“We’re training movements, not muscles.”

I know a lot of you get a kick out of stories about strength and conditioning (if only as a basis from which to criticize what Georgia is or isn’t doing in that area), so here’s something about the changes Derek Mason is implementing in that department at Vanderbilt.

“That goes back to his (NFL experience),” Vanderbilt junior safety Jahmel McIntosh said. “In the NFL, those guys play so many games and they take so much physical abuse in every game. That goes back to the durability. So we’re more focused on maintaining our body so we will be able to play every game every weekend and have fewer injuries. This strength staff is more focused about flexibility, mobility and explosion. The (last) staff is concerned about power, and there’s nothing wrong with that. … It kind of balances out great.”

There is a certain logic to that.  And you can’t quibble with the results they’ve gotten at Stanford, where Mason came from:  “Stanford witnessed an 87 percent drop in games missed because of injuries among players on the two-deep chart in Turley’s first six seasons through 2012.”

As I possess zero expertise in this area, I’m certainly not one to judge… at least not until there are some on the field results to analyze.  What say you?


Filed under The Body Is A Temple

15 responses to ““We’re training movements, not muscles.”

  1. The other Doug

    I could see this helping a guy like Gurley get more snaps, but I can’t see it keeping a guy like Marshall from blowing out his knee.


    • Especially when it’s the result of a hit that wasn’t necessary – the ball was out of reach when the UT defensive back hit a defenseless Keith Marshall. We can’t target high, but we can target low.


  2. DawgPhan

    Not sure. an 87% drop raises some flags. I do think that you can be better at it and Standford is full of smart people so if they focused on being better at getting guys into football shape and keeping them there they could probably achieve that goal.


  3. Scorpio Jones, III

    After last year, any idea that might, in some way, reduce injuries sounds like a Nobel Prize to me.


  4. Irishdawg

    I don’t see why you can’t strike a balance between the two; work to prevent injuries but also add strength and power. Keeping guys healthy is great, but if they get pushed all over the field, it’s not much help.


    • I didn’t see Stanford get pushed all over the field the last few years. They were generally the team doing the pushing. I think right now, they are the most physical team in college football including the Alabama Crimson Tide. If David Shaw had Nick Saban’s athletes, they would bludgeon the Pac 12.


    • DawgPhan

      yeah this is non-sense…stronger does not mean you push people around. UGA has proved that for many years. Flexibility and speed push people around.

      I believe that David Yankey is set to be one of the top guards drafted this year as a junior and he can’t bench his own body weight.


  5. Does Stanford’s recent success count as “on field results” to analyze? Who else is using their style of S&C?


  6. S&C isn’t my area of expertise, either. But there seems to be something to this system. This isn’t the first we’ve heard about it. And something Hughan said sure makes sense:

    “You have to improve movement efficiency. You don’t play this game lying on a bench or with a bar on your back. You play it on the field running. It’s not just about lifting heavy weight. It’s about lifting to be safe. It’s about lifting with technique. When you stress those aspects and it’s not just a numbers-based program, then guys are going to get better functionally as football players. Everything you do is geared toward them being better football players on the field. You’re not training body builders or power lifters.”

    I don’t know, in any detail, what we do. I know we brought Armstrong aboard to help with speed and explosion. And I remember well how stiff and sluggish we were in 2011, when our OL was the biggest in all of football, but could barely move at all. Several starters couldn’t even get out of their stance. And far from being physical, we were soft.

    So we’re better with S&C last two years than we were in Joe T’s first year. That shows on film. But exactly where we are, I don’t know. If a confidential poll were taken of SEC assistant coaches, I suspect Georgia would still be regarded as soft.

    Now and then we play a physical game. But we haven’t been a physical team in quite some time. And that’s another thing that’s been missing.


    • Good point. I feel like we are much better conditioned than we were, but not necessarily more physical/explosive. I think when I say we are better conditioned, I think mainly of the defense…….for all the failings on D this year, they played hard for 60 minutes. I can’t think of any point this year where I thought “Wow, the defense looks like they’re out of gas”. I had that thought many times in the prior 4 or 5 years.

      But while we are better conditioned, I certainly wouldn’t say I’ve noticed us consistently being the more physical team in many games.


    • El Dawgo in El Paso

      I think our improvements in S&C have also been demonstrated in never mentally being out of a game. Aside from the snafus on our 3rd and grantham def, even when down, the team never seemed to give up or be demoralized.


  7. Bulldog Joe

    This year, I would love to see Georgia take the time to stretch properly before taking the field, like our opponents do.

    What we’ve done the last few years looks rushed and half-hearted.