examples of:

• Developing athleticism.
• What individualization looks like within this structure and system.
• What team sports periodization really looks like on a day-to-day basis.
• What choice and autonomy can result from a development standpoint.

So, listeners and those in attendance can expect to be challenged to think outside the box in terms of their own coaching style and structure within their environment. They’ll also learn easy ways to include the athlete in the process and, in turn, create a more engaged, more responsible, more intentional training environment and athlete.

@CVASPS The Seminar attendees will learn easy ways to include the athlete in the training process and, in turn, create a more engaged, responsible, intentional athlete, says @MollyBinetti. Share on X

CVASPS: I hope you enjoyed this Q&A with Molly and understand why I’m so excited to have her as part of this summer’s event. As a champion in every sense of the word, Molly’s continuing pursuit of ways to be better for her athletes and find ways to give back to our vocation are why I had to have her back on the docket for The 2023 Seminar at PLAE HQ in Canton, Georgia, on July 21 and 22, for what is going to be an absolutely fantastic event. For more info, tap the link, and be on the lookout for the next installment of our presenter Q&As here on SimpliFaster.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF